A PSA involving Bone Dragon and Warlord 4


#1

22 damage.


Blobs of skulls not doing much damage
#2

#3

Well… Stoneskin… So it was 44 damage…

Which is your Attack stat plus 24, so the calculation treats that board full of skulls as one attack plus 24 conjoined skulls… Which seems odd…

It’s always been the case that say 5 skulls does Attack+2 damage, if lines of skulls intersect they get treated as one big match not separate attacks… Broadly speaking we have tat like Candy Crush to blame for that trend…

Even so, this examples seems strange - there’ve long been bugs in how multiple skulls are dealt wth, perhaps they’re not quite all squished yet… @nimhain @sirrian ?


#4

Seriously? I just thought it was calculated as two 5+ matches, which amount to the same thing.


#6

If the initial attack is 20 and everything else is conjoined, the final attack should be: (troop attack + full board - dead orbs) * damage reduction = total damage or (20 + 64 - 8) * 0.5 = 38. This, of course, considers that there is only one initial combo on the board with all other child skulls being linked to that single attack. This is the very lowest possible attack that should be allowed on the board that was showcased, since any more combos would increase the damage total significantly.

Therefore, something had to have misfired here, because the lowest damage that should have been possible, regardless of the number of primary combos, should have been 38 (in theory) and was only 22 (in practice).


#7

If you ever have 6 or 7 skulls in a straight line (or L or T or + shaped), notice they are always doing exactly attack+2 damage, just like a 5 match. Anything that’s considered a single skull match can never do more than attack+2 damage no matter how big it is, so your math is wrong. Whatever in the screenshot has to count as at least 2 skull matches.

The thing we don’t know is how skull matches are split if they are in any odd shape (which is anything other than pure I/T/L/+ shape). It was brought up more than once on the forum in the past, and we never arrived to any reasonable conclusion.


#8

I wasn’t aware of that. That’s pretty stupid, if I’m honest. I guess I never noticed. ¯\ _(ツ)-/¯

Shouldn’t a developer have divulged it by now? Or is it a big secret?


#9

The algorithm determining large/unusual matches does not seem to be consistent.


#10

Clearly…


#11

…evidently


#12

@Robert


#13

Robert so struggling this month…if you know what I mean ; ))


#14

I started early, have the fish warmed up and your reel set up


#15

Start the day right with Chanpagne Supenova.