7 troops SHOULD be able kill a fucking SINGLE!

[mr. CD]

Now I neither know nor care whether it happens once in 304 times or anything else. What is being missed is that to take 304 turns which include that many armies against a single is rare. In other words it happens once in 304 times that these conditions exist, which may be once in 3000 turns, who knows. Take this a step further and multiply it by the number of people who have experienced this (I have for sure, but I cannot be bothered mentioning it to the authorities of the site as they really do not care) and you start to see a picture which definitely has skewed results. I can only say that often, when in a turn I have experienced incredible oddities in the dice rolls. I have lost 32 armies in a row before when against 2 defenders or more, in other words 3 dice v 2 dice (the dice roll page is posted somewhere here) I often lose 6/7 armies against 1 and with monotonous regularity lose when I have 5 on one territ against 1 defender. The dice have a very odd way of almost always losing when it is 5v1 with only slightly less regularity when I continue to 4v1 then (if this has been the case) nearly always it wins at 3v1.

These are not events one should experience every game and almost every turn the conditions occur, but they are. Maybe I am wrong, enlighten me.

I can't say about anyone else's dice, but I can talk about mine. I've usually got about 50 games going 40 of which are 1v1s, meaning I take about 100-150 turns/day. Of course I sometimes lose a 5v1, sometimes more than once a day, sometimes a few days not. I do lose a 7-1 every now and then, but hardly so. Besides I hear many people complaining about their dice when first beating a 6 to 1 without losing anything, then lose their troops beating the last one standing. Given, the chance you lose like that is rather small, but the chance you lose is not.
Some people may say that losing something like that happens way more than winning the opposite, which is true. But I never try beating a 7 with a 3, because the chance I win is just too small. But, in the few times I have tried it, I have succeeded a few times.
In short, try to remember the times you win a 6v5 without losses as much as you remember the times you lose a 7-1.

[lord voldemort]

Solution: swap the method used to get attack dice with the method used to generate defending dice. Watch as threads like these come up again.

it all comes from the same string of random generated numbers.
it generates x amount of 1000's...then reads 5 or however many are needed

[jimboston]

Maybe we should all have our own 'random' strings of 50000 numbers that we draw from, that way at least we would all be screwed equally

If this is possible, I agree with this.

This would make the dice NOT random.

The simple fact in the world of random dice in which we live... some people are on average going to get worse dice than other people.

Deal with it.

BTW... even with this policy you suggest... you could still get "screwed". All you 6's could win against 1's... and your 5's could lose against 6's... your 4's against 5's... etc.

[PLAYER57832]

This is all part of a general malaise that runs through this site.

The point the op is making, in fairly robust terms, is simple. We all understand this kind of event can happen, we all understand that it happens once in whatever times. What we don't understand is the next step of the equation which every one seems to ignore. That the frequency of oddities happening is greater than perhaps it should be and by some margin.

Now I neither know nor care whether it happens once in 304 times or anything else. What is being missed is that to take 304 turns which include that many armies against a single is rare. In other words it happens once in 304 times that these conditions exist, which may be once in 3000 turns, who knows. Take this a step further and multiply it by the number of people who have experienced this (I have for sure, but I cannot be bothered mentioning it to the authorities of the site as they really do not care) and you start to see a picture which definitely has skewed results. I can only say that often, when in a turn I have experienced incredible oddities in the dice rolls. I have lost 32 armies in a row before when against 2 defenders or more, in other words 3 dice v 2 dice (the dice roll page is posted somewhere here) I often lose 6/7 armies against 1 and with monotonous regularity lose when I have 5 on one territ against 1 defender. The dice have a very odd way of almost always losing when it is 5v1 with only slightly less regularity when I continue to 4v1 then (if this has been the case) nearly always it wins at 3v1.

These are not events one should experience every game and almost every turn the conditions occur, but they are. Maybe I am wrong, enlighten me.

The problem here is that people tend to remember the negative event mroe readily than the positive. Second, a lot of what people blame on "bad dice" is really "poor play". So, many people believe they are losing more than they really are. The problem is belief, not reality.

