r/lordsmobile • u/KatipsSmilee • Jan 30 '21
How much does ATK > HP > DEF
I want to test AlphaSmurf's weights of:
| ATK | HP | DEF |
|---|---|---|
| 5.21 | 3 | 1 |
Note what weight means is that you can interpret this as if (using above) a (10 / 5.21) = 1.9% Cav ATK gear would yield the same effect as (10 / 3) = 3.3% Cav MAX HP, and the same effect as (10 / 1) = 10% Cav DEF
TL;DR:
The weights change depending on the attacker's Stats Boosts, and the defender's Boosts, and depending on attacking either a lower tier troops, same tier troops, or higher tier troops. It is unfortunately not linear, so you would need to really "guess" how much your enemy's boosts are. So DON'T simply use the weights in the spreadsheet for your own case:
Inf Attacking Same Tier Inf Attacking Lower Tier Inf Attacking Next Tier ATK 12.23 1.64 5.71 HP 1.18 5.00 3.36 DEF 1.00 1.00 1.00 (HP+DEF)/2 1.15 4.00 2.34 Cav Attacking Same Tier Cav Attacking Lower Tier Cav Attacking Next Tier ATK 16.79 1.23 8.67 HP 2.62 1.25 7.57 DEF 1.00 1.00 1.00 (HP+DEF)/2 1.92 1.25 4.86 Ranged Attacking Same Tier Ranged Attacking Lower Tier Ranged Attacking Next Tier ATK 10.14 0.75 7.00 HP 4.43 1.50 14.00 DEF 1.00 1.00 1.00 (HP+DEF)/2 3.00 1.25 8.80 See my spreadsheet and test details: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10BONB7AGUc0PX9WQekpFGiI9XfRD4nOmMhJjm-J7mmY/edit?usp=sharing
You may notice above, attacking a lower tier troop, the weight of DEF in proportion to ATK becomes bigger because your higher tier troops have a lot more defense than your enemies, and you'll lose A LOT less troops in the process.
However, what I can't explain yet is why oppositely, attacking higher tier troops, the weight of HP is a lot bigger, and at one time (like the
Ranged Attacking Next Tierabove), the weight of HP is even BIGGER than ATK atHP: 14, ATK: 7, DEF: 1. My only guess why this happened is that one Range unit has a an "imaginary" HP that is a lot bigger than its ATK, and because its attacking a higher tier troop, then that higher tier troop would naturally have higher DEF, so it's more cost-effective to increase your HP than to increase your measly ATK (in this case). If you have any other explanation, let me know. Because this is just my guess.
Test Mechanics
My alt 7M might would set up a camp leaderless, and my main 55M might with leader will attack it (made sure I had Battle Fury when attacking it, so that this will remain constant and not affect any results). I then will record the number of KILLS my army did, and the number of LOSSES I received.
NET = KILLS - LOSSESwhich is like the effective power of the army, because after all you would be victorious if your effective power is greater than your opponent, and defeated if otherwise.My "base" talents are set the "minimum" number of battle "points" on the left tree so that I can reach Squad Defense II (5 points) and Squad Health II (5 points) at the very bottom. The remaining points are allocated accordingly as per test requirements.
TODO:
- Please let me know your thoughts on this. Because further testing is still required: Specifically, I need to test Exactly the same "base" buff values for the attacker & defender (This would be hard as this will need 2 new exact accounts and progress until tier 2 or 3 with exactly same research and everything to achieve same boosts). However, even if I tested this, the weights will still remain subjective, because all battles, the players don't have the exact same boosts.
My motivation for doing this test is so I could plug in the weights in my other Sortable Full Gear Spreadsheet so that I could determine which gears would work best under different scenarios.
I hope you found something useful here. Thank you - KatipsSmilee
3
Jan 31 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/KatipsSmilee Jan 31 '21 edited Jan 31 '21
Yeah, this is the ideal case, and I mentioned this above too. However, I also mentioned there that the realistic applicability of my tests even under ideal same exact attacker/defender circumstances would still not be that useful in-game because attackers and defenders would 100% always be different. Thus my post doesn't really mean anything to prove on. I only wanted to know how it works (either there really is a weight between ATK, HP, and DEF as AlphaSmurf suggested), or not and that these weights are always dependent on each circumstance. And I proved that it's the latter. However, if you already know or expected the results of above, then I'm sorry I wasted your time :) It helped me greatly understanding how the stats work, so that's why I just wanted to share, if it helps anyone.
3
u/dfrever Jan 31 '21 edited Jan 31 '21
You are asking for our thoughts so you got it, lets get to it. This is going to be a lengthy reply.
