Aiken Drumn wrote:

Would it be possible to create something which displays the achievements you DON'T have, so that you might know what to focus on?

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=achievements

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Please don't get me wrong, I love the feature. I guess I am just a little sad I triggered all the basic ones, an those left to me are probably quite hard.

Would it be possible to create something which displays the achievements you DON'T have, so that you might know what to focus on?

 

 

Hi Ratsy, I did have a quiet spell after some previous dramas. I would like to get into the forum side of things more, so hopefully more posts from me in the future :)

Yes, I'm creating a page which shows all your achievements and which one is next.

tom wrote:

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Please don't get me wrong, I love the feature. I guess I am just a little sad I triggered all the basic ones, an those left to me are probably quite hard.

Would it be possible to create something which displays the achievements you DON'T have, so that you might know what to focus on?

 

 

Hi Ratsy, I did have a quiet spell after some previous dramas. I would like to get into the forum side of things more, so hopefully more posts from me in the future :)

Yes, I'm creating a page which shows all your achievements and which one is next.

Sweet!

Nice. For example I have the "50" wins shield.. but I have no idea how to see how far off i am from getting "100".

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Nice. For example I have the "50" wins shield.. but I have no idea how to see how far off i am from getting "100".

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/Aiken%20Drumn/Player%20Stats

Aww man, i've still got to add up my wins ;)

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Aww man, i've still got to add up my wins ;)

I thnk it does it for you: Win Ratio 30.7% (55/179 games)

Aww man, tis going to be a long time til 100!

This could open up a whole can of worms I realize (because not all bad luck is equal, the board and length of game make measuring luck uniformly difficult, and it doesn't take into account starting position or getting two pair with cards or a set with 3 and so on), but it's supposed to be a "fun achievement". What about winning a game with negative luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -10 luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -25 luck?, Then -50, -100?

"Never Tell Me the Odds" or "Overcoming Adversity" or something like that could be the name of it.

 

Cona Chris wrote:

This could open up a whole can of worms I realize (because not all bad luck is equal, the board and length of game make measuring luck uniformly difficult, and it doesn't take into account starting position or getting two pair with cards or a set with 3 and so on), but it's supposed to be a "fun achievement". What about winning a game with negative luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -10 luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -25 luck?, Then -50, -100?

"Never Tell Me the Odds" or "Overcoming Adversity" or something like that could be the name of it.

Great idea.  Along the same lines, how about winning a team game that your team mates never joined, so you were all alone vs. 1 or more teams of players.

Cona Chris wrote:

This could open up a whole can of worms I realize (because not all bad luck is equal, the board and length of game make measuring luck uniformly difficult, and it doesn't take into account starting position or getting two pair with cards or a set with 3 and so on), but it's supposed to be a "fun achievement". What about winning a game with negative luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -10 luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -25 luck?, Then -50, -100?

"Never Tell Me the Odds" or "Overcoming Adversity" or something like that could be the name of it.

These awards will more easily be won by playing epic boards that involve big stacks and thousands of rolls. The only luck related achievements that make sense to me given the current system are streak related.  E.g.,over 1000 rolls: +25, +50, -25, -50

On the other hand, if the site had a z-score related luck stat (that has been discussed quite a bit in these forums), then all bets are off.  I'm not saying we have to use actual z-scores - for instance we could convert them to percentages, but for example winning a game with a luck stat in the 4th or 3rd stanine, winning a game with a -1.0 z-score, or winning a game below the 40 or 30 percentile would all be notable achievements.

Cona Chris wrote:

This could open up a whole can of worms I realize (because not all bad luck is equal, the board and length of game make measuring luck uniformly difficult, and it doesn't take into account starting position or getting two pair with cards or a set with 3 and so on), but it's supposed to be a "fun achievement". What about winning a game with negative luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -10 luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -25 luck?, Then -50, -100?

"Never Tell Me the Odds" or "Overcoming Adversity" or something like that could be the name of it.

 

Is it possible to win if you are in negative luck?

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Cona Chris wrote:

This could open up a whole can of worms I realize (because not all bad luck is equal, the board and length of game make measuring luck uniformly difficult, and it doesn't take into account starting position or getting two pair with cards or a set with 3 and so on), but it's supposed to be a "fun achievement". What about winning a game with negative luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -10 luck?

Then upgrade with a win with -25 luck?, Then -50, -100?

"Never Tell Me the Odds" or "Overcoming Adversity" or something like that could be the name of it.

 

Is it possible to win if you are in negative luck?

Happens all the time.  Especially if everyone beats up on each other and neglects you - and in a higher proportion of games than you might think.  I just checked about 15 of my wins and my luck stats are under water in almost a third of them.

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/121844

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/317333

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/115958

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/115958

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/305442

I'll bet those players with H-ratings in the mid 70s win close to half their games that have negative luck.  They'd have to 'cause they're going to have negative luck about 50% of the time. 

-23 in my last game (War of the Roses). Of course, I got lucky when it counted!

smoke wrote:

-23 in my last game (War of the Roses). Of course, I got lucky when it counted!

Smoke: H-Rating 77%   Doesn't need luck to win.

If I remember correctly, I think I have quite a number of 1v1's with in excess of -20 luck that I won.  I think my best win for a 1v1 with negative luck is around -31 -33, but can't remember exactly. For multiplayer games it's possible to get some really crazy negative luck and prevail, so, I won't go into those.

Also good to point out, for 1v1's, except against neutral when you go down, your opponent goes up, so the luck differential in those games in excess of -20 can easily be 40 points plus!

Feeling like a broken record, but of course these numbers have little meaning unless the length of the game, and more specifically the # of rolls is considered.  Winning a game over the course of 200 rolls with a -10 luck stat is a much more significant achievement than winning a game over 2000 rolls with a -10 luck stat.

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Is it possible to win if you are in negative luck?

To add to what M was saying, you also have to account for your number of attacks versus your opponents number of attacks.

For example, consider that you attack aggressively and are against a defensive minded opponent.  Let's say that in the first 10 turns you have (100) 3v2 attacks with a -2 luck while your opponent makes only (10) with a  +2 luck. 

Let's look at the stats:

100 rolls 3v2        Neutral Luck           -2 Luck          10 rolls             Neutral           +2

Attacker loses         92                          94                                       9.2                7.2

Defender loses      108                         106                                     10.8              12.8

Attacker Net         +16                        +12                                     +1.6             + 5.6

So, in this case, even though your luck was worse you will end up with about a 6 unit advantage because you attacked more.

On average, each time you attack 3v2 you will gain .15 units.  So, one guideline I have, especially for 1v1 is to attack as much as possible.  If all your territories have 3 units and you can place 4 new units, placing one unit on 4 different territories gives you 12 attaking units at 3v2.  Placing all 4 on one territory gives you only 7 attacking armies at 3v2.