Dice Complaints and Various Suggestions to Fix Them

[AAFitz]

I just won 88 points killing a 2 with my 3... i like the dice right now... tomorrow when I lose ten trying to kill a 2...my opinion will probably change though

[lancehoch]

I'm not saying that the improbable shouldn't be totally impossible. But i am saying that a good random numbers algorithm would be better, as it is more controlled and fair. I'm simply saying this due to the large amounts of totally unfair rolls i've had, but maybe it's just me.

That inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.

Yeah, that's the point.

TNine, I am sorry, I guess you missed my point. See the red, bold portions above. Now, again, you are asking for a random number generator which is controlled. As I stated before, this cannot be by the inherent nature of the word random.

[TNine]

I'm not saying that the improbable shouldn't be totally impossible. But i am saying that a good random numbers algorithm would be better, as it is more controlled and fair. I'm simply saying this due to the large amounts of totally unfair rolls i've had, but maybe it's just me.

That inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.

Yeah, that's the point.

TNine, I am sorry, I guess you missed my point. See the red, bold portions above. Now, again, you are asking for a random number generator which is controlled. As I stated before, this cannot be by the inherent nature of the word random.

I was more saying that not controlled random, but a more constant random number generator, as this is less random as it is impossiple to have a totally random number generator.

Put it this way. I want a number generator that is semi-random but more constant.

[lancehoch]

So are you saying that you would like it to produce more 3s and 4s than other numbers? Or are you saying that you would like the attacker's dice to show more 4s, 5s, and 6s? Since we are (hypothetically) controlling the dice we can do this. Also, I just want you to realize that any changes to the dice will affect the other users when they are attacking, so there will be more instances where someone attacks you with 4 v 7 and wins. Just pointing out some aspects of your suggestion.

[FabledIntegral]

I always have and still want what the original poster is asking for - a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

I've lost nearly 1000 points in 2-3 weeks of playing games, and it's almost 100% from shitty dice.

I went around 8-33 in a more recent game, although I admit 6 of the losses came from losing all 3v2, so if you want to take the only "best" probability rolls, I still lost 8-27.

Game before that I was sweeping, got extremely shitty dice on one of the kills, but still managed it, continued sweeping... game came down to 3 players left. I had around 80 armies, Yellow had 20, and I took Teal down to a single with 6 armies. The 6v1 lost, yellow took his turn, got 6 cards, turned in a single set worth around 50 armies, and conquered half the board. I still would have won the game despite that though, as taking half the board brought him down to around 35 armies, and I could have cashed 55, except I got two pair... so he won the game.

1000 points in around 2 weeks. Think about that. I'll admit a good chunk of those points are due to others playing shitty and taking it out on me (we all have streaks where it seems the typical sergeant or lieutenant kills you in particular be/c they are fricken clueless, it just seems to be happening abnormally a lot lately)... but still. I was 3810, now I'm... well you can see my rank. FFS. Dice or suiciding idiots, and this site won't fix either of them.

[cicero]

Given that this thread is in Suggestions & Bug Reports let's keep the discussion focussed on the suggestion at hand. Repeated examples of bad dice experiences don't contribute anything to this suggestion and would be better posted in All dice complaint threads [merged].

[FabledIntegral]

Of course bad dice have to do with this thread - look at the topic. He wants to address the "random" issue and state that it's not a good thing. How is that not on topic?

[TNine]

So are you saying that you would like it to produce more 3s and 4s than other numbers? Or are you saying that you would like the attacker's dice to show more 4s, 5s, and 6s? Since we are (hypothetically) controlling the dice we can do this. Also, I just want you to realize that any changes to the dice will affect the other users when they are attacking, so there will be more instances where someone attacks you with 4 v 7 and wins. Just pointing out some aspects of your suggestion.

Hmm, is there any way to make it slightly more biased to the defence?
More strategy involved, sure the occasional freak turn, but still mostly constant.

[FabledIntegral]

So are you saying that you would like it to produce more 3s and 4s than other numbers? Or are you saying that you would like the attacker's dice to show more 4s, 5s, and 6s? Since we are (hypothetically) controlling the dice we can do this. Also, I just want you to realize that any changes to the dice will affect the other users when they are attacking, so there will be more instances where someone attacks you with 4 v 7 and wins. Just pointing out some aspects of your suggestion.

Hmm, is there any way to make it slightly more biased to the defence?
More strategy involved, sure the occasional freak turn, but still mostly constant.

Producing more 3's and 4's would accomplish exactly what? The dice are already predetermined - I'd rather have them be predetermined and relatively inconsistent. I'm not saying there be some variation... I've lost 6v1 and could still see that coming up occasionally - but the frequency at which poor rolls come up is uncannily high. Yes I can take into account all the rolls I've done, etc. I know how statistics works very well... but within one month I lost the specific 9v1 4x. For it to happen just a single time is like 1/2000 or something. For that to happen 4x..? I can assure you I have no rolled the specific 9v1 enough times for odds to come up even relatively close to that number. And retardedly good dice as well - I don't want either. I've won 6v15 before... the other player was pissed, I thought it was stupid (yet I didn't like the person I did it to so I was happy in that sense).

