De Caelo Missus Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 Has the underdog bonus been removed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nathan Brittles Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 The so-called [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=10545]underdog bonus[/url] never really existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quigon jinn Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 It still exists in TE (where you have low odds and "lose" an attack - doing 1/2 damage but dropping money). I would imagine this is also present in SE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nathan Brittles Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 [quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1286887358' post='2482280'] It still exists in TE (where you have low odds and "lose" an attack - doing 1/2 damage but dropping money). I would imagine this is also present in SE. [/quote] The problem is you're labelling a type of result that can occur at any odds attack as if it's only exists as an underdog bonus. I've had this result happen to me at 70%+ odds attacks. It's a result you only get if you lose (think of it as just missing the die roll needed to win the battle). So it's no surprise this is seen more when making low odds attacks since this is where you'll lose the most attacks. So somewhere along the line someone notices this result and the frequency in which it occurred to them at low odds and put 2+2 together and gets 5 and thinks they discovered some admin secret to help the underdog with a bonus. Admin has stated there is no underdog bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 The underdog always worked for me, so I'm not sure how it's being considered as something that never existed. 7% odds with aggressive attacks always results in a win, about half the stolen land and tech than a regular win would give, and your own money left on the battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 [quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1286857406' post='2482085'] The so-called [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=10545]underdog bonus[/url] never really existed. [/quote] But...I've used it before. I must admit I've not gotten into a situation where I'd have used it in SE since I was a wee little nation and wouldn't have known about it then, but as of a couple rounds back in TE I remember seeing it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Caelo Missus Posted October 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 [quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1286935008' post='2483094'] The problem is you're labelling a type of result that can occur at any odds attack as if it's only exists as an underdog bonus. I've had this result happen to me at 70%+ odds attacks. It's a result you only get if you lose (think of it as just missing the die roll needed to win the battle). So it's no surprise this is seen more when making low odds attacks since this is where you'll lose the most attacks. So somewhere along the line someone notices this result and the frequency in which it occurred to them at low odds and put 2+2 together and gets 5 and thinks they discovered some admin secret to help the underdog with a bonus. Admin has stated there is no underdog bonus. [/quote] I've been in a fair few wars to date. I used to always use my spare troops on aggressive runs when I had between 5-15% odds and 75% of the time I would have one of these half attack losses. In my current wars I must have tried it around 20 times and not once have I had it. Something has definitely changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabertooth Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 [quote name='De Caelo Missus' timestamp='1287032030' post='2484211'] I've been in a fair few wars to date. I used to always use my spare troops on aggressive runs when I had between 5-15% odds and 75% of the time I would have one of these half attack losses. In my current wars I must have tried it around 20 times and not once have I had it. Something has definitely changed. [/quote] Something has changed. It doesn't work for me anymore either. I used to get it all the time. Now its not worth attacking at low odds, because 1/2 damage is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quigon jinn Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 [quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1286935008' post='2483094'] The problem is you're labelling a type of result that can occur at any odds attack as if it's only exists as an underdog bonus. I've had this result happen to me at 70%+ odds attacks. It's a result you only get if you lose (think of it as just missing the die roll needed to win the battle). So it's no surprise this is seen more when making low odds attacks since this is where you'll lose the most attacks. So somewhere along the line someone notices this result and the frequency in which it occurred to them at low odds and put 2+2 together and gets 5 and thinks they discovered some admin secret to help the underdog with a bonus. Admin has stated there is no underdog bonus. [/quote] Independent of what admin said, what the others are saying is still true - for a long time a nation attacking with low odds (5-15% or so, varied between TE/SE as to the threshold) would stand a high chance of a ground attack doing 1/2 damage, with money dropped and therefore a "loss." Whether this was incorrectly labeled an "underdog bonus" or was a glitch or unintended feature it still existed, regardless of name. I also do not believe this result ever happens with such high odds as you claim it has, so your experience is currently a huge anomaly This appears to not be the case now however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 I always felt the losing while destroying money was happening when I attacked at low odds with the option Planned. I also tried aggressive attacks, which didn't have the desired result. But I guess this is more a superstition from my side than anything serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 [quote name='De Caelo Missus' timestamp='1287032030' post='2484211'] I've been in a fair few wars to date. I used to always use my spare troops on aggressive runs when I had between 5-15% odds and 75% of the time I would have one of these half attack losses. In my current wars I must have tried it around 20 times and not once have I had it. Something has definitely changed. [/quote] De Caelo this has definetly changed your not imagining it. I use the underdog damage win constantly in TE mode and for at least a month or two now it refuses to work. In the old days it would be near perfect and always reliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernsters Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 [quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1286857406' post='2482085'] The so-called [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=10545]underdog bonus[/url] never really existed. [/quote] whaaatt?? in TE, being a low NS nation most of the time, myself and one of my other AA members would always use underdog attacks. Now my attacks aren't doing what they used to Are the attack outcomes at low odds just a coincidence? Because it seems like it would be a mighty big coincidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1287250035' post='2485962'] whaaatt?? in TE, being a low NS nation most of the time, myself and one of my other AA members would always use underdog attacks. Now my attacks aren't doing what they used to Are the attack outcomes at low odds just a coincidence? Because it seems like it would be a mighty big coincidence... [/quote] I compared some old battle reports (heh, fighting LE, actually) vs. this round's results...it has most definitely been changed, because comparing my success rate then against now (read: none in a couple dozen attempts) and treating it as statistical variance from the 75%+ rate I got before gave me an otherworldly-low chance of happening, well past one in a million. Edited October 16, 2010 by Schad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quigon jinn Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Just an update - this appears to be completely removed from TE this round as compared with previous rounds. Seeing as I am in a position to make many uses of this.. I will be able to determine much more conclusively if a difference now exists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.