Devs should give me a topic for begin the worst lucky guy of all AtWar

Turin too strong

I get capped attacking with 28 inf and Gen PD, winning vs my 20 inf Gen PD with 4 inf remaining THAT

Lucky bastard should only be used by the irish, its weak with others. no wonder you failed.

Escrito por Permamuted, 07.05.2014 at 08:31

Lucky bastard should only be used by the irish, its weak with others. no wonder you failed.

Lol, 5/5 explanation :p

Ahem

(we were both PD)

Maybe the Ark of the Zizounant stopped in Turin on it's way to Rome once the Ironan Empire sacked it?

LoL, those militias OP.

Escrito por EndsOfInvention, 07.05.2014 at 11:33

Ahem

(we were both PD)

Escrito por b0nker2, 06.05.2014 at 19:05

I get capped attacking with 28 inf and Gen PD, winning vs my 20 inf Gen PD with 4 inf remaining THAT

Well on high scales battle you can blame the lucky rolls.

BUT MINE IS REALLY RETARDED 3v3 and 8 ATTACK TANKS WITH EXTRA CRITICAL STILL LOSE against 4 defense militias with 0 critical.

Wait for me to get unbanned and you will see the holly God of unluckiness

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 09:09

Well on high scales battle you can blame the lucky rolls.

BUT MINE IS REALLY RETARDED 3v3 and 8 ATTACK TANKS WITH EXTRA CRITICAL STILL LOSE against 4 defense militias with 0 critical.

Actually, it's the opposite. Lower stacks will tend to have more unexpected results than higher ones, since big stacks will remain closer to units average stats. That's why I will always use 2 tanks/marines against militia at least.

Escrito por Pinheiro, 30.06.2014 at 10:02

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 09:09

Well on high scales battle you can blame the lucky rolls.

BUT MINE IS REALLY RETARDED 3v3 and 8 ATTACK TANKS WITH EXTRA CRITICAL STILL LOSE against 4 defense militias with 0 critical.

Actually, it's the opposite. Lower stacks will tend to have more unexpected results than higher ones, since big stacks will remain closer to units average stats. That's why I will always use 2 tanks/marines against militia at least.

If so then LB should be more OP on low scale wars? I was LB anyway....

EDIT: I though critical was the most important on high scale wars...

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 10:24

If so then LB should be more OP on low scale wars? I was LB anyway....

EDIT: I though critical was the most important on high scale wars...

I think you're confused with what you're saying.
Pinheiro is right. Smaller stacks have more unexpected results, whilst bigger stacks produce more stable results. It's just a matter of probability. Bigger stacks have more chance in rolling a critical, basically because it will calculate it for every unit in that stack. The critical rolls eventually accumulate and sum up. Thus, LB's true power is prominent in bigger stacks, simply because it's just more likely it'll happen.

Escrito por Leaf, 30.06.2014 at 11:05

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 10:24

If so then LB should be more OP on low scale wars? I was LB anyway....

EDIT: I though critical was the most important on high scale wars...

I think you're confused with what you're saying.
Pinheiro is right. Smaller stacks have more unexpected results, whilst bigger stacks produce more stable results. It's just a matter of probability. Bigger stacks have more chance in rolling a critical, basically because it will calculate it for every unit in that stack. The critical rolls eventually accumulate and sum up. Thus, LB's true power is prominent in bigger stacks, simply because it's just more likely it'll happen.

Therefore, High scaled wars have more unexpected result because the critical influences on both sides, and you'l never know what roll you will get.
Not that on low scaled wars, where the result is commo resolved because Attack / HP difference.

which make us go on circle.....

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 11:22

Therefore, High scaled wars have more unexpected result because the critical influences on both sides, and you'l never know what roll you will get.
Not that on low scaled wars, where the result is commo resolved because Attack / HP difference.

which make us go on circle.....

Please study probability and come back. Thanks.

Escrito por clovis1122, 06.05.2014 at 16:59

I pay for someone to beat this damm bad luck.

Ask zizou to bless u.

Escrito por JUGERS2, 30.06.2014 at 13:25

Escrito por clovis1122, 06.05.2014 at 16:59

I pay for someone to beat this damm bad luck.

Ask zizou to bless u.

Zizou is false.

Escrito por Leaf, 30.06.2014 at 12:39

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 11:22

Therefore, High scaled wars have more unexpected result because the critical influences on both sides, and you'l never know what roll you will get.
Not that on low scaled wars, where the result is commo resolved because Attack / HP difference.

which make us go on circle.....

Please study probability and come back. Thanks.

study what? I am using your own argument. Please you study, then I study what you studied. Thanks.

Basing on my own argument, I already know LB is OP on high scaled wars, and resurt tend to be unknowed on low scales war. Since Pin seems to disagree with this, I just used his own argument for fight him. So did with you.

This post was made for show how 3 tanks with 8 attack and 15 critical lose to 3 militias with 8 attack and 0 critical.... not for argue about probabilitys. If you want to keep trying to give us lesson please stop commenting and getting this off topic.

It's not off-topic man, it's probability logic. Using fewer units will expose yourself to luck mora than on big stacks. Yes, you're using 3 tanks with 8 atk and 15 critical, but that doesn't mean you will roll any critical at all. Also,your units can roll from 1 to 8 atk. (1+5+1), while neutral can go roll 1 to 4 def (3+1+4) and this is not even rare.

Now, as long as you keep adding units on both sides of the table, the results will stay much more closer to the average (tanks hittting 4 atk while militias hit 2 def). You should actually take a look at some statistic concepts.

Escrito por Pinheiro, 30.06.2014 at 21:52

Using fewer units will expose yourself to luck mora than on big stacks. Yes, you're using 3 tanks with 8 atk and 15 critical, but that doesn't mean you will roll any critical at all. Also,your units can roll from 1 to 8 atk. (1+5+1), while neutral can go roll 1 to 4 def (3+1+4) and this is not even rare.

Now, as long as you keep adding units on both sides of the table, the results will stay much more closer to the average (tanks hittting 4 atk while militias hit 2 def). You should actually take a look at some statistic concepts.

Yeah, But hp where the same, while militia had 0 critical, I had 15 plus 8 attack tank vs 4 defense militia. That is actually a very bad roll ( which is the main purpose of this topic).

But let say, the battle happen 1000 time. This is the result:


Counting draws as loses, that mean ~1.7% chances of winning.

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 20:57

study what? I am using your own argument. Please you study, then I study what you studied. Thanks.

Basing on my own argument, I already know LB is OP on high scaled wars, and resurt tend to be unknowed on low scales war. Since Pin seems to disagree with this, I just used his own argument for fight him. So did with you.

This post was made for show how 3 tanks with 8 attack and 15 critical lose to 3 militias with 8 attack and 0 critical.... not for argue about probabilitys. If you want to keep trying to give us lesson please stop commenting and getting this off topic.

I thought you were actually trolling because of how ludicrous your post was. I didn't think you actually were unaware of how this worked. It's the only reason I replied with a demeaning post back.

I'm hoping Pinheiro's post makes sense to you now.

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 22:12

Yeah, But hp where the same, while militia had 0 critical, I had 15 plus 8 attack tank vs 4 defense militia. That is actually a very bad roll ( which is the main purpose of this topic).

But let say, the battle happen 1000 time. This is the result:


Counting draws as loses, that mean ~1.7% chances of winning.

Yes, you can say it is a bad roll. But Pinheiro's point is that this is more likely to happen with smaller stacks, so it isn't exactly unusual to happen.

Escrito por Leaf, 30.06.2014 at 22:18

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 22:12

Yeah, But hp where the same, while militia had 0 critical, I had 15 plus 8 attack tank vs 4 defense militia. That is actually a very bad roll ( which is the main purpose of this topic).

But let say, the battle happen 1000 time. This is the result:


Counting draws as loses, that mean ~1.7% chances of winning.

Yes, you can say it is a bad roll. But Pinheiro's point is that this is more likely to happen with smaller stacks, so it isn't exactly unusual to happen.

Did you saw the calcs? that is ~1.7% is even more worse that just a "bad roll".

I have to disagree with Pinheiro and you about the stable result of high scaled wars. A fact is that critical is very involved on theses, which make us a wide variety of results, I mean, you need to repeat the battle like 50 times or more for get the exact units left as in the first time. On some closer battles ( those with less that 3 units left) even the victory or lose can charge widery to one side, too.

Variation on low scales war seems to happen more because there will away be by much, more low scale war that high scale war. Therefore, I was the luckiest one who got in the average 1.7% chances where 3 militias killed 3 tanks.

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 22:43

Did you saw the calcs? that is ~1.7% is even more worse that just a "bad roll".

I have to disagree with Pinheiro and you about the stable result of high scaled wars. A fact is that critical is very involved on theses, which make us a wide variety of results, I mean, you need to repeat the battle like 50 times or more for get the exact units left as in the first time. On some closer battles ( those with less that 3 units left) even the victory or lose can charge widery to one side, too.

Variation on low scales war seems to happen more because there will away be by much, more low scale war that high scale war. Therefore, I was the luckiest one who got in the average 1.7% chances where 3 militias killed 3 tanks.

"because there will away be by much, more low scale war that high scale war." What the fuck does that even mean?

Anyway, you seem to be under a misconception that larger numbers mean a more varied result. Perhaps in absolute differences, using 100 units where winning a battle by 20 units is different than winning a battle with 21. It isn't really that different. Why would you repeat a battle 50 times to try to get the exact same number? Battling 50 tanks and winning by a bunch of different results is all in the same range as the percentages. 10 tanks vs 10 infantry and winning by 2 tanks instead of 3 tanks is more of a difference than 50 tanks vs 50 infantry and winning by 5 instead of 6.

Going 3 tanks vs 3 militia and losing by 1 is a huge difference. Now increase the numbers by a multiple, say, 10. Now we have 30 tanks vs 30 militia, your same percentage would require 10 militia to live. Try calculating how many times that will happen. (hint: it won't, because the result is stabilized)

Increasing the number stabilizes the result. If I sent 100 units and won a match by 4 units, it's a nice victory for me. But that's less than 1/20 of my units surviving, if I sent 10 and copied the winning percentage over, suddenly I'm losing more often than I'm winning.

Escrito por Guest, 30.06.2014 at 15:58

Escrito por JUGERS2, 30.06.2014 at 13:25

Escrito por clovis1122, 06.05.2014 at 16:59

I pay for someone to beat this damm bad luck.

Ask zizou to bless u.

Zizou is false.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BURN HIM

Okay clovis this is how it goes:

big # of units: more stable
less # units : less stable

Escrito por Desu, 30.06.2014 at 23:30

"because there will away be by much, more low scale war that high scale war." What the fuck does that even mean?

That mean, that on AtWar, unless you playing an scenario with lot of units, people are tigger to play more low scale war that high scale war.

Escrito por Desu, 30.06.2014 at 23:30

Anyway, you seem to be under a misconception that larger numbers mean a more varied result. Perhaps in absolute differences, using 100 units where winning a battle by 20 units is different than winning a battle with 21. It isn't really that different. Why would you repeat a battle 50 times to try to get the exact same number? Battling 50 tanks and winning by a bunch of different results is all in the same range as the percentages. 10 tanks vs 10 infantry and winning by 2 tanks instead of 3 tanks is more of a difference than 50 tanks vs 50 infantry and winning by 5 instead of 6.

Increasing the number stabilizes the result. If I sent 100 units and won a match by 4 units, it's a nice victory for me. But that's less than 1/20 of my units surviving, if I sent 10 and copied the winning percentage over, suddenly I'm losing more often than I'm winning.

20 tank is different of 21 tank obvious. 1 unit can make A HUGE DIFFERENCE. maybe you are trying to say " Victory/Defeath is stable, not the survival troop number". Then I have to disagree, because specially when result is closed (~3 or 4 units left) even Victory or Defeath condiction can be affected widery to other side, if you repeat, maybe you would be winning by 10 units, or losing by 6 units. All depending of the random criticals. LB is op on high stack battles because it guarantee your luck to be better. But still IS RANDOM!

Escrito por Desu, 30.06.2014 at 23:30

Going 3 tanks vs 3 militia and losing by 1 is a huge difference. Now increase the numbers by a multiple, say, 10. Now we have 30 tanks vs 30 militia, your same percentage would require 10 militia to live. Try calculating how many times that will happen. (hint: it won't, because the result is stabilized)

So you are multiplicating the advantage that Tanks already have by 10 right?. Just sayding, there is away a 0.0000~1% chance that all the tank roll 1 damange on every roll. This is neaby imposible and probably would happen only one in a millons of years. Is hard, but not imposible.

