Great info thanks Alpha. One thing I would argue is that having good / bad luck early in the game is probably more critical than being lucky / unlucky later on.

Early game luck means winning the skirmishes to grap the important territories / continents, later on there are probably large numbers of units where the luck is not so important.

tom wrote:

Early game luck means winning the skirmishes to grap the important territories / continents, later on there are probably large numbers of units where the luck is not so important.

I agree, until you have bad luck going for an elimination

The one thing that is not fully captured is that if a player is lucky early on, they will probably have a high luck stat as a result.  Usually, the end of the game is what matters the most and if during this time a player is very unlucky, their luck stat may show them as have positive overall luck even though they lost due to a bad turn at the end of the game.

I disagree entirely.. the beginning of the game is what matters the most.  Good luck at the start of the game is in essence "magnified" throughout the game, while good luck at the end of the game is often masked by existing army imbalances.  Losing a roll at the start of the game when I only have a bonus of 3 is much more crushing than losing a roll when I am attacking with a stack of 50.

BD

Whoops, didn't see that last post.. I agree also!

tom wrote:

Great info thanks Alpha. One thing I would argue is that having good / bad luck early in the game is probably more critical than being lucky / unlucky later on.

Early game luck means winning the skirmishes to grap the important territories / continents, later on there are probably large numbers of units where the luck is not so important.

I totally agree with that. The earlier the move, the more important to a player is the result.

Ok well I understood most of the stats, the number on the right of the table shows where you stand versus the expected number of armies you should kill.

Btw I've tried to calculate long enough how favorite I was whenever attacking with 3v2, now I know thanks to you Alpha :) May I ask how you found those results? (Probability of killing 2, 1 or losing 2, that is)

One last thing I m not getting yet,

For example, on Yertle's pasted table, Dud has 111 kills (25 + 86), and 118 deaths (19 + 99), what do the numbers between brackets mean?

Thx for all the explanations! Might I suggest to change the name of the stat into "Dice luck stats"??? As Attila might have noticed recently, I didn't got cards in the last crucial turns of our last fight, while he did! If that wasn't unlucky.... :P

More seriously, what do you think about using the luck stat as a "tie breaking" criteria in tournaments? That would imply to have an "average luck score" over all games, than choosing as winner the less lucky player. What do you think?

Just proposing...

ps: tom, good job with the Elimination system! I was waiting for that but I haven't thanked you yet! ;)

And I've got three questions about premioum account:

1) When it expires, the games exceeding the "10 limit" will stay active, but I will not able to join or create more games, right?

2) My unused "vacation day" will be discarded or will stack up if I renew the account?

3) If I renew few days before the account expires, the new year will start automatically right after the expiration date, or from the day of the payment?

Thx!!!

@Backdog - I agree in part that the beginning of the game is important, but once a player is off to an early lead, the board is usually against them, so good luck early may be a detriment.  Certainly, as Yertle posted, I was specifically referencing the elimination run when I said bad luck at the end.

@ecko - The probabilities for 6v6 attacks are well known and published results.  Mongrel and I extended the current research to include all possible combination of attacker sided dice vs defender sided dice.  Once you have those probabilities it is easy to calculate expected value.  Unfortunately, this is unpublished research (something I plan on remedying soon) so I cannot divulge the details of the calculations.

Tesctassa II wrote:

ps: tom, good job with the Elimination system! I was waiting for that but I haven't thanked you yet! ;)

And I've got three questions about premioum account:

1) When it expires, the games exceeding the "10 limit" will stay active, but I will not able to join or create more games, right?

2) My unused "vacation day" will be discarded or will stack up if I renew the account?

3) If I renew few days before the account expires, the new year will start automatically right after the expiration date, or from the day of the payment?

Thx!!!

1) Yes that's correct (until you go under the 10 limit again)

2) Currently you can only get 30 days vacation per rolling 12 month period, regardless of how many times you pay for membership. This might need reviewing.

3) The new 12 month period will be tacked on the end (so if you have 3 days left then renew you will end up with 1 year + 3 days of membership)

ecko wrote:

For example, on Yertle's pasted table, Dud has 111 kills (25 + 86), and 118 deaths (19 + 99), what do the numbers between brackets mean?

The first number means Kills from Attacking, the second number is Kills from Defending.

Tesctassa II wrote:

Thx for all the explanations! Might I suggest to change the name of the stat into "Dice luck stats"??? As Attila might have noticed recently, I didn't got cards in the last crucial turns of our last fight, while he did! If that wasn't unlucky.... :P

 

Tesc brings up a good point here.  I could imagine a separate stat calculating the "luck" of having a card set vs. not having a set for anybody having 3 cards or more.  Anybody see benefits of having this stat information?

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Tesc brings up a good point here.  I could imagine a separate stat calculating the "luck" of having a card set vs. not having a set for anybody having 3 cards or more.  Anybody see benefits of having this stat information?

How about a luck stat that says the number of times one of your opponents makes a dumb move and you are in position to capitalize on it?

Tongue-in-cheek of course - but we all (should) know that dice luck is just one part of the overall "luck" that goes into winning a game -

Here's some more - luck of how the initial territories are distributed. Or the lucky (for you) boot of another player.

Amidon37 wrote:

Here's some more - luck of how the initial territories are distributed. Or the lucky (for you) boot of another player.

Now there's an esoteric but interesting board stat.  Which initially owned territories are most likely to result in a win?

M57 wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Here's some more - luck of how the initial territories are distributed. Or the lucky (for you) boot of another player.

Now there's an esoteric but interesting board stat.  Which initially owned territories are most likely to result in a win?

Interesting question! Probably in standard risk board, AU and SA would be the "winning" territory.

Anyway, no aswer about the "luck score as tie-breaking system for tournament" proposition?

(=

Tesctassa II wrote:

Anyway, no aswer about the "luck score as tie-breaking system for tournament" proposition?

(=

I think I'm pretty super against it, that's really something you can't control and shouldn't affect Tournament winners IMO.

But luck does affect tournament winners!

Yertle wrote:

Tesctassa II wrote:

Anyway, no aswer about the "luck score as tie-breaking system for tournament" proposition?

(=

I think I'm pretty super against it, that's really something you can't control and shouldn't affect Tournament winners IMO.

Yertle wrote:

Tesctassa II wrote:

Anyway, no aswer about the "luck score as tie-breaking system for tournament" proposition?

(=

I think I'm pretty super against it, that's really something you can't control and shouldn't affect Tournament winners IMO.

Well, my point is, if a tournament should declare the "best" player, considering just skills, then the one less lucky should be the winner. As you said, luck isn't something you can control and shouldn't affect tournaments, but as Mongrel said, luck does affect winning or loosing (sometimes).

(=

Tesctassa II wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Tesctassa II wrote:

Anyway, no aswer about the "luck score as tie-breaking system for tournament" proposition?

(=

I think I'm pretty super against it, that's really something you can't control and shouldn't affect Tournament winners IMO.

Well, my point is, if a tournament should declare the "best" player, considering just skills, then the one less lucky should be the winner. As you said, luck isn't something you can control and shouldn't affect tournaments, but as Mongrel said, luck does affect winning or loosing (sometimes).

(=

People with more skill are more likely to be lucky :)

AttilaTheHun wrote:

People with more skill are more likely to be lucky :)

Well, not when throwing dice or waiting for cards! =P

(we know that Attila, don't we?)

I disagree with the tie breaking luck thing.

Where do you go to see "Luck Stats"?