The Improbable Always Wins....WTF?

[Pedronicus]

2011-01-31 18:06:36 - Shatners Bassoon [team]: pair
2011-02-01 00:43:38 - Pedronicus [team]: figures
2011-02-01 00:44:32 - Pedronicus [team]: here we go again
2011-02-01 00:44:34 - Pedronicus [team]: Combat Los Angeles: * 2 * 6 * 3 - vs - Barstow: * 6
2011-02-01 00:45:06 - Pedronicus [team]: no set
2011-02-01 00:46:29 - Pedronicus [team]: this is the list of defensive dice for this game
2011-02-01 00:47:53 - Pedronicus [team]: 66642423554564665563245543336426212464516145266666263
2011-02-01 00:48:09 - Pedronicus [team]: 17 6's and 3 1's

[natty dread]

Except that each dice is not independent of each other. What you say would be true if this were the case, but it is not. Each location is chosen at random and a string of 5 numbers is then presented representing the off/def numbers.

What are you talking about. Once again you make no sense at all

We have a string of 50000 numbers. We have another random stream which chooses a location for each assault. This stream produces numbers between 1 and 50000. Let's say that it chooses number 1000, on a 3v2 assault, numbers 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 and 1004 are read from the file. If it chooses number 1002 instead, then numbers 1002 - 1006 are read instead.

So there are 50000 possible locations to choose the 5 numbers. They have some overlap, of course, but this doesn't matter, because even if they didn't overlap there'd be 10000 possible locations, which is still more than the 7776 possible combinations of 5 dice.

If there are long strings of certain numbers, and the code is grabbing them, then this effect will happen more often (or with more frequency) with more people playing.

Sure, but why would this result in better/worse dice for any of the players? They're still grabbing the numbers from the same dice file, in the same way as any other time.

Every die gets its own number picked randomly from the string of 50,000 numbers, ideally at the same time. At the very least, the site could confidently claim that the dice are both random and the results probable.

How would it be any different from now, except being slower? The site can confidently claim that the dice are random and the results probable right now. There will always be those who disagree with that, though, simply because they can't deal with losing too well.

Isnt there supposed to be a randomly generated morale of each army? So if u auto assault and the defending army has high morale, ur going to lose a lot on that roll right?

1. Pathetic
2. Sad
3. Decent
4. Strong
5. Awesome
6. Heroic
aren't morale levels?

They are called "intensity levels" and they actually just refer to the numbers on the dice. Lots of new players make the mistake of thinking that these "intensity levels" refer to some secondary parameter, but actually they are only a "clever" way of referring to the dice results.

It is probably meant to be another way of avoiding copyright problems: instead of "dice" which have "numbers", we have "intensity cubes" which have "intensity levels".

[JaneM]

JaneM wrote:
If there are long strings of certain numbers, and the code is grabbing them, then this effect will happen more often (or with more frequency) with more people playing.

Sure, but why would this result in better/worse dice for any of the players? They're still grabbing the numbers from the same dice file, in the same way as any other time.

It may be equally bad for all players. In that sense, it's fair, but I wouldn't say it enhances gameplay.

JaneM wrote:
Every die gets its own number picked randomly from the string of 50,000 numbers, ideally at the same time. At the very least, the site could confidently claim that the dice are both random and the results probable.

How would it be any different from now, except being slower? The site can confidently claim that the dice are random and the results probable right now. There will always be those who disagree with that, though, simply because they can't deal with losing too well.

The dice don't seem particularly probable to me, and I'd tie it to capturing a string of numbers, but that's just my impression. I was particularly impressed by another player (who posted on one of these threads, somewhere) that he had tracked all of his rolls over two or three years on a spreadsheet. He calculated a general probability of winning an attack of about 50/50 when, for example, three dice against two should run a rough probability of 60/40, maybe 65/35 on a good day. (It is chance afterall.)

With 50/50 in mind, the site could be faster: the attacker bets how many armies he/ she is willing to risk against the defender's armies and flips a virtual coin.

I'll avoid the temptation to add a non-sequitor describing folks who disagree with the folks who think the dice are random and probable.

