wtf is wrong with the dice?

[Condestável]

9-3.

Lost a game because of a 9 which can't win a 3. lol

[Woodruff]

9-3.

Lost a game because of a 9 which can't win a 3. lol

A 9 losing to a 3 is not particularly surprising. I would call it rather mundane.

[Pedronicus]

9-3.

Lost a game because of a 9 which can't win a 3. lol

that's a good result.

[Condestável]

9-3.

Lost a game because of a 9 which can't win a 3. lol

A 9 losing to a 3 is not particularly surprising. I would call it rather mundane.

Though you have been assuming an hostile attitude since the very beginning, I'll keep up with my formation as a person and not only a (former) student, so I'll carefully reply as if you didn't insult me in the recent past:

When these statistical deviations are frequent, I wouldn't call them mundane.

A 9-3 attack has a real life probability of 5% to fail in Risk, according to stochastic models. But results like these have been frequent. I'm quite a recent player and have finished 26 games, losing 14 of them. The games I've won have always come from tight results, no special streams of luck attacking nor defending. But from those I lost, at least 30 to 40% were from epic dice fails.

These type of aberrant results which hinder game after game are maybe mundane using the current random generator, which, for what I've been witnessing so far, fails impressively to simulate reality.

Random.org probably works good with a 900 vs 300, but fails blatantly in several isolated 9 vs 3. It simply doesn't give us a taste of what we experience in the board game. Following this, I've been assuming a defensive strategy in games, because I know that 9-3 or worse (7-1) mean nothing here in what numerical superiority is concerned.

[got tonkaed]

upgrade to premium, its not listed as a benefit but well...it is a business. In fact buy two years of premium and at some point you'll never lose again!

[Condestável]

upgrade to premium, its not listed as a benefit but well...it is a business. In fact buy two years of premium and at some point you'll never lose again!

Something like that has occurred me a couple of times

[Woodruff]

9-3.

Lost a game because of a 9 which can't win a 3. lol

A 9 losing to a 3 is not particularly surprising. I would call it rather mundane.

Though you have been assuming an hostile attitude since the very beginning, I'll keep up with my formation as a person and not only a (former) student, so I'll carefully reply as if you didn't insult me in the recent past:

Whether I'm insulting you or not, my answer is the same. You need to try to understand the concept of "random" as it pertains even to real-life dice...because you clearly do not. I don't mean that as an insult...I mean it as a statement of fact.

When these statistical deviations are frequent, I wouldn't call them mundane.

You wouldn't? The definition of "mundane" is "common, ordinary". If those statistical deviations are frequent, then I would say that fits the definition quite well.

A 9-3 attack has a real life probability of 5% to fail in Risk, according to stochastic models. But results like these have been frequent. I'm quite a recent player and have finished 26 games, losing 14 of them. The games I've won have always come from tight results, no special streams of luck attacking nor defending. But from those I lost, at least 30 to 40% were from epic dice fails.

I think I understand where you're coming from. When you win, it's due to great strategy. And when you lose, it's due to terrible dice.

These type of aberrant results which hinder game after game are maybe mundane using the current random generator, which, for what I've been witnessing so far, fails impressively to simulate reality.

No, these results are not aberrant at all, given the vast number of dice that are rolled on this site every single day. That's what you're not taking into account.

Random.org probably works good with a 900 vs 300, but fails blatantly in several isolated 9 vs 3.

No, this is absolutely wrong. The only reason you believe that it works well with the 900-vs-300 situation is because there is SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY for the random dice to normalize out...and so it is an infinitesmally small change that they won't. But with a 9-vs-3 situation, there isn't that tremendous opportunity for normalization. But that's not at all a flaw in the system...in fact, that is how random works.

It simply doesn't give us a taste of what we experience in the board game.

It absolutely DOES give you a taste of what you experience with the board game. What you're not taking into consideration is the vast number of games played on this site as opposed to the very, very limited number of games you've played on a board in real life. And even then, the results I see here compare very favorably to what I've seen on the board game. But because you see them so much more often here (because of the large number of games played here plus the recency of all of them), it only appears as if there are many more on a percentage basis...but there are not.

Following this, I've been assuming a defensive strategy in games, because I know that 9-3 or worse (7-1) mean nothing here in what numerical superiority is concerned.

Defense tends to lose in this game, with the exception of a very limited number of situations. That is because offense has the advantage, period. I personally am a defensive-minded player in pretty much any game I play (other than poker), but you're playing a losing game by doing this.

See...no insults, but the message is exactly as my previous messages to you.

[Condestável]

9-3.

Lost a game because of a 9 which can't win a 3. lol

A 9 losing to a 3 is not particularly surprising. I would call it rather mundane.

Though you have been assuming an hostile attitude since the very beginning, I'll keep up with my formation as a person and not only a (former) student, so I'll carefully reply as if you didn't insult me in the recent past:

Whether I'm insulting you or not, my answer is the same. You need to try to understand the concept of "random" as it pertains even to real-life dice...because you clearly do not. I don't mean that as an insult...I mean it as a statement of fact.

