<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 23 of 23   
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 12:12:30


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
Having read the wikipedia on the luck settings, I imagine many players will still be confused if they struggle with graph interpretation.

When I started playing a few months ago I got frustrated with not taking territories at crucial turns due to the luck component and discovered that if you set attack and defense both to 100% then you only need 2 armies more than the defender to guarantee you take the territory every time.

I played quite a few games on these settings and it became too easy as even with it specified in game title most players did not understand it and I deemed it too much of an advantage so stopped playing it, but any players who would like a game on these settings, 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 real time or multiday invite me.
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 12:40:06


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
your title and post don't exactly correspond that well together, imho..

and 100% kill rates is simplifying the game, albeit I have seen many games with similar ideas behind it
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 13:23:08


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
What part of 'luck settings' and my post do NOT correspond?

Perhaps you should re-read my post and title.
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 14:04:11


Ace Windu 
Level 56
Report
There's luck and then there's attack and defense kill rates.
You didn't mention luck in your post.
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 14:18:56


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
your title is stated as luck settings.. then you begin that luck can be confusing, so you changed the kill ratios to get a completely different style of game, and then proceeded to advertise to get people to play this game with you..

It'd be like me saying

---

"Chess Pieces

Some of the pieces in chess can be confusing.. like why does the knight move in an L, I don't understand..

I found a new way to play chess, where you only use one color tile, and every piece moves one square at a time, always forward and diagonally.. you then jump your opponent to defeat him.. If you get to the other side of the board, you put two pieces there, and move them together, moving forward or backwards...

I played these settings with people before.. but they kept losing because they thought we were playing chess, but we weren't... If anyone wants to play this new game of chess with me, please let me know"

---

While the title is related to the origin of the post.. it is really unrelated to the whole of the actual post
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 14:40:34


Nudge 
Level 4
Report
It is better to become a member and make games with 0 luck. I make all my games this way. There is still attacking and defensive strategies and attacking with inferior numbers can be very bad. Attacking with inferior numbers on 100% kills still kills equal numbers of defenders. There is still a little luck because if your calculations yield a fractional kill you only kill the extra army that percentage of time. But if you are willing to spend the extra army or 2, you can always guarantee the result you expect against a known quantity of defenders.
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 15:48:41


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
The kill rate at 100% att/def means always bigger amry takes territory which kind of removes luck from the equation. Obviously I should have that clearer as you seem to be confused somewhat. They are relative to luck. Just try playing these settings and you will see what I mean.

Your analogy is absurd Perrin, but then so are some of your comments on other threads like about deliberately losing to try and get better partners if randon teaming was rank related.
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 15:54:38


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
PS: Warlight has many variables built in, unlike chess so it is not a static, same rule game every time you play it Perrin. Perhaps checking out the setting options would have informed you of this. Your analogy would be OK if warlight had no variables. But keep trying.
Luck settings: 1/17/2012 16:05:38


Nudge 
Level 4
Report
The problem with 100% kill rates is it takes away too much strategy.

You can not waste armies on bad attacks or futile defenses, you are always guaranteed to inflict damage equal to your armies. It now becomes a race for bonus with very little strategy.

A key defense in normal games can change an entire flow of the battle by killing much more armies than you loose. Same thing can be done with a massive attack breaking an opponent. With 100% kill rates if you did not defend or attack with enough but the bonus did not change hands no big deal. both sides lost equal and you can always compensate for it next turn. With an annihilation in regular games you must regroup, most likely falling back even if your income is higher than your opponents hence one bad move can change the game for a few turns.
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 03:07:56

Darkruler2005
Level 6
Report
I think the problem is you thinking the best way to solve your supposed issue with the game is to set offensive/defensive kill rates at 100%. Some already replied that it has to do with the luck factor instead. Offensive/defensive kill rates simply mean the maximum amount of armies killed when you attack/defend (AKA: the chance each of your armies kills an opposing one). Luck factor decides how much the actual amount can be below the calculated amount. Setting the luck factor at a low percentage allows you to take neutrals at 100% chance with only 4 armies. The default luck factor requires 8. And winning/losing a territory can be much less blamed on luck. Setting the offensive/defensive kill rates at 100% just ensures you imbalance the game. Defensive kill rate should be higher than offensive kill rate, since there is no incentive to defend otherwise. Especially at 100% it just means everyone dies on the person with the least amount of armies, and the other person will lose exactly the same amount.
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 09:11:09


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
That was my point though dark ruler. These settings eliminate the 'luck' factor as bigger means territory taken every time. No luck involved.
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 15:51:57

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
Right, but then the victor is the person with the highest income. In a 1v1 game, initial expansion would be everything, because even a small income advantage becomes victory, even with very poor tactical skill.
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 20:03:19

RvW 
Level 46
Report
@raverbaby72:

|> Your analogy is absurd Perrin, but then so are some of your comments on other threads like about deliberately losing to try and get better partners if randon teaming was rank related.