[MNDuke]

Except that each dice is not independent of each other. What you say would be true if this were the case, but it is not. Each location is chosen at random and a string of 5 numbers is then presented representing the off/def numbers.

What are you talking about. Once again you make no sense at all

We have a string of 50000 numbers. We have another random stream which chooses a location for each assault. This stream produces numbers between 1 and 50000. Let's say that it chooses number 1000, on a 3v2 assault, numbers 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 and 1004 are read from the file. If it chooses number 1002 instead, then numbers 1002 - 1006 are read instead.

So there are 50000 possible locations to choose the 5 numbers. They have some overlap, of course, but this doesn't matter, because even if they didn't overlap there'd be 10000 possible locations, which is still more than the 7776 possible combinations of 5 dice.

LOL. I know exactly what I am talking about. What you have just wrote is a break down of what I said. You seem confused and can't stay consistent. This is also proves that all you are trying to do is stir the pot and trying to discredit any discussion about the dice being whack.

Explain how these two statements aren't the same:

"Each location is chosen at random and a string of 5 numbers is then presented representing the off/def numbers."

"We have a string of 50000 numbers. We have another random stream which chooses a location for each assault. This stream produces numbers between 1 and 50000. Let's say that it chooses number 1000, on a 3v2 assault, numbers 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 and 1004 are read from the file. If it chooses number 1002 instead, then numbers 1002 - 1006 are read instead."

Pretty sure I understand the concept. The point being is that by jumping into random locations you are increasing the chance that the string of 5 numbers that are chosen could end in the same result as each other. That is the point I am trying to make and you are failing to understand.

[ljex]

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.

Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

This is flawed logic.

We have two random streams, one is used to pick chunks of numbers from the other. The first stream consists of numbers from 1-50 000.

Now, you see, streaks occuring on a random stream of numbers between 1-50000 are a lot less likely than streaks in a narrower stream, where the numbers are between 1 and 6. In other words, it's a lot less likely to get 2 same numbers next to each other when both numbers are between 1 and 50 000 than it is for numbers between 1 and 6. To be precise, the chance to get a streak of n numbers in the first stream is 1 in 50 000 ^ n, ie. 2 consequtive numbers has a chance of 50 000*50 000 of happening. In other words, to get the same number 2 times has a probability of 1 in 2 500 000 000.

So we can say for all practical purposes that each roll gets picked from a different location. Because they do, except for that 1 time in 2,5 million rolls.

Well that's funny. Because In the 20 turns I took today, I managed to roll 111 twice. So what you are saying is that the chance of that happening is 1 in 2,500,000,000 yet it manages to happen all the time....odd. It seems that the title of this thread is strangely appropriate then.

Each set of off/def gets picked from a different location. Not each dice or roll of the dice.

How is the chance of rolling 111 1 in 2,500,000,000 or are you saying the chance of that happening 2 times is 1 in 2,500,000,000 either way that is not even close to the odds that i would think.

[tdans]

My statistics will kick your Ass, so shutup everyone

[natty dread]

LOL. I know exactly what I am talking about.

LOL. It doesn't seem like you do.

You seem confused and can't stay consistent. This is also proves that all you are trying to do is stir the pot and trying to discredit any discussion about the dice being whack.

If you think that is so, then you should have no problems disproving what I say, right? I'm still waiting for you to do that.

Pretty sure I understand the concept. The point being is that by jumping into random locations you are increasing the chance that the string of 5 numbers that are chosen could end in the same result as each other. That is the point I am trying to make and you are failing to understand.

Pretty sure you don't. If you do, why have you still not addressed the main points of what I've been trying to tell you?

Or how about defending your own points.

each dice is not independent of each other. What you say would be true if this were the case, but it is not. Each location is chosen at random and a string of 5 numbers is then presented representing the off/def numbers.

Ok, how does this make sense? Why does the fact that the numbers are chosen in 5 number strings result in more streaks? This is something that you still haven't explained.

Your debating tactics seem to go like this: you present an ambiguous assertion, I try to ask for arguments that support your assertion, and then you try to focus the debate on some other minor non-issue or resort to personal attacks. This isn't good for your credibility, nor is the fact that you can't present yourself in a calm and comprehensive manner.

