The Improbable Always Wins....WTF?

[theBastard]

5a vs 5b statisticly 5A should loose the majority of the time, in cc anyways

it was not so far ago. if it is possible could anybody look to the finished games?

[natty dread]

come on natty. look how much notices have real maps for more accuracy

Not much, really. Look instead how much accuracy has been removed in search for better gameplay and/or clarity. Borders are fudged, territories merged/split, bonuses decided based on what makes sense for good gameplay, instead of which country is/was more powerful in real life.

I expect these things. as I mentioned dice is fine as weather, morale, command skill... but I still think 6:3 "must" 6 wins. more if I´m able to win 5:5...

Then you're not really understanding. CC dice are not based on the amounts of troops. That's just not the way CC works. 6 does not "must" win 3 every time. 6 has a certain probability of winning 3. Let's say, for example, that probability is 60% (for example, I'm too lazy to calculate the real probability) then statistically, in the long run, 6 times out of ten that 6 will win that 3. But that also means that 4 times out of 10, that 6 will not win that 3.

And even further, that is not even an absolute: if you fight 10 6v3 battles, it is not certain that you win exactly 6 of them. It could be all of them, or none of them, or anything in between. The higher the sample size, the more it will conform to the probability. And the reverse is of course true as well. When you fight 10000 6v3 battles, then approximately 6000 times of them you would win. It would not probably be exactly 6000, because of the random element, but it would be pretty damn close. When the sample size is smaller, there is more chance of variation. Ie. you can have 2 6v3 battles in the same game and lose both. Those things can happen.


Anyway, I don't see why you expect some kind of realism from CC, when it has never advertised itself as a realistic war simulation. CC is a casual game site, based on a popular board game format. Lots of people like it the way it is. Some people don't, and for them there are more realistic strategy games.

[theBastard]

Anyway, I don't see why you expect some kind of realism from CC, when it has never advertised itself as a realistic war simulation. CC is a casual game site, based on a popular board game format. Lots of people like it the way it is.

but there are also many who have my opinion, that dice is sometimes very unbalanced. maybe as is possible to have different spoils, fog of war yes/no... there could be also games with more or less dice...?

to your point that in CC 6:3 does not works as 6:3 sounds this is worst as roulette. in roulette I know - everything is on lucky, but here I have my troops, enemy has his troops, but I can not know how battle ends...

Some people don't, and for them there are more realistic strategy games.

[nikola_milicki]

3. explain how can these changes help me in games where I have to attack, there's no other option, like in 1on1s, but I roll 0-12..

1v1 games have always been more or less a crap shoot. I suggest playing game types where dice are in a less important role.

dude, there is nothing wrong with 1on1 style, nothing at all, and there's no difference between trips and 1on1s FOR ME if I get screwed in both.. if I roll ridiculous unreal dice in both, my fun is ruined the same way so wtf is the difference??

only what I can say: dice is fine (as terrain or weather in real battles for example), just when I assault with 6 against 3 there could be 80% chance for victory. in my turn hour back I assaulted with 3 against 1 and I lost. when I assaulted 2 against 1 I won... so yes, I say it needs new system of generating dice (6:3 is big predominance).

Ok, so you want the dice to act more "realistic", ie. representing real life combat more accurately? Is that what you're saying?

But, CC is not about simulating combat situations accurately. If you want that, you should play some other type of strategy game. CC is a simulation of a board game. In board games, sometimes you get funky dice results that make no sense in real-life context (ie. 5 armies defeating 15 or something like that).

we dont want accurate, we want more realistic dice, dice that work within the limits of common fkn sense, nobody on this damn site will never lose 20vs2 in real life EVER! and f*ck what math has to say about it... we get to see shit like that here every day.. after first ridiculous outcome like 20vs2 dice shudve been changed bcuz it makes no sense that 20vs2 can ever happen...

random number programs are flawed and u know it so quit telling us dice are fine cuz they fkn aint! how about saying something like 'sorry, dice are flawed but we cant make em any better or we cant afford to get a new dice source or w/e, u ppl will just have to get used to what u get now".. Im sure there would be a lot less dice threads then now when cant stop telling ppl that the dice are fine.. some ppl, a lot of them, just cant accept that after what they see in their game..

