<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 26 of 26   
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 12:57:20


Ska2D2 
Level 55
Report
Hey

Some of my team games don't fill - I don't think the filters are too strong I usually use a 40 or 45% win rate in 1v1 and 2v2 or 3v3 depending on the size of the game, a 9% max boot rate and 200 games played.

The settings I usually use are 16% (sometimes 0%) Luck Manual Distribution Warlords occasionally Full Distribution on bigger maps and no cards.

In some games it has been known that people say my luck settings are too low on one occasion I was told this was bad as higher luck needed more skill.

I'm wondering what settings you prefer for games - obviously they will vary from map to map but I think there are settings that people will tend to prefer and what filters you use? I want a game to fill - but on the other hand I don't like games that are over too quickly.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 13:44:48

[V.I.W] ilpeggiore
Level 60
Report
16% luck. full manual distribution. 4 picks ( 5 if europe 1600 - 3vs3


45% winning rate is quite high when there are too many people around (and doesnt prevent noobs entering in tha game).
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 13:47:05


I∂ƒ∂oggY 
Level 46
Report
Luck: Are you using 16% weighed or straight? 16% Weighed gives you an 80% chance of a 3v2 success, which is the ladder setting, thus making it the most playable and acceptable setting. It adds a bit of luck but isn't as obnoxious as the 75% or 16/0% straight which kind of eliminates luck entirely.

Filters: The way I do it is as follows: I have one template with 55% 1v1, 50% 3v3, 10 or 15% boot rate and 400 games played. This will allow for average players to join making it almost always a fairly good game.
In case you are online during a pretty "dead" period, I suggest making another template with not so harsh filters.

Settings: I already mentioned luck, but try using 3 starting spots of 5 armies, manual warlords on regular Europe. This usually makes for great games where each player has to choose carefully not making the mistake of being eliminated early on. But then again, this is entirely up to you.

Just my three cents.

Best,
Doggy
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 13:47:22


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
I feel so discriminated with my massive 15% boot, gotta play more victories. I usually meet all the skill and experience tequirmenta, but the boot thing filters me :P
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 13:49:52


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
45% overall win- check
200 games played- check
40-45% in 1v1 2v2 3v3- check
8% boot- :P
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 13:51:16


Ska2D2 
Level 55
Report
Ladder luck I∂ƒ∂oggY obviously I can amend the filters and do so at certain times but my average is 40 - 45% wins on the filter.

Your filter is stronger than mine - how long do your games take to fill up?

I'd like to hear from non-members about the luck you guys prefer as well - I have an idea though I find it difficult to understand! That higher luck may actually be preferred by a lot of people?
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 13:53:01


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
I really don't understand the concept of luck, so I usually don't mind whether its 75 or 16.
On some of my 'non- noob' games, i set at leat 300 games, and 40% 1v1 win.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 14:03:06


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Nike, luck works as follows.

In standard settings (60/70 O/D kill rate) and army of 21 attacking a defender of 10 will kill 12 (20*.6) and lose 7 (10*.7). That is your expected outcome.

The luck factor determines what your possible deviation from this expectation is. In 16%, that range becomes 10.08 to 13.92 (so you are guaranteed to kill 10 and at best kill 14) while losing 5.88 to 8.12. In 75% those numbers change to ranging from 3 to 20 attacking and 1.75 to 10 defending. (Multiply the expected value by 1-luck and 1+luck to determine these values)

Obviously the second scenario is far more unstable and makes matters far more difficult to predict.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 14:13:21


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
Thanks for the explanation, Richard. Iv won against a few members who have, after and during the game, complained about 75% luck. I tried asking them about the difference, but they didn't do a good job at explaining it.

What are your usual filters for your games, Richard?
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 14:38:28


I∂ƒ∂oggY 
Level 46
Report
@Ska:
My games usually take about 10-15 minutes, very rarely does it take more than that.

I understand your dilemma of win ratios - all you can do is for an entire week try stat boosting to about 50% each... HHH's games even have a 60% so that's tough; A lot of good players face the same dilemma but unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about it if you don't want noobs joining your games.