Let me reiterate what I've already said:

There's 50000 possible locations to choose the dice. There's only 7776 possible results. Therefore, each of these 7776 results most likely exists multiple times in that string of 50000 numbers.

Sure, the neighboring strings of 5 numbers overlap each other, but this is irrelevant, since even if we - for arguments sake - eliminate the overlap, that still leaves us with 10000 strings of 5, which is still more than the 7776 possible combinations. So certain dice results are bound to appear more than once, and when we count the overlap, it's very likely that all combinations appear more than once.

Now do you understand why your argument doesn't hold water?

It may be equally bad for all players. In that sense, it's fair, but I wouldn't say it enhances gameplay.

Why would the fact that more assaults are being made per minute result in better/worse dice for any of the players? Please, stop dodging the question and provide an answer. If you can't, just say so.

The dice don't seem particularly probable to me, and I'd tie it to capturing a string of numbers, but that's just my impression. I was particularly impressed by another player (who posted on one of these threads, somewhere) that he had tracked all of his rolls over two or three years on a spreadsheet. He calculated a general probability of winning an attack of about 50/50 when, for example, three dice against two should run a rough probability of 60/40, maybe 65/35 on a good day. (It is chance afterall.)

They don't "seem" probable? Check out the dice analyzer script and the thread where people post dice analyzer results. You'll notice that any results with anywhere near significal sample size have the dice numbers and winning ratios close to the expected results.

Who was this player you speak of, and has anyone seen these spreadsheets? The dice analyzer thread at least has screenshots.

And a probability of winning an attack of 50/50? Wtf does that even mean? The probability varies according to how many dice you are rolling, ie. do you assault 3v2, 2v2 or 1v2 or so on... IIRC none of them is exactly "50/50".

[Woodruff]

It seems that by jumping into random locations, you are increasing your chances for streaky dice. By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks.

I'm curious as to why you believe randomly selecting different locations as the starting point would increase the chance of streaks. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I don't follow the logic at all. Can you explain why that would be the case?

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.
Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

Ok, I understand what you're thinking with your examples. However, you're not randomly selecting those locations. It's JUST AS POSSIBLE that streaks would be broken up by the jumping around as it would be to create more streaks. It's just (and I hate to put it this way, but it's accurate) random as to which would be the case.

And I understand that it is just as likely as it will cause a streak as prevent it. But, I believe this is the cause for the increase in streaks. That's just my opinion. I don't have enough information to back this up. Yes, those were just examples to try and iterate my point better. Regardless though, I believe the random locations for each assault is the cause for the increase in streaks.

Just fixing the quoting.

[Woodruff]

Isnt there supposed to be a randomly generated morale of each army? So if u auto assault and the defending army has high morale, ur going to lose a lot on that roll right?

I'm going to presume you're kidding here.

[natty dread]

Isnt there supposed to be a randomly generated morale of each army? So if u auto assault and the defending army has high morale, ur going to lose a lot on that roll right?

I'm going to presume you're kidding here.

He isn't:

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions2

He's just misunderstanding what the instructions page means.

[Woodruff]

Pretty sure I understand the concept. The point being is that by jumping into random locations you are increasing the chance that the string of 5 numbers that are chosen could end in the same result as each other. That is the point I am trying to make and you are failing to understand.

This is where you and I disagree. You say that jumping into random locations increases the chance that the five numbers chosen could end in the same result as each other. Yet a few posts ago, I made the point that the random locations could just as easily decrease that chance rather than increase it (being random, after all). You agreed with me on that, and asserted that it was just your opinion that it was increasing the chance. But then here again, you are attempting to claim that it IS increasing the chance...as if it is a factual statement, which it clearly is not.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying instead of having the routing grab "five numbers" have it grab only one, and then "go random again"? I'm sure it could do that. The only difference (I would expect) would be that the site would slow down considerably.

Every die gets its own number picked randomly from the string of 50,000 numbers, ideally at the same time. At the very least, the site could confidently claim that the dice are both random and the results probable.

