Almost definitely sarcasm.

:(

i really liked this namib dude.
And the real fun was just about to begin..

Pulsey, you asshole...

A lot was not sarcasm.

The play in most of the games was very good, it was only the picks that were sort of, questionable, even then, they weren't typically bad, just unorthodox. The only "bad" thing was the intentional non-existence of picks 4, 5, 6.

Pulsey you dick :(

I'm so sorry guys! I feel really bad now... :'( Will you please forgive me? Pretty please?

no

Each forum begins Lhtmalot pages on the same player

'huge stack' is not the way to victory, IMO.

you get a better return on the minimal amount of attackers necessary for positive probability of victory.

That first unit that takes your odds over 50% is the most well-spent unit. Every unit after that has diminishing returns.

"you get a better return on the minimal amount of attackers necessary for positive probability of victory.

That first unit that takes your odds over 50% is the most well-spent unit. Every unit after that has diminishing returns."

This is nonsense.

With your logic 16v10 is better than 17v10 because 16v10 has 59% chance of success and 17v10 has 95% chance.

So, they're defending West China, and you think deploying 1 extra army to have your chance to break WC increase by 36% is a bad investment.

.36 * .6 = 2.16

Far more than the 1 army you deployed.

Edited 8/3/2014 03:42:50

Now I'm curious what Piggy wrote and then deleted :P

Regardless though, if he would do 16v10 when breaking a crucial bonus rather than 17v10 I think I now know why he moaned that games were decided by luck. He thinks something with a 50% chance to happen is a good thing to bet on occurring.

Good Kid,

if you attack ten armies with

14, your chances of winning are 2%
15, your chances of winning are 18% (16% increase)
16, your chances of winning are 57% (39% increase) MAXIMUM RETURN PER ADD'L ARMY
17, your chances of winning are 88% (29% increase)
19, your chances of winning are 99% (11% increase)


stacking is less efficient
diminishing returns

"you get a better return on the minimal amount of attackers necessary for positive probability of victory."

Is not accurate, regardless of diminished returns.

Your percentages are way off as well. Those aren't even close to the correct values for strat 1v1.

14v10 -> 0%
15v10 -> 12%
16v10 -> 59%
17v10 -> 95%
18v10 -> 100%


If you want to break a bonus with 10 defenders, it's obviously better to rely on 17 than 16 (1 more army spend, and deny opponent 3-6 deploy)

the point is not whether 17 is better than 16

it is whether stacking makes sense.

It doesn't.

Good Kid,

the percentages come from the Warlight Attack Analyzer.

you saying they are 'way off' tells me you didn't even look at the numbers.

why bother to contribute if all you are going to do is say 'is not' and throw darts?

I said they're way off, because they're way off.

Timi posted the correct values. You got yours from 75% luck or some other nonsense.

those are the default values.

besides, it doesn't matter. No matter what the luck factor, it's still a curve with diminishing returns.

stacking doesn't work.

I doubt you disagree. You are just contrarian.

"those are the default values." that whole shitty thread about games being decided by luck exists because you play 75% games like a peasant?

Pig,

nearly all my games are at 16% luck, but I played plenty at 75% early on. Many players still do.

both are default settings, which seem silly for you to trash. I mean, why hate on default?



Timinator,

Even with your numbers (or the numbers from any luck setting) this statement is still true: "The first unit that takes your odds over 50% is the most well-spent unit. Every unit after that has diminishing returns."

that was my assertion, and you can see it holds true for your numbers too.

Edited 8/3/2014 15:34:05