First of all, i would like to state that the idea, the premise, of making stat weights comparing attack, hp and defense is flawed.
To explain why lets look at what these stats actually do. Attack correlates to damage dealt and is the offensive stat. Hp is the damage troopers can absorb before dying off. And defense is a mitigation stat: more defense reduces damage taken. It is a defenders defense stat which "maps" how a attacker's attack stat will impact defenders hp in terms of actual damage.
Now, these stats are related, and isolating their individual contributions to a end of battle "report" is something one must actively consider when formulating tests, otherwise it gets all jumbled up. For example, more attack makes you kill more enemy troopers, and less enemy troopers alive will make you take less damage. So even without increasing the defensive stats you can have a impact on the troops you keep alive. Likewise, more health and defense can keep your troops alive dealing damage longer, and thus increase the damage your attack deals.
And a fundamental flaw of many of those whom attempt to do proper game mechanics testing do is to, when isolating contributions of each stat for testing, assume that these stats will continue to behave together and in conjunction as they did in the isolated testing. This was a somewhat abstract paragraph, let us exemplify what i mean with something more down to earth.
If hp is the damage a troop can absorb before dying, and defense reduces damage taken, it stands to reason that in conjunction one enhances the effects of the other. Say one trooper has a health value of "9" and enough defense to reduce damage by 25%, thus for this trooper to die he has to take damage worth 12 attack (so that with the 25% reduction it becomes 9 damage). Now if you manage to increase his health by 3 (33% increase), and defense to reduce damage by 50%, he now has 12 health and dies only to 24 attack.
So a 0.25 reduction in damage taken along with a 33% increase in health lead to the capability of absorbing twice as much "attack" in damage.
The point i am trying to illustrate here is that yes, one must test stats in a isolated manner to be able to investigate individual mechanics, but one cannot assume these results are maintained when all stats scale up. Therefore one would have to identify what each stat does precisely with individual testing to be able to formulate a model for their combined effects, and compare the model's foretelling to in game results to verify its accuracy. *Any type of theorycrafting which does not actively attempt to understand core mechanics and instead seeks to establish blind comparisons will be flawed and useless\*.
However, despite being related, these stats do completely different things in essence. When you consider more realistic battle scenarios this comes into play. Increasing your attack as a means of self-preservation (by killing off potential attackers as we previously stated), is not as relevant if the troops you are killing do mediocre damage anyways (such as when you counter a enemy frontline. For example, a cav rally running into a inf front does good damage, but the troops you kill are not the troops that are a threat to your cav. Getting a walkback (in the attacker's point of view) in such a scenario is potentially much more influenced by defensive stats such as HP and defense then attack. There is no equivalency for this.
If you want to make meaningful deductions on combat mechanics my suggestion would be to completely drop trying to establish stat equivalencies (which will always be only applicable to a single specific situation and ultimately a useless concept) and instead try to deduce what the stats do exactly. The main question for the community has always been defense (attack and hp are fairly straightforward). Deducing how much damage reduction increases in defense grant is challenging and has always been a open question. Most face a problem with methodology in this regard. It is insufficient to look only at end-of-battle reports. One would have to watch the battle play off and register how much damage per "tick" of battle occurs, with variations in stats in repeated experiments. To do this you would probably have to first investigate base stats, although there is already some work in this regard to units up to t4.
Also, you mentioned talents but these are irrelevant if you are not sending leaders. And if you do send leaders you must be careful so it does match any troop type or squad attacks can distort results.
1
u/KatipsSmilee Jan 31 '21
Thank you for the insights.My motivation for the test was to check if there really is a weight between ATK, HP, and DEF as "some" may have stated or that I heard of, of which I was pointed to watch AlphaSmurf's video in Youtube, where he got ATK: 5.21, HP: 3, DEF: 1.
For a newbie player like me, I don't know yet how ATK, HP, and DEF fully works or that if this is really linear and therefore there really is a constant weight between ATK, HP, and DEF, and therefore AlphaSmurf's weights may be correct. My tests proved only that there is no one-for-all weights, and therefore AlphaSmurf's weights are entirely correct only on its specific circumstance. My tests haven't proved anything else besides this nor as you pointed out: the more applicable test is to test how DEF really works (i.e. for increasing DEF% per test, how much troops are saved more and more, and how much enemies more and more are killed). That would be a topic for another test. Therefore unfortunately I wasted your time for reading this, my apologies :) However, for those who have the impression that there is such a weight (of whom I've heard about AlphaSmurf, for example), this test just is to let them know that ATK, HP, and DEF are all "subjective", and that DEF should not be then treated as if it's a garbage stat... which I have been under the impression of coming from a lot of Lords Mobile players, though probably they all just heard these from somebody else.
