Will Virgo Lose Her Virginity?

dontwannaname

Well-Known Member
Besides that, I think IOnno is rather clueless when it comes to the attack % some players have. Attrition might be a joke to most.
Clueless? A Joke? I think not. If I look at the numbers, the defense will have 100% attack/defense boost after 18 battles. At that point, the attack/defense will go up by 20% each battle. After 23 battles, the defense is at 200% attack/defense boost. After 28 battles, it's 300%. 38 battles - 500%. Eventually attrition will bring any fighter to his knees.
 

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
My A/D is 452/268 in SAM. All troops unlocked
I dare you to find me a defendant that I can't win the fight.
If I choose the right attack team, I win for sure
Don't need the virgo or any other contraption
My defense is 191/1168

Trust me, you need the Virgo
 

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
Clueless? A Joke? I think not. If I look at the numbers, the defense will have 100% attack/defense boost after 18 battles. At that point, the attack/defense will go up by 20% each battle. After 23 battles, the defense is at 200% attack/defense boost. After 28 battles, it's 300%. 38 battles - 500%. Eventually attrition will bring any fighter to his knees.
So I can do 28 battles. After that the next fighter can take over. All it takes is some planning on the part of a guild. It will only take a couple of days into BG, before players start complaing about bots and unfair tactics being used.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I think it's definitely different from insta-kill.

With insta-kill, you don't even have to move, don't have to be in strike range, don't have to deal with potential terrain impediments, don't have to deal with potential troop weaknesses or any of that. You remove four units from the enemy irrespective of their defense.

However, with the second method, you gain the advantage of extra movements, but still have to contend with all those things mentioned above. It's true that for those players with massive attack boosts that it may provide the edge to crack a previously uncrackable defense, but escalation is part of the game and the defender will just have to get more defense if they want to remain impenetrable. Being impenetrable is a great achievement, but it isn't a right.

* As a side note, now I know why Iran want's nuclear weapons, lol.
You’re missing the point. Aside from time spent in Manuel fights the outcome is no different from instant kill if the opponent never gets to take a turn because they’re immobilised while you take a bunch of extra turns

And more Defense? From where exactly? There’s only so much you can lvl each building before the price is so high you’ll never live long enough to lvl it. Defence and attack GBs have the same stats. Attack GBs are cheaper to lvl because of age. There’s less Defense GBs then there are attack. There’s just as many attack event buildings as defence ones. Where exactly are we supposed to get this increased defence to compete with instant kill or extra turns given you need more FPs for defence GBs then you would for attack ones?
 
Last edited:

dontwannaname

Well-Known Member
So I can do 28 battles. After that the next fighter can take over. All it takes is some planning on the part of a guild. It will only take a couple of days into BG, before players start complaing about bots and unfair tactics being used.
You have described an excellent tactic for Battlegrounds. However, this tactic has nothing to do with "the attack % some players have".
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
So I can do 28 battles. After that the next fighter can take over.
Whatever. It still does not negate the point that if you had a leveled Virgo you could do 30+, then the next fighter can take over.

All things being equal, a player who builds and levels Virgo will be able to complete more battles in Battlegrounds than a player who doesn't. What you choose to do with this fact is irrelevant to it being true.

I don't care if you want to build Virgo or not. It's up to you to decide how valuable you want to be to your guild. What you personally decide makes no difference to the value of Virgo in Battlefields with Attrition.
 

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
You have described an excellent tactic for Battlegrounds. However, this tactic has nothing to do with "the attack % some players have".
It has in a way. There is a difference in being able to do a run of 28 battles, or one of 14 battles.

Whatever. It still does not negate the point that if you had a leveled Virgo you could do 30+, then the next fighter can take over.

All things being equal, a player who builds and levels Virgo will be able to complete more battles in Battlegrounds than a player who doesn't.
No he doesn't. He will have a 69% chance at doing 5 more battles. A chance, nothing more and for that he has to bring it to level 80. That's a lot of fp's you could also use to increase your attack power.

Also, top guilds have enough strong players. It really does not matter if they do 28 or 32 fights.

I don't care if you want to build Virgo or not. It's up to you to decide how valuable you want to be to your guild.
Stupid remark. I will put down 20 HoF's. Does that make me valuable for my guild?
 
Last edited:

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
You’re missing the point. Aside from time spent in Manuel fights the outcome is no different from instant kill if the opponent never gets to take a turn because they’re immobilised while you take a bunch of extra turns

And more Defense? From where exactly? There’s only so much you can lvl each building before the price is so high you’ll never live long enough to lvl it. Defence and attack GBs have the same stats. Attack GBs are cheaper to lvl because of age. There’s less Defense GBs then there are attack. There’s just as many attack event buildings as defence ones. Where exactly are we supposed to get this increased defence to compete with instant kill or extra turns given you need more FPs for defence GBs then you would for attack ones?
True about the defense. I keep forgetting that Victory towers and all of that is only for city defense.
 

dontwannaname

Well-Known Member
So I can do 28 battles. After that the next fighter can take over. All it takes is some planning on the part of a guild. It will only take a couple of days into BG, before players start complaing about bots and unfair tactics being used.
So let's see if I've got this straight. Inno is clueless and attrition is joke because guild members are capable of working together to achieve a common goal.

Got it.
 

Mathew the magnificent75

Well-Known Member
So let's see if I've got this straight. Inno is clueless and attrition is joke because guild members are capable of working together to achieve a common goal.

Got it.
I think what he's saying (maybe), is thar INNO isn't necessarily hip to the fact that there are players with 4 digit attack bonuses on all of the older worlds.
Yes, attrition will eventually shut them down, but as a balancing item... it'll fail.
 

dontwannaname

Well-Known Member
I think what he's saying (maybe), is thar INNO isn't necessarily hip to the fact that there are players with 4 digit attack bonuses on all of the older worlds.
Yes, attrition will eventually shut them down, but as a balancing item... it'll fail.
It that is what he meant, he did a very poor job of communicating. But even so, with the proper balance of the attrition rate, even the mega-warriors will be brought to their knees.

For example, attrition could increase by 50% per battle after it reaches 300%, then by 100% after it reaches 500%, and so on. By the 40th battle, it could be 2000% attack/defense if that's how Inno wanted to make it. Or 5000% by the 50th battle.
 

Mathew the magnificent75

Well-Known Member
For example, I have
It that is what he meant, he did a very poor job of communicating. But even so, with the proper balance of the attrition rate, even the mega-warriors will be brought to their knees.

For example, attrition could increase by 50% per battle after it reaches 300%, then by 100% after it reaches 500%, and so on. By the 40th battle, it could be 2000% attack/defense if that's how Inno wanted to make it. Or 5000% by the 50th battle.
I'm just guessing that's what he meant more or less..I could be wrong.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I think what he's saying (maybe), is that INNO isn't necessarily hip to the fact that there are players with 4 digit attack bonuses on all of the older worlds.
He may be poorly saying that, but he'd still be wrong. You don't think Inno is aware of the attack bonuses of their top players? You're going with that?

The fact that they know is why they created attrition. It's also why it doesn't have a cap and why no player will ever be strong enough to overcome it. The best any player at the top can ever hope to achieve is one or two more battles a day.

Sure, some like @Agent327 will prefer to sit on their laurels, feeling that good enough is good enough, hoping that others will pick up their slack. For the rest there's Virgo Project.

Yes, attrition will eventually shut them down, but as a balancing item... it'll fail.
I have no idea what you mean by a balancing item. Do you think Inno is creating attrition so the strongest players will no longer be the strongest players? Attrition is to bring down the top fighters to balance them with the noob? That's what you got from the pages and pages of discussion?