What the *******

Monday 07/05/2007, 17:20

Ingshtra lvl3 7 pillz loses to Brandon lvl1 4 pillz. WHAT THE **** THAT MEANS??!!!!!!!!!:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 16:29

I don't know what happen to htis randomness, today i keep losing game with same technique 2 times in row in one game i lost. with 8 power versus 5 power , and 8 power with 4 power, both with +1 pillz compare to them.
i lost 3 games in a row :D with same problem, i think they should change the way they count the percentage to win

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 16:48

I think expoentially is a gud idea, it doesn't mean that Wanda with 8 power will always win with card with 2 power.

it doesn't change the game play since the game play is just how to have more attack then your opponent.

The thing that it change is just it will increase the chance for card with higher attack win over card with lower attack.

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 17:42

Ibtd said "I lost these matches in the Danger Zone where the randomness is disabled except for those 50:50 battles".
Does that mean in the danger room if your attacks are tied it's random?
I thought it would be a draw T_T but don't know what happens if the round draws.

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 17:47

Yeah losing to randomness sucks ass, but i doubt ppl complain about winning due to it.

but when the attack count is close ( like a 32 vs 28) being burned by randomness is ok, it's when the attack count is 42 to 8 that the randomness burns ..... having the system adjusted so that when there are large gaps between opponents attacks the random is off would be nice

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 18:28

Nacluv: how should a draw look like? One of the two cards HAS to win and deal damage. (At least as it is now.)

Wednesday 09/05/2007, 01:01

Well, I had been advocating using and exponential algorithm, but I guess I haven't said anything since they set the danger room requirements lower so I could get in there. Which was much appreciated by the way. I do think that it would be better with an exponent of the powers, since it would mostly serve to make the one-sided rounds more consistant, and wouldn't be a terribly large change to the random rooms. I don't think it would disrupt the current card balance at all.

But you know, I don't really mind anymore - if I want to play seriously, I'll wander into the danger room. If not, I'll sling away randomly in a random room. That said, if there is only one person who dislikes winning by randomness, that's me. I'll complain all day about winning too, it feels pretty dumb, especially since I'm not that concerned about winning when I'm in a random room anyway.

As for a draw... Well, there are several ways of doing it I can think of off of the top of my head. Both cards could "lose" and not deal any damage, both cards could "win" and deal their respective damages, or both could deal half. Or we could rewind time and... well, that's a little complicated. It doesn't come up enough for me to actually want to implement something like that, but it's fun to think about it.

Friday 11/05/2007, 12:45

I now one reason i was having two sakrhomm in field so inghstra gets 8-opp attack

Friday 11/05/2007, 17:45

Here's my experience of your so called "randomness"..

My Bunny(no pillz) vs Natrang(7 pillz).... Bunny wins..... lol...

Actually, I lose more fights that I guarantee I could win than those fights that I doubt I could win...


Reply to this subject