When these statistical deviations are frequent, I wouldn't call them mundane.

You wouldn't? The definition of "mundane" is "common, ordinary". If those statistical deviations are frequent, then I would say that fits the definition quite well.

A 9-3 attack has a real life probability of 5% to fail in Risk, according to stochastic models. But results like these have been frequent. I'm quite a recent player and have finished 26 games, losing 14 of them. The games I've won have always come from tight results, no special streams of luck attacking nor defending. But from those I lost, at least 30 to 40% were from epic dice fails.

I think I understand where you're coming from. When you win, it's due to great strategy. And when you lose, it's due to terrible dice.

That's you classifying me yet again.

These type of aberrant results which hinder game after game are maybe mundane using the current random generator, which, for what I've been witnessing so far, fails impressively to simulate reality.

No, these results are not aberrant at all, given the vast number of dice that are rolled on this site every single day. That's what you're not taking into account.

Random.org probably works good with a 900 vs 300, but fails blatantly in several isolated 9 vs 3.

No, this is absolutely wrong. The only reason you believe that it works well with the 900-vs-300 situation is because there is SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY for the random dice to normalize out...and so it is an infinitesmally small change that they won't. But with a 9-vs-3 situation, there isn't that tremendous opportunity for normalization. But that's not at all a flaw in the system...in fact, that is how random works.

It simply doesn't give us a taste of what we experience in the board game.

It absolutely DOES give you a taste of what you experience with the board game. What you're not taking into consideration is the vast number of games played on this site as opposed to the very, very limited number of games you've played on a board in real life. And even then, the results I see here compare very favorably to what I've seen on the board game. But because you see them so much more often here (because of the large number of games played here plus the recency of all of them), it only appears as if there are many more on a percentage basis...but there are not.

I've throwed so many dice, not only in Risk, but also in backgammon and many other games.

Nonetheless, the series of epic losses I witness here make me remember something a teacher told me in Chemistry about the Uncertainty Principle:

According to Heisenberg it's possible going into sudden moments of asphixy because air has suddenly flown out from my room corner and concentrated in other corner of the room. It's probable and mathematically acceptable. Not acceptable in mundane logic.

Following this, I've been assuming a defensive strategy in games, because I know that 9-3 or worse (7-1) mean nothing here in what numerical superiority is concerned.

Defense tends to lose in this game, with the exception of a very limited number of situations. That is because offense has the advantage, period. I personally am a defensive-minded player in pretty much any game I play (other than poker), but you're playing a losing game by doing this.

Too bad this doesn't keep a record of attacks.

See...no insults, but the message is exactly as my previous messages to you.

I'm glad to read that, but that's a statistical rarity. But in this case, unlike my (not only mine, I've confirmed with other players) epic dice throws, there's a record of your interaction with me.

[Woodruff]

A 9-3 attack has a real life probability of 5% to fail in Risk, according to stochastic models. But results like these have been frequent. I'm quite a recent player and have finished 26 games, losing 14 of them. The games I've won have always come from tight results, no special streams of luck attacking nor defending. But from those I lost, at least 30 to 40% were from epic dice fails.

I think I understand where you're coming from. When you win, it's due to great strategy. And when you lose, it's due to terrible dice.

That's you classifying me yet again.

It's what you said, only reworded.

See...no insults, but the message is exactly as my previous messages to you.

I'm glad to read that, but that's a statistical rarity. But in this case, unlike my (not only mine, I've confirmed with other players) epic dice throws, there's a record of your interaction with me.

Yes, and that record is that I don't tolerate fools well. Glad I could confirm it for you.

[Condestável]

There you go insulting again, 'druffy.

So far I've been taking your attitude with relative "sympathy", to be nice.

But you know, watching your history of rating feedback, reading a bit of your compulsive posting mania added to your constant paranoid behaviour...

[DreadCat]

Without random dice, Conquer Club would be a lot less interesting. More like chess...

[natty dread]

There you go insulting again, 'druffy.

So far I've been taking your attitude with relative "sympathy", to be nice.

But you know, watching your history of rating feedback, reading a bit of your compulsive posting mania added to your constant paranoid behaviour...

Do you always take it as "insults" when someone disagrees with your view and points out where you are wrong?

The games I've won have always come from tight results, no special streams of luck attacking nor defending. But from those I lost, at least 30 to 40% were from epic dice fails.

Same old, same old.

Have you ever considered that perhaps your strategy simply isn't as good as you think it is?

[Condestável]

There you go insulting again, 'druffy.

So far I've been taking your attitude with relative "sympathy", to be nice.

But you know, watching your history of rating feedback, reading a bit of your compulsive posting mania added to your constant paranoid behaviour...

Do you always take it as "insults" when someone disagrees with your view and points out where you are wrong?

Of course not. I appreciate exchanging knowledge.

But if someone insists in following a person in a site like a shadow for the sake of antagonizing and calling stupid, ineducated and intolerable fool, it's reasonable to say the latter is being insulted, so to say.

I don't know. May I use the proper words to reply to him? Moderators may not appreciate, though.

