Forum
Bonehead math reloaded
|
Louis Cypher wrote
at 10:53 AM, Tuesday April 13, 2010 EDT
I just had a very funny game where I did not win a single attack (4v4 4v4, 4v3 all lost) and still resulted in 44% luck... Fantastic. I did not defend either btw...
The most funny part was that some creep told me that in rolling off the defendant had better chances. I then got called rude for calling him a braindead noob... Is there a way to get rid of people like that? I mean to say, it is hard enough that we have to accept preschool math in the stats, but walking anencephaly in chat? |
|
Troy11 wrote
at 2:14 PM, Tuesday April 13, 2010 EDT louis, you insulted him and he said you were rude, which would be true. what are you going on about? learn english and fit in with the rest of the world
|
|
greekboi wrote
at 2:33 PM, Tuesday April 13, 2010 EDT hey bonehead. if u have an 8 and i have 8, and u roll off onto my land, then i do have the better chances as the defendant. however, if we are both separately rolling 8's, there is no advantage.
|
|
Shevar wrote
at 2:46 PM, Tuesday April 13, 2010 EDT "I did not defend either btw..."
LIER! 32,997,041 snmlmz Apr 13, 10:39 AM CDT 7th 0 9 % 41 : 59 44.2 % 6 352◆ (-100) 2,251st |
|
|
Louis Cypher wrote
at 4:26 PM, Wednesday April 14, 2010 EDT After learning some English I think it is "liar", but I might be wrong. Furthermore spellchecking in this box fosters American, not English...
Other than that, if I was attacking you and you as a defendant certainly had an advantage, I would not call it rolling off. In addition, I do not get the part of the stats where it says that I did defend. Maybe I did (not that it mattered), but where can I see how many times or that I defended at all? Finally, he started insulting me in offending my intellect claiming I was stupid enough to not know the advantage a defendant has after playing a couple of years. |
|
|
Shevar wrote
at 4:00 AM, Thursday April 15, 2010 EDT your attack defense ratio is 41:59
and sry about the typo |
|
|
Louis Cypher wrote
at 1:35 PM, Thursday April 15, 2010 EDT ;-)
Out of curiosity: Is that ratio on successful or on attempted attacks:defends? Because I really did not win much that game, there might have been a win, but 41% - never. And if it was attempts, it would not make success mandatory. |
|
|
Troy11 wrote
at 1:51 PM, Thursday April 15, 2010 EDT louis.. in your first post you posted that you provoked him... dont anger people.. and you can prevent these problems...not the 4v4 i mean pure luck
|
|
|
Louis Cypher wrote
at 2:32 PM, Thursday April 15, 2010 EDT Troy, if saying the truth about some idiot is an offense, I'll continue doing so.
|
|
|
Shevar wrote
at 2:41 PM, Thursday April 15, 2010 EDT i believe the att:def stat is independent on the outcome of the roll. an attack is an attack even if it fails.
|
|
|
Louis Cypher wrote
at 10:22 AM, Friday April 16, 2010 EDT In that case - I was thinking the same Shev - how do you conclude I did defend from a ratio? 41:59 means I had more defensive than offensive rolls. If I had 3 stacks, attacking unsuccessfully with 2 of them and then losing all defends I'd have 2:3 rolls (2 offensive, 3 defensive) and a ratio of 40:60... Another meaningless statistics, at least it don't pretend to be of any use.
|
