Wrecking Crew Forums > Game Theory

# Crystals

posted Nov 03, 2011 01:42:08 by See
Have any of you wondered why we have full crystals right after extraction and 3 hours later we are down 400 crystals? Probably not.
But I pose this question for all of you how is it we have 400 crystals 8 hours before the next extraction and we stay above 100?
You may argue that the discrepancy is due to amount of active people but I don't think that that's how it works.
I think the amount of crystals that are stolen is an exponentially decaying value.
Time for some math!
263 clans attacked us on 11/2/11. Lets for argument sake say that each clan only had one member actually break in and take crystals. We lost 1284 crystals so 1284/263 is 4.88~.

5 clans attacked us on 11/1/11. Again, for arguments sake say that each clan only attacked once being that it was a late attack I think this is a fair assumption. we lost 70 crystals so 70/5 is 14. That seems weird if the stolen crystal amount is static.

268 clans attacked us on 10/31/11. we lost 1284 crystals again so 1284/268 is 4.79~.

no loss on 10/30/11

270 clans attacked us on 10/29/11. we lost 1285 crystals so 1285/270 is 4.76~.

Due to the amount of attacks, the crystal loss variance on the days(slim to none), I think it's fair to say that the amount of crystals stolen is an exponentially decaying amount.

***PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE***
Post if you don't understand/agree.
page   1
7 replies
Rabbit said Nov 03, 2011 14:48:06
So what are u trying to say ?
See said Nov 03, 2011 16:55:26
even terrible clans will have crystals after being on top of the attack list due to the crystal amount taken exponentially decreasing.
Rabbit said Nov 03, 2011 17:19:18
So are u saying no matter what we do we will always be up one day and down the next ?
Zhulander said Nov 03, 2011 22:38:26
Not necessarily, remember what we did to get 1k crystals per day? We should've done 900 since that's below 1k from level 1 clans, several are made every day, and personally I don't attack much lower then that because of the lack of minerals you get.

Another thing to prove see's theory is that you get the same amount of credits as rep when you beat players. Who says it isn't the same with broke-in credits and crystals?

Edit: Also, you probably also noticed that the lower the crystal amount, the less creidts you get from breaking in
[Last edited Nov 11, 2011 22:03:30]
soulless_mate said Nov 04, 2011 02:21:31
yup, should be based on a certain percentage off the balanced crystal.

lol, am i the only one who need to google wat exponentially decaying mean?
See said Nov 04, 2011 05:20:25
maybe soulless :)
Anyway an exponentially decaying percentage makes sense and really the only way someone can end up with ZERO crystals would be if shadow x booted everyone from SK and everyone focused him every chance they got, he may get a few defends every time he re-spawns but in the long run you will have lvl 9's stealing from SK and when you get that many steals you have to be left with next to nothing or nothing even. I would guess it's something like 100,000 steals to actually end up with 0 protected crystals, however you will still get attack crystals unless you are inactive so yeah. also the above is just to illustrate a point.

If I don't understand would you mind explaining your first thought Mod.
So you think that the position on the board is relative to the amount of crystals you got the previous day basically meaning that if you want to max your crystals you need to stay below 1k? I think I get what you are trying to say but I think your reasoning is flawed. You need to remember, not everyone attacks from the top down and a decent amount of people, especially those who are high enough to make a difference, use gold coins which means they can take out 3X-4x the people as they would if they were not using them.

Thanks for keeping this interesting guys!
Zhulander said Nov 11, 2011 22:02:28
Let's go with that...
Tbh tl;dr

Edit: Yeah, sorry, I types fast so I didn't really use grammar
[Last edited Nov 11, 2011 22:04:10]
Login below to reply: