Litotes wrote:Mad Bomber wrote:Did I or did not lose 93 more men than I should have?

dice mods may have factored/not factored in?

is this luck chart correct?

The main part of your "bad luck" in this game is from attacking - they're given as -74.20 attacklng and -19.09 defending.

The only dice mod here is 6v7 attack. There is no attacking with advantage. I can see from the log you did a fair bit of 6v7 attacks, which I can only assume is perfectly normal.

In total from attacking you took 5869 and lost 5309. The exact calculation would have to factor in how often you met a 1 army, with greater chance of success, and how often you did a 6v7, but regardless I can tell you that for this game you had plus dice attacking (minus dice defending looks right). -74.20 is a compound error of some sort, I've seen them before, no idea what causes them but the resulting luck charts are worthless. Can't say who was lucky and who wasn't in that game, not without going into minute detail and spending a lot of time on it.

I was in a game the other day, where I had S.A and defending with 6 troops he attacks with 7 and wins and only loses 2 troops, that is total bollocks. If I lost he lost 5 you go fair enough 7 v 6 and too win by that much is beyond ridiculous.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:

I was in a game the other day, where I had S.A and defending with 6 troops he attacks with 7 and wins and only loses 2 troops, that is total bollocks. If I lost he lost 5 you go fair enough 7 v 6 and too win by that much is beyond ridiculous.

7 troops attacking 6 troops (with 6-sided dice) and winning while losing 2 troops????

Sounds incredibly common to me. What am I misunderstanding?

Some folks have difficulty understanding the attacking 3v2 dice dynamic and that leads to a certain reaction on their part.

Sad.

hootz72 wrote:Some folks have difficulty understanding the attacking 3v2 dice dynamic and that leads to a certain reaction on their part.

Sad.

I said that and do not back away from it. I never attack 7 v 6 as the odds are not good. But win like he did yeah I found it sus.

M57 wrote:Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:

I was in a game the other day, where I had S.A and defending with 6 troops he attacks with 7 and wins and only loses 2 troops, that is total bollocks. If I lost he lost 5 you go fair enough 7 v 6 and too win by that much is beyond ridiculous.

7 troops attacking 6 troops (with 6-sided dice) and winning while losing 2 troops????

Sounds incredibly common to me. What am I misunderstanding?

Well then do it with real dice and see how often you will have 5 troops left.

But any way Happy New Year all. May 2023 be a great one for you and your families.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:hootz72 wrote:Some folks have difficulty understanding the attacking 3v2 dice dynamic and that leads to a certain reaction on their part.

Sad.

I said that and do not back away from it. I never attack 7 v 6 as the odds are not good. But win like he did yeah I found it sus.

This was not 3v2 this was after 7 v6 and he won with 5 troops left, but how did you know which game it was? when I didn't state which game or gave a link to it.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:M57 wrote:Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:

I was in a game the other day, where I had S.A and defending with 6 troops he attacks with 7 and wins and only loses 2 troops, that is total bollocks. If I lost he lost 5 you go fair enough 7 v 6 and too win by that much is beyond ridiculous.

7 troops attacking 6 troops (with 6-sided dice) and winning while losing 2 troops????

Sounds incredibly common to me. What am I misunderstanding?

Well then do it with real dice and see how often you will have 5 troops left.

What I find interesting is you'll complain about the dice on both sides of battle --- somebody wins like this without losing enough units, and other times somebody holds off a much larger force with 1 or 2 units.

So... I just ran 7v6 ten times with my trusty red attack and white defense dice.

Won 3 times out of 10, with 3/5/7 remaining. 2 of the losses were due to great final defence.

Battle 1: Win with 3 remaining

Battle 2: Lose, with 3 remaining on defender

Battle 3: Lose, with 4 remaining on defender

Battle 4: Lose, with 3 remaining on defender

Battle 5: Lose, with 3 remaining on defender

Battle 6: Lose, with 1 remaining on defender. (Won first two rounds cleanly, leaving 7v2, which lost)

Battle 7: Lose, with 2 remaining on defender

Battle 8: Lose, with 1 remaining on defender. (This was the longest battle, 7v6/5v6/4v6/4v3/4v1/3v1/2v1)

Battle 9: Win, with 5 remaining

Battle 10: Win, with 7 remaining

It's not an unusual result for 7v6 to win. Just as it's not an unusual result for 4v1 to lose (frequently). Outliers (like 10 or 15 to 1 losing) are more unusual, but again not outside the realm of possibility.

I took a quick look at https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81349198 where WG 'gifted' a lower-ranked player.

You had *good* luck on your attacks in your first round.

Then on your second round ...

• You tried a 5v3 and lost 2 units (not an unexpected result, very commonplace). Then you doubled down and tried 3v3, then 2v2 (both cases where you were at a *disadvantage*), and lost. You could have started your turn with an almost-guaranteed card by doing 5v1 on Ven or Peru, or switched gears after your first attack and done 3v1 for still a fair chance of getting a card.
• Then in Oz you did the SAME THING. 5v3 (lost 1), then 4v2 (lost 2) and then 2V2! At any point in that battle, you could have opted instead to hit WAus to grab your card.
• THEN you did a 3v3 from Kam>Ala (at a disadvantage)
• And finally, a 4v3 (last gasp, since you had no other targets) from NAf>Con, which you WON. (losing 1 unit).

Then you picked up your toys, whined about WG (as per usual), and surrendered.

You seem to have this belief that a truly well-implemented algorithm (I think Tom is usuing, or was using, an existing rng function) must always be totally balanced -- i.e., you complain about even minor luck differentials, often over incredibly short spans of game-time, giving the *impression* (I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that the luck values should actually always be 0.

A 4v1 should always win. A 7v6 should rarely win without major self-damage. And on and on.

I took a quick look at https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81349198 where WG 'gifted' a lower-ranked player.

You had *good* luck on your attacks in your first round.

Then on your second round ...

• You tried a 5v3 and lost 2 units (not an unexpected result, very commonplace). Then you doubled down and tried 3v3, then 2v2 (both cases where you were at a *disadvantage*), and lost. You could have started your turn with an almost-guaranteed card by doing 5v1 on Ven or Peru, or switched gears after your first attack and done 3v1 for still a fair chance of getting a card.
• Then in Oz you did the SAME THING. 5v3 (lost 1), then 4v2 (lost 2) and then 2V2! At any point in that battle, you could have opted instead to hit WAus to grab your card.
• THEN you did a 3v3 from Kam>Ala (at a disadvantage)
• And finally, a 4v3 (last gasp, since you had no other targets) from NAf>Con, which you WON. (losing 1 unit).

Then you picked up your toys, whined about WG (as per usual), and surrendered.

You seem to have this belief that a truly well-implemented algorithm (I think Tom is usuing, or was using, an existing rng function) must always be totally balanced -- i.e., you complain about even minor luck differentials, often over incredibly short spans of game-time, giving the *impression* (I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that the luck values should actually always be 0.

A 4v1 should always win. A 7v6 should rarely win without major self-damage. And on and on.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:hootz72 wrote:Some folks have difficulty understanding the attacking 3v2 dice dynamic and that leads to a certain reaction on their part.

Sad.

I said that and do not back away from it. I never attack 7 v 6 as the odds are not good. But win like he did yeah I found it sus.

This was not 3v2 this was after 7 v6 and he won with 5 troops left, but how did you know which game it was? when I didn't state which game or gave a link to it.

"3v2 dice dynamic" + 3 attacking die vs 2 defending die . But thanks for proving my point. Also, there have been many who, when things don't go as they expect, quickly leap to the convenient conclusion of "they cheated" as the only explanation. After reading all your lovely message posts from the games I sampled I couldn't help but think the problem might be karma cuz cheating and games being "gifted" to lower ranked players really isn't gaining a lot of traction.

Cheers

hootz72 wrote:Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:hootz72 wrote:Some folks have difficulty understanding the attacking 3v2 dice dynamic and that leads to a certain reaction on their part.