Statistically, this should make no difference at all to "strings of numbers". Statistically, it is just as likely to grab three 6s in a row by grabbing three separate random locations as it is to grab three 6s by picking one location and going with the next three numbers.

A seemingly common reply to complaints about the "new" dice is that people complained about the old dice, too. People will always complain about the fickle nature of chance, but it seems to me that some of these complaints will be inherent in a system that grabs a string of five numbers.

In my opinion, it's simply a matter of perception. The "bigger hits and bigger misses" are remembered more than what those who complain would call the "normal activity".

[MNDuke]

I've never claimed anything as fact. Soley as my opinion and assumptions. I'm tired of repeating myself and done playing your guys' little games. Natty I have expressed my point clearly and concisely time and time again, yet you fail to understand it. You ask the same question repeatedly and no matter how many times and how many ways I give you an answer, you still ask the same question and fail to comprehend. How is it that even Woodruff manages to at least understand the point I am trying to make and you can't?

My opinion is that the chances of streaks increases by choosing random locations for each attack. I feel that this increases the chances of the same outcome occuring again and again vs if the numbers were chosen right down the line from the string. I'm not saying the same numbers are being used repeatedly. I have expressed how this would be possible in an example. My point has been made and I'm tired of having to deal with this same circular argument with the same moronic fucks who don't have open enough minds to even give possibility that there may be something wrong with the dice. You are so dense and support a system for reasons you don't understand. I personally feel the only reason you so die hard support the dice system is only for the sake of argument. I've seen your posts in other threads and other forums and you take to the opposing side more often than not, just to bicker and argue. More power to you.

All I'm looking to do is have a rational conversation, maybe find the cause for this shit being so streaky and a possible solution to the goddamn problem. Its hard to even get there when anyone affiliated with CC always gives the same talking points and says nothing is wrong with the dice and posts thinly veiled personal attacks/slams. And anytime things seem to be going in a somewhat meaningful direction, there's natty bringing up shit out of context in order to incite and inflame and try to bring lack of credibility to thing. If you don't think anything is wrong with the dice, why post at all? Why try to stir up trouble unless that is what you are looking to do? GFY

If anyone besides natty or woodruff would like to chime in, feel free, but I'm done with the 2 imbeciles.

[JaneM]

JaneM wrote:
It may be equally bad for all players. In that sense, it's fair, but I wouldn't say it enhances gameplay.


Why would the fact that more assaults are being made per minute result in better/worse dice for any of the players? Please, stop dodging the question and provide an answer. If you can't, just say so.

I've answered the question, multiple times, in multiple ways. One last time: If a sting of five numbers includes a streak of identical numbers, the more people playing, the frequency of grabbing such a string increases. As you yourself point out, there are only so many permutations; the faster they're shuffled, the more frequently streaks will appear. They're shuffled faster when more people are playing.

JaneM wrote:
The dice don't seem particularly probable to me, and I'd tie it to capturing a string of numbers, but that's just my impression. I was particularly impressed by another player (who posted on one of these threads, somewhere) that he had tracked all of his rolls over two or three years on a spreadsheet. He calculated a general probability of winning an attack of about 50/50 when, for example, three dice against two should run a rough probability of 60/40, maybe 65/35 on a good day. (It is chance afterall.)

They don't "seem" probable? Check out the dice analyzer script and the thread where people post dice analyzer results. You'll notice that any results with anywhere near significal sample size have the dice numbers and winning ratios close to the expected results.

That's right; they don't seem probable, and really all I've got are my perceptions of the small sample of games I've played. As often as I've lost 6 v 1 or 7 v 1, though, and as often as I've seen my doubles partner or opponent do the same, that impression sticks.

I'll have to check out the dice analyzer thread again, and I'll have to look for those screenshots that have some sort of statistical significance. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, most players aren't going to see the same finite possibilities of the numbers sets that they might in 100 coin tosses.

At any rate, many businesses understand that perception is reality.

Who was this player you speak of, and has anyone seen these spreadsheets? The dice analyzer thread at least has screenshots.

And a probability of winning an attack of 50/50? Wtf does that even mean? The probability varies according to how many dice you are rolling, ie. do you assault 3v2, 2v2 or 1v2 or so on... IIRC none of them is exactly "50/50".

