Sometimes, they are nearly offscreen though - odd spacing. in that regards.
Is it true that Orcs only bounce when running in fear from the Alliance?
1 Like
No, Tartarus will always drop more than Lamashtu.
I suppose it’s always possible devs will change the formula, but so far all of these “variable number” payouts on battles has meant there’s a base value per battle and % odds of getting that multiplied and so far, the multipliers have been greater than 1.
This is the only tossup. You can go for the guaranteed 4 points or gamble on the base 3 points, which could give you up to 12 points if you’re really lucky.
For me, I’ve done Infernal Machine battles when available and got scores of 3, 3, 4, 3.
I’m keeping track of all battles and I’ll know at the end of the event if the gamble was worth it 
New theory. Scoring is getting crazy because devs are targeting a hot new demographic: statistics nerds!
4 Likes
Leaderboard state at 1500 UTC 14 Sept 2020.
- #19 - 72 battles, 4270
- #100 - 72 batles 3610
Incidentally, #99 with 75 battles would have been 34xx or even possibly at 33xx at 70 battles, the minimum for Tier 2 sigils.
2 Likes
Look at rank 7 and 8. These devs are the “Lazy” in Lazy town and their attitude towards putting in effort is “Woe is me.”
1 Like
My primary posts are data-focused, so I may point out things (for posterity) like
I enjoy analyzing the scores to help some GMs decide what the breakpoint is for fair effort - so that the players who don’t have unlimited gems can equitably participate without overspending, and that post of LB stats confirm the T2 position.
But I have no ill feelings towards the game developer/publisher at all. In fact, I am enjoying the game very much, through all the iterations of events and challenges, but I acknowledge some people will feel differently. Maybe because I haven’t yet run out of things to do after 8 months.
I enjoyed limited troop battles. I enjoyed uncapped scaling troops. I personally enjoy random scores as well, so that once in a while, everyone gets a turn to be the big kahuna despite everyone buying T4. 100 people vying for the leaderboard may disagree (what’s the total player base?). I tip my hat to the company for still introducing change to a 5+ y/o game (yes from my POV changes have happened and I think they’re fine - this is my post, that is my view).
So those are my thoughts. This is an open forum, and I know you have yours. Pen away! 
2 Likes
I don’t know how many other people encountered this (because I don’t feel like reading the entire thread), but one thing that I found kind of annoying was:
Out of about 60 or so battles, including Valravens, only about 6 or 7 of them actually offered me a choice as to which battle to fight. All of the rest had two identical battles offered. So, choose between a level 110 Bone Daemon or another level 110 Bone Daemon. Over and over.
I get that this model only ever offers the illusion of choice under the best of circumstances but, really, what’s the point of even having a choice if it’s two identical battles nearly every time?
3 Likes
Out of 44 battles I did, 29 of them were no choice (two of the same “option”), so about two thirds.
I’m conflicted. I rather like that they cut down the number of options (it’s simpler to choose one of two battles rather than one of four), but you end up with no “choice” more often. I don’t think there’s a solution here though.
Can you really call it a choice, though, when you know in advance which one is the optimal choice score-wise? That’s more an illusion of choice, as Sublime_Eimar also pointed out.
You may not know the convoluted rules behind scoring and battle progression, of course, but then is that their goal? Punishing those who don’t read them outside of the game, maybe not even suspecting they exist?
My take on this subject is that they should remove all randomness factors, streamline the experience and make it potentially identical for all players. Raw power and skill (and some battle RNG, sometimes) should determine who advances and who scores the most.
In the current state of the game, I’ve lost any fun I had for a long time in competing with my guild mates, since more often than not scores are incomparable because of senseless random multipliers.
It might be cool if there was only one battle offered, but if the battle wasn’t entirely random. What if the chance for the more valuable/higher rarity fight increased the fewer the turns it took you to beat the previous fight? So, a way to reward someone with a really fast team, by offering a greater chance at higher reward fights? Similar to the way that Guild War gives you a higher score the fewer turns it takes you to drop the enemy (granted, they also score on a bunch of other factors).
Just a thought.
1 Like
I have one less game. But the difference between us is 600 points. Why? I play according to your rules.
2 Likes
This event has the most convoluted complicated scoring mechanisms we have seen thus far from campaigns…and at the same time we have literally identical battle choices for half our battles making battle choice and scoring completely irrelevant. Bravo devs, bravo.
FYI devs, changing up the scoring mechanisms doesn’t make the battles fun. Making the actual battles fun makes them fun.
16 Likes
This
10 chars
5 Likes
The scoring may be too random, but I’m having fun with these battles. Any event I can use AW = fun to me.
2 Likes
I have 7 more fights than the first place guy and still have less points. How is that fair to players when spending gems???
7 Likes
About Tanbot versus Infernal Machine - (assuming equal number of fights against each opponent) at 1.33 base multiplier Infernal Machine gives the same amount at as Tankbot and multiplier needs to be at least 1.34 for Infernal Machine to come out ahead.
It has been said gears would drop at around 1.18 multiplier and previous experience suggests that one might not even reach that (for example, in all but one instance my multipliers in the end have been less than 1.18), thus - a tall order to get final value of 1.34.
I, personally, let Infernal Machine slip and go for Tankbot.
6 Likes
100% did the exact same. I like ‘guaranteed’ over ‘possible’. As a side note, I’m not trying for leaderboard So not worried about getting shafted, either.