why the attack dice cant be any better

[AAFitz]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=276225#gmtop

this was as close to a round two elimination as you get without getting it...just left 2 armies on the board, and it could have been done...blue was taken out in round one....and yellow could have been taken out in round 2 if we saw the potential

i was able to attack with 3's and kill 3's....hardly ever happens...but it does occasionally....

if the dice were any better these games would be over much quicker...he who went first would win far more often...the game would be a joke

keep this in mind the next time you think the attack dice arent good enough...mind you these were maybe my best out of 4 or 5 games i can remember...but they do happen....if the dice were changed and attack dice were better....people could get killed on the first round

there is a reason it seems hard to kill people...the ties throw off your perception of what seems possible....and good dice do happen...you just have to be lucky enough to throw them

[J600]

The game is a joke right now: 99% luck 1% strategy as it currently stands. I'm sure you would agree that if someone always rolled six they would win. While it's improbable, it's still possible.

You are making an argument referring to the attacker dice in general, but I would think the best way to "even the odds" would be to introduce a modifier for attackers/defenders. If you have an army size say three (or whatever) times more than the opposing army, then you will be given either more dice rolls or limited rolls (such as only 3 or higher or the opposing player only 3 or lower).

[tahitiwahini]

if the dice were any better these games would be over much quicker...he who went first would win far more often...the game would be a joke

keep this in mind the next time you think the attack dice arent good enough

I think I agree with your statement about the role of the dice in making the game work as well as it does.

I think I also understand how you are using the term "attack dice" to mean the rolls of the dice one experiences when one is attacking. In the current game log those are the only dice we get to see (our "defense dice" are not seen by us, but rather by our attacker).

But in a certain sense there are no "attack" or "defense" dice but just a random series of numbers represented by the dice. In other words, the dice don't care whether they are being "used" to "attack" or "defend." As others have pointed out, what's bad for you as an attacker is wonderful for you as a defender. Looked at from the perspective of attackers and defenders there is no net good luck and no net bad luck, it exactly balances out.

I tried to issue a challenge to people who think the dice are unfair, but I guess it went over like a lead balloon because it required the complainers to actually do some work. Apparently complaining requires little enough effort that we sure to never suffer a shortage.

Well, here goes again. If you think the dice are unfair please see the following:

http://tinyurl.com/ywjsbt

[silvanthalas]

the game would be a joke

Games are already a joke when I lose 6, 8, or 10 armies in a row, and then, if I'm 'lucky', I'll get some splits.

15k rolls, and I'm rolling 33.3% losses on 3v2's. That's over 4% higher than ideal. And if you can't get within half a percent of ideal over 15k rolls, then something is really screwed up.

So, if getting good rolls makes the game a joke, yeah, I'll take it, cause I'm sick of my dice being complete shit.

PS: In the end, I'm just wondering how many weeks I have to play with bad or average dice before I get more than 5 minutes worth of the supposed good luck that everybody else seems to have.

[s.xkitten]

and btw...your link is dead

[AAFitz]

The game is a joke right now: 99% luck 1% strategy as it currently stands. I'm sure you would agree that if someone always rolled six they would win. While it's improbable, it's still possible.

You are making an argument referring to the attacker dice in general, but I would think the best way to "even the odds" would be to introduce a modifier for attackers/defenders. If you have an army size say three (or whatever) times more than the opposing army, then you will be given either more dice rolls or limited rolls (such as only 3 or higher or the opposing player only 3 or lower).

Games are already a joke when I lose 6, 8, or 10 armies in a row, and then, if I'm 'lucky', I'll get some splits.

15k rolls, and I'm rolling 33.3% losses on 3v2's. That's over 4% higher than ideal. And if you can't get within half a percent of ideal over 15k rolls, then something is really screwed up.

So, if getting good rolls makes the game a joke, yeah, I'll take it, cause I'm sick of my dice being complete shit.

PS: In the end, I'm just wondering how many weeks I have to play with bad or average dice before I get more than 5 minutes worth of the supposed good luck that everybody else seems to have.

its not luck...good players go to the top, bad players do not..no exceptions...individual games will be determined by luck but the majority will be decided by skill and the types of games you play....every one has the same dice....

J600 you may need to finish more than 8 games to believe me but there have been generals in under 200 games....do you honestly think the dice got them there?

silvanthalas 4% off isnt very much variation...but you may not want to attack 3 vs 2 as much...mine are all close..and ive thrown over 75000 of them

s.xkitten ty...corrected...i think it changed when the game finished...

tahitiwahini ty...yes by attack dice i mean those are the dice people are complaining about...everyone wants to be able to attack and win and not lose...but they dont realize that if that happened they would come back to many many games and be gone....any adjustments to the game that make it easier to win while attacking will not make it easier for any individual to win...it will only make the games quicker...

to anyone who thinks they are losing because of the luck...well...believe it if you have to. But if your dice get better...everyone elses dice will get better...so you will be back at the same point...

[silvanthalas]

its not luck...good players go to the top, bad players do not..no exceptions...

Bullshit. I gained several hundred points in a 10 day span, and then proceeded to lose said hundreds of points in the next 10 day span. So I went from a good player to a bad player on a whim?

How about: my dice went from average to crap. I went from rolling ideal stats to rolling more 3v2 losses than either wins or ties.

I can have the perfect strategy, do no wrong in terms of dealing with opening placement or when I play sets of cards, but if the dice are not 'on your side', then you will not win. You can't win by playing defense, and this has made the games being far too much luck vs strategy.

But wait, if my dice become good, and my stats finally average out, I'm a good player again!

silvanthalas 4% off isnt very much variation...but you may not want to attack 3 vs 2 as much...mine are all close..and ive thrown over 75000 of them

As I stated before, my first cookie had 18k rolls, and the stats, after starting out not quite as bad as what I've got now, balanced out nicely. But to go two weeks without getting a 'hot streak'? Give me a break.

And 4% is a lot when you've had 1900 3v2's. It's utterly insane.

In the end, all I want is for my stats to balance out so strategy can actually mean something again. And, unfortunately, they don't look like they're going to do any time soon.

[AAFitz]

its not luck...good players go to the top, bad players do not..no exceptions...

Bullshit. I gained several hundred points in a 10 day span, and then proceeded to lose said hundreds of points in the next 10 day span. So I went from a good player to a bad player on a whim?

ive lost 800 points....it wasnt luck..few games here and there...but thats it...blame it all you want...but that isnt why you lose games....

it has far more to do with the types of games that you play...and the timing of them...if you played all doubles for a while your points would go up...if you played all 5 player...they'd probably go down...unless you were good at them....and the timing of when they get posted adjusts the drops in score as much as anything....

but again....there have been generals with 200 games....luck had nothing to do with it....

in the short run luck can give you a boost or a hit...but in the long run, its not even a factor...we all get the same dice....

Attacker threw 84861 dice.
Defender threw 44369 dice.

one of my stats is off by 3%....1 vs 2...since this is a stupid roll...youd expect the most variation but every other number is exact...which means...my dice have nothing to do with my score....my ability, and game choices do....

[silvanthalas]

but every other number is exact...which means...my dice have nothing to do with my score

And yet you say my dice, when my numbers are horribly under ideal, also have nothing to do with my score.

So which one is it?