Personally, I think Perrin's analogy is actually pretty accurate; the logical structure of post posts is very similar.
However, on a much more important note, I feel the tone of your reply is uncalled for; he's trying to explain something. Whether you agree or disagree with his point, you can at least stay polite.

|> PS: Warlight has many variables built in, unlike chess so it is not a static, same rule game every time you play it Perrin. Perhaps checking out the setting options would have informed you of this. Your analogy would be OK if warlight had no variables. But keep trying.

As near as I can tell, Perrin is very well aware of how WL works and it is, in fact, you who missed the point (and the opportunity to reply politely).

There are three relevant settings: (1) Offensive kill rate, (2) Defensive kill rate and (3) Luck setting. You seem to be talking only about the first two, but accidentally use the phrase "luck setting" to refer to them. Short recap:

Offensive kill rate determines the **expected** number of defending armies killed by each attacking army. Similarly, defensive kill rate gives the expected number of attacking armies killed by each defending army. However, it can (and usually will) be higher or lower. With a luck setting of 100%, it becomes a pure expectation and the actual number of kills will be anywhere between 0% and 100%. If, on the other hand, you use a luck setting of 0%, the offensive and defensive kill ratios will always be applied exactly (if we ignore fractional kills for a moment).
At this point, I should note everyone can freely change offensive and defensive kill ratios, but only members can change the luck value for their games.

Having this pointed out to you, maybe you should take another look at the Wiki and reread what it says there. Because (at the default 75% luck), setting both kill ratios to 100% will *not* make an attack of 5 attackers against 4 defenders a sure victory!
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 20:25:29

Segrain
Level 21
Report
@RvW
|> Because (at the default 75% luck), setting both kill ratios to 100% will not make an attack of 5 attackers against 4 defenders a sure victory!
Technically, 100% offensive kill rate will make 5vs4 attack a sure victory even at 100% luck.
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 20:25:45


Nudge 
Level 4
Report
Actually it does make it a sure victory, because at 100% there is no chance for loss. Its like making a die with 6 on every side that can never land on its edge. It will always come up 6.

However the real detriment is that the only strategy left is getting the most bonus before your opponent. With zero luck and standard attack/defense, even though you know that 100 armies attacking will always kill 70 defending armies, strategy comes into play.

Do you dare split your attacks? if so what order etc...

Lets say the defender has 70 armies.

If he puts all 70 in 1st place Attacking it with 100 = loss of 70*.6 or 42 armies defender looses 70.

attacking 2 teritories with 50 would = loss of 42 but defender would only loose 30 armies. therefore having 40 armies left to attackers 58, much different results.

Movement and timing of attacks and defensive movements also has a big effect.

Most of the annoying effects of lucky rolls is gone but strategy remains with luck out the window. Luck of who moves first can still play havoc.

With 100 percent kills, no matter what order things move or things attack in, the end result is losses equal to armies, so only thing that matters is number of bonus and not strategy.
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 20:29:52


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
Nudge, very nicely said.. save that with standard settings, 100 attackers kills 60, and t hose 70 would kill 70\*.7=49
Luck settings: 1/18/2012 20:38:29


Nudge 
Level 4
Report
yeah i changed my number halfway through and confused myself :P
Luck settings: 1/19/2012 02:48:47

RvW 
Level 46
Report
My apologies, I messed up.

With **0%** kill rate, you'll always kill 0% enemies, irrespective of luck setting.
With **1%** kill rate (and luck setting of at least 1%) you'll kill somewhere between 0% and 100% enemies.
With **2%** kill rate (and luck setting of at least 1%) you'll kill somewhere between 0% and 100% enemies.
(..)
With **99%** kill rate (and luck setting of at least 1%) you'll kill somewhere between 0% and 100% enemies.
With **100%** kill rate, you'll always kill 100% enemies, irrespective of luck setting.

