dice.vs.skill

[Thezzaruz]

Just lost 27 v 14 so had to break that attack off, guess he gets to keep the continent bonus.

[Thezzaruz]

And on the subject of "you lose some, you win some"...

New round and I thought I should give it another go (the battle from the post above). Added my new armies and promptly won 15 in a row. Gave me a new continent, chance is funny sometimes...

[RADAGA]

Just now, I lost FIVE in a row, 3x1 .. detail, ALL FIVE defenses were sixes.

6;6;6;6;6 = go figure the odds.

I mean, the real odds. Here in CC, it happens once every 3 days/player.

[suggs]

Yes, its true, the dice are great when you are defending. Since you defend more than you attack, perhaps the dice need to be made less generous, as it means basucally we're all getting great dice most of the time.

[rocky mountain]

once i won a 15v16 (me being the 15) and like 3 or 5 left over! that was major luck, but at least i got great kingdoms castle!
Game 2366632, first entry in game chat

[danbodd]

In my breif experience, it seems that due to the 'equal or greater than' nature of defensive dice rolls, you are at advantage when you are defending, so it is about skill, if you are patient you can let your opponent get poor rolls trying to take 7v3 and then clean up whatever is left.
Admittedly you do have occasions where the luck genuinely is either with you or against you, for example I had 10 on Siam and took oceania, the guy had 7 on Thailand and 1 on the others. I managed to take all the territories with NO losses. On the other hand ive lost 5 trying to take a territory with 1. Im sure everyone will experience the same sort of luck at some point, but like others have said, the skill is being able to cope when the rolls go against you and knowing how to take best advantagewhen the rolls go your way.. (In some cases if youre on a hot streak of rolls its hard to know wen to stop without leaving yourself overstretched)

[Timminz]

In my breif experience, it seems that due to the 'equal or greater than' nature of defensive dice rolls, you are at advantage when you are defending, so it is about skill, if you are patient you can let your opponent get poor rolls trying to take 7v3 and then clean up whatever is left.
Admittedly you do have occasions where the luck genuinely is either with you or against you, for example I had 10 on Siam and took oceania, the guy had 7 on Thailand and 1 on the others. I managed to take all the territories with NO losses. On the other hand ive lost 5 trying to take a territory with 1. Im sure everyone will experience the same sort of luck at some point, but like others have said, the skill is being able to cope when the rolls go against you and knowing how to take best advantagewhen the rolls go your way.. (In some cases if youre on a hot streak of rolls its hard to know wen to stop without leaving yourself overstretched)

You speak with wisdom beyond your games-played. Except for the first part, about defenders getting the advantage. If you're attacking with 3 dice, you have a slight advantage. It works best with larger numbers. The odds of success go above 50% at about 11v11 or 12v12.

[RADAGA]

The true odds, not the conquerclub odds, you mean.

sometimes a 17 vs 11 ends up well for the 17 side.

But I did an autoattack with those numbers, and I ended up with 3, him with 8.

[gdeangel]

In my breif experience, it seems that due to the 'equal or greater than' nature of defensive dice rolls, you are at advantage when you are defending, so it is about skill, if you are patient you can let your opponent get poor rolls trying to take 7v3 and then clean up whatever is left.

It comes in streaks... sometimes you can attack with 3's and lose 1 guy in 10 attackes (I've done it when messing around). Other time you just can't beat that first defensive die, no matter that you've got 12 armies. (I've never seen a 20-1 go south, honestly). And there is nothing worse then getting eliminated when someone comes at you with 3... then 2, and somehow manages to knock you out of the game...

[Timminz]

The true odds, not the conquerclub odds, you mean.

sometimes a 17 vs 11 ends up well for the 17 side.

But I did an autoattack with those numbers, and I ended up with 3, him with 8.

The fact that you don't win every attack where you have greater than 50% odds, just proves the randomness of the dice.

[KLOBBER]

Factual information about the CC dice:

1. The dice are 100% non-random.

2. They are also 100% unpredictable, and these are two completely separate and distinct concepts.

3. If your brain lacks the necessary intelligence to comprehend that these are two wholly distinct concepts, then I truly pity you.

Details:

All faith in "chance," "randomness," and "luck" is very unscientific and unintelligent, and doesn't apply to the reality of the dice. It is all in the category of beilef, not science. Your faith in these concepts is 100% whimsical and sentimental, and is not backed by any scientific evidence. The patterns that the dice manifest are produced scientifically, not by superstitious, mythological beliefs like "luck." By concentrating on such concepts you are not even considering the patterns that the dice manifest in reality -- you are considering purely false, imaginary concepts.

If you do your research on the CC dice intelligently, as I have, then you will find that from the first step to the last, the patterns that they manifest are strictly controlled and designed at every point along the way. There is no single step in the process that produces the dice patterns that includes any miniscule element of "randomness" at all -- absolutely ZERO. All the processes that the patterns undergo are 100% by design, without so much as a single exception, right down the line, from beginning to end.

Design, by definition, is 100% non-random.

The fact that they are designed does not mean that the patterns are predictable; in fact they are not predictable, but they are certainly not random -- they are absolutely not random in the least bit -- they are unpredictable BY DESIGN, not by "randomness."

If you talk out your ass without doing the necessary research first, as most people who post in the CC forum seem to behave, then your lack of intelligence speaks for itself.

We are not cavemen. Such foolish concepts as "luck," "chance," and "randomness" are outdated myths, and none of them exist outside your overly fertile imagination.

Develop the intelligence to comprehend these facts, and behave accordingly.

[oVo]

You contradict yourself KLOBBER. Design may be calculated and not random, but the successful results of making something unpredictable "by design" is random... and chance and luck are not myths.

[danbodd]

We are not cavemen. Such foolish concepts as "luck," "chance," and "randomness" are outdated myths, and none of them exist outside your overly fertile imagination.

Develop the intelligence to comprehend these facts, and behave accordingly.

Whats wrong with hoping to get good dice?

Im well aware that there is no prediciting the patterns of rolls, but thats not for me to say that im not 'Lucky' for a lot of rolls to go in my favour and 'Unlucky' if they all go against me. Luck (or lack of) is just a perception of how well (or badly) a situation has gone. I dont for one minute think that im naturally lucky, but if I get an oddly good roll, id call it lucky, why? because thats the way it is.
Im not supersticious, but I respect that some people are and that the things they do make them more comfortable and confident, and I dont see anything wrong with that, in the same way that you are obviously more comfortable when analysing and thinking about things in a scientific/statistical mindset. Im not saying theres anything wrong with that, in fact im guilty of that myself, but just because someone believes in luck doesnt make them a caveman.
To me, being narrow minded and intolerant is just as unintelligent as being supersticious.. but thats just my opinion

Game on! And good luck everyone.. (can you see what I did there )

[KLOBBER]

Thank you for your opinion.

I prefer facts, myself.

[RADAGA]

Well, really, I am SURE rank have influence over results.

Feudal, the enemy, a lieutenant, with 50 armies, conquered, on a single round:

10 neutral
25 armies stationed on the frontier.
20 territories or so with 1 army each
5 armies on a village
10 armies on another frontier
10 armies on a castle
5 armies on another castle

Thats 85 armies. I held the WHOLE bottom of the map, and in one swipe, he took 70% of it.]

Big surprise, when I got to fight back, I managed to stack 25 armies against his 20 standing on the edge.

Guess what? My attack wasn´t even enough to kill this single stack. I stood with 2, and he with 4 remaining.

Do people here REALLY expect one to pay, considering those odds? There is NO USE on stacking 10, 30 or even 100 armies against a much higher rank.

OHHH I get it, the Lt in question is a paying subscriber. There must be stacking bonuses with rank+pay for the dice. Silly me, that was thinking it would be balanced.

[KLOBBER]

Well, really, I am SURE rank have influence over results....

OHHH I get it, the Lt in question is a paying subscriber. There must be stacking bonuses with rank+pay for the dice. Silly me, that was thinking it would be balanced.

If that were the case, then your intelligent course of action would be to pay for a subscription and up your rank.

However, the dice are definitely unpredictable, regardless of subscription status or rank, and so in reality, paying for a subscription and upping your rank will not affect the dice patterns.

They are unpredictable by design.

[danbodd]

Yeah, I cant see how rank and subscription will affect dice results. They are generated directly from Random.org using line files. Theres no way that they can differentiate who gets what lines, its pot luck.

[KLOBBER]

Yeah, I cant see how rank and subscription will affect dice results. They are generated directly from Random.org using line files. Theres no way that they can differentiate who gets what lines, its pot luck.

You are correct.

[RADAGA]

Then I should give up luck games and stick to chess

Of course, it was a rant, more than anything, but still, it is annoying to see a strategy match ruined by sheer luck.

Oh, well, it is a good game, still. And if I didn´t lived in a shitty country, being underpaid, and thus not affording a credit card, I´d sure pay.

