You are precisely right on the psychology of it. I know I only notice the instances where luck works against me (like having 7v4 fail twice in one game on 16%) and am utterly oblivious in those instances where it works in my favor.

That being said, I prefer to play games with a decent luck percentage (at least in my addled brain). It is honestly the reason why I bought a membership (that and Christmas money). Chaos, my previous benefactor, was too busy with ladder games and forcefully suggested I just buy my own account to create all the games I wanted. And he is not a man (physically, if not mentally), to be messing with.

Hey guys, interesting discussion :-).

Does anyone know the precise probabilty for a fail of an attack of 4 verus a 1 neutral. Analyze function says 99% success meaning 1% fail. But i d like to know a more precise value.

Depends on the luck percentage.

At 75% luck and 60% offensive kill rate, it's **0.01024**, or **1.024%**.

Thank you, Segrain. So the 1% already was quite precise.

BTW ... dont know if someone has noticed how brilliantly my opponent calling himself "Master-Chief" took bonus in turns 1 to 3. ALL his attacks from a 4 on a 2-neutral, not less than 8 in sequence, worked and gave him a quite honorable bonus after 3 turns. Just wonder how likely this is .... :D

Analyze tool says 88% chance of winning 4vs2 with 75% luck (too lazy to do the actual math).

Thus the chance of successfully winning 8 straight attacks is 0.88^8 = 36%... hardly an unreasonable result.

Hello Richard,

sorry, thats a misunderstanding. With "attack from a 4" i mean the attack on the 2-neutral is done with 3 attacking troops. So 8 such attacks in sequence worked for "Master-Chief" in turns 1,2 and 3. Excuse me for expressing myself so ambiguously.

I'm too lazy to calculate precise chance of 3vs2 attack, but according to Analyze tool it's about 0.69, so **0.0513798374428641** for eight of them, or about **5.138%**.

Thank you Segrain for your calculation.

BTW .... i dont know if anyone of you might have noticed, that up to turn 20 (i then was visibly defeated) ALL of "Master-Chief" s attacks from a

4 on a 2 (attacking a 2-troop territory with 4 attack troops)
5 on a 2 (attacking a 2-troop territory with 3 attack troops)
3 on a 1 (attacking a 1-troop territory with 2 attack troops)

worked.

I took myself the freedom to count the number of those attacks:

13 attacks 4 on a 2 (88 % success rate)
9 attacks 3 on a 2 (68% success rate)
3 attacks 2 on a 1 (89 % success rate)

I took the success rates from the "Analyzse Function" of a 75% luck game/ 60% offensive rate / 70% defense rate (default settings)

By multiplying this i get a number of about .004 = 0.4%

THATS WHAT I CALL REAL LUCK :D

oops, typo:

in my last post i wrote in line 5 "5 on a 2", what should read as "3 on a 2".

his cumulative offense luck ended up being +6.3, end game..


and if you take any players game, and multiply his *successful* attacks, you'll end up with a low probability..
I had begun calculating out all his attacks, but then got interrupted.. and think I botched my data-gathering nonetheless..

I did notice however that he had won a 5v4 attack, and the most notable loss was a 4v0 *0 being the number he killed.. idc how many were defending*

if you take the number of free throws any basketball player makes, then figure out the odds of them making that many, it is pretty thin.. unless you include his failures as well..

chief only failed, by the time I stopped watching, turn 20-21 or something.. 18-9 4-3 4-0 11-8 14-7 8-4 17-11 4-2 1-1 3-1 3-1... again, the format is attacking armies-killed armies

Perrin,

i checked your stats and indeed, you didnt do too few games :D. So try to remember one game where you took about 20 neutrals in row with about 10 each from a 4 or 5 territory. And this without exception.

Good luck finding one :D.

to be more precise: i am talking about a game with the same luck settings.

I don't think I tend to take such risks in 75% luck games, lol

Yeah, my plan is better served by just reducing or eliminating luck entirely. I'm of the opinion that nobody should ever lose entirely due to preventable luck, and nobody should ever win by the same.

I think that adding an option to rubberband the luck still allows for some odd outcomes of individual battles, but will tend to correct over time. The worse someone gets hit with bad luck, the more likely they will be to recover over time. Something to note about this idea, is that it still won't guarantee that future outcomes are "fixed" compared to previous, just another factor that influences the numbers.

that is a faulty arguement duke..
0 cumulative luck is not balanced..

if I get lucky first turn, and get my bonus a turn before you, that means I get 4 more armies the first turn, which means I get my 2nd bonus a turn before you.. which means I'll have a cumulatie 8 armies more then you by the time I get my third bonus.. a turn, maybe two before you..

you winning that 2v2 against me on turn 26 is not going to make up for me capturing a bonus with a 2v2 on turn 1

and as it's been stated previously.. variances are realistic.. reliability is meta.. 16% or 75% are the most common luck factors for both of those outcomes.

As I said, I would pick the low luck, because it serves my desires much better. I was simply musing about a way to not mind the high luck as much. Generally I create games with less than 20% luck and avoid joining games with more than that.

I find it tiresome lately to play any game higher then maybe 40% luck, but will play them if invited