As the dice are already predetermined, I merely suggest that they are somehow determined differently. If I could make an analogy, it would be as if you were lowering the standard deviation in which a series of random numbers are produced from a specific number. You can do that in a calculator. The same concept (concept that is, I don't know exactly how it could be applied as I'm not aware of a standard deviation even existing in the way dice are produced, hence it being an analogy) hopefully could be applied to the dice, making it still random numbers produced.

[blakebowling]

So are you saying that you would like it to produce more 3s and 4s than other numbers? Or are you saying that you would like the attacker's dice to show more 4s, 5s, and 6s? Since we are (hypothetically) controlling the dice we can do this. Also, I just want you to realize that any changes to the dice will affect the other users when they are attacking, so there will be more instances where someone attacks you with 4 v 7 and wins. Just pointing out some aspects of your suggestion.

Hmm, is there any way to make it slightly more biased to the defence?
More strategy involved, sure the occasional freak turn, but still mostly constant.

you don't seem to understand, if it is biased, it IS NOT random

EDIT: The current bias for the attacker is made by the original Risk rules, and not by the dice or anything else at CC

[TNine]

So are you saying that you would like it to produce more 3s and 4s than other numbers? Or are you saying that you would like the attacker's dice to show more 4s, 5s, and 6s? Since we are (hypothetically) controlling the dice we can do this. Also, I just want you to realize that any changes to the dice will affect the other users when they are attacking, so there will be more instances where someone attacks you with 4 v 7 and wins. Just pointing out some aspects of your suggestion.

Hmm, is there any way to make it slightly more biased to the defence?
More strategy involved, sure the occasional freak turn, but still mostly constant.

you don't seem to understand, if it is biased, it IS NOT random

EDIT: The current bias for the attacker is made by the original Risk rules, and not by the dice or anything else at CC

I know it is not random. In fact, that's kind of the point.
And i meant the chance of defence getting high numbers higher than offence.

[Timminz]

a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

"Random" is NOT "fair". It's random.

[FabledIntegral]

a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

"Random" is NOT "fair". It's random.

It can be though. You're trying to argue what has already been discussed. Completely friggin' irrelevant and unnecessary post. You can discuss why you'd rather have "more" random dice (which are STILL predetermined ANYWAYS), but [modedit]please don't simply repeat stuff[/modedit] that's already been addressed.

[Timminz]

a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

"Random" is NOT "fair". It's random.

It can be though. You're trying to argue what has already been discussed. Completely friggin' irrelevant and unnecessary post. You can discuss why you'd rather have "more" random dice (which are STILL predetermined ANYWAYS), but [modedit]please don't simply repeat stuff[/modedit] that's already been addressed.

While I may have been responding to your post, I was not posting for your benefit. We all know that you know all this already. I was trying to help the new guy (TNine). When a new player shows up and expects random to be fair, they can easily get very discouraged. Which is too bad, since this game can be a lot of fun, regardless of how "fair" it is.

[TNine]

a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

"Random" is NOT "fair". It's random.

It can be though. You're trying to argue what has already been discussed. Completely friggin' irrelevant and unnecessary post. You can discuss why you'd rather have "more" random dice (which are STILL predetermined ANYWAYS), but [modedit]please don't simply repeat stuff[/modedit] that's already been addressed.

While I may have been responding to your post, I was not posting for your benefit. We all know that you know all this already. I was trying to help the new guy (TNine). When a new player shows up and expects random to be fair, they can easily get very discouraged. Which is too bad, since this game can be a lot of fun, regardless of how "fair" it is.

I just think fun is fair, or totally ridiculously luck involved, but you can't try to mix them.
CC would be much better with fairer dice, leaving much more to the game itself.

BTW Fabledintegral, i don't what that on my thread. Be nice or be gone.

[FabledIntegral]

a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

"Random" is NOT "fair". It's random.

It can be though. You're trying to argue what has already been discussed. Completely friggin' irrelevant and unnecessary post. You can discuss why you'd rather have "more" random dice (which are STILL predetermined ANYWAYS), but don't fucking feed me some stupid shit that's already been addressed.

While I may have been responding to your post, I was not posting for your benefit. We all know that you know all this already. I was trying to help the new guy (TNine). When a new player shows up and expects random to be fair, they can easily get very discouraged. Which is too bad, since this game can be a lot of fun, regardless of how "fair" it is.

Very misleading when you quote me then - I guess some sort of apology is in order... maybe. I still say it was misleading.

[cicero]

I am complaining that just because [the dice are] random doesn't mean that their good. In fact, that means they might be bad, as chance is very uncontrollable. I would much rather have a fair random numbers algorithm. Just a point for the dice are random argument.

So TNine, and others, what would this "fair random numbers algorithm" look like ?
[I suggest we halt the continued discussion of "controlled" and "random" being mutually exclusive terms for the purposes of this thread.]
Let's call it a "fair pseudo-random number algorithm ...

If this thread is going to survive here in Suggestions & Bug Reports we really need to get the "suggestion" part up and running ...

[FabledIntegral]

a MORE fair type of "random" dice.

"Random" is NOT "fair". It's random.

It can be though. You're trying to argue what has already been discussed. Completely friggin' irrelevant and unnecessary post. You can discuss why you'd rather have "more" random dice (which are STILL predetermined ANYWAYS), but [modedit]please don't simply repeat stuff[/modedit] that's already been addressed.

While I may have been responding to your post, I was not posting for your benefit. We all know that you know all this already. I was trying to help the new guy (TNine). When a new player shows up and expects random to be fair, they can easily get very discouraged. Which is too bad, since this game can be a lot of fun, regardless of how "fair" it is.

I just think fun is fair, or totally ridiculously luck involved, but you can't try to mix them.
CC would be much better with fairer dice, leaving much more to the game itself.

BTW Fabledintegral, i don't what that on my thread. Be nice or be gone.

Your thread? Screw off - it's a public discussion forum. Hell, can I start a thread and try to say something and say I don't want anyone else to disagree with me. Same concept as language. I'll argue how I want - you can leave it up to the mods to moderate me (already done).

[TNine]

I am complaining that just because [the dice are] random doesn't mean that their good. In fact, that means they might be bad, as chance is very uncontrollable. I would much rather have a fair random numbers algorithm. Just a point for the dice are random argument.

So TNine, and others, what would this "fair random numbers algorithm" look like ?
[I suggest we halt the continued discussion of "controlled" and "random" being mutually exclusive terms for the purposes of this thread.]
Let's call it a "fair pseudo-random number algorithm ...

If this thread is going to survive here in Suggestions & Bug Reports we really need to get the "suggestion" part up and running ...

I don't know enough about random number algorithms to ansewer that question, i was simply adding the point that random does not certainly equal fair, i think other users know some stuff about random algorithms to answer that question, if not the mods themselves.

[fuzzball]

There is absolutely no way in the world that the dice are random, I say this for a number of reasons:

1. I've been playing for about 2 months and have lost well over half my rolls. I almost always attack with the advantage (maybe once or twice a game i'll go for a 2 on 1 or a 1 on 1 but only if it will greatly benefit me, all other times i only roll with 3 dice). I usually need to roll at least 2 or 3 times to take a single army. I have on at least 10 occasions lost more than 5 armies attacking a single and once I lost 8 armies against a single army. I know that this sort of thing can happen in real life, but it would be so rare that many would never see it, but I'm getting it all the time!!

2. Most times when I lose the defender has exactly the same 2 dice as my top 2. That does happen in real life, yes, but I'm talking about more than 30% of ALL lost rolls where this phenomenon occurs.

3. Rolling seems to go in waves of really bad (a lot) or really good (happened a few times). It never seems to be just decent and fair. For example, over the past week I have lost well over a hundred armies and only managed to take about 20. This is exacerbated by the fact that the other players are taking 8 of my armies with 4 of their own, hence over the course of the week i've gone from winning all my games to losing all my games. One other time I won 10 doubles in a row, it was amazing.

4. I have been playing on another website called grandstrategy for over a year. I also play in real life and I love the game. With all my experience I know that there are times when the dice are in your favour, times when they are against you but in the end it all evens out. Sometimes you have good games and sometimes you have bad games. I also know a lot about stastical probability and having seen what I have seen on this website there is a definite anomoly with the dice.

5. I also agree with a previous post-er that when doing auto-attack the results are extreme. I once saw a guy lose 36 armies against 8 and he didn't even take the territory.

With all the examples I have given, yeah they are all possible, I mean anything is possible with dice. But the fact that these ones are computer generated and the fact that they consistently fall well outside the general probability means I'm sceptical. Other friends of mine think that maybe the random seed you use for the generator is time based and that there are better times during the day to be rolling than others. I just know there is something wrong!!

That will be all.

P.S. The new classic map is ordinary. You guys working on a more suitable replacement?

[spiesr]

Go look here.

[e_i_pi]

ffs let it die

[Gunner1980]

ok, i just played 16 on 6. lost 15 and he lost only 1 so at the end i was left with 1 and he survived with 5. tell me, what stream of luck would it have to be in real life fr something like THAT to happen?

[john9blue]

ok, i just played 16 on 6. lost 15 and he lost only 1 so at the end i was left with 1 and he survived with 5. tell me, what stream of luck would it have to be in real life fr something like THAT to happen?

About 1/20 of a percent. It should happen once every 16000 rolls. That sucks...

[Gunner1980]

well, im glad this amuses you lol. the shitty thing was that this was basically his last territ (+2 others to be exact but this was the only territ where he had a "serious" army) and he had 4 cards, esc game. f*ck.