Conquer Club

So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.

Assault -4% 65581 65591

I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me

What you got?

It must be really sad being you

You seem to play a lot of neutrals. Have you tried WhamBot?

It says 0% but it doesn't look that bad. How about your defense stats against them? How are those?
Luck Kills Losses
Assault 0% 49694 42130

i-andrei wrote:You seem to play a lot of neutrals. Have you tried WhamBot?

It says 0% but it doesn't look that bad. How about your defense stats against them? How are those?
Luck Kills Losses
Assault 0% 49694 42130

I don't play much whambot, but I do like hitting neutrals because they make me feel like a man. I know I could never beat a real person at a game.

I have yet to lose a roll against neutrals on the defensive. Do you think that's where my luck has gone?

Keefie wrote:It must be really sad being you

If you only knew the half of it...

That seems astonishing to me. Worth looking at the maths of that at some point. It must be a few standard deviations away from normal. Utterly bizarre.

I'm minus 1% on 3 vs 1.

Mine is exactly at expectation.
Assault 0% 59109 50277

how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?

iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?

Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.

swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.

Assault -4% 65581 65591

I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me

What you got?

I am -4% on 3v2 and 3v1 with Neutrals (also around the same number of wins/losses as you).

I am -1% on 3v2, 3v1, and 1v2 against all opponents. I have some of the worst dice on this site, especially considering the fact that I am almost at 3.3M for 3v2 rolls and 500K for 3v1 rolls.

So it's not just you.

I have noticed this too, which in my case I assume is the algorithm that punishes me for not buying premium.

loutil wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?

Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.

i should stop late night posting

iAmCaffeine wrote:

loutil wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?

Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.

i should stop late night posting

While I do not always agree with your thinking, I find you to be an intelligent person. That is why your response caught me a bit off guard. Good to know it was lack of sleep or to much party favors that led to your response...

swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.

Assault -4% 65581 65591

I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me

What you got?

Pretty much same numbers as you against neutrals.

Assault -4% 65722/65694

For a while now I could not trust attackers advantage at all against neutrals. It is actually more the opposite

So yes something is broken somewhere. Or we just both need better connection to the top of cc

loutil wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

loutil wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?

Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.

i should stop late night posting

While I do not always agree with your thinking, I find you to be an intelligent person. That is why your response caught me a bit off guard. Good to know it was lack of sleep or to much party favors that led to your response...

that was probably the last compliment i expected from you. no partying in covid tho.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

loutil wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

loutil wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?

Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.

i should stop late night posting

While I do not always agree with your thinking, I find you to be an intelligent person. That is why your response caught me a bit off guard. Good to know it was lack of sleep or to much party favors that led to your response...

that was probably the last compliment i expected from you. no partying in covid tho.

You can always still party alone... or at least that's what I've told myself for years...

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.

Assault -4% 65581 65591

I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me

What you got?

I am -4% on 3v2 and 3v1 with Neutrals (also around the same number of wins/losses as you).

I am -1% on 3v2, 3v1, and 1v2 against all opponents. I have some of the worst dice on this site, especially considering the fact that I am almost at 3.3M for 3v2 rolls and 500K for 3v1 rolls.

So it's not just you.

dkmaster wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.

Assault -4% 65581 65591

I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me

What you got?

Pretty much same numbers as you against neutrals.

Assault -4% 65722/65694

For a while now I could not trust attackers advantage at all against neutrals. It is actually more the opposite

So yes something is broken somewhere. Or we just both need better connection to the top of cc

So this is intriguing... either the information on the page is a bit off in how its calculating those odds... there is misreporting, or??? That's kinda odd, wonder how many players are close to this average or if there are some others that see it as positive rolls in 3v2 and for some reason just higher disparity/edge cases. But across Jsiz alone that is kinda crazy.