The statistic that really, really matters

[Andrew Whittaker]

When one clicks on personal stats, there is one statistic that I think would be hugely enlightening to see - Average Die Roll. Just that. Perhaps we could see it displayed at the end of each battle as well? I know that fortune favours the brave but....

Any thoughts?

[Wagnerion]

At one point DBAOL offered to calculate all the averages for die rolling but we haven't seen anything yet...I think its been about 6 months since that was last raised.

Good idea though. Don't know, however how difficult it would be to calculate as a running average..

Wagnerion

[Ambiorix]

I did this for myself and got about 200+ die rolls. The average was pretty close to 3.5. The problem I found was not the average die roll, but the sequence of die rolls (i.e. one would get a string of 1's, 2's, 3's, etc). On average, everything worked out, but you would get these groups of 8-12 numbers in a row that were the same. I think people only remember the string of 1's and not the string of 6's.

[imported_buenna]

everything boils down to one thing: luck is over-represented in combat, too much is left to luck. As someone said in another post, 50% of a combat result depends on pure chance, that's ridiculous and frustrating.

[imported_Paulisper]

Originally posted by buenna:
everything boils down to one thing: luck is over-represented in combat, too much is left to luck. As someone said in another post, 50% of a combat result depends on pure chance, that's ridiculous and frustrating. That's DBA for you...have you tried DBM ;) (or chess :D )??

[ May 13, 2003, 09:20: Message edited by: Paulisper ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by buenna:
everything boils down to one thing: luck is over-represented in combat, too much is left to luck. As someone said in another post, 50% of a combat result depends on pure chance, that's ridiculous and frustrating. I see this attitude all the time, and it just isn't true. Good players win their battles, time and again. When you pit a good player against a new player with even armies, the good player will win 90% of the time. When I played DBA Online I had a win ratio of better than 3.5, with more than 1000 games. When I play live at tournaments on the east coast of the US (Historicon, Cold Wars, Fall In) I do about the same -- I win about four games for every one I lose. Luck plays a part, sure -- sometimes I win one where my opponent outplays me, and sometimes I lose one where I outplay my opponent. But to say that half the game is luck is inaccurate and misleading.

[imported_buenna]

well there's no dbm online, is there?

If I've learned something in this forum is that dbaol is completely different to ftf dba.

I'm starting to remember why I stopped playing games that reward luck over everything else

[ May 13, 2003, 10:51: Message edited by: buenna ]

[imported_buenna]

I see this attitude all the time, and it just isn't true. Good players win their battles, time and again. When you pit a good player against a new player with even armies, the good player will win 90% of the time. When I played DBA Online I had a win ratio of better than 3.5, with more than 1000 games. When I play live at tournaments on the east coast of the US (Historicon, Cold Wars, Fall In) I do about the same -- I win about four games for every one I lose. Luck plays a part, sure -- sometimes I win one where my opponent outplays me, and sometimes I lose one where I outplay my opponent. But to say that half the game is luck is inaccurate and misleading.

You win against new players because you are an experienced player and the new player is not. You know how to use the units in a way that a new player may not know. You know what works and what doesn’t, and again a new player may not be aware of that. In a game with two even players things can go either way, still a lot (more than it should) depends on luck. Why bother having combat factors? Why not use a dice to resolve every combat? I’m sure the difference won’t be that big.
If you see this attitude all the time maybe is because it’s actually happening. But don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy the game

[Kachoudas]

I think both DK and Buenna are right. this game is not only about luck, but certainly it has a great importance. (to what % I don't care)

AND that is exactly what I love about this game. Chess always bored me because I have absolutly 0% chance of winning any player with even a minimum experience.

AND also, I think that the chance factor IS realistic when depicting wars and battles. No real general, when the difference of strenghs is not gigantic, can know for sure the outcome of any battle, nor of any single matchups.

For exemple, I really love Ps peasants being able to destroy Knights. It just simulate that the Knights may also be just crapy and arrogant young nobles, and the peasants may be desesperate for their lives... most of the time the peasants are doomed to death, but once in a while, they find in the battle some unusual courage and forces - probably the root of some Robin Hood legend...

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by buenna:

You win against new players because you are an experienced player and the new player is not. You know how to use the units in a way that a new player may not know. You know what works and what doesn’t, and again a new player may not be aware of that.It isn't just a matter of knowing the rules better -- it is a matter of understanding how to manage pips, and when to take risks, and gaining psychological dominance by forcing the enemy to react to what you are doing rather than letting him force you to react to him, and it is a matter of gaining the initiative, and mostly it is a matter of having a better plan, and executing it better.