He posted on one of the numerous and frequent "Dice" threads. Since I'm just having a pleasant conversation, I'm not inclined to search for it, but it's here somewhere. In that analysis, this poster claimed about 50/50 attack success. It might be worth a look-see if you're so inclined.

And, yes, of course, probability is determined by number of dice rolled. As I added to my previous post, at face value, in general, for the basis or discussion, three dice rolling against two should produce a probability of success around 60/40, 65/35.

JaneM wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying instead of having the routing grab "five numbers" have it grab only one, and then "go random again"? I'm sure it could do that. The only difference (I would expect) would be that the site would slow down considerably.

Every die gets its own number picked randomly from the string of 50,000 numbers, ideally at the same time. At the very least, the site could confidently claim that the dice are both random and the results probable.

Statistically, this should make no difference at all to "strings of numbers". Statistically, it is just as likely to grab three 6s in a row by grabbing three separate random locations as it is to grab three 6s by picking one location and going with the next three numbers.

That's entirely possible, but then one would know that the dice aren't grabbing streaks.

JaneM wrote:
A seemingly common reply to complaints about the "new" dice is that people complained about the old dice, too. People will always complain about the fickle nature of chance, but it seems to me that some of these complaints will be inherent in a system that grabs a string of five numbers.

In my opinion, it's simply a matter of perception. The "bigger hits and bigger misses" are remembered more than what those who complain would call the "normal activity".

That's probably true to some extent, and always will be.

[ljex]

Well that's funny. Because In the 20 turns I took today, I managed to roll 111 twice. So what you are saying is that the chance of that happening is 1 in 2,500,000,000 yet it manages to happen all the time....odd. It seems that the title of this thread is strangely appropriate then.

Each set of off/def gets picked from a different location. Not each dice or roll of the dice.

How is the chance of rolling 111 1 in 2,500,000,000 or are you saying the chance of that happening 2 times is 1 in 2,500,000,000 either way that is not even close to the odds that i would think.

[natty dread]

I've never claimed anything as fact. Soley as my opinion and assumptions. I'm tired of repeating myself and done playing your guys' little games. Natty I have expressed my point clearly and concisely time and time again, yet you fail to understand it. You ask the same question repeatedly and no matter how many times and how many ways I give you an answer, you still ask the same question and fail to comprehend. How is it that even Woodruff manages to at least understand the point I am trying to make and you can't?

The post goes on like that. What a surprise. Once again, you fail to address anything in my post, rather you try to twist everything around, trying to convince yourself or others that it is in fact I who is failing in comprehension. Again, projection much???

I understand your claim perfectly. You claim that streaks magically appear by choosing the location randomly from the list of 50000 numbers. I have spent the last 3 posts pointing out the various flaws in your claim. Yet the message just doesn't seem to get through to you. Perhaps your head is all full of "my dice sucks! i lost 10v3" so that nothing else can get in? Either way, I'm done trying to explain. You either get it or you don't.

GFY

imbeciles.

Also, thank you for proving once again that you are incapable of debating without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

I've answered the question, multiple times, in multiple ways. One last time: If a sting of five numbers includes a streak of identical numbers, the more people playing, the frequency of grabbing such a string increases. As you yourself point out, there are only so many permutations; the faster they're shuffled, the more frequently streaks will appear. They're shuffled faster when more people are playing.

Ok, first of all, this is the first time you have actually explained the mechanism of how you assume the streaks are increased by more people playing. All your previous posts just assert that this is happening, but none of them have addressed the reason why you think this is happening.

Now that you have, I think there's a misunderstanding on your part. The frequency that numbers are grabbed from the file does not matter, since the numbers are not grabbed "destructively" ie. the numbers do not disappear from the list when they are taken. The same list is used for each 1 hour, as it is changed to a new one in one hour intervals. For each assault, a random location is choosen, where a string of 2-5 numbers is extracted from the list. So you see, no matter what the frequency of getting numbers from the list is, it does not affect the numbers: the parameters are the same for every assault, no matter how many assaults there are happening, because the location is random every time, but the list stays the same (except when it is changed, but the frequency of the list changing is again independent from the amount of people playing).