[natty dread]

But if someone insists in following a person in a site like a shadow for the sake of antagonizing and calling stupid, ineducated and intolerable fool,

I think you are reading more into his posts than what he's actually saying.

Of course, it's always easier to accuse someone of "insults" rather than defend your own argument...

[SirSebstar]

Condestável
I am quite sure Woodruff is not stalking you in particular. At least no more then the entire CC forum population…
Anyways, Woodruff takes the stance that complaining about dice is pointless. Either they are random and therefore you will loose that 9-3 (5.32% so more then every 20th time, assuming you go all-out, and even higher if you do not attack 2-2 or 1-2)
So you could loose such an attack or quit attacking and calling it a loss.

OR the dice are unfair, but then they are equally unfair to both parties, so why whine about it.

OR (this is the remnant) there is some reason Lack/illuminati/ karma/ angry mods/ woodruff is creating unfair dice specifically for you.


There you have it, you are going to a rough patch, I understand. Luck in loosing big or loosing small is part of the game and will even out over time. However, from a strategy point of view, you can help yourself by planning differently and taking bad luck into account, sometimes.. If you need 9-3 to work to break that bonus then maybe you lost the game because he got that bonus in the first place and you were just counting on it being breakable, well that’s an assumption that’s costing you the game. There are different ways to play, and there are different ways to success. The best players on this site can win games with a worse dice average then other players, because they plan better. In the end, if the game comes down to a single throw, then yes luck plays the big part, but a good player will not try to let it all come down to luck, but plan ahead

In short, complaining about the dice is common, way too common. Bashing complainers is much more fun, because see above, there is no real justification for blaming the dice. Some you win some you loose, why argue that?

Take it easy, enjoy the ride, and look up woodruff's post every once and a while, usually one in 20 are actually amusing...

edit:
oh yea, and the fact that someone disagree's with you, is.. eh not meant as an insult..

[40kguy]

How is this still geting posts? The dice can be random, some times they can be a (bad word) i learned to live with it, everyone who is posting in this should just live with it

[Aradhus]

The dice are a fucking joke. I'd sick to deah with this bullshit, game after gaem aftaer game. So much tht I'm consering leaving this garbage.

How abouta new dice syetsm, where O don't want to destroy this fucking comupter

And f*ck everyone of you who regurgitae the dice are randdom'.

[SirSebstar]

the dice are rando....
no you are right, Lack is out to get you aradhus..

[natty dread]

The dice are rawrrr

[jackal31]

you know SirSerb, I am curious how many people have complained about the dice since the last "dice change". I never complained when I first joined this site (publicly) and found myself in one of these rants not too long ago. Maybe, there is a little validity in saying the dice feel different after a certain point. Has anyone ever thought of looking into it?

[Funkyterrance]

I remember reading that the dice are based on something really weird like atmospheric patterns or something like that. If that were true, couldn't there be patterns that repeat?

[SirSebstar]

you know SirSerb, I am curious how many people have complained about the dice since the last "dice change". I never complained when I first joined this site (publicly) and found myself in one of these rants not too long ago. Maybe, there is a little validity in saying the dice feel different after a certain point. Has anyone ever thought of looking into it?

Although dice-threads are as prolific as weed, they do serve a function. Myself, I have the impression that BEFORE the change to random.org, there were a lot MORE complaints. So, I can either assume those who were there then have either lost interest in dicecomplaints or the streakyness and wierdness is indeed less.
I have to say, I myself cannot tell the difference between dice A and dice B, I do however tend to play more carefull, but whenever a stack is bigger then 5, I still use auto assult most.
I hope this helps.. somehow..

@Funkyterrance. I do not claim to totally understand or know the setup of random.org, but it might be nice to read it here http://www.random.org/.
It states that it uses background atmospheric patterns at a specific site.. hell If i know more then they show there.

[natty dread]

No, it's called atmospheric noise, and it actually has nothing to do with the atmosphere, despite the name.

Atmospheric noise is actually electromagnetic background radiation, which is leftover radiation from the big bang, ie. static noise - it's what you hear from your radio when it's between channels. Noise.

Now if you know anything about acoustics, you know that noise is a waveform where each sample point is at a random amplitude. By sampling the signal of atmospheric noise (or "static") and converting the signal to digital, we get a bitstream of totally, unpredictably random numbers - there's no chance of having any discernable patterns in there. People have been looking into noise as a phenomenon for years, and so far no one has been able to find any kind of patterns in it.

Atmospheric noise is also "white noise", meaning that the distribution of intensity is equal on all frequencies.

[Metsfanmax]

Atmospheric noise is actually electromagnetic background radiation, which is leftover radiation from the big bang, ie. static noise - it's what you hear from your radio when it's between channels. Noise.

CMB radiation is only a small percentage of the background radiation picked up by the average receiver in the 100 MHz range. Thermal noise is much more responsible for radio noise.

[SirSebstar]

thanks, that much mean its much harder to influence CMB radiation. Therefor, unless someone near the location is wearing a nuclear device, we should be getting pretty random dice.. i think