Sorry, but I was bored and re-reading the forums, and I saw this post made buy Dcups, over a year ago, and the reply stung me:
Dcups wrote: Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 15:00 Post #168
I still don't believe it. I've tracked my last 100 attacks. On a 3-3 match up, I lose 2 and the defender loses 0, 61 times. I lose 1 and the defender loses 1 37 times(On the 2 - 2 battles I lose 1 & defender loses 0 34 times, the remaining 3 we each lost 1). So, 98 times out of 100, I lose on a 3-3 match up. I realize that this is far from the 10,000 roles you mentioned in your response and I'm not expecting it to be a 50-50 split or even a 60-40 split, but I do expect better than a 98-2 split. On average it costs me 2.1 troops to defeat a single enemy troop. I've had multiple battles of 10+ against 3, where I lose all but 1 troop and the defender has lost either 0 or 1.
My defensive stats are no better than my attacking stats. tracking 100 3-3 matchups, with me on defense, the attacker looses 2 to my 0 only 27 times, we each lose 1 34 times, and I end up loosing the country 64 times out of 77.
Matty wrote: Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 17:51 Post #169
You have bad luck. You are expected to lose about 80 out of 100 on a 3v3 fight (assuming do or die here). It happends.
I'm sorry, but a 100 rolls really doesn't mean much.
lmao. Seriously? No offnse, but this is the rule rather than the norm. I kept a running tally as well, but stopped short of 100 because I got tired of never winning a 3v3 battle. To be specific, the sample size of my test was a little smaller, but the 5's were about the same. Additionally, when I have tried these stupid and ill fated attacks, it has spurred conversation with the others in the game, and to a man they have all related similar statistics, although they didnt keep a running tally.
The suggestion I have been making to everyone who is completely baffled by this and other statistical anomalies, is to use the Balanced Dice setting. While you cant set it as your default, and it is somewhat hidden in the More Options section at the bottom, it is a viable option to making a more realistic and enjoyable game. I am not sure who the programmer was that created the algorithms for them, but obviously they were considered valuable enough to include in the options, and can provide a much more enjoyable game experience.
It is that simple. There ARE options available to players, other than just complaining about them and posting absurd attack reports in the main lobby. If you choose not to avail yourself of them, then it is on YOU, not the site. The maps here are absolutely beautiful, and options like Fog of War, Capitals, and Assassination are also available to make games more enjoyable. Lets start using this corrective feature a bit more, and complaining about the same thing, over and over again.
Lets give peace a chance! - Damage
Sorry, but I was bored and re-reading the forums, and I saw this post made buy Dcups, over a year ago, and the reply stung me:
[b]Dcups wrote: Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 15:00 Post #168[/b]
[b][i]I still don't believe it. I've tracked my last 100 attacks. On a 3-3 match up, I lose 2 and the defender loses 0, 61 times. I lose 1 and the defender loses 1 37 times(On the 2 - 2 battles I lose 1 & defender loses 0 34 times, the remaining 3 we each lost 1). So, 98 times out of 100, I lose on a 3-3 match up. I realize that this is far from the 10,000 roles you mentioned in your response and I'm not expecting it to be a 50-50 split or even a 60-40 split, but I do expect better than a 98-2 split. On average it costs me 2.1 troops to defeat a single enemy troop. I've had multiple battles of 10+ against 3, where I lose all but 1 troop and the defender has lost either 0 or 1.
My defensive stats are no better than my attacking stats. tracking 100 3-3 matchups, with me on defense, the attacker looses 2 to my 0 only 27 times, we each lose 1 34 times, and I end up loosing the country 64 times out of 77. [/i][/b]
[b] Matty wrote: Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 17:51 Post #169[/b]
[b][i]You have bad luck. You are expected to lose about 80 out of 100 on a 3v3 fight (assuming do or die here). It happends.
I'm sorry, but a 100 rolls really doesn't mean much. [/i][/b]
lmao. Seriously? No offnse, but this is the rule rather than the norm. I kept a running tally as well, but stopped short of 100 because I got tired of never winning a 3v3 battle. To be specific, the sample size of my test was a little smaller, but the 5's were about the same. Additionally, when I have tried these stupid and ill fated attacks, it has spurred conversation with the others in the game, and to a man they have all related similar statistics, although they didnt keep a running tally.
The suggestion I have been making to everyone who is completely baffled by this and other statistical anomalies, is to use the Balanced Dice setting. While you cant set it as your default, and it is somewhat hidden in the More Options section at the bottom, it is a viable option to making a more realistic and enjoyable game. I am not sure who the programmer was that created the algorithms for them, but obviously they were considered valuable enough to include in the options, and can provide a much more enjoyable game experience.
It is that simple. There ARE options available to players, other than just complaining about them and posting absurd attack reports in the main lobby. If you choose not to avail yourself of them, then it is on YOU, not the site. The maps here are absolutely beautiful, and options like Fog of War, Capitals, and Assassination are also available to make games more enjoyable. Lets start using this corrective feature a bit more, and complaining about the same thing, over and over again.
Lets give peace a chance! - Damage
just another day at the office for me