Is there a setting that makes starting turn order not random?

[johnjdc]

I only ask because, apart from terrible dice against one particular player on 2-player, I have also just been the second player for the 11th time in a row, at odds of over 2000-1 against. It wouldn't matter so much, but on 12 domains with border reinforcement and flat rate reserves, it makes a big difference!

Do I keep trying and hope my luck changes, or is this the way it is?

 

[Chilly]

No. At the moment it is completely random.

 

[johnjdc]

Then I wish the law of averages was a real thing

 

[Chilly]

It is. The universe just has a longer time horizon than most of us. :smile:

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I personally think that 12 Domains is the map where starting position in a 1v1 game matters the LEAST.

 

[ajdedo]

I will suggest some features like a dice counter. Each player with have a running total of every roll, and maybe even starting position. That way, th emore a player plays, the more they realize everything is equal.

 

[Chilly]

I will suggest some features like a dice counter. Each player with have a running total of every roll, and maybe even starting position. That way, th emore a player plays, the more they realize everything is equal.

I don't want to try and dig it up, but I know I suggested years ago that an excellent add-on for gold membership would be advanced statistics.
Your performance against any player
Your performance on any map
Your total dice (attacking and defending)
Dice on each map (attacking and defending)
etc. etc. etc.

I would guess that many people on this site are OCD enough to crave minutiae about their statistical experience.

You know, like this friend of mine...

 

[johnjdc]

I personally think that 12 Domains is the map where starting position in a 1v1 game matters the LEAST.

Really? I mean starting position sure it's marginal - the Western territories are a bit worse - but turn *order* is massive, especially on flat rate with low reinforcements. It gives you the choice of where the first attack will occur, and statistically around a 21 troop advantage in that assault, compared to the second player trying to mount the same assault first.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I disagree completely with that. Since you are both starting out attacking neuts, starting position, ie. drop, is important, but starting ORDER is almost irrelevent. Dice is MUCH more important that who goes first, especially in flat rate.

Explain how you could get a 21-troop advantage when you both get exactly the same number to deploy?

 

[Bluebonnet]

It is. The universe just has a longer time horizon than most of us. :smile:

Once, on my first go around here, i got sick and tired of people claiming the dice were incorrect and not random. Of course no one ever recorded every single one of their rolls. They only hollered about the ones they thought were incorrect. So i played some games and took screenshots of the results and 10 keyed them into an excel.

They were starting to normalize after 1,000 rolls. If i remember right it takes like 10,000 for them to look good in naturally rolled dice. Gave up on my study when people kept coming up with new arguments on how and why they weren't truly random.

I figure whatever I am facing, even if off; others faced the same exact situation.

Except for the super secret setting only available to Gold Members which allows them to win every 6th roll no matter what.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

There's also the "dicerape" function that the boss man can turn on for your profile; you need to periodically prostrate yourself before the great God Bado to keep that turned off.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Here is a article suggesting 4k to 100k rolls. I don't have the patience to prove this system correct.

"At this point, inquiring minds will want to know just how many rounds are needed to get to the long run where the averages hold. Alas, there's no simple answer to this key question. Statistical analysis offers a way to calculate the chance of being within any given range of the expected value after this or that many trials. But the full impact of the effect might better be illustrated by a computer simulation indicating the number of rounds needed before the actual frequency of an event gets to the theoretical average and stays there through at least 25 more successes.

Such a simulation not only suggests how many rounds it takes, but shows the enigma of how variable the number can be. In one set of 10 tests, with an expected average of one out of six, the actual frequency converged on 16.7 percent after as few as 4,129 trials. The next lowest numbers of trials were 6,612 and 10,289. One of the 10 trials failed to settle at the average after 100,000 attempts. Another required 75,930, followed by 54,945 and 39,203."

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/why-casinos-like-the-long-run-and-players-the-short-18009

 

[Bluebonnet]

Just to clarify, I would love a great database you could access to view your personal stats. I am in total agreement with what everyone has said.