[natty dread]

to your point that in CC 6:3 does not works as 6:3 sounds this is worst as roulette. in roulette I know - everything is on lucky, but here I have my troops, enemy has his troops, but I can not know how battle ends...

You can know how it probably ends. But just because something is probable doesn't mean it happens every time.

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

[Woodruff]

well then can u shortly describe at least 2 or 3 strategies that I as an old-timer use? cuz I cant.

Given that I am not an old-timer who had a tremendous amount of success (until I started actually paying attention more closely a month or so ago, I sat at private for most of my time here), I really can't.

maybe u shud talk about something specific for a change.. something that u can explain or give examples for.. point is u wrote a post but cant explain parts of it.. u keep talking about strategy but cant explain what the heck is it.
oh u dont? really? in which situations would that be then?

I have been talking about specific things...specifically, I have been talking about the specific nature of being random. Unfortunately, the nay-sayers have been specifically disinterested in what I specifically had to say.

[Woodruff]

ok guys, all this talking is about what?
I understand that it is about possibilities, but nobody answer on question: where is any logic when one time I win 6:3, 6:4, 3:1. 3:2, 5:5 and sometimes I lost witht the same numbers?

You understand that if you roll a die (assuming it's not a loaded die), you have an equal possibility of rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or a 6...right? Because honestly, I'm beginning to wonder where to start explaining it to you.

how can I think about strategy when all is build on lucky only? then it is better to play cubes...

A good strategy should take into account the luck factor. The unknown must always be accounted for.

[theBastard]

You can know how it probably ends. But just because something is probable doesn't mean it happens every time.

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

when I take you percentage (not accuracy, ok) in battle 6:3 then 60% : 40% is worst as roulette. roulette has 37 numbers, even, odd, colours, you can bet on 4 numbers... so in roulette you have then higher chance to win
lol, this is abnormal...

dice is fine, CC is fine, I except that this is simulation of board games, but CC is often pretend as strategy game: "Conquer Club - Play A Free Online Game With Strategy And Risk". STRATEGY is here, but it often looks as only RISK...

so maybe better generation of dice or to add possibilities to set up game (with dice/without dice?) could helps. just my opinion (and as I see not only my).

it is nt about critism or bashing - it is about how to do game better

[theBastard]

A good strategy should take into account the luck factor. The unknown must always be accounted for.

yes, just luck factor could have 20-30%. not 50-60%...

[Woodruff]

But, CC is not about simulating combat situations accurately. If you want that, you should play some other type of strategy game. CC is a simulation of a board game. In board games, sometimes you get funky dice results that make no sense in real-life context (ie. 5 armies defeating 15 or something like that).

board games? then why we make maps so real as is possible?

My answer? Because the Map Foundry is a bunchawannabeARTEEESTS.

[theBastard]

bunchawannabeARTEEESTS.

sorry, do not understand...

[Woodruff]

to your point that in CC 6:3 does not works as 6:3 sounds this is worst as roulette. in roulette I know - everything is on lucky, but here I have my troops, enemy has his troops, but I can not know how battle ends...

No, not roulette...craps. I wonder why.

Some people don't, and for them there are more realistic strategy games.

[/quote]

Seriously...it sounds to me like you'd enjoy DIPLOMACY far more than CONQUERCLUB (Diplomacy really is a wonderful game).

[Woodruff]

bunchawannabeARTEEESTS.

sorry, do not understand...

Sorry...I was basically just making fun of them (They're a bunch of want-to-be artists).

[Downey]

to your point that in CC 6:3 does not works as 6:3 sounds this is worst as roulette. in roulette I know - everything is on lucky, but here I have my troops, enemy has his troops, but I can not know how battle ends...