Do you understand now?

That's right; they don't seem probable, and really all I've got are my perceptions of the small sample of games I've played. As often as I've lost 6 v 1 or 7 v 1, though, and as often as I've seen my doubles partner or opponent do the same, that impression sticks.

I'll have to check out the dice analyzer thread again, and I'll have to look for those screenshots that have some sort of statistical significance. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, most players aren't going to see the same finite possibilities of the numbers sets that they might in 100 coin tosses.

At any rate, many businesses understand that perception is reality.

In this case, human perception is inherently flawed, as can be seen from the many dice complaint threads. Furthermore: people have always complained about the dice, and they will always complain about the dice, no matter what is done or not done to them. It's just human nature. The first dice complaint thread was posted 1 or 2 weeks after the site was opened. They have not ceased to this day. Do you really suppose that anything could be done to the dice that would end the dice complaints?

Unless random chance is eliminated completely from the site, someone will always complain "I just lost 8v2, this shouldn't be possible, the dice are not random, they are obviously scripted against me!"

[Woodruff]

I've never claimed anything as fact. Soley as my opinion and assumptions.

Well...

Pretty sure I understand the concept. The point being is that by jumping into random locations you are increasing the chance that the string of 5 numbers that are chosen could end in the same result as each other. That is the point I am trying to make and you are failing to understand.

That's a statement of fact. Your use of the terms in these sentences makes it appear not to be opinion/assumptions, but rather fact.

How is it that even Woodruff manages to at least understand the point I am trying to make and you can't?

"Even" Woodruff. Because Woodruff apparently doesn't understand statistics nor the nature of streaks within random elements. Unlike MNDuke, who seems to believe he understands both exceptionally well.

If anyone besides natty or woodruff would like to chime in, feel free, but I'm done with the 2 imbeciles.

I just wish you'd modify your strategy instead of bitching because your previous strategy no longer seems to work as well as you'd like it to.

[Woodruff]

I've answered the question, multiple times, in multiple ways. One last time: If a sting of five numbers includes a streak of identical numbers, the more people playing, the frequency of grabbing such a string increases. As you yourself point out, there are only so many permutations; the faster they're shuffled, the more frequently streaks will appear. They're shuffled faster when more people are playing.

Sure, they will appear more often, but their relative frequency WILL NOT INCREASE. I say this because their relative frequency is a matter of the ratio that they show up, not the sheer number of times they show up. Basically what I'm saying is this...ALL potentials will appear more often under the circumstances you describe (NOT just the streaks as you seem to be thinking), so the relative frequency of the streaks appearing remains the same within the overall potentials.

At any rate, many businesses understand that perception is reality.

Certainly true...and yet, all of our perceptions are not going to be the same, so should the site only cater to the complainers, simply because they make the most noise?

He posted on one of the numerous and frequent "Dice" threads. Since I'm just having a pleasant conversation, I'm not inclined to search for it, but it's here somewhere.

I remember the post that Jane's talking about. I also have no idea who it was (I don't believe it was a "regular poster", but I certainly could be wrong about that - I'm not even pulling up a guess as to the username.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying instead of having the routing grab "five numbers" have it grab only one, and then "go random again"? I'm sure it could do that. The only difference (I would expect) would be that the site would slow down considerably.

Every die gets its own number picked randomly from the string of 50,000 numbers, ideally at the same time. At the very least, the site could confidently claim that the dice are both random and the results probable.

Statistically, this should make no difference at all to "strings of numbers". Statistically, it is just as likely to grab three 6s in a row by grabbing three separate random locations as it is to grab three 6s by picking one location and going with the next three numbers.

That's entirely possible, but then one would know that the dice aren't grabbing streaks.

No, that's what I'm saying...either method is going to hit just as many streaks. The ONLY difference is that with one method, the streak is comprised of numbers that fall sequentially within the file, and in the other method the streak is comprised of numbers that do not fall sequentially within the file. I don't really follow why that would be an important distinction.

[MNDuke]

I just wish you'd modify your strategy instead of bitching because your previous strategy no longer seems to work as well as you'd like it to.

