Moderator: Community Team
You let go of them with your hand and the gravitaional pull of the earth accelerates them toward the ground/table at 9.8mps^2 They bump into one another and the ground and friction causes them to come to a rest. They hold kinetic energy, but more importantly, they hold a number of spots (1-6) on their top. The number facing up is the number you have "rolled".ghost2501 wrote:How Dice Work Exactly
I loledBeckytheblondie wrote:You let go of them with your hand and the gravitaional pull of the earth accelerates them toward the ground/table at 9.8mps^2 They bump into one another and the ground and friction causes them to come to a rest. They hold kinetic energy, but more importantly, they hold a number of spots (1-6) on their top. The number facing up is the number you have "rolled".ghost2501 wrote:How Dice Work Exactly
I hope this answers your question.
Gravity plays a large part in that, too.Beckytheblondie wrote:friction causes them to come to a rest.
Friction only really plays a part in this because of gravity.the.killing.44 wrote:Gravity plays a large part in that, too.Beckytheblondie wrote:friction causes them to come to a rest.
BTW, has anyone ever run an analysis on autoattack vs single attack? I believe that random.org is random, but the timing issue between these two actions might bias a sample that streams from Random.org.Timminz wrote:The numbers for the dice are taken from random.org. They have passed every randomness, and "streakiness" test anyone has thrown at them.
It is only perception that makes people think the dice are faulty.

yesSnowgun wrote:BTW, has anyone ever run an analysis on autoattack vs single attack?Timminz wrote:The numbers for the dice are taken from random.org. They have passed every randomness, and "streakiness" test anyone has thrown at them.
It is only perception that makes people think the dice are faulty.
No they havent.Timminz wrote:yesSnowgun wrote:BTW, has anyone ever run an analysis on autoattack vs single attack?Timminz wrote:The numbers for the dice are taken from random.org. They have passed every randomness, and "streakiness" test anyone has thrown at them.
It is only perception that makes people think the dice are faulty.

Timminz wrote:Friction only really plays a part in this because of gravity.the.killing.44 wrote:Gravity plays a large part in that, too.Beckytheblondie wrote:friction causes them to come to a rest.
I might be able to point you in the right direction, but I think I'd prefer you to not believe me.Snowgun wrote:No they havent.Timminz wrote:yesSnowgun wrote:BTW, has anyone ever run an analysis on autoattack vs single attack?Timminz wrote:The numbers for the dice are taken from random.org. They have passed every randomness, and "streakiness" test anyone has thrown at them.
It is only perception that makes people think the dice are faulty.
See how easy that was to rebuttle without a link to the actual study?![]()
(so Timmah, do you happen to have a link? i'd be interested. thx)
random.org generates a large file of numbers (arranged in rows with 5 numbers between 1 and 6) also known as the mythical beast "the dice file". The server then picks a line and uses the first three numbers as the attackers dice (if less than 3 dice is rolled then the extra numbers are just discarded) and the last two as the defenders dice (again, the second number is discarded if only one dice is rolled) and then compares the generated rolls as per the standard RISK rules of highest wins with defender winning draws. Simple as.ghost2501 wrote:What kind of randomizer is used to roll the dice and how do you people deal with it.
There was some small work done on the "auto v single" issue. IIRC they could not observe anything unexpected (should be a link to it in one of the big dice threads in GD or possibly in the one in S&B).Snowgun wrote:BTW, has anyone ever run an analysis on autoattack vs single attack? I believe that random.org is random, but the timing issue between these two actions might bias a sample that streams from Random.org.
ghost2501 wrote:I just want to know how it can be possible to have a true random dice throw and loose 27 of 32 attacks in a row.
If you are actively looking for short term anomalies then you will be a very unhappy camper tbh as that is only to be expected of any random sequence. You need upwards of 10k dices thrown before you can safely expect it to close in on the statistical mean.ghost2501 wrote:wahoo I got some bad dice again today
Please do.ghost2501 wrote:I should write down all the dice throws in a game and see how supposedly random it is
So, does random's list have every combination of 5 dice (7776 different combinations) and it's CC's server that picks them at random?Thezzaruz wrote: random.org generates a large file of numbers (arranged in rows with 5 numbers between 1 and 6) also known as the mythical beast "the dice file". The server then picks a line and uses the first three numbers as the attackers dice (if less than 3 dice is rolled then the extra numbers are just discarded) and the last two as the defenders dice (again, the second number is discarded if only one dice is rolled) and then compares the generated rolls as per the standard RISK rules of highest wins with defender winning draws. Simple as.![]()
Well, since it is "small" work, I wonder if it was adequate? and as far as nothing that procedurally differs, that is not true. if the server picks the dice lines, sampling them when called, there could be a aliasing effect of the picking algorithm, expecially for smaller stack numbers which seem to be the most suseptable to crazy auto results. add on ping time, the fact that the auto does it with a constant delta t vs human button hitting, ect.Thezzaruz wrote:There was some small work done on the "auto v single" issue. IIRC they could not observe anything unexpected (should be a link to it in one of the big dice threads in GD or possibly in the one in S&B).Snowgun wrote:BTW, has anyone ever run an analysis on autoattack vs single attack? I believe that random.org is random, but the timing issue between these two actions might bias a sample that streams from Random.org.
However it is, IMO, a moot point as there is nothing procedural that really differs between auto and single attacking. "Auto" is simply the server hitting the "single" button several times (but really, really fast) and displaying the result in one go and as the dice numbers are generated they way they are that shouldn't make for any issues tbh.

What kinda dice do I get if I just eat a steak?targetman377 wrote:the dice are simple in order to get good dice you must pray to the "6" the God of the DICE yes if you do not believe in it you will not get good dice
so GO SACRIFICE A COW IN THE NAME OF THE DICE!!!!!

Snowgun wrote:What kinda dice do I get if I just eat a steak?targetman377 wrote:the dice are simple in order to get good dice you must pray to the "6" the God of the DICE yes if you do not believe in it you will not get good dice
so GO SACRIFICE A COW IN THE NAME OF THE DICE!!!!!
No. The numbers are random and the server just picks the next line in order. (IIRC the dice file has 10 or 20k of lines in it)Snowgun wrote:So, does random's list have every combination of 5 dice (7776 different combinations) and it's CC's server that picks them at random?
No. There is no picking algorithm and hence none of the issues you suggest either.Snowgun wrote:and as far as nothing that procedurally differs, that is not true. if the server picks the dice lines, sampling them when called, there could be a aliasing effect of the picking algorithm, expecially for smaller stack numbers which seem to be the most suseptable to crazy auto results. add on ping time, the fact that the auto does it with a constant delta t vs human button hitting, ect.
No I'm not saying that things can't be wrong, just that I so far haven't seen anything procedural that would produce a flawed result (as long as you accept the basic premise that random numbers can come from a man made algorithm of courseSnowgun wrote:However, in all probability it is most likely the same. But dismissing the chance that something COULD be wrong is also the wrong approach.
No. Being disproved rarely stops people whining about how they've been wronged. Sadly enough...Snowgun wrote:They should have a sticky with all the dice randomness study data, then maybe there would be fewer "the dice suck" threads.