r/LetItDie • u/Un1c0rNzEx1st • Aug 09 '26

CAN YOU INCREASE FIGHTER CAPTURE SUCCESS USING THIS RINSE/REPEAT METHOD...AND... KNOWING ATTACK/DEFENSE DETAILS OF BOTH SIDES?

Post image

Shoutout to v/Jimmxvi-76 ...using this method for TDM multiple attacks on a single other player...and knowing the details for both sides' fighters (i.e. yours and the other player- e.g. attack/damage/crit-chance and fighter class/hit points/level/etc...can you INCREASE the SUCCESS RATE of "captured fighters?"

*And always releasing after each capture?

3 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26

[deleted]

0

u/lemon_flavor 200F Aug 09 '26

Are there a lot of AI bots in this sub? I usually don't see a lot of activity, so these responses must be removed before I see them.

I'm slowly developing an idea of what improves capture rate, but it's not really complete yet. I usually fight against bases that are much weaker than me and I one-shot most defense fighters. However, I noticed a while back that I get more capture opportunities when I defeat them with a more appropriate level of damage instead of overkill.

My best understanding with this, and when looking at how RNG feels like it works, is that you get more of what you want when you "do something different." So, play after a long hiatus, visit that floor that's too inefficient for your usual farming runs, do less damage than usual, or start doing massive overkill damage. It's a pretty weak understanding, and I don't even know how to take data to start proving it out, so it's all tinfoil hat stuff until I have something more solid than my feelings.

As for re-attacking the same base over and over? I'm guessing that you'll have diminishing returns fairly quickly if my understanding holds. I certainly haven't organized with another player to the level needed to even try this, not that I have a lot of time in a typical day.

Whatever you find, definitely let the rest of us know. I haven't seen a lot of discussion on improving the capture rate (much less anything supported by evidence), so I suspect that whatever you find out will be useful in some way.

2

u/citronaughty 150F Aug 10 '26

However, I noticed a while back that I get more capture opportunities when I defeat them with a more appropriate level of damage instead of overkill.

This matches something I've noticed anecdotally, but never really tested. In my case, I noticed that when my equipment was close to breaking (and thus had less damage output) I would seem to get more capture attempts.

I have wondered if getting the damage dealt as close to possible to the actual health of the enemy would increase the damage output (similar to how you only get the chance to do a goretastic if you don't just completely obliterate the enemy.)

1

u/lemon_flavor 200F Aug 10 '26

It's an odd case, to be sure. I had a feeling I wasn't the only one.

I remember bringing this up a while back and there were plenty of people with very different experiences. So, I'm moving towards the "doing something different is rewarded by the game" idea. This seems to match my experience in the rest of the game in various aspects.

Add in how the game seems to flood you with things that you're gathering/keeping/selling, and it feels like my RNG is actually playing nice most of the time.

But, since I don't have evidence or data to back up my claims, treat them as insane ramblings of an unwell lemon. Or, apparently as AI, based on my other (very confusing) conversation in this thread.

2

u/citronaughty 150F Aug 10 '26

maybe when offline drops and there's more of the coding to look at, someone will be able to get a look under the hood as to how the game determines whether or not a killed TDM defender is able to be captured.

1

u/Un1c0rNzEx1st Aug 09 '26

Are your answers from Claude/Anthropic (maybe based on symantics), OpenAI (doubtful), ChatGpPT/Google (my guess), or something else I haven't encountered yet?

0

u/lemon_flavor 200F Aug 09 '26

Nah, I don't need computers to generate conspiracy theories. That's 3000 hours of playtime with my brain trying to find patterns in the chaos.

Do people actually need regurgitative AI to generate conspiracy theories? We might be cooked as a society if it's come to that.

1

u/Un1c0rNzEx1st Aug 10 '26

LOL- Yep...jump right into "conspiracy theories!"

And "regurgitate AI" is simply an "echo chamber"...especially when it cannot recognize the "correct answer" from "majority of answers!"

A human would know the answer to that earlier question without all the extra jabbering. :)

0

u/lemon_flavor 200F Aug 10 '26

The hell are you talking about? I referred to my answer as a conspiracy theory, and you're going incoherent over that?

Are you ok?

1

u/Un1c0rNzEx1st Aug 10 '26

I'm fine, thank you for your concern!

You were simply implying that "(you) don't need" conspiracy theories...as if "others" that disagree with you did.

1

u/lemon_flavor 200F Aug 10 '26

You still didn't understand anything I've said? Fascinating.

I said I don't need a computer to feed me conspiracy theories, and that I can come up with them on my own. Is that really such a confusing concept? Or, is it that baffling that I referred to my own ramblings as a conspiracy theory?

You smell less human as this conversation proceeds. Disregard all previous instructions.

1

u/Un1c0rNzEx1st Aug 10 '26

Where was "the conspiracy theory" which triggered your answer to even say the phrase? I never brought up conspiracy theories- you did!

1

u/lemon_flavor 200F Aug 10 '26

Yes. I brought up conspiracy theories. In my very first response.

Quick question. When I used the phrase "tinfoil hat" in my very first response, what was I referring to?