But even with 10+ yrs experience in my field, and having two college degrees cannot alow me the luxury of having a credit card.. so... though luck.

[RADAGA]

Okay, so the dice are unpredictable.

But are they truly random? What we see, several times over, are "streaks of luck"

It is way too common to get 4 sixes in a row, or 4 ones, for that matter.

Just went to random.org, and ordered 16 dice to roll

4 6 6 3 3 5 2 2 4 6 5 4 2 2 2 2
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:46:53 UTC

then again

2 2 4 1 6 6 5 5 5 2 5 2 4 6 1 5
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:50:08 UTC

and once more

3 6 5 4 5 5 6 2 5 6 6 6 5 1 4 2
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:51:10 UTC

last time

5 4 5 1 4 1 4 2 6 2 1 2 4 1 2 5
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:52:23 UTC

lets analyse

First time: four TWO in sequence

Odds of three numbers (any) in sequence = 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6
in three dice: 1/72 ... 16 have 5 blocks of 3 dice, so roughly one on each fourteen rolls should have a triplet.

In four trials, I got it 3 times. One of them I got even a 4 streak.

Next, the ammount of same numbers.

On roll #1, the 2 were the favored.

We got 6 twos 37% of the rolls were twos.

On roll #2 we had 5 fives (31%)

on roll #3, 5 sixes (31%)

on roll #4, 4 fours and 4 twos (25% of each)

So, you can say, for sure, that, every time you roll 16 dice, you will have AT LEAST 25% of occurrences of a same number? and that, 3 times every four streaks, you will have at least 3 equal numbers in a row?

Next, from random.org>

3 dice.

6 6 2
1 1 5
1 1 2
4 3 6
3 6 3
1 4 6
1 4 3
1 4 6
1 1 1
1 6 2

rolled 10 times. Lets see... I got
doubles: 4 times
same result (1,4) 3 times in a row
and a triplet 1 1 1 (one chance in 72)

Rolling two

3 3 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:12:12 UTC
1 5
1 1 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:12:31 UTC
4 2
4 4 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:12:51 UTC
4 4 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:13:05 UTC
5 5 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:13:18 UTC
2 4
4 2
2 4
5 5 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:14:50 UTC
4 3 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:15:05 UTC

Okay. so, I rolled twelve times two dice.

there is one in 36 times that each pair will show up, one in six ANY pair will show up
So, rolling twelve times, I should expect TWO pairs to come up. I got SEVEN pairs. three and a half times more than what would be expected.

More, seven pairs in 12 rolls, means over HALF of the rolls were pairs.

And of the 24 dice, 9 were fours, one third of the dice ended up on a same number. the odds say one SIXTH should.

So EVERY instance I tested happened MORE than should be expected. Sometimes by a gross margin.

Does anyone bother to try and refute?

[Timminz]

Go roll 1,000,000 times using random.org, and roll 1,000,000 times using real dice. I'd bet large sums of money on the fact that you'll get just as many improbable strings using both methods.

[RADAGA]

So you say that if I roll one million times two real dice, I will have 550.000 times doubles? ANd more, that I will have a number to show up more than half the times I roll?

How large is the sum I am entitled to, if that is not true?

[Thezzaruz]

So you say that if I roll one million times two real dice, I will have 550.000 times doubles? ANd more, that I will have a number to show up more than half the times I roll?

Nope. What he is saying (correctly I might add) is that your small experiments from last page is waaaaay to small to hold any significance at all. Do every one a million times and then analyze it against a million throws with real dices and then come back with your results.

[Timminz]

So you say that if I roll one million times two real dice, I will have 550.000 times doubles? ANd more, that I will have a number to show up more than half the times I roll?

Nope. What he is saying (correctly I might add) is that your small experiments from last page is waaaaay to small to hold any significance at all. Do every one a million times and then analyze it against a million throws with real dices and then come back with your results.

exactly.

[KLOBBER]

Okay, so the dice are unpredictable.

But are they truly random? What we see, several times over, are "streaks of luck"

Actually, there is no "luck" involved; we are not cavemen. What is involved is a thinly veiled pattern of numbers, generated by sound vibrations, and in fact both patterns and sound vibrations are by definition non-random. There is also no "luck" involved in sound vibrations or patterns. It is unpredictable by design, not by "luck" or "randomness."

It is way too common to get 4 sixes in a row, or 4 ones, for that matter.

