Those of us who used to play other games with fully known stats knows why this is the case. In say Planetarion, you calculate each attack down to the last unit, and you calculate each defence down to the last unit. The element of surprise is gone, and it's more about finding the right target and making sure his alliance is busy defending somewhere else than anything else.
I like this unknown factor about bush. That you have to try and fail a couple of times instead of having a battle calculator which will tell you exactly how the battle will go.
Those of us who used to play other games with fully known stats knows why this is the case. In say Planetarion, you calculate each attack down to the last unit, and you calculate each defence down to the last unit. The element of surprise is gone, and it's more about finding the right target and making sure his alliance is busy defending somewhere else than anything else.
I like this unknown factor about bush. That you have to try and fail a couple of times instead of having a battle calculator which will tell you exactly how the battle will go.
Agree 100%
If the exact same thing happened every time so you could just plug numbers into excel or something (1,000,000m poms + 1,000,000 gardeners v 2,439,439 SAs = X Amount distracted, X amount killed) then the game would be insanely boring.
I like the Random factor and hope it stays!!!
Skill should be > random factor.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
While I partially agree, on the other hand I don't. Why? Because the stats of the units are hidden. NOONE EXCEPT AZZER KNOWS THE EXACT STATS OF THE UNITS. How can anyonw create a somewhat accurate battle calculator when you have so many unknown factors? You cant. That's why the random factor is not needed. When the outcome of a BR, i.e. whether you land or not, depends ENTIRELY on a factor, which is random, like in the examples I gave in the first post, then you know you are not playing a war game, but a card game.
Skill should be > random factor.
i mean honestly, there is a best ratios thread and it usually if not entirely centers around performance vs flak.
so if any of the ratio's you encounter don't meet the highest posted, then you obviously didn't plan well enough.
otherwise, please be gracious and post new ratios....
the 'best ratios' thread pretty much describes worst possible scenario for attacker/best possible for defender.
now wily's problem was addressed in the help section, but the original gripe by le f0xx had the gurus in the 'blocked him from getting lucky' battle report performing at 5.33 units block : 1 guru.
the best ratio is 5.99 for gurus thus far. Therefore f0xx did not plan for worst case scenario... in fact gurus average 1 guru to 5 flak blocked...
the BR in which f0xx landed the guru's got 4.85:1... so guru's underperformed, and f0xx got LUCKY... his attack was actually poorly conceived and 1 time the random factor let him get land when the average is that he should have NEVER landed.
So considering 1guru:5flak has been common knowledge for a very long time, i dismiss the original post and any counter arguments for flat removal as this is now a thread over crying about not getting lucky every time you send.
the BR in which f0xx landed the guru's got 4.85:1... so guru's underperformed, and f0xx got LUCKY... his attack was actually poorly conceived and 1 time the random factor let him get land when the average is that he should have NEVER landed.
i mean honestly, there is a best ratios thread and it usually if not entirely centers around performance vs flak.
Jeez, this is silly..
Okay, say 10 hippies "normally" block 10 gardeners, but can block only 8 when they are unfocused "underperform" and will block 12 when they are pumped from having a new batch of weed nearby "overperform"-
Now the wise player will then just calculate with the hippies ALWAYS blocking just 8 gardeners. Any more, and it's a bonus.
It's just a mental change, think of the units as most of the time overperforming a bit, and some of the time overperforming a lot, and you are good to go!
i mean honestly, there is a best ratios thread and it usually if not entirely centers around performance vs flak.
This I won't even take seriously. You aren't really expecting a player that has any confidence in his skills to look at that thread and base his tactics around those ratios, are you?
The gurus in the second BR were 10% stronger than those in the first no matter how you look at it.
One idea I got was to Azzer make simple code that would before each round starts random +-1-10% for every unit there is in game and add those as values for that round. It would be kinky not to know how units perform on that round but to know you can find out.
One idea I got was to Azzer make simple code that would before each round starts random +-1-10% for every unit there is in game and add those as values for that round. It would be kinky not to know how units perform on that round but to know you can find out.
I have to admit, i'm a fan of the randomization but that discussion is not something i really wanted to be party to.
The above suggestion however, *really* tickled my fancy for some reason. Perhaps a further discussion of that could be profitable rather than scrapping Random factor entirely and without going the EXP route of DS.