Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Ladder Forum   

Posts 1 - 4 of 4   
7 x 4 attacks: 4/6/2011 18:03:05

Level 5
How about lowering the luck factor so this will stop failing so often? 16% is too high to prevent it. Range is 3.528 - 4.872. 35% shot of requiring a second roll. 47% shot at missing that roll. 16.6% odds the attack fails. That's 1 in 6.

The reason luck went from 18% to 16% was to prevent 4x2 from failing. I vote for making it lower to prevent 7x4 from failing as often. 5% would make it very very rare (guessing at least 1 in 100), but even 10% would be a big improvement (guessing about 1 in 12).

Obviously the concern with 4s is due to the wastelands.
7 x 4 attacks: 4/6/2011 20:05:42

Level 56
what about 12 or 13?
7 x 4 attacks: 4/7/2011 07:13:52

Level 44
I thought 20% was the base*ish for strategic 1v1's initially to reduce the advantage given to number crunches in the first place? while i understand the headache it can be to have a win taken because of a fluke failed attack, those fluke failed attackes happen when you are attempting to shave as many extra armies out of your attacks as possible..
7 x 4 attacks: 4/7/2011 14:33:02

Level 5
1 in 6 is not really a fluke, it'll happen on average twice a game. The point of a ladder is to compare skill and end up with rankings that reflect ability. The decision to add blockades and reduce luck from 18% to 16% was to prevent games from being decided in the first turn or two by luck or picks (obviously picks can still be decisive, but you at least have a chance with the ability to blockade and work from another spot). Reducing luck to 10% or less would help. I understand that attacking 4s with 8 would always work, but we all have our causes and mine is reducing or eliminating luck in ladder games.
Posts 1 - 4 of 4   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service