Just went to random.org, and ordered 16 dice to roll

4 6 6 3 3 5 2 2 4 6 5 4 2 2 2 2
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:46:53 UTC

then again

2 2 4 1 6 6 5 5 5 2 5 2 4 6 1 5
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:50:08 UTC

and once more

3 6 5 4 5 5 6 2 5 6 6 6 5 1 4 2
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:51:10 UTC

last time

5 4 5 1 4 1 4 2 6 2 1 2 4 1 2 5
Timestamp: 2008-05-12 11:52:23 UTC

lets analyse

First time: four TWO in sequence

Odds of three numbers (any) in sequence = 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6 + 1/6*1/6*1/6
in three dice: 1/72 ... 16 have 5 blocks of 3 dice, so roughly one on each fourteen rolls should have a triplet.

"Should?" The problem is that we're talking about unpredictable patterns here. If you desire unpredictability, then your preconceived notions about what patterns "should" or "should not" manifest must be discarded, in order to have a truly scientific analysis of the data. If you desire predictability, however, then your preconceived notions are acceptable, even though unscientific.

In four trials, I got it 3 times. One of them I got even a 4 streak.

Next, the ammount of same numbers.

On roll #1, the 2 were the favored.

We got 6 twos 37% of the rolls were twos.

On roll #2 we had 5 fives (31%)

on roll #3, 5 sixes (31%)

on roll #4, 4 fours and 4 twos (25% of each)

So, you can say, for sure, that, every time you roll 16 dice, you will have AT LEAST 25% of occurrences of a same number? and that, 3 times every four streaks, you will have at least 3 equal numbers in a row?

No, you can't. You have not presented every instance of the rolls that random.org produces, in the rolls that you mentioned above; you have only presented a handful.

You can say for sure that, ONLY in the isolated handful of examples above, you had 25% of same number occurrences. Again, you are assuming predictability in your attempt to prove predictability, which is unscientific. You are placing the cart before the horse: in order to prove that the dice are predictable, you need to set aside your assumption at the outset, otherwise you are building a case around your preconceived notion, not around the reality of the dice. Again, they are unpredictable by design.

Next, from random.org>

3 dice.

6 6 2
1 1 5
1 1 2
4 3 6
3 6 3
1 4 6
1 4 3
1 4 6
1 1 1
1 6 2

rolled 10 times. Lets see... I got
doubles: 4 times
same result (1,4) 3 times in a row
and a triplet 1 1 1 (one chance in 72)

Rolling two

3 3 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:12:12 UTC
1 5
1 1 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:12:31 UTC
4 2
4 4 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:12:51 UTC
4 4 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:13:05 UTC
5 5 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:13:18 UTC
2 4
4 2
2 4
5 5 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:14:50 UTC
4 3 Timestamp: 2008-05-12 12:15:05 UTC

Okay. so, I rolled twelve times two dice.

there is one in 36 times that each pair will show up, one in six ANY pair will show up
So, rolling twelve times, I should expect TWO pairs to come up.

By saying that you "should expect," you are again assuming predictability of the dice, and since it seems to be your intent to prove predictability, then your assumption nullifies the scientific integrity of your experiment.

I got SEVEN pairs. three and a half times more than what would be expected.

You have only proven that the dice are unpredictable within the limited set of trials above, as all of your rolls manifest patterns that you do not expect.

More, seven pairs in 12 rolls, means over HALF of the rolls were pairs.

And of the 24 dice, 9 were fours, one third of the dice ended up on a same number. the odds say one SIXTH should.

Again, you have shown that the dice defy your preconceived notion of what they "should" manifest, and so you are only proving that they are unpredictable in the limited set of trials you post above. The dice are definitely unpredictable by design.

So EVERY instance I tested happened MORE than should be expected. Sometimes by a gross margin.

Does anyone bother to try and refute?

[/quote]

Nobody can refute the hard, cold facts of the numbers you posted above. However, you seem to be trying to imply, without actually saying so, that the dice are predictable. You have not proven so.

In order to prove that they are predictable, you would have to predict, beforehand, a roll or several rolls in a row, and in fact, you would have to show that you are capable of repeatedly predicting rolls far into the future. You have not done so.

By approaching this issue with preconceived notions about "odds," and how the dice patterns "should" manifest, and citing a tiny handful of rolls, stating at the end that the patterns manifested in ways that you DID NOT EXPECT, all you have proven is that, in the tiny set of examples above, the dice patterns were unpredictable within the frame of reference of your own preconceived notions of how they "should" or "should not" manifest. Your attempts to extrapolate these 3 or 4 sets of numbers to ALL number strings from random.org is unscientific, and inapplicable to reality.