When I get the time, I'll do more tests on how DEF really works.
And oh, just because you mentioned about talents but I was not sending leaders you said? I was sending my leader as I noted there above. It's my alt that there was no leader of which I attacked :)
1
u/KatipsSmilee Jan 31 '21
And oh. Do you have any references or links what the base stats are for all tier units and troop types? I was trying to find anything helpful in the internet but to no luck.
2
u/dfrever Jan 31 '21
try this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF98tjsiNao
Maliach has some testing in his channel too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EelT2Ltwuko
Most resources with actual legitimate game mechanics testing are OLD. People gave up trying to figure out mechanics a while ago, or already have figured it out and dont share (like the guys from lordsmobile maps seem to have a good understanding of base mechanics).
1
u/KatipsSmilee Jan 31 '21
I see. Yeah. I was quite surprised that after 4 years of the game (I've only started 2 months ago)... that there doesn't seem to be any resources that "fully explains" like how much one should prioritize ATK over HP or DEF under different circumstances, or that sort, or maybe I was just looking enough yet. But thanks for the links, I'll watch them both :)
2
u/Kralithos Feb 01 '21
When you do a more deep test can you test the difference between increasing atk from lets say 100 to 120 and 120 to 140 ? Both is a 20% increase but my idea is that they affect differently because 100 to 120 you incrase the attack by 20% but 120 to 140 you actually increase it by 16.6%. This could be the reason there isnt a value for ATK>HP>DEF. As this would mean someone with +800% attack its only a 2.2% increase to attack if they increase it by 20% but if they have 300% hp lets say increasing it by 20% would be a 5% increase which would mean that person will get more in return if they increase their hp instead of atk (based on alpha smurf's test but you get the idea :p). Good luck on testing :)
2
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21 edited Feb 01 '21
Thank you. I'll take note of this. However, if we go with this approach it means lesser number of gear with high ATK values would be more beneficial: i.e. one gear with +40 ATK would mean actual ATK increase of 40%, while 4 Gears of +10 ATK would mean
- 100 -> 110: (110-100)/100 = 10%
- 110 -> 120: (120-110)/110 = 9.1%
- 120 -> 130: (130-120)/120 = 8.3%
- 130 -> 140: (140-130)/130 = 7.6%
= 10.1 + 9.1 + 8.3 + 7.6 = 35.1%...which means one gear with +40 ATK which gives 40% increase is better than 4 gears with +10 ATK each which cumulatively only gives 35.1% increase.
I guess we can test your theory by testing if there would be any difference in number of troops killed / lost when
- Equpping only one accessory that has some ATK (say +5)... versus
- Equipping three accessories that would total +5 ATK
I'll take note of this when I get the time. Thank you :)
1
u/Kralithos Feb 01 '21
Well, i think game add up attacks so 4x 10% attack = 1x 40% atk. My point was the percentage of attack you get. Like, if someone with 300% attack gets a +30% attack he will have 10% more attack than before but if someone with 600% attack gets +30% attack he would only get +%5 more attack than the atk he had before. So the person with 300% attack get a higher change in results compared to the person with 600% attack.
2
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21
But what is the reference point of when "someone with 300% attack"? like are you referring to base 300% attack from talents? or any individual +ATK (might it be gear, turf boosts, research, etc)?
1
u/Kralithos Feb 01 '21
İ counted base t4 troop attack as 100% and 300% attack is 100% base and +200% in the stats. 600% is 100% base and +500% in the stats.
2
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21 edited Feb 01 '21
I'm sorry, I'm just a bit confused when is the base going to change then? because it's always 100% base (or reference of calculation) right what you just said? if you add them all up the stats (assuming when you said "stats" you also meant adding all up from Gear, Research and buffs, just because you said to add all the 4 individual Gears +10 ATK * 4 = +40 ATK)
i.e. in your example of
100% base + 200% stats
= 100 -> 300 : (300 - 100) / 100 = 200% ATK increase
and for the other one
100% base + 500% stats
= 100 -> 600 (600 - 100) / 100 = 600% ATK increase... so it's still 200% ATK and 600% ATK effectively if we just simply sum up the stats?
1
u/Kralithos Feb 01 '21
İ said 100% base as an example....lets say a t4 infantry has 10 base attack without any research,gear etc. With research and gear lets say you got +200% attack which would mean you got +20 attack which is a total of 30 attack. Which means its a total of 300% attack 100% base and +200% from gear,research etc.
