Perhaps we've been looking at the wrong part of the dice system. The dice are random and we probably can't reduce streakiness by reworking the random numbers while still maintaining that randomness, but we should also consider the dice compare method. The dice compare method, where the attacker's and defender's highest dice are compared, then the second highest dice are compared, was lifted from the RISK board game. In the board game, the settings are manual for initial troops, so typically each player places a few large groups of armies on one continent to obtain that continent's bonus by the second or third round. I've played the board game for decades and in the RISK Tournament of Champions for 18 years and never has dice streakiness been a complaint. The reason is that attackers typically use large armies to conquer and rarely attack with only a few armies. The only time they do is during an elimination when the attacker is running low on armies and must get the defender's cards to run the board. With large armies, many dice are rolled and losing streaks are almost always counterbalanced by winning streaks. This dice compare method was chosen for the board game because it requires only 5 dice no matter how many attacking and defending armies there are. However, this may not be as appropriate for the Conquer Club environment in which the automatic setting for initial troops is typically used. Plus, there's no reason to limit the compare method to only 5 dice since the server could easily handle a large number of dice for each attack.
This suggests some alternatives, one of which is to use the Axis and Allies game's method where one die is rolled for each attacking army piece and one for each defending piece. This would require more dice rolls during each attack and thus more random numbers, thus reducing the effects of streaks. There are other ways to increase the number of dice rolled for each attack, so let's hear your thoughts.
AndyDufresne wrote:I think we should make dice with only 1 number on them. Unfortunately then the defender will always win, and we'll have to change the name of Conquer Club to the Defense Division.
--Andy
LOL that was good, Andy! and easy enough to just draw a line on the right of the C to make a backward-looking D: C| C| (would thus imitate the Doodle effect, which could become the DD's 'classic' map)
The real solution to the "dice problem" is for people to realize, streakiness will occur, acknowledge it, acknowledge that if a bad streak occurs for long enough at the wrong time in the game, that player can NOT win regardless his or her strategic skill; so let people praise or damn the dice without incident.
Serbia wrote:One solution would be DON'T BREAK THE RULES, and then none of this would happen.
Also, everyone who starts a thread about intensity cubes, whether positive or negative in nature, should receive an automatic 3 day forum ban.
No. Create a new forum, the Dice-damning forum, and let all the complaints go to that forum. That way, people have an entire forum they can ignore or laugh on, and damn-those-dice threads wouldn't clutter up discussions.
Tennisie wrote:Perhaps we've been looking at the wrong part of the dice system. The dice are random and we probably can't reduce streakiness by reworking the random numbers while still maintaining that randomness, but we should also consider the dice compare method. The dice compare method, where the attacker's and defender's highest dice are compared, then the second highest dice are compared, was lifted from the RISK board game. In the board game, the settings are manual for initial troops, so typically each player places a few large groups of armies on one continent to obtain that continent's bonus by the second or third round. I've played the board game for decades and in the RISK Tournament of Champions for 18 years and never has dice streakiness been a complaint. The reason is that attackers typically use large armies to conquer and rarely attack with only a few armies. The only time they do is during an elimination when the attacker is running low on armies and must get the defender's cards to run the board. With large armies, many dice are rolled and losing streaks are almost always counterbalanced by winning streaks. This dice compare method was chosen for the board game because it requires only 5 dice no matter how many attacking and defending armies there are. However, this may not be as appropriate for the Conquer Club environment in which the automatic setting for initial troops is typically used. Plus, there's no reason to limit the compare method to only 5 dice since the server could easily handle a large number of dice for each attack.
This suggests some alternatives, one of which is to use the Axis and Allies game's method where one die is rolled for each attacking army piece and one for each defending piece. This would require more dice rolls during each attack and thus more random numbers, thus reducing the effects of streaks. There are other ways to increase the number of dice rolled for each attack, so let's hear your thoughts.
