sempaispellcheck wrote:Thanks for that, agentcom! Now I know why my score has fallen so far recently.
MoB Deadly wrote:Agent, how long did it take to make that graph?
I just made a spreadsheet that allows me to paste in the data from the whole row and it spits out the percentages. So, then it was just a matter of telling excel to make a chart out of the right columns and with the right labels. I could actually tell you pretty much exactly how long that project took because of the time stamps on the original posts (that I quoted above) ... brb ... Looks like it took me about 45 minutes to format the spreadsheet, make the chart and type all of that second post. But with the spreadsheet that I have now, I could add other players to it in maybe 30 seconds per player.
Balch wrote:You look at making desperate rolls as a cause, but it's the effect. I get steamrolled by rolls so hard I consistently get put into 'I need a miracle or I'm done' scenarios.
If I had to guess, I would say that you're going into desperation mode too soon rather than just playing it out. There's a time for desperation, sure, but it's not every time you get hit with a bit of bad luck.
DoomYoshi wrote:Why is 3v1 a disadvantageous roll? It has greater than 50% chance of success.
I thought this might come up ... I kind of lumped it in there. It's really halfway between. It's not the best situation (that would be a 4v1), but it's not bad. All other things being equal, you would prefer to wait on making that attack until you can drop a troop there, but sometimes you have to (say to bring the other player below 12). If I had to make a rule (based on this very limited sample), it would be that those rolls of 3v1 (2 dice v 1 die) should probably be around 3% and all the rest of the short rolls should add up to another 2 or 3%.
And your numbers look right to me, and I was thinking the same thing ... that it looks like Goranz.