I understand your attack value only determines the "probability" of winning a battle, but should a low power character with minimal pillz really be able to win against a higher power character with more pillz played? and yes i understand that there are bonuses and abilties that can reasonably lead to this result and thats okay, but when there are no bonuses or abilities a 40 attack should beat a 10 consistently, hell all the time. it doesnt though and thats retarded. are people cheating somehow? what gives?
Well, luck's a part of the game, It's annoying because I often manage to outsmart opponents and I end up losing anyway.
I just live with it.
And if you look at your example, 40 attack vs. 10.
the 10 attack card still has a 20% chance to win, which is still large for the difference in attack.
But I'm sure people that always win by luck has no qualms about this. I have only about 20 times because of a Lucky match and lost to one by about 65 times.
Also if both characters have the same amount of pillz, how is it chosen who goes first?
I think the card with the higher power get's to go first if the pillz used are the same. But it doesn't really matter, being first has no advantage.
and oh yeah, a level 1 sigmund, with 3 pillz beat my level 5 Lost Hog with 3 pillz also. 3 out of 18 chances, and I lost the match, had 4 extra pillz too, wanted the 8 exp bonus.
I have to use skill to counter luck, I seldom win and often lose because of "Lucky" card matches.
A Sigmund level 1 with 3 pillz has got 4 attack (1 3*1 = 4)
A Lost Hog level 5 with 3 pillz has got 20 attack (5 3*5 = 20)
So his chaches of winning are 4 out of 24 (yes I know thas the same as 3 out of 18)
And thas 16.67% chanche of winning (1 out of 6)
Crowley, from the sounds of it, it isn't that other people are winning cos they're Lucky. More like you are losing cos you are unlucky. When you've played many, many more games it will probably even itself out