Take the 2-minute tour ×
Arqade is a question and answer site for passionate videogamers on all platforms. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the initial game docs, it was stated that the blast pattern from XMP attacks was linear, yet the accepted best attack pattern was to blow them right on top of a resonator before moving to the next one.

More recently, a number of people have done the math and decided it would be more efficient, given a linear falloff, to just blow from the center of the portal. This advice has turned up in my local area and it looks like it's surfaced on reddit and elsewhere.

It seems there is circumstantial and experiential evidence that the falloff is actually some sort of quadratic equation, and that this might be a recent change. The current field guide doesn't seem to give any indication of how this works.

Is there any confirmed (either from Niantic or documented experimentation) evidence for a quadratic falloff formula? Am I correct in understanding that an optimum attack sequence (all other factors being equal) would be 'blow from the center' for a linear model if the answer is no and a positional 1-3-5-7 or similar alternating 'stand on the resonator' technique if the answer is yes?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

Currently http://ipas.graphracer.com/ has links to multiple possible formulas, each one you can pick from drop down it has a link to. It defaults to Ssergni's formula which is claimed to be from inside information, and has minor experimental verification. This seems to support that it is not linear.

share|improve this answer

My personal experience seems to confirm the "more than linear" theory. I don't know about quadratic vs. whatever; I did not yet test this more ridorously, as the random element that's involved when destroying resonators requires a more rigorous / scientific approach than what I was willing to do until now.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, but the internet is full of such experiential speculation. I asked on stack exchange because I was going for something a bit more rigourus and potentially canonical. –  Caleb Feb 26 '13 at 8:16

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.