None of which has anything to do with luck.

In a game with two even players things can go either way, still a lot (more than it should) depends on luck. Why bother having combat factors? Why not use a dice to resolve every combat? I’m sure the difference won’t be that big.
In a game between two even players, the one who has a better plan, and executes it better, usually wins. You seem to think that DBA is a big coin-flip. Maybe for you it is -- but if you play a dozen online games with evenly matched armies against Tiger, or Snowflake, or R3, you will be "lucky" if you win more than three. Why? Because DBA is NOT a big coin-flip -- the most important thing in DBA is not luck.


If you see this attitude all the time maybe is because it’s actually happening.No, I don't think so -- I see this attitude all the time -- from players who are new, or who don't know how to manage their pips effectively, or who don't understand how important it is to have a plan. Ask 20 players who are just starting DBA, and 10 of them will agree that DBA is mostly luck. As 20 players who have more than 500 games under their belts, and a win ratio of 3.0 or better, and none of them will say that DBA is mostly luck -- they'll say something like "sure, luck is a factor, but good play is more important"

[imported_buenna]

I wasn’t talking about the rules but about things that may be not obvious to a new player until some more experienced player shows it to you – the hard way, which is fair enough I suppose.
I agree with you that you need a sound plan and to be bold enough to execute it, but all of that is useless when you are faced with a completely capricious result, again and again. That cannot be the reward of a better thought plan. Would that happen once every five or six games I wouldn’t be complaining, but it happens all too often.

[Pozanias]

Sometimes a superior player with a superior plan loses, that's true. But I am sure it doesn't happen over and over again.

"Luck" usually roughly balances itself out over the course of a game (you just remember the "bad" luck more vividly than the "good" luck). In close games, the timing of the luck will usually make the difference. Certainly, though, over the course of 10, 50, 100 games luck will even out.

Having played against David Kuijt for the past 3 years, I can assure that he beats me more often than I beat him because he's a better player than I am. As I have improved, so has my record against him (and others) -- and my appreciation for his skill has increased as well. Good players put themselves in a position to take advantage of good rolls.

I guess my point is, when I first started, I couldn't appreciate good strategies and tactics because I didn't fully understand the game. It is only after playing for several years that I began to understand. What I used to see as luck, I now see as skill.

That's not to say luck isn't a factor, of course it is, but I would put it fairly low on the list of winning factors.

This list is not an exact science. For example, depending on the match-up, Terrain could be as high as #2 or #3. But for the most part, I think the list would look something like this:

1) Strategy
2) In game tactics
3) Army Match-ups
4) Luck
5) Terrain

Mark

[imported_The Paper General]

Hi, this question directed to David Kuijt. Do you still play dbaol? If yes, I would like to play a few games with you. I am certainly not one of the best players, but would love to try my hand against you in some friendly battles(...such things as a friendly battle?). I have played against the likes of RIII,Tiger, etc and you are right sound strategy always beats luck, mind you a string of one pips certainly puts a damper on your well laid plans(..'off times go aglee'...). I am also tired of taking a drubbing from above mentioned players(the bruises are healing though :D )
If you don't play dbaol anymore, how come? We all know the faults of this system, and wait patiently (like sheep?!) for the developers to kick it up a notch...but that's another thread...
What are your feelings for being a 'non-player' of this online system?
And as per an earlier comment on this thread, anyone heard of a dbm online coming down the pipes? tongue.gif
Alexander aka Saxon Dog

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Saxon Dog:
Hi, this question directed to David Kuijt. Do you still play dbaol?Nope.


If you don't play dbaol anymore, how come?DBA 2.0.

The faults of the DBAOL system aren't that major (with the exception of the Contract Group horror) -- I played several thousand games (dunno exactly -- my stats aren't active any more since I'm not signed up) and enjoyed them.

But DBA 2.0 is much better, and after playing six months or so of 2.0, I was no longer willing to play the poor sister (version 1.22; the one used by DBAOL). With only 30 or so maps, rather than with the flexible terrain system of 2.0; with only 180 army lists, rather than the 540+ of 2.0; without army aggression factors -- without these major additions, version 1.22 just isn't very interesting. After all, I've played every single DBA1.22 army on every single map, often dozens of times, maybe even hundreds. DBA 2.0 is just so much more varied and interesting.

I wish that DBAOL would go to version 2.0 -- I talked with Victor about it a number of times in person, as well as online. When it does I'll sign up again. But until then, nope.