It would just need to be something more than just dice rolls since they will average out over time. But adding attributes of player ranks, player id, map, reinforcement type, round, # of players, (single/doubs/triples), (mercenary/assassin/regular), etc is where the real fun begins. Then you can run statistical analysis to see where your strengths and weakneses are in order to improve.

I know how to run regression analysis and i am not afraid to use it. :flute:

 

[Chilly]

Here is a article suggesting 4k to 100k rolls. I don't have the patience to prove this system correct.

"At this point, inquiring minds will want to know just how many rounds are needed to get to the long run where the averages hold. Alas, there's no simple answer to this key question. Statistical analysis offers a way to calculate the chance of being within any given range of the expected value after this or that many trials. But the full impact of the effect might better be illustrated by a computer simulation indicating the number of rounds needed before the actual frequency of an event gets to the theoretical average and stays there through at least 25 more successes.

Such a simulation not only suggests how many rounds it takes, but shows the enigma of how variable the number can be. In one set of 10 tests, with an expected average of one out of six, the actual frequency converged on 16.7 percent after as few as 4,129 trials. The next lowest numbers of trials were 6,612 and 10,289. One of the 10 trials failed to settle at the average after 100,000 attempts. Another required 75,930, followed by 54,945 and 39,203."

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/why-casinos-like-the-long-run-and-players-the-short-18009

Pretty good article that explains how our brains get tricked by statistics. Also check out this wikipedia article on Gambler's Fallacy. The GIF and caption helped me understand visually what your article was stating:

Simulation of coin tosses: Each frame, a coin is flipped which is red on one side and blue on the other. The result of each flip is added as a colored dot in the corresponding column. As the pie chart shows, the proportion of red versus blue approaches 50-50 (the Law of Large Numbers). But the difference between red and blue does not systematically decrease to zero.
-SByrnes

I know how to run regression analysis and i am not afraid to use it. :flute:

Great. Just great. I had enough respect for you as a player and now you're a statistician too. Run away, Run away!

 

[johnjdc]

Really? I mean starting position sure it's marginal - the Western territories are a bit worse - but turn *order* is massive, especially on flat rate with low reinforcements. It gives you the choice of where the first attack will occur, and statistically around a 21 troop advantage in that assault, compared to the second player trying to mount the same assault first.

Let's say 3 border reinforcements, equal dice rolls.

Turn 1, starting 12, autodeploy 3, deploy 3. Each player takes 3 territories, loses 4 troops. Each player has 15 troops, and 7 regions.
Turn 2, starting 15, autodeploy 7, deploy 3. Each player takes 5 territories, loses 5 troops. Each player has 20 troops, and 12 regions.
Turn 3, starting 20, autodeploy 12, deploy 4. Each player takes 6 territories, loses 8 troops. Each player has 28 troops, and 18 regions.
Turn 4, starting 28, autodeploy 18, deploy 6. Each player takes the remaining 10 "home" regions, for the loss of 10 troops. Each player has 42 troops, and 28 regions.

Now it's turn 5. With a bit of luck my strongest region has at least 8 at the border from reinforcement - potentially more if I completed it early. I am moving first, so I get to deploy 9 troops, and trade in my cards, 6 troops. I am assaulting with 23. It's not a guarantee, as I have to get through 15 neutrals, but it's a shot. If he has used all his troops to take the region in question, I am basically fighting 23v23 - it's do-able. If I'm not there right away, I can take the local village if my opponent isn't strong in the neighbouring region, but if the dice have gone reasonably well, I can go for it.

Player 2, in contrast, is going to have to defend. If they want to attack, they can do so, but by the time they attack my region, I will have taken turn 5. If I am not strong and have chosen to defend against their attack, I will have autodeployed 8 more by taking my turn, deployed 9, and traded in my cards for 6. So where Player 1 would be mounting an attack on around 23 troops on the above assumptions, Player 2 would be facing potentially 46.