No, not roulette...craps. I wonder why.

Some people don't, and for them there are more realistic strategy games.

Seriously...it sounds to me like you'd enjoy DIPLOMACY far more than CONQUERCLUB (Diplomacy really is a wonderful game).[/quote]
Diplomacy is incredible.

I really don't understand how people don't get the concept of randomized dice. It's baffling.

[maasman]

we dont want accurate, we want more realistic dice, dice that work within the limits of common fkn sense, nobody on this damn site will never lose 20vs2 in real life EVER! and f*ck what math has to say about it... we get to see shit like that here every day.. after first ridiculous outcome like 20vs2 dice shudve been changed bcuz it makes no sense that 20vs2 can ever happen...

I can guarantee you that one of friends has lost this before.
Also, how do you explain never getting a 2 star card (this is for the people that have played the most recent risk game)? There is about 1/3 2 star cards from the entire deck, and he has gotten maybe 2 of them in like 12 games.

[SirSebstar]

A good strategy should take into account the luck factor. The unknown must always be accounted for.

yes, just luck factor could have 20-30%. not 50-60%...

LOL
theB if luck was truely 50 to 60% then NOBODY could get a 72% win ratio or better over more then 9000 games. So Blitzaholicdoes not exist?
unless there is cheting ofcourse, but then.. thats just not the case.

random dice does not mean you have to behave like an idiot, but sometimes it does mean that even the currently best player can loose against another lesser ranked player....

[theBastard]

yes, just luck factor could have 20-30%. not 50-60%...

LOL
theB if luck was truely 50 to 60% then NOBODY could get a 72% win ratio or better over more then 9000 games. So Blitzaholicdoes not exist?
unless there is cheting ofcourse, but then.. thats just not the case.

why not? just somebody with 70% or more win ration could has more lucky...

random dice does not mean you have to behave like an idiot, but sometimes it does mean that even the currently best player can loose against another lesser ranked player....

no, the dice is not about lesser ranked player can beat higher ranked player. dice means that one times I lost battle 6:3, 3:1, 5:3 and another time I win the battles with the same numbers (or worst for me). this is about what I speak here all time...

[MNDuke]

3. explain how can these changes help me in games where I have to attack, there's no other option, like in 1on1s, but I roll 0-12..

1v1 games have always been more or less a crap shoot. I suggest playing game types where dice are in a less important role.

dude, there is nothing wrong with 1on1 style, nothing at all, and there's no difference between trips and 1on1s FOR ME if I get screwed in both.. if I roll ridiculous unreal dice in both, my fun is ruined the same way so wtf is the difference??

only what I can say: dice is fine (as terrain or weather in real battles for example), just when I assault with 6 against 3 there could be 80% chance for victory. in my turn hour back I assaulted with 3 against 1 and I lost. when I assaulted 2 against 1 I won... so yes, I say it needs new system of generating dice (6:3 is big predominance).

Ok, so you want the dice to act more "realistic", ie. representing real life combat more accurately? Is that what you're saying?

But, CC is not about simulating combat situations accurately. If you want that, you should play some other type of strategy game. CC is a simulation of a board game. In board games, sometimes you get funky dice results that make no sense in real-life context (ie. 5 armies defeating 15 or something like that).

we dont want accurate, we want more realistic dice, dice that work within the limits of common fkn sense, nobody on this damn site will never lose 20vs2 in real life EVER! and f*ck what math has to say about it... we get to see shit like that here every day.. after first ridiculous outcome like 20vs2 dice shudve been changed bcuz it makes no sense that 20vs2 can ever happen...

random number programs are flawed and u know it so quit telling us dice are fine cuz they fkn aint! how about saying something like 'sorry, dice are flawed but we cant make em any better or we cant afford to get a new dice source or w/e, u ppl will just have to get used to what u get now".. Im sure there would be a lot less dice threads then now when cant stop telling ppl that the dice are fine.. some ppl, a lot of them, just cant accept that after what they see in their game..