In practice, things become even more complicated, due to the number of kills being rounded to an integer. I'm too tired (it's almost 4 AM here) to risk making further statements about what are or aren't sure victories (I suspect having far less than 100% chance of getting it right :p ), so I'll come back tomorrow and see if I can add something useful then.
Luck settings: 1/19/2012 03:24:34

Darkruler2005
Level 6
Report
RvW, I think your "in practice" sentence does show that the above does not hold. This is why you destroy 2 neutrals with 8 armies at the 75% luck setting and 60% offensive kill rate with a 100% chance. I don't fully understand the luck factor either, but I do know it doesn't work like you said with the reason you mentioned.
Luck settings: 1/19/2012 12:41:35


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
with 0% kill rate, and luck setting at 100% you can kill 0-0%..
with 1% kill rate, and luck setting at 100% you can kill from 0-100%..
with 0% kill rate, and luck setting at 1% you can kill 0-0%..
with 1% kill rate, and luck setting at 1% you can kill 0.99-1.99%..

to get your min damages, take your kill rate and subtract the difference of your kill rate times your luck
to get your max damages, take the difference of your kill rate times your luck plus your kill rate
*for this experiment, remove the Percent sign for everything, but keep the appropiate decimals for the luck when multiplying*

with 1% kill rate, and luck setting at 1% you can kill 0.99-1.99%..
0-1=-1
|-1|=1
1X0.01=0.01
1-0.01=0.99
min=0.99%
100-1=99
|99|=99
99X0.01=0.99
1+0.99=1.99
max=1.99%


100 armies can kill at least 0.99 and at most 1.99 with 1% kill rate and 1% luck

with 1% kill rate, and luck setting at 100% you can kill from 0-100%..
0-1=-1
|-1|=1
1X1.00=1.00
1-1.00=0
min=0%
100-1=99
|99|=99
99X1.00=99
1+99=100
max=100%

0 Minus Kill Rate = Result A
Absolute Value of Result A = Difference A
Difference A Times Luck = Max Negative Luck Differential
Kill Rate - Max Negative Luck Differential = Minimum Kill Rate

100 Minus Kill Rate = Result B
Absolute Value of Result B = Difference B -*should be an unnecesary step every time but meh*-
Difference B Times Luck = Max Positive Luck Differential
Kill Rate + Max Positive Luck Differential = Maximum Kill Rate
Luck settings: 1/19/2012 13:30:12


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
RvW,

You have stated yourself that the 100% kill rate renders the luck irrelevant, so you yourself have stated a correlation between luck and kill rate.

In regards to Perrin's analogy and my sarcastic reply, his post reeked of sarcasm. Immature of me to reply in kind, but I bite sometimes, sorry. You state you found it accurate. Since when did chess have many variables to it? It is a terrible analogy as variables are very different to static rules.

I could have titled it 'kill rates' then mentioned that luck is affected by kill rate and some pedantic person could have complained the title and post didn't correspond. I should have titled it 'kill rates and luck' and then dear old Perrin would have been happy. Or better still just used the entire post as the title so they correspond 100% without any room for pedantics like Perrin to get his knickers in a twist.

I only started this thread to raise the issue and invite challenges not get into a namby pamby bitching clique. Perrin's points were both pedantic in the extreme and sarcastic and inaccurate. I note you only took issue with my sarcasm not Perrin's.

Anyway, that's my bit of childish pedanticism out of the way with. I have written this to demonstrate how a tedious continuum of pointless futile rhetoric can carry on, but let's all forget it and get over it.

Who cares really? We're all here to enjoy this brilliant game and disucss stuff for the betterment of the game and everyone's experience here so let's do that and stop with the idiotic pedanticism and bitching.
Luck settings: 1/19/2012 15:30:34


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
raver, my analogy is regardless of the many variants of warlight because..

your topic stated A
my top stated A
your first line(s) stated your displeasure with A
my first line(s) stated my displeasure with A
your 2nd line(s) stated variations that you prefer to play that solve A
my 2nd line(s) stated variations that I prefer to play that solve A
your final line(s) state a desire to play other players with your variations
my final line(s) state a desire to play other players with my variations

while my second response was a retort, while my original was merely an opinion is regardless.. your Retort seemed begging for one in return, since clearly the latter half of your post had veered from your topic...

Personally, I find a title something closer to *non-member method of bypassing luck* to be more useful to the whole of the post.. or *undesired luck settings* which would of given your post a foot to move into how you went to solve the undesired settings... just purely posting *luck settings* indicates your thread is intended to speak about *luck settings* and is misleading in context with the subject of your thread.
I had had no idea this thread would of become this.. disgusting.. from stating my honest opinion..
and like before, this post is entirely Imho
Luck settings: 1/19/2012 16:10:15


raverbaby72
Level 57
Report
Yes it has somewhat, I agree with you there. Don't be so bloody pedantic then!!
Posts 1 - 23 of 23