Duke, I also dislike games with such high luck, but it seems that the majority of open games are made by non-members. Not sure if this is a fact, or just my perception. But I would imagine that most members, being slightly better than the average bear, tend to stick to ladder games or games created for a select group of players, rather than games with open spots.

Okay, to turn this subject back to the original game.... what's the talk in the chat about fizzer paying people to play here to bump up stats and make it more marketable?

How is this a return to the original topic? And where did you hear such rumors? I don't think he would do that...

(R) John. I just read through that too..
it might be a founded rumor if warlight was incorporated, and in turn would then release information showing how many players actually play the gam, extra traffic is unneccessary unless people are actually playing, in which case it's just called advertising..
It sounds more like mosq is just spouting drivel to me..

Afaik Fizzer only has one account, and has no need of another account, save for perhaps one to test how features appear to non-members

Just a question adressed at WL experts related to this context:

Does the Analyze Function round the probabilities to the nearest integer? I get a 100% success rate indicated in a 75/60/70 default game if i for example attack a 1 neutral with 5 troops. Is this really a 100%?

i think its better know as "Analyse Tool" than as "Analyze Function"

mosq... the analyze tool has been discussed pretty heavily in the forums in the past. I recommend you do a search if you want the in-depth story.

The short story of it is that it reports results of 1000 attempts. Just uses brute force to determine the percentages and as such can stray by 1-2 points in either direction depending on the results.

That was a quick reply, thank you! I ll try to find that discussion.

u can''t trust it sometimes it has failed me manytimes

Richard, I believe it was also confirmed by fizzer, that at exceptional percentages, it tends to just consider it complete.. IE like 98%+ or 2%-, will show as 100% and 0%

can't remember the exact range it uses, but it's relatively small..

Perrin, I remember talk of that and a discussion of whether a >99% and <1% setup should be instituted. Wasn't certain if that situation had been changed with the updates though so chose not to mention it.

Sorry if this is getting ever more off-topic, but I just wanted to reply to the Analyse Tool discussion:

It's indeed reporting the results of a simulation, not a calculation (I can't vouch if it is really 1000 attempts, but that sounds reasonable). This can be quickly verified: just click the "Analyse Again" button without changing any settings; you'll see some slight changes to the reported outcomes.

@Perrin:
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you're talking about, but a while ago I posted a bug report about the Analyse Tool reporting values which were *way* of the mark. Fizzer explained that was the result of a (broken) optimization, which didn't even run the simulation if it **expected** the result to surely be 0% or 100%. The problem (which has since been corrected I guess, but (come to think of it) haven't tested) was that for some weird luck and/or kill rate settings would incorrectly expect chances to be surely 0% or 100% (and then report them as such). To the best of my knowledge there has never been a "range" of 2% which is *deliberately* rounded to either 0% or 100%; the idea was to only not-run the simulation for results which would be 0% or 100% anyway.

Ah, found the original thread: [Discrepancy between attacks in actual game / analyzer / my own calculations](http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=2335)

At the moment I'm on a computer which doesn't have Flash installed, so I can't test, but then again, I can't remember Fizzer mentioning changes to the Analyser in any of his change logs... Anyway, if you want to see for yourself if this has been fixed, go play a game with 10% offensive luck (and 75% luck modifier); if a 12 vs 1 attack is listed as a guaranteed victory, the bug is still there. Also, the 2% mentioned is actually (at least) 20%.