Conquer Club

Any math wiz out there know the impact or difference between Avg Rolls of 3.50 / 3.51 for someone with rolls like mine. vast Majority of the people with similar games/rolls completed are sitting @ 3.50 / 3.50 Avg Rolls. Does this mean I just suck at the game or am im driving myself crazy looking at the numbers? Better lucky than good is what ive always heard ^_^

Looks like your opponents have had ever so slightly better dice than you when they are attacking, but it is a hyper small difference.

It has nothing to do with your skill level, it is just you have been very slightly unlucky over the long run but it is by a tiny amount

Not a math wiz but using simple math...
If you both rolled 100 times, you would overall roll a total of 350 dice and your opponent 351. For the sake of simplicity, let's say you both exchanged rolls of 4 and 3. So each time you rolled, you rolled a 3, he a 4, then next time he rolled a 4, you rolled a 3, back and forth until you get to your 100th roll. On the 100th roll you expect him to roll a 3 but he rolls a 4.
So it's negligible but most players who have played lots of games (I looked a few up in your game range) have 3.50 stats.
So maybe this is just proof that the dice stats aren't just manufactured to show equal dice. Some people have made that claim in the past

There's a fundamental element that the dice ratings doesn't take into account. That is, when you roll what you roll. By this I mean, are you winning your attacks 6 to 1 and losing your attacks 4 to 4?

For instance, say you played every game against the same person. And, every one of your wins were 6 to 1 and all of your losses were 4 to 4. And you did this every other roll. And, when they attacked you, they won every roll 4 to 3 and lost every roll 1-6. After a while, it would seem like you had MUCH better dice than your opponent because you were averaging about 5 and they were averaging about 2.5 even if you were actually both winning half the rolls.

detlef wrote:There's a fundamental element that the dice ratings doesn't take into account. That is, when you roll what you roll. By this I mean, are you winning your attacks 6 to 1 and losing your attacks 4 to 4?

For instance, say you played every game against the same person. And, every one of your wins were 6 to 1 and all of your losses were 4 to 4. And you did this every other roll. And, when they attacked you, they won every roll 4 to 3 and lost every roll 1-6. After a while, it would seem like you had MUCH better dice than your opponent because you were averaging about 5 and they were averaging about 2.5 even if you were actually both winning half the rolls.

That's what the 'dice battles' stats are for.

I never use the 'dice' stats and only ever use the 'dice battles' stats for this exact reason.

Lingfish wrote:

detlef wrote:There's a fundamental element that the dice ratings doesn't take into account. That is, when you roll what you roll. By this I mean, are you winning your attacks 6 to 1 and losing your attacks 4 to 4?

For instance, say you played every game against the same person. And, every one of your wins were 6 to 1 and all of your losses were 4 to 4. And you did this every other roll. And, when they attacked you, they won every roll 4 to 3 and lost every roll 1-6. After a while, it would seem like you had MUCH better dice than your opponent because you were averaging about 5 and they were averaging about 2.5 even if you were actually both winning half the rolls.

That's what the 'dice battles' stats are for.

I never use the 'dice' stats and only ever use the 'dice battles' stats for this exact reason.

wow, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't seen that before. Why is that not the default rather than the dice stats? I also learned that my opponents are far more likely to attempt bad odds attacks (2v2 and even 1v2) than I am and get rewarded for doing so with better results than they should.

detlef wrote:I also learned that my opponents are far more likely to attempt bad odds attacks (2v2 and even 1v2) than I am and get rewarded for doing so with better results than they should.

What do the Total numbers say for 2v2 and 1v2? I suspect you're still up even if your opponents take them more than you and get luckier, simply because the attacks are so bad to begin with.

niMic wrote:

detlef wrote:I also learned that my opponents are far more likely to attempt bad odds attacks (2v2 and even 1v2) than I am and get rewarded for doing so with better results than they should.

What do the Total numbers say for 2v2 and 1v2? I suspect you're still up even if your opponents take them more than you and get luckier, simply because the attacks are so bad to begin with.

I assume I'm reading it correctly and the kills in defense are how many I kill and the losses are how many they lose. And, yes, it's still a net loss for them even though my defense rate is 2% below what it's supposed to be for 2v2 and 7% below what it's supposed to be for 1 v 2. I'm still amazed at how many 1v2s I've faced. I've made a couple (lost 30 and won 8 ) and I get it. If you're desperate and have to bust a big bonus or are going to lose if you don't take a spot, then why not? But I've faced more than 2x as many as I've taken.