So it's a relative advantage of 23, I undercounted, and the longer things go on before you engage one another in direct combat, the bigger the first mover advantage gets (assuming the dice are roughly even). If you enter a tug of war over two adjacent regions, the winner is the one who manages a complete wipeout - in every case the first mover stands a better chance of succeeding in that battle, because they are always fighting "current+deployment" against only "current".

 

[Bluebonnet]

"Great. Just great. I had enough respect for you as a player and now you're a statistician too. Run away, Run away!"


I get paid to tell the story of data at work. It does occasionly run into statistical significance and regression analysis.

Here, I barey remember the odds of having a set with 3 or 4 cards. I know what it is for 5 though. Not even going to calculate the odds of rolling against others on any given turn. I just go based on if I feel lucky.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Let's say 3 border reinforcements, equal dice rolls.

Turn 1, starting 12, autodeploy 3, deploy 3. Each player takes 3 territories, loses 4 troops. Each player has 15 troops, and 7 regions.
Turn 2, starting 15, autodeploy 7, deploy 3. Each player takes 5 territories, loses 5 troops. Each player has 20 troops, and 12 regions.
Turn 3, starting 20, autodeploy 12, deploy 4. Each player takes 6 territories, loses 8 troops. Each player has 28 troops, and 18 regions.
Turn 4, starting 28, autodeploy 18, deploy 6. Each player takes the remaining 10 "home" regions, for the loss of 10 troops. Each player has 42 troops, and 28 regions.

Now it's turn 5. With a bit of luck my strongest region has at least 8 at the border from reinforcement - potentially more if I completed it early. I am moving first, so I get to deploy 9 troops, and trade in my cards, 6 troops. I am assaulting with 23. It's not a guarantee, as I have to get through 15 neutrals, but it's a shot. If he has used all his troops to take the region in question, I am basically fighting 23v23 - it's do-able. If I'm not there right away, I can take the local village if my opponent isn't strong in the neighbouring region, but if the dice have gone reasonably well, I can go for it.

Player 2, in contrast, is going to have to defend. If they want to attack, they can do so, but by the time they attack my region, I will have taken turn 5. If I am not strong and have chosen to defend against their attack, I will have autodeployed 8 more by taking my turn, deployed 9, and traded in my cards for 6. So where Player 1 would be mounting an attack on around 23 troops on the above assumptions, Player 2 would be facing potentially 46.

So it's a relative advantage of 23, I undercounted, and the longer things go on before you engage one another in direct combat, the bigger the first mover advantage gets (assuming the dice are roughly even). If you enter a tug of war over two adjacent regions, the winner is the one who manages a complete wipeout - in every case the first mover stands a better chance of succeeding in that battle, because they are always fighting "current+deployment" against only "current".

Your scenario depends on completely even dice, which, as we all know, never happens, other than in fixed force. I've won often when starting second, and conversely, lost when going first. Say what you will, I, based on a LOT of games on that map, will continue to believe that starting position is almost irrelevant.

 

[DeadGirl]

If you think starting order is important on 12 domains, try playing classic mini. (I agree that going first is a very slight advantage on 12 domains.)

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Yes, have to agree with DeadGirl there. the small maps (mini and duck especially) there is a HUGE advantage to going first. It lessens, but is still significant for the other, larger maps. For 12 domains and to a degree Nukes the starting order isn't nearly as much of an advantage. Those are the only two IMO that don't really have a big advantage for order. Drop (and dice) are more important on those two.

 

[johnjdc]

Your scenario depends on completely even dice, which, as we all know, never happens, other than in fixed force. I've won often when starting second, and conversely, lost when going first. Say what you will, I, based on a LOT of games on that map, will continue to believe that starting position is almost irrelevant.

Sure, my scenario is the average. Sometimes it will be better, sometimes it will be worse, but I think in terms of number of troops, and speed of getting them to the front, first turn is a huge advantage on 2-player 12-domains, unless that first turn goes terribly. Think of it another way - a terrible first turn for Player 1, and you've just lost first mover advantage. A terrible first turn for player 2, and it's a long road.