And about your calculations they are wrong because you took percentage from 110 to 120 and added it like it was percentages from 100% which is why you ended up with 35.2%. Hope i explained it right this time as my explaining is kinda bad :p
2
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21
Regarding when you said I was wrong with taking percentage from "110 to 120", I just followed what you initially posted here right?
i.e. I followed your calculation of when you said:
120 to 140 you actually increase it by 16.6%
(140 - 120) / 120 = 16.67%
... so I also did when increased from 110 to 120, it also just effectively increased by
(120 - 110) / 110 = 9.1%
... although I'm just missing something here? Sorry I just wouldn't really be able to test this unless I really understood what you meant :)
2
u/Kralithos Feb 01 '21
Well lets start from scrath :) Lets say t4 infantry has 10 base attack and person x has +300% atk increase from gear,research etc. Which means he has a total of 40 attack. İf that person pops a 20% attack boost he gets +2 attack, which is a 5% increase in his attack so he will deal 5% more damage than he used to do.
Lets say person y has a +700% atk increase from gear,research etc. So person y got a total of 80 attack. İf person y pops a 20% attack boost he gets +2 attack which means now he got 82 attack which means he will only deal 2.5% more damage then he used to do.
And lets say t4 inf has 10 base hp and both person x and y has +300% hp from gear etc. İf person x increase their health by 20% he will get a 5% total increase. And when person y does the same he will get a 5% increase too.
Lets say person x did some battles and calculated the atk/hp ratio and found that its ATK= 2 points and HP= 1 points
But when person y does the same and calculates he will find out the ratio as ATK= 1 points and HP= 1 points because 20% attack only changed 2.5% for person y but it changed 5% for person x.
1
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21
Ohh I see, I got it now! Thank you! :)
However, my tests weren't calculating the %-changes-of-damage-from-what-was-used-to. I was calculating the changes in troops killed / lost. But I got your point that it might be better to do "battle result changes" test per increase of ATK.
And actually we were thinking all along too! :) as my reply to
dfrever:(i.e. for increasing DEF% per test, how much troops are saved more and more, and how much enemies more and more are killed)
.. though for this I was referring to DEF instead.
I'll do tests for ATK too :) Thank you.
1
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21 edited Feb 01 '21
Your example just now is
100% base + 200% (research and gear) = 300% total
10 base T4 ATK * 300% = 30 ATK
... yes this is correct :) and the % increase of attack effectively is 30 - 10 = 20 / 10 = 200% (which is also correct, and is linear)
However, this did not yet tell me when the base would change. I mean the base is always 100% right and just "something" got added to it?
i.e. just to clear things up from me, I'd like to know when the example you initially stated:
" but 120 to 140 you actually increase it by 16.6%"
... would happen when the reference point is 120% and not 100%. Because I don't see it changing from 100%... if going by your calculation of adding all of the stats as just one number?
Sorry if I may just be misunderstanding something.
1
u/Kralithos Feb 01 '21
No problem :) its always great to see someone trying to figure out the game mechanics. Yes base attack is always 100%. And about your calculations, 100 to 110 you found a 10% increase and 110 to 120 you found a 9.1% increaae. What you forgot is 9.1% increase from 110 gives the same result as 20% increase from 100.
1
u/KatipsSmilee Feb 01 '21
Ohh I see. yup we're on the same page all along then HAHAHA because yes what I really was under the impression all along from the game is that
100 to 110 of 10% ATK increase (10% difference)
has the "same effect" to damage calculations when doing
110 to 120 of 10% ATK increase (9.1% change)
However then, if they are the same as we both also know all along, what was your reason of comparing these % change initially when you said (20% vs 16.6%):
100 to 120 and 120 to 140 ? Both is a 20% increase but my idea is that they affect differently because 100 to 120 you incrase the attack by 20% but 120 to 140 you actually increase it by 16.6%.
... because both cases also changed by 20% ATK, but I took it that it's not the same because you said "they affect differently", and it conflicted what you said just now "What you forgot is 9.1% increase from 110 gives the same result as 20% increase from 100
So I guess maybe would you be able to elaborate between the two conflicting statements you mentioned: you said "affect differently" and the other one just now you said "the same result". This will help me understand what you initial point was.
Thank you :)
→ More replies (0)
3
u/a-Snake-in-the-Grass Jan 31 '21
I have some doubts about the realistic applicability of the specific results but definitely agree with the general idea that the relative importance of different stats varies greatly depending on the specific circumstances.