I already show SS of the calcules of my roll, 3 LB tank vs 3 neutral militias. It have ~1.7% chances of happen.

Let me explain you in calcs, let say 1 NC destroyer is attacking 1 neutral militia. let loop the battle 1000 times:



145 per 1000, that mean a ~14.5% probabilitys that militias win. But now, let say 2 destroyers vs 2 militias.:


Notice how chances got reduced from ~14.5% to ~4.2% ? Because you are only boosting the advantages that NC destroyers already have, but there is still a ~4.2% chance that militias kill destroyers. And this will get closer to 0 as we add more troop, but it is not 0. We can mathematical say this:

Lim F(x) = L
x→0

We can call L the % value of x, which tend to be 0, but is not 0.

Then you many ask: " If chances are so slow, why they pass often?".

Because on atwar people are used to fight 1-10 units more that 11+ units. This expotencially increase the bad rolls on low scale. I wouldnt trust a calculator for high scale war, because the "luck/critical factor" vary too much, and so does high scale results.

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 10:24

Escrito por Pinheiro, 30.06.2014 at 10:02

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 09:09

Well on high scales battle you can blame the lucky rolls.

BUT MINE IS REALLY RETARDED 3v3 and 8 ATTACK TANKS WITH EXTRA CRITICAL STILL LOSE against 4 defense militias with 0 critical.

Actually, it's the opposite. Lower stacks will tend to have more unexpected results than higher ones, since big stacks will remain closer to units average stats. That's why I will always use 2 tanks/marines against militia at least.

If so then LB should be more OP on low scale wars? I was LB anyway....

EDIT: I though critical was the most important on high scale wars...

LB crits dont mean you win. crits arent a guarentee which is why its almost never used

Escrito por Quantum027, 27.07.2014 at 17:48

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 10:24

Escrito por Pinheiro, 30.06.2014 at 10:02

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 09:09

Well on high scales battle you can blame the lucky rolls.

BUT MINE IS REALLY RETARDED 3v3 and 8 ATTACK TANKS WITH EXTRA CRITICAL STILL LOSE against 4 defense militias with 0 critical.

Actually, it's the opposite. Lower stacks will tend to have more unexpected results than higher ones, since big stacks will remain closer to units average stats. That's why I will always use 2 tanks/marines against militia at least.

If so then LB should be more OP on low scale wars? I was LB anyway....

EDIT: I though critical was the most important on high scale wars...

LB crits dont mean you win. crits arent a guarentee which is why its almost never used

LB crits guarantee that your critical luck will be better. On high scales wars, where the criticals play a main role, LB is the most OP strat. It was already comproved +2 crit > +1 HP.

Obvious is not the most used strat. The most used strat is RA.

Escrito por clovis1122, 27.07.2014 at 18:16

Escrito por Quantum027, 27.07.2014 at 17:48

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 10:24

Escrito por Pinheiro, 30.06.2014 at 10:02

Escrito por clovis1122, 30.06.2014 at 09:09

Well on high scales battle you can blame the lucky rolls.

BUT MINE IS REALLY RETARDED 3v3 and 8 ATTACK TANKS WITH EXTRA CRITICAL STILL LOSE against 4 defense militias with 0 critical.

Actually, it's the opposite. Lower stacks will tend to have more unexpected results than higher ones, since big stacks will remain closer to units average stats. That's why I will always use 2 tanks/marines against militia at least.

If so then LB should be more OP on low scale wars? I was LB anyway....

EDIT: I though critical was the most important on high scale wars...

LB crits dont mean you win. crits arent a guarentee which is why its almost never used

LB crits guarantee that your critical luck will be better. On high scales wars, where the criticals play a main role, LB is the most OP strat. It was already comproved +2 crit > +1 HP.

Obvious is not the most used strat. The most used strat is RA.

no im talking about most used among 3v3/civilized players, those would be pd and such

LB is fking op... i attacked with 60 inf 8 tanks 9 militia PD and lost vs 35 LB .. with 4+ general left -.-

Escrito por Quantum027, 27.07.2014 at 20:57

no im talking about most used among 3v3/civilized players, those would be pd and such

you are quitting over 80% of atwar players with that setence.

Is like say " USA is the most populoust nation of the world. Asia doesnt count, only americans/europeans/africans".