Just genuinely curious the worst luck anyone has had in a game? I had -14.97 this past game, which feels like it has to be as bad as it gets, but I'm assuming someone has had it worse?

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4793p1/Worst_Luck_Ever

I've been in the negative 60s, at least, that I remember. Probably dipped lower than that at some point I can't recall.

This is probably the worst I've won, -34 luck at the end but -45 during.

http://www.wargear.net/games/luck/709703

The luck factor for very large unit count games can get pretty large due to the number of attacks being greater. Much more difficult to get a huge negative (or positive) luck factor in the typical risk game. Simulgear games also can result in huge luck factor swings, though I don’t know the basis for adjudicating them is.

Thingol wrote: The luck factor for very large unit count games can get pretty large due to the number of attacks being greater. Much more difficult to get a huge negative (or positive) luck factor in the typical risk game. Simulgear games also can result in huge luck factor swings, though I don’t know the basis for adjudicating them is.

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

From that page..

..divide the luck stat by the square root of the sum of variances² from all battles, and then use tables to determine a Z-score and/or a standard deviation, and then perhaps from there determine a percentile score, a proposed WarGear feature.

Could you repeat that in English, please?

DeVine wrote:

Could you repeat that in English, please?

Of course, it was in English, but it goes to Thingol's point that it's a complicated subject. Luck stats as they are currently calculated are not necessarily a good indicator of how lucky or unlucky the dice were for you.  Depending on the circumstances, a luck stat of -10 could mean you had horrible luck, or were just slightly unlucky.

M57 wrote:

DeVine wrote:

Could you repeat that in English, please?

Of course, it was in English, but it goes to Thingol's point that it's a complicated subject. Luck stats as they are currently calculated are not necessarily a good indicator of how lucky or unlucky the dice were for you.  Depending on the circumstances, a luck stat of -10 could mean you had horrible luck, or were just slightly unlucky.

I meant, could it please be explained in simpler terms, but I should've been more clear.

DeVine wrote:

I meant, could it please be explained in simpler terms, but I should've been more clear.

Nope, you were clear.  My point: There are no simpler terms.  If you really want luck stats that do the job, the math is complicated.

Basically more the dice you roll, the more likely you are to have more extreme luck stats (the way luck is currently calculated on wargear).  A luck stat of -10 is much worse if you've made 100 rolls, than if you've made 1000 rolls.  If you want to know how much worse, or what a comparable luck at 1000 rolls vs 100 rolls is, then you're into the hard math.

I do chemistry not math...but I'd think for a given number of rolls that have a normal distribution centred on X total, then if my individual crap luck game calculating what fraction of a standard deviation worse than expected I was should not be hard math. Too hard for me, but not actually hard. Probably I am a fraction of a standard deviation lucky and I just had bad timing and accidently hit T instead of A and missed the elimination I needed.

Then compare to your opponents SDs (and then more math)...