If there is a difference between site rolls and board rolls, it is that the site is more random, not less.

I have a hard time understanding why you are coming out in favor of the OP, when I believe you have been involved in some of the actual statistical discussion and analysis. There are plenty of tests out there to determine if the dice are random or not. If you have found that the most recent dice randomizer is not the best, then give admin information on a better one.

[PLAYER57832]

That the frequency of oddities happening is greater than perhaps it should be and by some margin.

Has someone actually measured this or is this all anecdotal?

It has been measured. The dice are random. Ironically, that might be part of the problem. See, board dice are actually less random than computer "dice". Also, people can roll much more quickly here and so tend to see more rolls in succession than on a table board.

[L M S]

Look guys, I am a rational dude but many are missing the basic point to the op.

No matter the math, no matter that the dice are random, no matter any argument one can put forth....just answer one simple question honestly.

When you have a 7 stack that is going up against a single, do you expect to win that battle?
My answer is yes, always yes. Notice I did not write 'that roll', I wrote 'that battle' this is the ONLY point I was making.

I actually don't disagree that the dice are random. I also think they are incredibly streaky and that hurts the overall experience of the user. These are two different issues imo.

What kills me the most regarding this entire issue (all the threads and all the unhappiness, etc.) is the total unwillingness and complete disregard the upper management have for the community on this. I have been on CC since 2006. In all that time I have witnessed the Community we have built here effect change in so many positive and a few negative ways (opinion) but, the overriding point is that is we have always been heard and have a great deal of input regarding our experience here; this is one of the great things about CC. I simply cannot fathom why this issue is in complete 'shut down' mode.........actually I have one theory as to why we are forced to just deal with it and it's simple economics. Lack must have paid a shitload of money and signed a contract with Random.org for the current system, perhaps that contract runs out in June-ish and we can then get a reasonable dice generator back (the old system). This is really the only possible good reason for the hush hush mentality on this.

Dice bitch threads have been a part of this site since the first day of its operation. Someone will always get bad dice. People's human nature when recalling positive vs. negative events will never change.

Consider this though, there are some very entrenched, respected players around here that are flat out leaving because of the dice, that is shocking. To get that emotional about dice? There must be something wrong....to forgo paying $25 measly dollars a year to use a website most of us are on at least 3 hours a day because of total frustration with the dice of all things.

What is it gonna take to effect change?
Who is gonna have to 'retire' and cite the dice as the reason?
How many new sites are gonna pop up as a replacement and take the greats away from our loved CC?
Why is this issue in complete disregard mode from the higher-ups?

[firth4eva]

Why is this issue in complete disregard mode from the higher-ups?

Because the dice are random and this is just you throwing a tantrum because you lost, as does everyone else.

Joshyboy, are you seriously comparing risk to an actual real life war? A board game? How you got picked to be part of team CC is beyond me.

[MNDuke]

Why is this issue in complete disregard mode from the higher-ups?

Because the dice are random and this is just you throwing a tantrum because you lost, as does everyone else.

Wow, read much?

I actually don't disagree that the dice are random. I also think they are incredibly streaky and that hurts the overall experience of the user. These are two different issues imo.

Try actually taking the time to read what is posted instead of talking to talk. Great, you think the dice are random. So does the original poster. That is not the issue. Please try again.

[firth4eva]

I get:

OK, the dice are random, BUT ARE THEY REALLY RANDOM?!

Care to explain the point that I'm missing?

[MNDuke]

I get:

OK, the dice are random, BUT ARE THEY REALLY RANDOM?!

Care to explain the point that I'm missing?

No matter the math, no matter that the dice are random...I actually don't disagree that the dice are random. I also think they are incredibly streaky and that hurts the overall experience of the user. These are two different issues imo.

Yup. Here it is again. Read the posts first to last. His latest post states that he thinks the dice are random. Perhaps he changed his mind.

Double FAIL!

[firth4eva]

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

[MNDuke]

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

It is possible for them to be both.

