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:

Monday 07/05/2007, 18:13

Randomness... ;__;

Monday 07/05/2007, 18:23

Welcome to urban rivals

Isn't the randomizer fun ?

Trust me, I know that feeling just too well. I lost 3 matches in a row today where both characters had the absolute same amount of attack. Even worse, I lost these matches in the Danger Zone where the randomness is disabled except for those 50:50 battles. Oh, and to top it again, my matches were ELO matches as well.

Then, as if it wasn't enough, in the tournament I just played I lost 2 matches because my opponents were Lucky enough to win battles like 20:50 against them. In return I didn't win a single match because og being Lucky like that. All my matches were like they should have been, except those 2. Effectively these 2 matches cost me 1,800 clintz. I would've been first instead of "just" second.

But oh well, I am more and more getting used to fact that the randomizer hates me.

GGs ;)

Monday 07/05/2007, 18:33

That means the random number generator hit you. assuming no bonus that should happen, statistically once every 9 fights. that is not even exceptionally rare.
(4 attack against 32 -> 1:8 => 1/9 chance of winning for Brandon)

Monday 07/05/2007, 20:13

It hates everyone just when u think u've won it gets you

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 01:59

What's worse if your opponent gets cocky and brags his "random" win... lol!
GG's! :pirate:

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 04:43

For a 4 attack to beat a 32 attack once every nine fights sounds broken to me.
Someone reccommended that those numbers could be squared to give the probabilities:
eg. Brandon 4 attack. 4^2=16
Ingsthra 32 attack. 32^2=1024
So Brandon has a 16/1040 chance, or 1/65 chance of winning, which seems much closer to fair randomness to me.

What about something closer?
Natrang 4 power 5 pillz (total) = attack 20
Meyen 7 power 4 pillz (total) = attack 28
On the current system, Natrang would win 5/12 of the time. (42%)
If they were squared
20^2= 400
So Natrang would win 400/1184, or 25/74 of the time. (34%)

Moving from almost 50% wins to closer to 33% wins. That seems much better.
The current system of randomness doesn't reward you enough for managing to actually get the upper hand on your
opponent. It's no wonder so many serious players head to the danger zone.

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 05:31

Emiq: your suggestion is the incarnation of "unfair randomness" imho. so whoever is Lucky enough to have higher power gets even more... I mean, why? This is just not what I understand by "fair". I honestly see no reason to add exponentiality to the calculation in any way.

I agree to the problem of "strategic management" being most often ridiculed by the RNG (random number generator) ad it annoys me often enough. On the other hand, there simply do not seem to be enough players who want to play without that shitty randomness. Which is a pity but also a clear "vote".

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 05:33

I have one big fear with arranging the chances exponentially. Imagine 8x Wanda decks or the like - decks with 8 high power cards. What will you do against those? It would greatly shift the balance towards cards with high power; cards with medium to low power would become alomst unplayable - they are effectively downgraded.

Tuesday 08/05/2007, 12:17

I play evo allot.. there you get the most crazy fights with randomness :)
well.. sometimes it helps to ;)
I played evo today and some noob tried to fury me last round to K.O. me but he lost due to the randomness ^__^
So he gets 8dmg and loses the game with a K.O.
I laughed at him 0=)


Reply to this subject