Sad.

I said that and do not back away from it. I never attack 7 v 6 as the odds are not good. But win like he did yeah I found it sus.

This was not 3v2 this was after 7 v6 and he won with 5 troops left, but how did you know which game it was? when I didn't state which game or gave a link to it.

"3v2 dice dynamic" + 3 attacking die vs 2 defending die . But thanks for proving my point. Also, there have been many who, when things don't go as they expect, quickly leap to the convenient conclusion of "they cheated" as the only explanation. After reading all your lovely message posts from the games I sampled I couldn't help but think the problem might be karma cuz cheating and games being "gifted" to lower ranked players really isn't gaining a lot of traction.

Cheers

And yet there is many games where I say GG or nothing at all., but lets skip over those suite your narrative hey.

Yet I have 49% win ration and have close battles with many opponents. yet only two players I seem to have big discrepancy with. The biggest is LX, and I am convinced he is not legit.I have asked him many times politely first do not join my games as i suspect he is not legitimate. after 20 or so games of asking this tard not to join my games I got aggressive, even went to admin to tell him don't join my games. What is the point of tagging someone as a enemy if they still can join your games? if all you so called experts seem to think the dice even out, well look at the win ratio between him and me and tell me that is even. I know many others players have asked him not to join, and I know from other players who have been asked by LX not to join his games and they abide but he doesn't. This will be the last rant on this as I just want to play in between meetings and work. But as I stated as a network engineer and at 50 years old I have been around computers for a long time, this site has issues even except that I have that belief or not. There are other players with computer backgrounds who all state this but seem to always not have the balls to step and say it in public forum. I asked the question simple, but what would I know only been around computers set up High security rated networks for Victoria police and Federal police. End of story nothing more nothing less.

A few nits I feel compelled to pick ...

• Over the course of this username, at least 40% of your games include direct insults of other players, slams about the algorithm (it's a freaking rand function, no big complicated thing, unless things have changed), dismissive digs about low ranked players being hand gifted games to keep them interested, dismissive digs about high ranked playes being hand gifted games to protect their ranks, and more.
• You suspect LX and another as being 'not legit'. As I'm sure you discovered when you ran off to the admin, the 'enemy' flag serves only to prevent standard players (like me) from joining a game with a premium player (like you). It does not have any effect on premium to premium. Maybe you should suggest some modification to that in one of the discussion boards.
• LX joining your games when you ask him not to... you *do* have some control over that, beyond pulling from your pallette of profanity and other insults. You can simply surrender the game when he joins. Easy-peasy! As to *why* he joins your games ... I presume it's some combination of enjoyment beating a self-proclaimed superior strategist, and perverse enjoyment of watching you repeatedly melt down.
• We get it. You've worked with computers for a long time. There are many others here in the same boat, some for longer than you. And of those people, at least some (I would venture to suggest 'many', but that's a gut feeling, not a statistical certainty) feel that there is no cheating w.r.t. dice and country placement -- rather, the behaviour of the dice and the placements is as expected.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:Yet I have 49% win ration and have close battles with many opponents. yet only two players I seem to have big discrepancy with. The biggest is LX, and I am convinced he is not legit.I have asked him many times politely first do not join my games as i suspect he is not legitimate. after 20 or so games of asking this tard not to join my games I got aggressive, even went to admin to tell him don't join my games. What is the point of tagging someone as a enemy if they still can join your games? if all you so called experts seem to think the dice even out, well look at the win ratio between him and me and tell me that is even. I know many others players have asked him not to join, and I know from other players who have been asked by LX not to join his games and they abide but he doesn't. This will be the last rant on this as I just want to play in between meetings and work. But as I stated as a network engineer and at 50 years old I have been around computers for a long time, this site has issues even except that I have that belief or not. There are other players with computer backgrounds who all state this but seem to always not have the balls to step and say it in public forum. I asked the question simple, but what would I know only been around computers set up High security rated networks for Victoria police and Federal police. End of story nothing more nothing less.

You're not good at statistics, are you?

If you have a number of players, say 100, who play each other again and again, and all of them are evenly matched, then you are expected to have a couple of truly astonishingly good H2Hs and a couple of astonishingly bad ones. Just like if you throw a single die long enough you'll sooner or later hit 100 1's in a row. Also 100 6's in a row. Which one comes first? 50% chance for either. How long to you have to keep at it before they come? Can't be accurately predicted. Could happen instantaneously. Or you could have to wait for ten years.

For the record, here is the game that AC can't seem to get out of his head:

https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81347294

It should be noted his luck was +4.14

So, a "Network Engineer.... 50 years old" with "30+ years as a Network Engineer" (wanna talk about some bad math?) loses to a couple of better players and well it couldn't be that you are missing something? Oh no, couldn't be that. I enjoyed starting off the New Year with a giggle and a snort. Looking at your comments in the games I sampled confirmed my belief that karma is your biggest opponent as you seem to have issues.

Also started the year by learning 50 is the new 13.

Any way This will be last of my comments, I was in the military before going into the public sector and did two tours one in Afghan and 1 in Iraq, I did not come back the same man. I have always been a person who what I perceive to be unfair I speak up about it, it almost cost me my life when I was young seeing 4 blokes betting up one guy. In the end if you look at the luck stats of LX in my games I do not believe that is normal. I will make this promise that I will restrict my comments and just play the game. But there is no way you will ever convince me that LX is legit. Wish everyone a great 2023.

hootz72 wrote:For the record, here is the game that AC can't seem to get out of his head:

https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81347294" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81347294

It should be noted his luck was +4.14

So, a "Network Engineer.... 50 years old" with "30+ years as a Network Engineer" (wanna talk about some bad math?) loses to a couple of better players and well it couldn't be that you are missing something? Oh no, couldn't be that. I enjoyed starting off the New Year with a giggle and a snort. Looking at your comments in the games I sampled confirmed my belief that karma is your biggest opponent as you seem to have issues.

Also started the year by learning 50 is the new 13.

What is the bad math I am 50 started playing with computers Apple 11E at year 7 high school entered Army 18 in signals and started my network engineering degree which in Australia is Computer Science, so 18 to 50 is 32 years so 30+ years where is the bad Math.

Ok then, apparently in AUS you start your career as engineer the moment your Signals Instructor allowed you plug in your first official ethernet connector rather than upon completion of a 4 year Computer Science degree, got it.

Let's get back to you accusing folks of cheating here as it has been ongoing here for quite some time, you think we don't recall this thread?

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/5160p1/CHEAT

Yeah, that's you General Von Arsslichen back before you got yourself banned, remember?

https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be

I mean you didn't even wait a day, clever.

There was that Aussie Digger s/n but that one probably helped you get banned the first time thus a new one was needed, right?

https://www.wargear.net/players/info/Aussie%20Digger

Here's you, you and Camel:

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/706495

Here's you with spelling skills on display:

https://www.wargear.net/players/info/Aussie%20Genreal

Imagine how skillful of player you might be if you spent the time studying the better players who defeated you that you spent accusing them of cheating and spewing insults?

Good night, General Von Arsslichen, because there is no way there are three different people that pathetic in all of Australia.

Well I said I will not make any bad comments, and I will stick to that. I started my Degree whilst in army when you go to Officer school. Royal College of Duntroon. From there you select regiment you want to go too, so I went to signals. When you finish your 4 years and walk out as a 2nd Lt and a Degree. I helped with Operation Parekeet making Mobile wireless radio and computer networks for the Australian Army so our troops are more mobile and do not require massive HQs. This was early 90s so coaxial was used for networking not cat5 cable. I am not General and have been accused a few times of being him. To be honest I am sick of it. But I said I will not make bad comments anymore I apologized to one player already today for saying he was a cheat, but will not under any circumstances say sorry to LX, if he stayed away and didn't join my games I would of considered it. End of story. You can say what you want and think who i am. At the end of the day that's your choice, I defended people's choices by giving a blank check on my body to the Australian military. I hope 2023 is a great year for you all.