Forum
stat I would like to see added
![]() |
raor wrote
at 3:04 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST
Sorry if I'm not the first to request this. I would like to see, in the player's profile, a stat to reflect how often that player has had good or bad rolls. The good roll stat would measure the number of times that player won as an underdog (e.g. player defends with 5 dice versus 6 dice). The bad roll stat would measure the number of times that player lost with an advantage in number of dice.
I believe this would put some more oomph behind a player's rating. For instance, two players with similar ratings could also compare their relative good/bad roll stats to determine who is the better player. After all, a true measure of skill is not just how often a player finishes well; but also what that player overcame to obtain the good finish. Let me know what you think .... |
![]() |
Beals wrote
at 3:18 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST Lucky rolls don't make you a better player.
|
![]() |
aixo wrote
at 3:33 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST Right - and one unlucky roll in the first round or on at a break-even-point is not the some as to lose one roll to another point of time...
|
![]() |
no_Wolf wrote
at 3:43 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST ...isn't that just going to end up at the same number for everyone?
|
![]() |
2Blue wrote
at 3:56 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST i can tell you now it's 50% - 50% if enough games are played
|
![]() |
steve. wrote
at 8:27 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST the only reason i can see this being helpful is to show the people who complain about bad luck that it happens to everyone. otherwise pretty useless since it would, of course, given enough games be the same for everyone.
|
![]() |
Ryan wrote
at 9:04 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST there was a idea about a post game report with stats which I think would be a good place for a luck stat.
I think you would feel better about bad luck if it was acknowledged in an end game report. |
![]() |
raor wrote
at 2:34 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST what specificly implies this will be 50/50 for everyone? I would agree for the entire set, ie: all players, the TOTAL would be 50/50. But, for any one individual, there is equal chance of any combination.
|
![]() |
z3dd wrote
at 8:07 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST I think everyone other than Ryan misunderstood what raor was saying here. He was saying that the player that has had worse luck yet still has a similar rating is the better player. He was in no way implying that getting lucky means you are a better player.
|
![]() |
Kehm wrote
at 8:25 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST Eh boy.
Odds are the same for everyone. You're lucky if you hit odds that are not in your favor, and unlucky if you hit odds that aren't. In the long run, the number of times you are "lucky or unlucky" will match the odds. It's simple maths, really. And it's true. For instance, if I flip a coin, it's very possible that heads will hit 10 times in a row. If I flip it for an 11th time, the odds didn't change, they are still 50/50. Over 1000 flips, if the first 10 flips were heads, have 50/50 odds doesn't mean tails will suddenly become lucky to even things out (getting 10 tails in a row). It simply means that in the long run, the first 10 flips will not matter. Let's say we start with 10 heads flip. Heads in 10 ahead. Over the other 990 flips, it'll be about 50/50, so let's say 495 each. In the end, it'll be 515 heads, 495 tails, which is 51.5% - 49.5%, damn close to 50/50. Over a million flips, it's 500,005 heads 499,995 tails. Exactly 50%-50%. So, now, get it down your damn head. Luck averages out for everyone. Kdice are about odds. You will lose 5v3 sometimes, and while your head, which is naturally seeking paterns, will tell you that it happens to you more often and that you are not getting the 91% odds that you should, you really are. Even if you missed 5v3 3 times in a row, and look to be a 33% longshot, you are still a 91% favorite. So please give me a break with your damn bad luck. |
![]() |
z3dd wrote
at 8:49 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST blah blah blah
|