I still insist on a more thoughtful approach to the damage dealt... It is adjusted depending on the opponent's defense... That is, the stronger the opponent's defense, the lower the damage dealt to HIM, expressed in HP - down to 0.3 of the base damage...
And we see that the average attack skill is greater than the average defense skill (in total for all units, 1401 versus 1311). This means that the actual damage dealt is even slightly higher than stated in the unit characteristics.
Added 13 minutes ago
Your statement will certainly only be true in the case of fixed damage, regardless of other circumstances. If you suggest considering the damage as fixed, I will accept your version, and in the future, we will simply keep in mind that we have included some error in our estimates... Or even better - I suggest introducing a progressive scale. For units with greater defense, introduce a certain compensating coefficient that reflects their higher resistance to damage received... I am sure you understand my idea... Otherwise, it will be too crude...
Exactly! (regarding the progressive scale) This is very correct, but is it worth the effort... :(
Let me share my thoughts.
My "coolness" table for units was based on 2 points.
1 - how many hits it takes for this unit to "kill" an Archangel (power).
2 - how many hits it takes for a Peasant to "kill" this unit (durability).
It was not possible to create a linear scale of units in any other way, and if you take any 2 and compare them to each other (who will destroy the other in fewer hits), it didn't work. (If you check my table, you will notice only a few inconsistencies, but they are very insignificant and few) (honestly - I only saw 1 such glitch)
That is, the table is 99% accurate.
But this accuracy was achieved only with a slight adjustment of the skills, i.e., the weakest unit killed the unit being tested with 1 damage and 5 attack skill! And the most durable unit, which was killed by the units being tested, had a defense skill of 20!
That is, with values of 1 and 30, a less accurate table was obtained! Moreover, it also turned out to be even less accurate with the "most" average values of attack and defense skills.
This is where a differentiating progressive scale would be needed. (but I was too lazy) And again, we come to a contradiction: in the Elemental City, units of levels 2-5 are actually all of levels 3-4.
Okay, I'll continue tomorrow. The workday is ending. Good luck to everyone! :)
Added 3 minutes ago
For reference: if the attacker's attack is lower than the victim's defense by 28 or more points, the attacker will deal exactly 0.3 of his damage... This limitation is set by the developers... For example, for a Lazurite, this will be true in almost any battle where his opponent is below level 7... Only champions have enough attack to deal more than 0.3 of the base damage...
We know, we know.
But in this case, the "coolness" of a Centaur against a Demon will be lower than the "coolness" of a Centaur against a Lazurite (for example).
No, not quite. After comparing the Centaur with the Lazurite and the Demon with the Lazurite, we get a coefficient.
Then, these coefficients cannot be compared with each other, because the Centaur's coefficient will be slightly overestimated due to the fact that the Demon's coefficient will be underestimated. Something like that.
Therefore, this moment was not taken into account in the calculation. And I think this is correct! :)
Because we are not calculating damage, but calculating "coolness"!
:-)
