I'm getting sick of losing games from luck. Why does it have to be %16? I just got beat by a 5v4 attack, which has a %7 chance of happening. Yes, it is part of the game, but when you are in a dead even match and it is decided that way it really sucks hard.

mostly why i left the ladder. failing 3vs2 when i really needed them was just frustrating.

Q: Why does it have to be %16?
A: I believe its because 16% luck means 4v2 and 2v1s are both sure wins

As for your complaint, yeah, luck is like that, sometimes you get good luck and sometimes you get hairy balls. I'v had worse outcomes than a 5v4, but thats too bad for me. Even with 0% luck, there are other things that decide the game, getting 1st pick, getting 6th pick, first order, last order etc. My advice is just to suck it up and move on.

You can blame it on the rain
Cos the rain don't mind
And the rain don't care
You got to blame it on something
(Blame it on the rain)
(Blame it on the stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah, yeah
You can blame it on the rain
Girl

Read more: Milli Vanilli - Blame It On The Rain Lyrics | MetroLyrics

It's funny how people mention luck only when it's against them

but anyway, even with luck set to 0%, some games are still decided by chance - often much more important is who'll get first pick or the first move at crucial moment (especially when both players play an OP card)...

btw, I think the "cumulative luck" graph is misleading and should be renamed to "army leftovers" or something like that

You've probably won a few games because of the 16% luck setting.

0% luck would be going full nerd.

You never go full nerd.

trust me, he does....

I don't mind when 3v2s fail. But when you lose 2 armies on a failed 3v2 attack it pisses me off. I hate deploying in places twice when the first time should have done the job or been good enough to leave enough extras to do the job the next turn. 5v4s are bothersome, as are strange ones like 8v6 (?), 10v7, and 1v1.

^I came here to see some mocking comment from Qi, I am greatly disappointed.

Yeah, the 3v2s don't bother me either. It allows people to weigh risk/reward on those (rather than do 4v2 attacks). I like that element. What I don't like are the obscure wins like Qi mentioned. 1v1s and 2v2s are what I see more often, and those really suck. Is there another % luck that allows 3v2s to fail still at a decent rate, but does not allow for the obscure attacks to win? Maybe it could just be tweaked slightly.

And as far as cards, that is not really luck IMO. You chose to play OP/OD at the time. There is the first turn luck, but I take cards out of the equation because they are a choice to play.

Why is 1v1 random turn order? I'm sure there must be a good reason.

If only there was a way to keep the 3vs2s the same, fix the leftovers, then make the rest of the attacks without luck. We should call it... god luck

Why not have a luck % that goes by the normal rules but allows the game creator to adjust/cancel a maximum of 5 possibities (eg, I'd make 16% luck so 3v2s never lose 2 and fail, no 1v1s, no 2v2s, no 5v4s, no 7v5s)? That would be the best luck for my preferences.

to be honest, thats actually a very good idea^
though i'm not sure how it would be able to work along with the formula.

Ever played real risk my friend? You are able to lose everyting vs 3 defenders or something. Be happy it is an option here. Stop complaining about things if you don`t see the value of them to begin with.

Chris try 0% weighted, it minimises annoying losses, like 7vs4

Min34, what is the point of that post? Are we supposed to just copy Risk? That game is highly flawed (and yes I have played it a ton). First off, we don't even use small earth for ladder, so why try to copy that? Warlight is 1,000 times better than risk, which is why you don't see many good players doing small earth %75 luck tournaments.

And because it is better, that means I should not desire to improve it? That makes no sense at all. That's like having a dog that shits and pees on the carpet, who finally stops shitting on the carpet, and just expecting the owner to live with the fact that it still pees there. Well, it is better than it was before, so I should not complain.

Edited 9/5/2013 17:56:13

Why not have a luck % that goes by the normal rules but allows the game creator to adjust/cancel a maximum of 5 possibities (eg, I'd make 16% luck so 3v2s never lose 2 and fail, no 1v1s, no 2v2s, no 5v4s, no 7v5s)?

Why is 1v1 random turn order?

Why don't you go to play SuperMario? There is no luck involved there...

I think there were tens of discussion like this.There is always some luck involved. Even if you deny 7vs5 and 5v4 to succeed and make the turn cyclic, than you will complain why 64vs39 failed and why you are losing games because the opponend had the first turn decided at the begin of the game (in a cyclic order scenario).

Edited 9/6/2013 00:18:58