[natty dread]

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

It is possible for them to be both.

It is possible for them to be only both. If the dice are random, there will be streaks. That's the end of it. You can't eliminate streaks without eliminating randomness.

actually I have one theory as to why we are forced to just deal with it and it's simple economics. Lack must have paid a shitload of money and signed a contract with Random.org for the current system, perhaps that contract runs out in June-ish and we can then get a reasonable dice generator back (the old system). This is really the only possible good reason for the hush hush mentality on this.

Actually, the site has been using random.org before and is still using random.org. That hasn't changed. And the system hasn't changed in the random.org end, only the way the site uses the numbers from random.org has changed. AFAIK their fees aren't even that onerous.

(yay, I got to use the word "onerous" in a sentence)

The reason why the site is not addressing the dice complaints, is probably that there's nothing they can do about them and still keep the dice random. And I hope you at least see that on a site like this the dice must be random. But as long as they are, there will be people who perceive that the dice act in a way they shouldn't... eg. when they lose a 7v1. That's not the site's fault nor is it something the site should address.

As for the whole 7v1 situation, when I have a 7v1 I expect that I will probably win it, and most of the time, I do. When I don't, it of course stings for a while, but I get over it. Life is full of small disappointments, and you just have to deal with them. It's all part of growing up.

[jpreno]

Re:

> 7v1 followed by
> 6v1 followed by
> 5v1 followed by
> 4v1 followed by
> 3v1 followed by
> 2v1 LOSE ALL
> THIS SHOULD NEVER LOSE.

Why the statement "SHOULD NEVER LOSE"?

If you believe that, then no one should ever win the mega-millions or powerball, as the odds of winning those are 10s of millions to one.

btw, I know you don't want math, but my calculations go something like this:

Given that 3 v 1 has 34% chance of losing,
and 2 v 1 has 42% chance of losing,

1st roll prob is 34% chance to lose
1st 2 rolls prob is 34% x 34% is 11.6% chance to lose
3 rolls: 3.9%
4 rolls: 1.3%
5 rolls: .46%
6 rolls: .46% x 42% is .264% chance of losing

So you would expect to lose all the way down about 1 out of 380 times. of course your mileage may vary.

[Metsfanmax]

When you have a 7 stack that is going up against a single, do you expect to win that battle?
My answer is yes, always yes.

Then you do not actually understand probability or statistics, and thus we will not be able to get through to you. I suggest that we should stop trying in this thread. Let's go somewhere else, Woodruff.

[Woodruff]

When you have a 7 stack that is going up against a single, do you expect to win that battle?
My answer is yes, always yes.

Of course. I also always expect to win that battle. However, that's sort of the point that PLAYER and I have been trying to make...expectations are not reality, and they should not be considered over reality.

I actually don't disagree that the dice are random. I also think they are incredibly streaky and that hurts the overall experience of the user. These are two different issues imo.

I agree with this - they are two separate issues, absolutely. They are tied together to a degree however, because the "more randomness" that you can place into something, the less control over the outcome you have, which CAN lead to stretches of time when more streakiness is seen.

What kills me the most regarding this entire issue (all the threads and all the unhappiness, etc.) is the total unwillingness and complete disregard the upper management have for the community on this. I have been on CC since 2006. In all that time I have witnessed the Community we have built here effect change in so many positive and a few negative ways (opinion) but, the overriding point is that is we have always been heard and have a great deal of input regarding our experience here; this is one of the great things about CC. I simply cannot fathom why this issue is in complete 'shut down' mode.........actually I have one theory as to why we are forced to just deal with it and it's simple economics. Lack must have paid a shitload of money and signed a contract with Random.org for the current system, perhaps that contract runs out in June-ish and we can then get a reasonable dice generator back (the old system). This is really the only possible good reason for the hush hush mentality on this.