@Nike:
I remotely remember you saying in a thread a few days ago or so, that whenever you lose, you just leave instead of surrendering making your boot rate so high. Forgive me if that was someone else, but if it was you, then this is your own damn stupid fault for being such a douche :D
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 15:02:10


{RSP} Nike
Level 4
Report
Yes I said that, but I do that less now to decrease my boot ratio, and I have been getting better and winning more in this month. It is quite annoying to wait for your surrender to be accepted before you can leave :)
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 16:27:44

RvW 
Level 46
Report
Multiply the expected value by 1-luck and 1+luck to determine these values
Are you sure Richard? Because for 100% luck, the number of kills could be anywhere from zero to the number of armies.



@Nike:
The way I prefer to explain "luck" is as follows.

Warlight calculates two things for each attack:
  • "Certainty": The expected number of kills (armies * kill rate)
  • "Luck": Flip a (weighted) coin for each army, to determine whether it will kill an opposing army
These two numbers are then combined into "the result" based on the luck setting.
The outcome of the "Certainty" calculation is multiplied by 1-luck (default 1-0.75=0.25), the outcome of the "Luck" calculation is multiplied by luck (default 0.75) and those two numbers added.

Example:
8 armies attack, 60% kill rate:
"Certainty"     "Luck"
8 * 0.60 = 4.8  Army 1: 0
                Army 2: 1
                Army 3: 1
                Army 4: 0
                Army 5: 1
                Army 6: 1
                Army 7: 1
                Army 8: 1
                       --+
                        6

4.8 * 0.25 + 6 * 0.75 = 5.7


Note that (in extreme cases) the "Luck" part could be anywhere from 0 to 8. On 100% luck that would mean the result of the battle could be from 0 to 8. However, on 75% luck, you gain a little certainty:
  • 4.8 * 0.25 + 0 * 0.75 = 1.2
  • 4.8 * 0.25 + 8 * 0.75 = 6.75
  • You'll kill between 1 and 7.
On low luck settings (let's use 16% for this example), uncertainty is almost entirely removed:
  • 4.8 * 0.84 + 0 * 0.16 = 4.032
  • 4.8 * 0.84 + 8 * 0.16 = 5.312
  • You'll kill between 4 and 6.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 16:35:45


Ska2D2 
Level 55
Report
I don't actually want to read your explanation though Rvw ... don't take this the wrong way I'm just not a maths person and your post just looks too much like homework to begin reading it. Though I'm sure it is on the money and an excellent description I'll stick with Richard's :)
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 16:56:00


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
"Are you sure Richard? Because for 100% luck, the number of kills could be anywhere from zero to the number of armies."

Well if luck is 100% that means the range is 0 to double the expected value which by definition is greater than your available armies.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 19:33:43

Heyheuhei 
Level 57
Report
I dont play with 40% or 45% win rate games, too much chances get into team noob :/
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 19:37:11


Ska2D2 
Level 55
Report
Unfortunately HHH I cannot see your games - a mix of bad play when I begun and playing against myhand too many times I think!

But out of curiosity which settings and filters do you use?
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 19:54:40

Heyheuhei 
Level 57
Report
At now i playing these games:
http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=3033009
http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=3032974
Dont play with myhand, he is total noob :(
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 20:26:44

Darkruler2005
Level 8
Report
I can't understand why anyone would want to have a high percentage of luck. I understand the "gamble" of not being sure your 3v2 attacks are going to work out, but I don't understand why you should sometimes be punished for executing a 13v2 attack (14v2, on 75% luck, is the minimum amount of armies required to always take the territory). That involves no luck at all. Really? The game is telling me that I get a bonus a turn later because there's a 0.000001% chance of it happening? Higher luck settings require more skill? The opposite. I frequently have games battling the luck factor more than I'm battling my opponent. This is not showcasing your skill. It is showing how much of an impact the luck factor really has on games.

So, yeah, luck factor at 16% to at least involve the risk factor but not allow almost any attack to fail due to luck (or have a big army still lose much more armies than a much smaller army when attacking). Offensive/defensive kill ratio I don't care too much about, as long as the former is lower than the latter and the difference isn't enormous. Manual distribution is a must. Cards are okay, but the more you include, the more luck you can expect.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 20:42:08


Ska2D2 
Level 55
Report
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/12/2012 22:25:43

RvW 
Level 46
Report
Well if luck is 100% that means the range is 0 to double the expected value which by definition is greater than your available armies.

