FieryxFury - YT Channel Updates & Discussions!

Merry christmas !

so i assume you’ve flown most of if now every seasonal invoker released how would you rank ikaros in comparison to the rest in today’s game state

1 Like

Well, I’ve flown the mythics! It’s hard to rank, Naja, Namaka and Ikaros are completely different
People’s favourite will probably forever be Namaka because well… it was OP and extremely easy to fly :joy:
Naja is still going strong right now actually and will continue to go strong as long as the invoke shot can still one shot kill
Ikaros is faster than Naja from my experience, and can disable the whole base for you, so technically you can hit up with him a lot if you go for the disabling approach

Overall, all 3 are great - in terms of fun and ease, I’d say Namaka wins, in terms of longevity, Naja probably wins, and in terms of maybe utility/reliability, I’d say Ikaros wins


Pssssst, I just released a new video! :eyes: It’s a how to fly Zel’Noth for those who asked, make sure to check it out, and stay tuned for more videos to come! :smiling_imp:


More than Shivenzo though?

1 Like

They know what they said


I’m here with more charts and numerical breakdowns, I like those :joy: Everyone has been asking if Sola’s worth it, so I did the work and analysis for you guys, so hopefully this helps people to decide what to dooooo!

Charts Used In The Video


I am not sure about your numbers.

Where you get that 359d of timers in Sola branch ?
If you dont take 12h timers over Goldchests, there are 533 12h timer there, means 266,5d of timer.
Beside that there are 181 Goldchests. Depending on if opened in fortification or PvP, there is a little difference… but that would take it far over 400days. You might divided with 2 there by mistake, and there used fortification stats ?

In case you took them over Goldchests… there are 464,5 d of timers + 54 additional goldchests… in that case over 500.

So there is something missing for sure … ( in favor of the rider luckily) :slight_smile:

Beside that i guess we use different stats for chests value… there i have for draconic chests a bit more…

And your table where you safe 32d if used Sola compared to a 12% rider for each 1000 d used, i doubted it … of course dont know how you used research and so on … In case can you explain ?
None rider 177d from 1k ? 17,7% from research ?
And even so then those numbers compared to eachother are confusing… i calculated it differently.

edit: btw if you used the sigils you would earn, again to regain chests to use, the calculation is simple because you know after how much you get again few, then you have even more . Didnt meant it above, just as a add ofc. For the 296 Draconic chests this could mean over 60 additional chests until there would be 500 sigil regained from the last opened ones…
And for sure the same play with the other used chests then

edit2 : dont tell me you didnt take the 20% bonus in first 2 weeks x)

1 Like

The real question is where is the mythic ammo?!!


You can see the assumptions I made in the footnote of the chart :slight_smile:
It assumes that you get the prizes during the unboosted period, not the current boosted period, as not everyone would be able to get it right now - the figures are 223d of guaranteed timers + timers from 154 golds opened during pvp + 95d from claiming timers over embers on the last page (better value)

For the draconics, I calculated it for purely getting 296 draconics and saving them, I didn’t factor in recycling as not everyone does that, most people I’ve encountered opt for the method of obtaining them and saving them for the following season for the discount period

For this, I’m gonna quote Morreion’s explanation because he explains it better (in our pm)
‘The “2%” is applied on the original cost of towers, which has already been discounted. So if you spend 1k days WITH a 37% discount, the original cost was close to 1600 days. And 2% of 1600 days is 32 days.’

So the calculation does factor in research, for the value of 25% :slight_smile:

Hope I’ve managed to clarify stuff for you - ofcourse there are edge cases that would need to be treated differently, but for my numbers, I tried to cater to the vast majority of people, so if people are facing an edge case, they’ll have to calculate stuff for their own case unfortunately




Thank you for those aditional informations, they clarified alot.

Otherwise it would be weird if you get with 32/1000 extra for 2% additional reduction. I knew there had to be more behind.
Of course 1000/0,63 is that 1587 orginal number nearly.

There the 1587*0,61is near 32d lower then.
But then your other numbers are wrong. No matter which way you write them down.
If you do 0% discount from 1600 or 1587 , its is the 25% , which would end up with a multiplicator of 0,75.