I wish you would say something new. We've been down this road before and I don't feel like discussing it again.

Just answer this question:

If you don't think anything is wrong with the dice, why post at all? Why try to stir up trouble unless that is what you are looking to do?

[jpreno]

If you really believe this, why don't you change your gameplay to account for it?

[MNDuke]

OMG! Please go back and read previous posts in this thread. I have no desire to digress and go back over this point again. It's all contained in here.

To all of you who support the dice system...what makes you think there is nothing wrong with it?

[natty dread]

To all of you who support the dice system...what makes you think there is nothing wrong with it?

I'm sorry, but you're the one making the claim, that there's something wrong with the dice, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

You can't prove a negative.

[SuicidalSnowman]

OMG! Please go back and read previous posts in this thread. I have no desire to digress and go back over this point again. It's all contained in here.

To all of you who support the dice system...what makes you think there is nothing wrong with it?

I'll take this one: I think there is nothing wrong with the dice system because my rolls on CC seem to generally reflect my rolls in real life.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because over 6 months the dice analyzer reported my statistics, and they matched up with a site I found on MIT's site that discussed dice probability.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because sometimes I think "Wow, that sucked, why did I lose when I had the advantage" and sometimes I think "Wow, that was lucky as hell, I had no business ever trying but I still won!" Most of the time, however, I calculate my odds (either in my head or using a calculator) and the actual dice rolls reflect that, which is pretty mundane, but like most truths in life, just the way it is.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because when I play with the same people repeatedly, they often complain about dice as much as they cheer the dice. Most of the time, however, they just roll.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because I have, to date, read over 220 forum pages (yes, I counted, and yes, its pretty damn sad) about the dice, and the same logic supporting them always works out mathematically, and the same complaints are always anecdotal.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because I have read all the documentation provided on this site, and on random.org, where the numbers are drawn. I then checked that documentation against other sources, and they all seem to agree, this is about as good as it gets.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because no one can tell me how to improve them.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because when I take a step back and review my games, it is usually pretty clear why I won or lost, irrespective of the dice.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because I watched a Discovery channel special on vegas gaming odds, and the dice on CC matched those expectations.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because I took the time to do some of the math myself, and it all checked out.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because I can't think of anyway to improve them (except for the bunnies suggestion.)

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because somehow everyone seems to have the same experiences with them.

I think there is nothing wrong with the dice on CC because when I put my mind to it, I can rank up pretty damn high.

Those are the first few reasons off the top of my head! It is kind of surprising, since I have never really written them down before, but I guess that is because no one really makes "Dice are wonderful!" threads, people make "Aren't I a great CC player!" threads instead...

[MNDuke]

So then why find the need to interject in the "dice bitch" threads? If you were really so content with the dice, wouldn't you just let people have a discussion about why they don't like the dice and what they think is wrong with them? Why the need to antagonize and snub? Why try and force people to believe the same as you? Can't you just let the threads exist and ignore them, much the same way you probably would deal with a discussion about religions you don't agree with or people who believe in the supernatural. If you didn't believe in God would you feel the need to try and convince anyone who does that God doesn't exist?

[Woodruff]

So then why find the need to interject in the "dice bitch" threads? If you were really so content with the dice, wouldn't you just let people have a discussion about why they don't like the dice and what they think is wrong with them? Why the need to antagonize and snub? Why try and force people to believe the same as you? Can't you just let the threads exist and ignore them, much the same way you probably would deal with a discussion about religions you don't agree with or people who believe in the supernatural. If you didn't believe in God would you feel the need to try and convince anyone who does that God doesn't exist?

First of all, I'm not posting in these threads to antagonize anyone.

Secondly, I am not "trying to force anyone to believe the same as I do" any more or any less than you are. I am, just as you are, simply adding relevant information within a discussion.

Why should we ignore these threads? I personally hate misinformation, so I try to correct it when I believe I am seeing it. That is why I am here.

If I didn't believe in God and someone were to be shouting from the rooftops at our government about how great God is in an attempt to change our government to suit their wishes, then I certainly would feel the need to speak up about it. I think it's a reasonable analogy.