Only if the kill rate is 50% or higher. Also, it shouldn't be greater, it should be equal to your available armies.

So, while I think your formula is wrong, I have to admit not investigating whether it's a good approximation; it very well might be. (I prefer my calculations to be spot on and perfectly accurate, even at the cost of them being multiple pages in length. Not everyone will agree with me on that.)
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/13/2012 02:14:01


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
RvW, I specified standard kill rates.
As for not being greater, that is also assumed.

I make my statements giving sufficient credit to my audience to make the most basic of assumptions. Apparently I should change that for your sake...
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/14/2012 12:40:33

RvW 
Level 46
Report
If 100% goes over the number of attackers, slightly lower settings (in this case as low as 67%) will still go over the number of attackers (your formula, using 8 attackers, 75% luck): "8 * 0.60 * (1 + 0.75) = 8.4". However, as I showed on the previous page, the maximum is actually 7.

I don't so much mind implicitly capping at the number of armies, my problem was that it's a clear sign your formula must be wrong. Same thing with assuming standard kill rates: if it doesn't work for non-standard kill rates, it's actually rather unlikely to work for standard kill rates.

Correct formula:
    Killrate + Luck * ( 1 - Killrate )



In light of your statement quoted below I'll forego explaining the colour-coding.


I make my statements giving sufficient credit to my audience to make the most basic of assumptions. Apparently I should change that for your sake...
Before typing such a statement, you might want to double-check being right yourself. Then, after making sure you indeed are, you should still phrase it more politely.



To your credit, your formula for minimum number of armies killed:
    ( 1 - Luck ) * Killrate
does seem to check out.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/14/2012 13:03:21

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
Ska, although your settings and requirements will eliminate a good number of players, I don't think that they are too high. That is, unless you are looking for real time games? Multi-day it would take about 6-12 hours to fill a large FFA (9+ players) with similar settings to that. A 2v2 or 3v3 game would probably fill up in a couple of hours, maybe as little as 30 minutes. For a real time game, I can imagine that being a problem, and you'd be limited to playing during a major country's primetime (8pm EST perhaps?).

Your settings are absolutely not the problem here, as 16% luck and such are by far the most preferred. Many people go so far as to seek out member created games specifically for the lower luck settings. Your requirements are the reason that it takes longer to fill games, but that's due to the fact that most people who play do not win too many games (especially in each of three different categories at the same time) and quite a few get booted rather than surrender (again, especially true for real time games). For every person with a 60% win rate, there's one or more people with 40%. A HHH has enough games played and won to reduce 100 people to below 45% win rate.

I think the easiest thing you can do to get more people in your games would be to either invite them straight up, or to lower the number of games required to 100 or something. Personally, I end up inviting people to my games anymore, to avoid the lottery.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/14/2012 17:24:05


J Russell Mikkelsen 
Level 4
Report
I make my statements giving sufficient credit to my audience to make the most basic of assumptions. Apparently I should change that for your sake...

Richard, RvW is obviously an engineer and therefore will never make any assumptions about anything ever. I always give credit to articulate people that they can see patterns of behavior and make the most basic of adjustments based on that. Apparently, I should change that for your sake...
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/14/2012 17:34:00


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
JRuss,
If I am not mistaken, RvW is a HS student in the Netherlands (correct me if I am wrong)

Ironically, it is I who is the engineer. We constantly are making assumptions and only a bad engineer refuses to do so.
Preferred Settings and Filters?: 8/15/2012 09:33:49

RvW 
Level 46
Report
University student actually, doing a computer science studies. I did my first year in a combined mathematics and computer science programme though and in my university computer science branched of from mathematics (not electrical engineering, as in most other universities). Also, I simply happen to like mathematics. So if my posts seem a little math-heavy, that might explain it.

Assumptions are okay, but subconscious assumptions (or misunderstandings about which assumptions were made) can cause all kinds of trouble, don't you agree? (Famous example: "this value represents a number of centimetres" vs. "this value represents a number of inches" on a particular Mars probe...)

ps. Give me half a year or so and I'll be an engineer too. ;)
Posts 1 - 26 of 26