With 1600 it will be 1200, or with 1587 it would be near 1190.

So the max reduction decrease 1587 to nearly 968… the difference to 1190 would be more then 177. in that case 222 days instead of 177.

I tried to come over your table with rule of three, and it made no sense.
Now i see why, because i calculated from 0 upside .
The number for 7% is wrong too.
But i guess it doesnt matter, while most have 10 or above :slight_smile:

Thank you for your work. It favors me if i see the boosted numbers, and then take some of yours.
Could be worth even more :slight_smile:

1 Like

The numbers in the video are, in fact, correct.

I would explain where your explanation went wrong but to be honest it’s just too confused to make any sense of.

1 Like

Well i just calculated with the given numbers.

Otherwise why you safe compared to 0% 177d ? And 7% 103d ?
If your assume 25% as research reduction.

I am open to listen if i didnt see something. Isnt it 0% of the rider with 25% reduction… which end at 1190 from 1587 ? Or how you meant it.

I mean for 2% its nearly 32 days plus… so until 0 its 7 times it nearly. I think its simple, thats how i wonder what you mean…

1 Like

See these are all words, but they don’t really make any kind of sentence like this. I know it sounds like I’m making fun of you, but I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say is wrong with any of the numbers.

1 Like

If you didnt understood, i mean i dont want keep this up, because it doesnt help… but i will explain what i meant.

Look. You say with 37% reduction , using 1000 days, with 2% more… you safe nearly 32 days.
That is true, because calculation back shows this.

1000/ 0,63 = 1587,3. (there you started , and got 25% + 12% reduction, down to 1000 d)
Now from that point you can just use instead of 12 a 14… and it will be 1587,3 * 0,61 = 968 nearly.

So 1000-968 = 32d … There is all right.
And at 10% its near. 1587,3*(1-0,25-0,1) = 1587,3*0,65= 1031,745… not really 62d… but if you take just the 31 x2 , its near. in fact 64d nearly.

But now if you use 0 at the rider place… its 1587,3 * (1- 0,25 - 0) = 1190 d… There you see the difference to 968 is arround 222 d.
And if you use 7%… its from startpoint 1587,3 * (1- 0,25-0,07) = 1079d … difference to 968 = 111.

That is what i meant, i guess now you understood what i meant :slight_smile:

Edit: honestly i am glad she did that work, but that was just a little mistake … because i couldnt reconstruct with rule of three… so i asked.

1 Like

This is where you went wrong - you should be starting with 1000/0.65, because a 10% rider means 25% discount + 10% discount, so 35% (1 - 0.35 = 0.65)

1000/0.65 = 1538.5
1538.5 * 0.61 = 938.5
1000 - 938.5 = 61.5 (rounded to 62)

Edit: The start point is 1000 spent with discounts, so the effective number of days spent will vary each discount (the higher the overall discount, the higher the number) - so every time, you need to find the corresponding effective number to base calculations upon

I hope this makes sense :slight_smile:


Thank you for your post. I was just confused of your first one… because there you stated the 37%. And how it would be 32d.

Now i see your point.
That you take that 1000d for 25+10%… and for the others differently… now it makes sense, that those are not bond.

Thanks :slight_smile:
So easily it can be understandable :smiley:


Math sucks :smiley: You should see my pm with Morr :joy:


Well i was thinking the number max reduction until then was taken for…
But that wasnt the case, and its fine that way :smiley:

I dont want bother you but ^^…
1000/ 0,75 = 1333
1333 *0,61 = 813
1000-813 = “187”

Sorry for doing this :smiley: @Morreion @FieryxFury
Damn still a bit x)

But 7% is right ,… just 187 instead of 177

edit: i guess in german we would call someone like me nit-picker :smiley:


Oooops, you’re right for that one :sweat_smile: I guess my brain failed me for that one dammit - the other numbers should be correct though, and this just means that those without any defensive rider will benefit more and breakeven sooner :slight_smile:

I can’t go back and change it in a video unfortunately :frowning: , but thank you! I’ll be more careful with other charts :see_no_evil: