overall dice stats

[genob55]

[Q&A]I have been playing the board game for over 30 years, i started in 1978, and i have never experienced the low rate of luck i n rolls, i should be winning more games than i am, some can be attributed to poor strategy, but there have been game where i had the upperhand, but due to bad rolls, lost the game, can someone look at my dice stats and let me know, am i wrong, or are my luck levels lower than normal, i have looked at others stats, and i do not understand, thanks



FAQ - http://www.conquerclub.com/eticket/index.php
Instructions - http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions1
Rules - http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=rules
Community Guidelines - viewtopic.php?t=7785

[/Q&A]

[degaston]

As far as I can tell, your dice are fine. I'd say that this is your problem:

This shows the correlation between a player's score and how much he attacks. That red dot near the bottom is you - of all your battles, you attack less than 42% of the time. The best players may attack 65% of the time or more. Of course, it's not just about how much you attack, but when and where. But in general, I'd say that your playing is much too passive.

[Doctor Spin]

That's bollocks. Or does CC actually reward players for reckless, clueless play? We're told the dice are random (something I do not believe by the way), yet it seems the suggestion is your dice are better if you attack more. I am fully aware that this is not what you claim to be suggesting, but there is definitely something very wrong with the way you allocate dice algorithms/patterns. Some players (like me, and like genob55) find many of the dice outcomes hard to accept. They are certainly not random. But they also do not seem to compare with the experiences of some other (undeservedly high ranked) players.
When you dare to complain you are told to stop "crying" or stop being paranoid. But someone at CC knows we are right. I just wish CC would finally admit it.
Or, are you saying that if we suicide in every game we'll actually get better results than if we use a careful strategy????

[degaston]

That's bollocks. Or does CC actually reward players for reckless, clueless play? We're told the dice are random (something I do not believe by the way), yet it seems the suggestion is your dice are better if you attack more. I am fully aware that this is not what you claim to be suggesting, but there is definitely something very wrong with the way you allocate dice algorithms/patterns. Some players (like me, and like genob55) find many of the dice outcomes hard to accept. They are certainly not random. But they also do not seem to compare with the experiences of some other (undeservedly high ranked) players.
When you dare to complain you are told to stop "crying" or stop being paranoid. But someone at CC knows we are right. I just wish CC would finally admit it.
Or, are you saying that if we suicide in every game we'll actually get better results than if we use a careful strategy????

That graph says nothing about the dice. What it says is that successful players tend to attack more than they defend. It does not say anything about whether those attacks are strategically sound, which is why some very successful players have lower Attack% values than some low rated players. The actual meaning of this graph could be open to different interpretations, but I look at it as one possible symptom of successful play, rather than the cause.

It does not suggest that suiciding, or reckless attacks will bring you more success. Personally, I think that success comes from a wide variety of things, but one area that doesn't seem to get talked about much is making yourself an unattractive target for attack. This can include keeping your borders well defended, refraining from taking a bonus until you can hold it, not leaving a lot of troops on a territory that you know someone is determined and able to take, and not drawing a lot of attention to yourself. (describing when and how to apply these strategies is beyond the scope of this post.) In general, It means trying to manipulate your opponents so that they either don't attack, or if they do attack, they kill as few of your troops as possible, or preferably, they attack someone else instead of you. Taken to the extreme, if no one ever attacked you, then your Attack % would be 100, and you would win every game. Conversely, if you don't ever attack, then you can't win.

As for the dice, no, they're not truly random, but I don't believe they give an unfair advantage to any player. People will see more unusual results on this site because they play many more games and roll many more dice than they do in real life.

[Fewnix]

Pretty well every turn every player on CC takes, there are a many possibilities for attack -you hold terts adjacent to terts you do not hold. Every turn you can usually deploy at least the standard CC minimum of 3 troops to those terts to increase the chances of a successful attack- defined as ultimately taking the terts you want to take, AND/or losing less troops than the defender. Taking terts is usually good in a number of ways- it can give you a tert zone boni or break the oppo tert zone boni, can increase your troop deploy and reduce the oppo tert deploy, In spoils games you get spoils.
.
There are 6 attack possibilities identified by the dice stats:

3 v 2 is the most frequent attack possibility - usually defenders will have at least 2 troops on their terts and the attacker has a minimum 3 deploy. Given 3 v 2 has a slight edge for the attacker successful players will take advantage of the many possibilities with a large number of 3 v 2 attacks ,on terts they want to take, and, in the long run,will end up losing less troops then the defender AND will take terts they want to take,. increasing deploy, reducing the oppo deploy, getting spoils etc..

