I hate dice, I experience this every game...

[Oggyyy]

 

[Hortik]

This is because you stopped playing for a while .

Ok no, but I do understand your feeling now, frustrating ;(

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

My suggestion is Fixed Force. I mean I hate the unpredictability of change too. It total destroys a good plan. Given the option, I tend to stick with FF. Can't blame the dice there!

 

[Oggyyy]

Every game...

 

[linkinpark]

There's a 0.95% chance of that happening. After each roll. This should be happening every game.

 

[Oggyyy]

Those 2 screenshots are not representing my true frustration - it happens multiple times a game, and often more than 6 flames for a defending 1, I've only just started screenshotting them

So 7 v 1 to total loss (i.e) 1v1 - what are the odds of that? Nevermind where the attack has lost even more.

Edit: 0.9967051261853217 chance of winning 7v1 so rounding up 9967/10000 the attacker should win. Or 996/1000...

Every game?

 

[Oggyyy]

On the flip side (no screen shot) 10v10 approximately down to 10v1 - in my favour

The losses hurt more than the victories...!

 

[TormentaBANNED]

Yes I hate dice too, if I kill the same as the defender I think they're awesome... Fixed force dice are better than my regular ones, but the problem with ff is that is fully predictable (so it is boring) and if you get an early set you win, for example, so even more luck.

Maybe an idea could be develop regarding the dice, a middle option between ff and pure luck, so that you don't know the outcome but nobody can lose 20 to kil 5 (or lose 2 to kill 15).

 

[th-child]

Fixed force dice are better than my regular ones, but the problem with ff is that is fully predictable (so it is boring) and if you get an early set you win, for example, so even more luck.

What kind of ff games do you play?
What you say is true for 1v1, but the others...

 

[Oggyyy]

I have a question aimed at Sheriff

How to upgrade to Commander when I am already strategist!

Is it 4.95 extra to convert my existing membership or is it 9.95 and my 6 months existing lost? or is it something entirely different

Just a thought...

 

[Bluebonnet]

Yes I hate dice too, if I kill the same as the defender I think they're awesome... Fixed force dice are better than my regular ones, but the problem with ff is that is fully predictable (so it is boring) and if you get an early set you win, for example, so even more luck.

Maybe an idea could be develop regarding the dice, a middle option between ff and pure luck, so that you don't know the outcome but nobody can lose 20 to kil 5 (or lose 2 to kill 15).

So instead of trying to make the dice totally random. Which no one has proved they are not random.

You want a code written to be more predictable, ie less random.

interesting

 

[Oggyyy]

I'll be the first to admit I see a streak of fire on a defending 1 (i.e losing say a 7v1 or even worse) and scream bloody hell what the actual!

But we only remember the bad dice huh!

I'm not totally sure Tormenta's suggestion is 1) workable and 2) logical?

For the record I still hate dice, on a good or bad day!

 

[TormentaBANNED]

What kind of ff games do you play?
What you say is true for 1v1, but the others...

I can't play now, I did play some in tourneys when I was a specialist... Maybe I'm wrong but those games always got to a moment when you knew what was going to happen.

So instead of trying to make the dice totally random. Which no one has proved they are not random.

You want a code written to be more predictable, ie less random.

interesting

I don't know if you're being ironic jaja. Anyway I haven't said they aren't random, I say that when they are random they may be irritating and when they are fixed they are boring, so maybe there could be a third option, "controlled luck" or something like that.

(It's just an idea I don't really expect to be carried out because my horrible dice prevent myself from being hooked again .

 

[Bluebonnet]

I don't know if you're being ironic jaja. Anyway I haven't said they aren't random, I say that when they are random they may be irritating and when they are fixed they are boring, so maybe there could be a third option, "controlled luck" or something like that.

(It's just an idea I don't really expect to be carried out because my horrible dice prevent myself from being hooked again .

Just found it humorous. Controlled luck. love it.
The concept is pretty basic and should be easy to code. (from a non-coder)
You treat it like a die that has been shaved or weighted. To have a attacker's 6 show up more than average stats would allow.

But then the big question, how much to nudge it off center?
And once nudged off center. We already know for a fact there is first turn advantage. So how much would this increase first turn advantage?

thinking everything through hurts my head. how about we just make the whole site fixed force only?

 

[haWD96lz]

Just found it humorous. Controlled luck. love it.
The concept is pretty basic and should be easy to code. (from a non-coder)
You treat it like a die that has been shaved or weighted. To have a attacker's 6 show up more than average stats would allow.

But then the big question, how much to nudge it off center?
And once nudged off center. We already know for a fact there is first turn advantage. So how much would this increase first turn advantage?

thinking everything through hurts my head. how about we just make the whole site fixed force only?

How about tracking the expected value throughout the game. When a player is getting good or bad luck say more than 1 standard deviation from the expected value they get a small boost. If they are off by 2 standard deviations they get a bit more, etc.

Not sure if you would track it based on dice (number of 1s, 2s, etc.) or results (armies killed or lost). Either way its not hard to code up as an option as many video games help the losing person.

Of course it would really suck if I'm losing and I know my opponent is getting extra luck...

 

[Bluebonnet]

Dunno. I know statistics well enough to know this would suck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule

How about the dumb luck rule. If you win 4-0 or lose 0-4. The dice stop. Automatically revers the streak. Then start again. That is easy.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I have a question aimed at Sheriff

How to upgrade to Commander when I am already strategist!

Is it 4.95 extra to convert my existing membership or is it 9.95 and my 6 months existing lost? or is it something entirely different

Just a thought...

I'd suggest shooting Sheriff a message with this, since it's already pushed back one page on this thread, he may never see it.

 

[engineerairborne]

It is frustrating, but it is part of the game. Take a look at this Scenario Calculator. As you can see the Defender has a 2.2 percent change of winning the encounter.



Another way to look at it, every time you attack it is going to be either a 3v2 or a 3v1 The defender has a 63% or so advantage in a 3v2, and still has a 25% chance in a 3v1.

I am not a Stats guru, but this tells me that in any encounter were the defender has multiple troops, he is going to have a huge advantage until he is down to his last troop.

One of the first rules I learned about playing this game, never attack with 3v2. It seems that you will lose 2 troops almost all the time. Now think about that. Every time you roll the dice and the attacker has 3 or more, and the defender has 2 or more. It is always going to be a 3v2 roll, this means that you have to overcome this 3v2 before the attacker has the advantage.

I can't say that I understand all of the math, but this is what I take from it. When you are talking in terms of 15 or fewer troops vs 15 or fewer troops, it seems that the defender will have the advantage and be prepared to cry. But when it is more, and the higher the better it will usually work in the attackers favor. In games when it is 150 v 150 or something like that, it is not uncommon for the attacker to have 50 or more troops left over. Don't ask me how or why this is, it is just what I have noticed playing the game. but even a 15 v 5 I always dread as an attacker as I have seen it turn bad in a hurry.

 

[th-child]

Maybe I'm wrong but those games always got to a moment when you knew what was going to happen.

Yes, that should be true, however, in my experience, most of the time, most of the players playing ff have no idea what is going to happen, sometimes not even until the last moment.

I don't think this is because they are stupid (I'm not even hinting that), but sometimes one doesn't even realize one is in a ff game (I guess this happened to all of us at one time or another) and/or haven't adjusted properly.

What I'm trying to say is if you find it easy and boring, you must be good at it. Let us know if/when you upgrade your subscription. I understand kenjoh is looking for some good ff players anyway, let's trump up some decent folk and we can have fancy battles. I guarantee you won't find them boring.

 

[th-child]

Another way to look at it, every time you attack it is going to be either a 3v2 or a 3v1 The defender has a 63% or so advantage in a 3v2, and still has a 25% chance in a 3v1.

I am not a Stats guru, but this tells me that in any encounter were the defender has multiple troops, he is going to have a huge advantage until he is down to his last troop.

If I understand your comment properly, I think you are mixing it up.

The defender can use all his/her troops to defend, however, the attacker can only use 1 troop less.

So when you attack 3v2, it is actually a 2v2 attack dice-wise, where the defender indeed has an advantage.

When you attack 4v2, it is a 3v2 attack dice-wise, and the attacker has advantage.

So "in any encounter were the defender has multiple troops, he is going to have a huge advantage" is not true, the attacker has a slight advantage if (s)he has enough (i.e. at least 4) troops.

I hope I'm writing it right, it's confusing.

Here are the odds (the last section shows the attacker's advantage):

Attacker: one die; Defender: one die:
Attacker wins 15 out of 36 (41.67 %)
Defender wins 21 out of 36 (58.33 %)

Attacker: two dice; Defender: one die:
Attacker wins 125 out of 216 (57.87 %)
Defender wins 91 out of 216 (42.13 %)

Attacker: three dice; Defender: one die:
Attacker wins 855 out of 1296 (65.97 %)
Defender wins 441 out of 1296 (34.03 %)

Attacker: one die; Defender: two dice:
Attacker wins 55 out of 216 (25.46 %)
Defender wins 161 out of 216 (74.54 %)

Attacker: two dice; Defender: two dice:
Attacker wins both: 295 out of 1296 (22.76 %)
Defender wins both: 581 out of 1296 (44.83 %)
Both win one: 420 out of 1296 (32.41 %)

Attacker: three dice; Defender: two dice:
Attacker wins both: 2890 out of 7776 (37.17 %)
Defender wins both: 2275 out of 7776 (29.26 %)
Both win one: 2611 out of 7776 (33.58 %)