I personally don't think this is the case, but I do recognize the possibility. In my mind, I think it's more likely just the fact that there have ALWAYS been dice-bitch threads. In fact, the latest change to the dice was done as a result of all of those dice-bitch threads. They've probably just come to the conclusion that there will always be dice-bitch threads, and so perhaps there is something more effective they can do for the site rather than worry about the dice-bitch threads. That's obviously just a guess on my part and isn't a reason for dice-bitch threads to stop, so I'm not saying that.

Consider this though, there are some very entrenched, respected players around here that are flat out leaving because of the dice, that is shocking. To get that emotional about dice? There must be something wrong....to forgo paying $25 measly dollars a year to use a website most of us are on at least 3 hours a day because of total frustration with the dice of all things.

What I find fascinating are the number of high-ranking players complaining about the dice. I don't think that adds leverage to the discussion...I might even suggest the opposite...but I do think it's very interesting.

[Woodruff]

I get:

OK, the dice are random, BUT ARE THEY REALLY RANDOM?!

Care to explain the point that I'm missing?

Why are you here? Just to stir up shit? The point you're missing is that they recognize that the dice are random. They're not complaining about that, so much as the streakiness. This is obvious to anyone who is actually trying to read the thread rather than cause trouble.

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

That is absolutely not true.

[Crazyirishman]

I lost 600 killing 300 today is that a record?

[firth4eva]

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

That is absolutely not true.

Care to elaborate? The 2 seem inseperable to me. "streaks" are just when the dice don't go your way for a few turns. You win some, you lose some. But when you lose a few in a row, which is statistically likely to happen to some people, they start complaining.

And I'm actually trying to have a discussion here, why are you accusing me of trying to stir it up?

[tdans]

I lost 600 killing 300 today is that a record?

Only if you live in Maine and look like a leprechaun..

[Woodruff]

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

That is absolutely not true.

Care to elaborate? The 2 seem inseperable to me. "streaks" are just when the dice don't go your way for a few turns. You win some, you lose some. But when you lose a few in a row, which is statistically likely to happen to some people, they start complaining.

What you've said here has nothing at all to do with what you said above. Here's my point, from above:

You state that "if the dice are streaky, then they are not random" (or at least saying such). This doesn't even make basic sense, as it implies that streaks do not fall within random capabilities. Streaks certainly are going to be more prone amongst random data than they are amongst controlled data, unless the controller is attempting to bring in streaks.

And I'm actually trying to have a discussion here, why are you accusing me of trying to stir it up?

Because you don't appear to be trying to actually say anything relevant.

[L M S]

I get:

OK, the dice are random, BUT ARE THEY REALLY RANDOM?!

Care to explain the point that I'm missing?

Why are you here? Just to stir up shit? The point you're missing is that they recognize that the dice are random. They're not complaining about that, so much as the streakiness. This is obvious to anyone who is actually trying to read the thread rather than cause trouble.

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

That is absolutely not true.

That red bit, I did not write.

[Metsfanmax]

I get:

OK, the dice are random, BUT ARE THEY REALLY RANDOM?!

Care to explain the point that I'm missing?

Why are you here? Just to stir up shit? The point you're missing is that they recognize that the dice are random. They're not complaining about that, so much as the streakiness. This is obvious to anyone who is actually trying to read the thread rather than cause trouble.

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

That is absolutely not true.

That red bit, I did not write.

We all recognize that.

[Crazyirishman]

I lost 600 killing 300 today is that a record?

Only if you live in Maine and look like a leprechaun..

so it probably wouldn't count if I had a avi in which I looked like a holocaust survivor...

[Woodruff]

I get:

OK, the dice are random, BUT ARE THEY REALLY RANDOM?!

Care to explain the point that I'm missing?

Why are you here? Just to stir up shit? The point you're missing is that they recognize that the dice are random. They're not complaining about that, so much as the streakiness. This is obvious to anyone who is actually trying to read the thread rather than cause trouble.

Come on, I'm actually trying to address the issue here. Saying the dice are streaky means saying the dice are not random.

That is absolutely not true.

That red bit, I did not write.

I recognize that...was just trying to document as well as respond to firth4eva's trolling. I apologize that it makes you appear to have said that though - that wasn't my intention.