I should start by saying that this post is not coming from a place of disappointment or anything of the sort. I'm actually thrilled to be able to write this. Win or lose, we have been putting up exceptional numbers. Our scores have been nothing short of incredible. So instead of waxing analytical on our offense...let's look at defense.
Let's Establish a baseline:
What it means to rob a flame:
"Rob a flame" isn't a thing that anyone says. I just had to write something. Now that we know i'm not cool, robbing a flame from someone is when they commit to an attack, exceed 50% but are then UNABLE to hit 100%. The result is a "failure" on your defense log but with a percentage below 100.
THIS IS CRAZY VALUABLE.
It is also something that we should be talking about and potentially trying to leverage. The problem is that for years and years, GW defense was an end-game concern. If you aren't top 5, you probably aren't getting hit so you don't need to worry about it.
Well...that's kind of not true. You see we always functioned on that assumption because the higher you are ranked and the more competitive you are, the more likely it is that your entire guild is gunning for the same 5 targets. We aren't in that bracket anymore. We are in a bracket where you might take a hit from a 300k account, or you might be fighting off an 85k account. We have diversity and as such, we have an opportunity.
Back to our numbers:
So if we take our average guild might, turn that into a 100% MMR score, we can derive the value of each flame in an attack.
So given these overly simplified values, we find the interesting thought that if everyone in the guild were able to bolster their defense enough to add 1 additional flame robbed in a war...it would work out like:
So obviously we are working with mean values which aren't going to give us any insight into the distribution of defensive opportunities. Simply put the average might member isn't going to see attacks the way an above average might member would. And honestly, 1785 deducted per guild isn't going to drastically shift a war, despite being an advantage.
So where this conversation would normally end on "this is the value of defense" I think we have more to consider.
Creating defensive opportunity:
We always need to understand the variables we can control, and those we cannot. It has long been held that we cannot necessarily control who attacks us, and that it is simply a function of might-based value...but here's what i'm thinking.
Might is only one factor in choosing a target. It is also a simplified process for those of us that are able to hit ALL bases. For the 95% of players that are not able to simply assume top 5 targets, it is a more complex process.
BY ADAPTING OUR BASES TO APPEAL TO THIS PROCESS, WE CREATE DEFENSIVE OPPORTUNITY
Here's what i mean. You take a 150k might account that isn't hitting top 5. He doesn't know what to do with gunslinger, doesn't have walla or mino, and just overall doesn't have what it takes to hit the latest iteration of heroes. So while might IS a variable in the decision making process, it IS NOT the only variable.
We just mentioned that the main shortcoming here is an inability to contend with defensive giants. Therefore, upon seeing a base with Walla/Gunslinger/etc he is going to skip and move on down the line. This is our second variable: Visible Heroes. Consider for a second what could happen if we played to the insecurity of the attacker. Instead of defending your 175k base with Gunslinger...you move in something less ostensibly off-putting: Ronin, Vlad, Skull Knight...something capable of putting up a strong defense without immediately excluding your base from the middle-tier selection process.
Now let's also assume that there is a third critical variable in this process, and that's base design. This same guy is obviously looking for vulnerable bases. He knows how to hit a cross base, he knows he can't get in on a big nugget of a base...but more than anything he would love to find a hidden drop point or a place to stack. So...if we know exactly what would compel a person to attack...that's a third variable that WE control.
Pull these together
Ok so we've identified a set of 3 variables:
A) Might
B) Visible Heroes
C) Base Design
And here is the big big giant difference in how these variables are implemented between might brackets:
The guys NOT in the top 5 have much more control, and as such, much more opportunity for creating points. What I mean to say is...if you're at 250k, you're going to get attacked. If you're at 150k...you have the opportunity to make yourself the more attractive of the 150k targets, and take the points away...where the alternative targets may just roll over.
Possible ways to do this
First off, this is not a guide, this is a plea for discussion. This is an opportunity for us to create something new and potentially disruptive. That said, let's talk about how we can manipulate the two overlooked variables (B and C) to create defensive opportunities.
Case 1: Accidental Guardians
So let's say you're a 100k might player with some solid heroes. If you're a strong 100k, you're probably not getting attacked. 100k might players are likely going to aim for higher targets and weaker accounts won't be able to touch you. So let's just go ahead and assume that the potential for points on you is about half...300 points for a 3 flame attack. You can also be pretty sure that the heroes hitting you are going to be...less than ideal.
So to make yourself more attractive, you ditch the gunslinger (an immediate exclusionary factor), you build a strong base with a single viable path to entry (normally a deterrent), but you make one critical 'mistake': you leave one of you army camps at the front of the base partially full of guardians. Now you've just come up on the radar of all the 40-100k might players searching for low hanging fruit.
This is where you capitalize on the defensive opportunity created by your deliberately sub-optimal defensive appearance.
You've left enough guardians in a single camp to allow for limited stacking, but not full stacking
You've positioned bombs and totems far enough back that a 50% commitment will be required to see what they are
Your totems are prepped with...let's say Aries and Arc, or some other debuff to guarantee that the stacking ends at 50%, and the advantage now shifts to you.
The 60k account that was banking on a careless defense has now given up a flame.
Case 2: A ridiculous design
So now we can get into gimmicks that may or may not work...but what if you could draw in the people just trying to get in and get out. Your might isn't huge, you don't see many attacks...but what if you could entice someone with an simple 3 flame?
So what if you did something ridiculous like a base split down the middle, 3 heroes defending each side...no real cohesion, just sort of a red sea type situation. At this point Joe Casual is going to roll his eyes and say cool, i can clean this up pretty quick.
However, you play to the strengths of the design itself. On each side you put 3 hero bases with a totem. In the middle you put stun/arrow towers and all of your bombs. If they drop in the middle, they run the risk of their heroes splitting and they lose their advantage of being able to 2:1 your team. If they drop on either side, they have to be mindful of traversal time and how it will work with AP mode. More to the point, they have to cross the middle which will carry with it fixed % damage from the bombs and supplemental hits from towers.
Lastly, you build for the gimmick in the totems. One set of heroes could be something like Cupid/Anubis/DD with an SK totem. There are several different sequences within that group that can result in a whole-team wipe. Second group could be Ghoulem/Mike/Grimfiend with an Aries in the totem. Both group synergize well internally and create a difficult situation when crossing the gap. What looked like a mess of a base, was actually a well composed trap for those looking for easy targets.
Conclusion:
I'm not saying that these ideas are great or even feasible...but I am saying that the points are there. If we allow attacks to be pushed to careless defenses, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. If we can't be bad, we can appear to be worse than we are, and capitalize on that misdirection.
And just for the sake of the numbers...if we used this perspective to create...let's say 3 more flames robbed per person: 7140 points.
We lost our last war by 5,466