The real answer is that they can't answer these questions honestly. And most certainly can't back up their suggestions without any kind of specifics that make sense in the rational world.

[nagerous]

I'm pretty sure the dice have gone really screwy recently.

[Woodruff]

The real answer is that they can't answer these questions honestly. And most certainly can't back up their suggestions without any kind of specifics that make sense in the rational world.

Some of us have. You just don't like the answer.

[SirSebstar]

more lucky??? with 9000 games???
you must be joking

[Leehar]

more lucky??? with 9000 games???
you must be joking

Or he could just be a farmer

But anyway, The*******, I apologize, but it just hurts to hear your logic

With regards to the matter at hand, I do agree that the dice do seem to be less than satisfactory lately. To show some curveballs into the loop, with regards to the streaky vs random argument, basically what we're saying is that winning 50 dice rolls in a row, and then losing 50 dice rolls in a row (as an extreme example) while random is hardly pleasant/probable/rational. Is it possible that such streakyness is higher than it used to be?
As an addendum to that, could the fact that there seems to be more things to complain about the dice, be because there are so many more dice being thrown currently than there used to be in the old days?
In the first 2/3 years we just managed to scrape to 2mil games(roughly) and in double that time we're now well into the 8 millions?

[MNDuke]

The real answer is that they can't answer these questions honestly. And most certainly can't back up their suggestions without any kind of specifics that make sense in the rational world.

Some of us have. You just don't like the answer.

well then can u shortly describe at least 2 or 3 strategies that I as an old-timer use? cuz I cant.

Given that I am not an old-timer who had a tremendous amount of success (until I started actually paying attention more closely a month or so ago, I sat at private for most of my time here), I really can't.

I guess you are right. I don't like the answer.

[natty dread]

The real answer is that they can't answer these questions honestly. And most certainly can't back up their suggestions without any kind of specifics that make sense in the rational world.

Oh, you are accusing me of dishonesty now? Please point out where I have not been truthful. Can you back up your accusation?

[natty dread]

dude, there is nothing wrong with 1on1 style, nothing at all, and there's no difference between trips and 1on1s FOR ME if I get screwed in both.. if I roll ridiculous unreal dice in both, my fun is ruined the same way so wtf is the difference??

Dude, there is nothing wrong with the dice, nothing at all...

I'm sorry your fun is ruined. Really, I am.

we dont want accurate, we want more realistic dice, dice that work within the limits of common fkn sense, nobody on this damn site will never lose 20vs2 in real life EVER! and f*ck what math has to say about it... we get to see shit like that here every day.. after first ridiculous outcome like 20vs2 dice shudve been changed bcuz it makes no sense that 20vs2 can ever happen...

You want realistic dice, but "f*ck what math has to say about it"... in other words, you just want dice that make you happy?

And yes, 20v2 does happen. Someone used a lottery analogy: every month someone wins in the lottery, even though the odds of winning the lottery are minimal... the point being, that just because something is improbable, doesn't mean that it never happens.

And I have a hard time buying that you lose 20v2 on a daily basis. You probably mean that you get dice that you don't expect every day.

Well, see, the thing is, if you play something like a 100 games, and play a 100 turns every day, you are bound to see more abnormalities more often. There's a lot more dice rolls per day for you than there is dice rolls in one real-life board game. So it only makes sense that you would see the abnormalities more.

random number programs are flawed and u know it so quit telling us dice are fine cuz they fkn aint!

Random number programs aren't how CC acquires dice and you know it so quit telling us the dice are generated by random number programs cuz they fkn aren't.

how about saying something like 'sorry, dice are flawed but we cant make em any better or we cant afford to get a new dice source or w/e, u ppl will just have to get used to what u get now".. Im sure there would be a lot less dice threads then now when cant stop telling ppl that the dice are fine.. some ppl, a lot of them, just cant accept that after what they see in their game..

How about I say what I want to say, and you don't get your panties in a twist about it, because in the real life people are allowed to have different points of view on things?