3 v 1possibilities don't happen as often as 3 v 2 possibilities but successful players take advantage of those they see or can create.. 3 v 1 has a big edge for the attacker- in the long run you will lose less troops then the defender and, as by definition the defender only has one troop you will likely take the tert you wanted to take, increasing your deploy, cutting the oppo deploy giving you spoils etc.

2 v 2 has a slight edge for the defender,and, as discussed, the attacker usually has at least 3 troops to deploy, successful players will stay away from such attacks or turn them into 3 v 2 attacks, .unless there are reasons to go 2 v 2.

2 v 1 attacks have a slight edge for the attacker, but again with the usually minimum 3 deploy, successful players will look to turn 2 v 1 possibilities into 3 v 1 possibilities.

1 v 2 attacks have limited chance of success so successful players will usually stay away from such possibilities, or turn them into 3 v 2 attacks, unless there are special reasons to go 1 v 2

1 v 1 attacks have a slight edge for the defender, so successful players will usually stay away from such attacks or turn them into the highly desirable 3 v 1 attacks, unless there are special reasons to go 1 v 1.

Bottom line: Dice stats should show successful players doing lots of 3 v 2 attacks, the most frequent possibility that will exist or can be created with a deploy with a slight edge for the attacker. Successful players will also take advantage of the infrequent 3 v 1 possibilities, with a big edge for the attacker, and stay away from 2 v 2, 2 v 1, 1 v 2, and 1 v 1 attacks , unless there are special reasons for these attacks. and not using your deploy to turn them into 3 v 2 or 3 v 1 attacks.

something like that?

[genob55]

I have tried playing like i was advised, and the only thing it got me was even worse stats than if i play conservative, i am loosing more games than before, i have tried playing aggressively, and i loose faster than before, if like you believe the algorithm is not the issue, then it should not matter how many rolls you make, 20% 30% 10% is the same, whether you roll 10 times or 100 times, and when i look at other players stats, they do not come close to being the same, i wish someone would do something constructive about this, and not just say " quit whining about it ", because at this point it is not an enjoyable experience and i am about ready to quit.

[ebouwman]

I have tried playing like i was advised, and the only thing it got me was even worse stats than if i play conservative, i am loosing more games than before, i have tried playing aggressively, and i loose faster than before, if like you believe the algorithm is not the issue, then it should not matter how many rolls you make, 20% 30% 10% is the same, whether you roll 10 times or 100 times, and when i look at other players stats, they do not come close to being the same, i wish someone would do something constructive about this, and not just say " quit whining about it ", because at this point it is not an enjoyable experience and i am about ready to quit.

Are you saying you want the same probability of winning wether you roll 10 times or 1000? That's not the point of the dice roll.

If the rolls are truly random then there a possibility that you could roll a million 1's in a row. The probability of such is unlikely, but it's a possibility. I never like getting a series of bad rolls but it's a reality of the game and ups and downs in luck can take hundreds or THOUSANDS of rolls to really equal out.

I have a risk game on iPad and occasionally play guys at work on break and EVERY TIME somebody gets a series of bad rolls and looses a bunch of troops to a minimal force they become CONVINCED that since it's MY iPad that IVE cheated in some way. They NEVER say "oh well luck of the draw" and they always think that I win because I cheated not because I played better than them.

Bottom line: I don't want to tell you to "stop crying" because that's rude, but give it some time and just accept that bad rolls and unlucky streaks happen. When you're winning you don't complain, sometimes when you loose you look for a reason why and can't believe that it's your gameplay.

[macbone]

Genob, have you thought about joining the SoC Training Academy? I learned a different way of playing when I joined, and I think we might be beneficial to you, too.

Here's our forum: viewforum.php?f=341

[wannat8]

I'm a bad bad boy - This may or may not be a MOD EDIT