Well, this is not ment as a complaint or anything but just a search for a way to get a more accurate feeling about the differences in luck%. As any other selfrespecting stat lover I check my luck% over the last 3 month and it was 48,2%. I think it is not particularily high but it will probably have to do and I already accepted the fact that I lose 50% of my 8v7 rolls ages ago so...

There are people in a comparable point range with avg luck% around 49%. Now, of course I know such a simplified calculation of luck% only based on all your rolls (early game, mid game, end game) and independent of your gamestyle (risky, conservative, many equal dice rolls or not,...) cannot tell the whole story.

Nevertheless, I was just wondering if we couldn't translate a difference of luck% into a more practical or more intuïtive example to help me -and probably some other players- get a better sense of what this luck % actually tells us.

We all probably won games with 46% luck and got early exits with 55% luck so we clearly have to look over much longer periods. 200 games with 25 attacks/defends looks like a good starting point. That's 5000 rolls. If you discard the fact that people have different aggressive tendencies and assume an average person attacks as much as he gets attacked you should theoretically win 2500 out of those 5000 Att or Def.

Now If someone had 48,7% luck (0,5% more then me), would that roughly translate into 25 (or 50?) more wins in a 5000 roll period or am I simplifying it too much now cuz I know a 7v4 loss contributes more to your luck than say a 8v8 loss.

Another approach might be to assume your luck% affects all types of rolls equally. If I take 1 round number example: 6 vs 5 attacks should win 70,0%. A person with 48,9% luck compared to my 48,2% has rougly a factor of 0,0145 (0,7 diference/48,2) better odds. So he would rougly win 71 out of 100 6vs5 rolls (70+ 70*0.0145 = close to 71) or am I again discarding way too many factors.

Any thoughts?