Regardless of the merits of your suggestion, you'll never get anyone to go for it. This site is paid for by people like me, who came here because of Risk and that's the only game they really want to play. I would never support the elimination of the dice comparison method, and neither would most anyone else, even the people who complain about streaks.
Tennisie wrote:The most extreme example I know of occurred to me when I lost 87 to 0 during a single auto-attack. The chances of that happening involve 20 digits of unlikelihood, BUT IT HAPPENED.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Agreed... 87 to nil is a stretch. I've witnessed hot "intensity cubes"
but that is difficult to imagine.
Tennisie wrote:The most extreme example I know of occurred to me when I lost 87 to 0 during a single auto-attack. The chances of that happening involve 20 digits of unlikelihood, BUT IT HAPPENED.
I believe you; it happened to me when I first got to CC; which is why I almost never use auto-attack now.
Tennisie wrote:Perhaps we've been looking at the wrong part of the dice system. The dice are random and we probably can't reduce streakiness by reworking the random numbers while still maintaining that randomness, but we should also consider the dice compare method. The dice compare method, where the attacker's and defender's highest dice are compared, then the second highest dice are compared, was lifted from the RISK board game. In the board game, the settings are manual for initial troops, so typically each player places a few large groups of armies on one continent to obtain that continent's bonus by the second or third round. I've played the board game for decades and in the RISK Tournament of Champions for 18 years and never has dice streakiness been a complaint. The reason is that attackers typically use large armies to conquer and rarely attack with only a few armies. The only time they do is during an elimination when the attacker is running low on armies and must get the defender's cards to run the board. With large armies, many dice are rolled and losing streaks are almost always counterbalanced by winning streaks. This dice compare method was chosen for the board game because it requires only 5 dice no matter how many attacking and defending armies there are. However, this may not be as appropriate for the Conquer Club environment in which the automatic setting for initial troops is typically used. Plus, there's no reason to limit the compare method to only 5 dice since the server could easily handle a large number of dice for each attack.
This suggests some alternatives, one of which is to use the Axis and Allies game's method where one die is rolled for each attacking army piece and one for each defending piece. This would require more dice rolls during each attack and thus more random numbers, thus reducing the effects of streaks. There are other ways to increase the number of dice rolled for each attack, so let's hear your thoughts.
There is another alternative which is already available in Conquer Club: manual initial troops. Manual initial troop placement should have an effect similar to what happens in the RISK board game where large armies are typically used and the resulting large number of rolls smooths out the streaks. Although manual placement doesn't seem to be very popular, I'm going to try it more often.
Metsfanmax wrote:If we accept that the current system is truly random, or indistinguishable from it, then your system wouldn't change the likelihood of streaks.
Yes it would, because your luck evens out the more you roll. Sometimes it can take many rolls to even out, but eventually it regresses to the average. Its just a matter of finding a large enough value for X but one that doesn't overburden the conquerclub server. This is similar to the techniques used to "smooth" the data from a true random number generator: combine enough samples together so that a localized streak is swamped by the probabilities.
So you would still get streaks... Just less frequently.
The only thing this really accomplishes is less bitching.
Eventually... After a year or two... With more players and more big maps.. You multiply the number of "rolls" by a factor of 10 or whatever... And you are back to the same number of people bitching.
Assuming the numbers are truly random (I believe they are) then the only way to eliminate streaks is to eliminate the randomness of the dice. Right an algorithm to prevent the defender from rolling more than X number of 6's in a row. Another to prevent the attacker from rolling more than Y number of 1's in a row. Another that gives an advantage to a big stack rolling against a small stack etc.
Btw... I am NOT suggesting this be done. I am saying this is the only way to eliminate streaks.
Tennisie wrote:Perhaps we've been looking at the wrong part of the dice system. The dice are random and we probably can't reduce streakiness by reworking the random numbers while still maintaining that randomness, but we should also consider the dice compare method. The dice compare method, where the attacker's and defender's highest dice are compared, then the second highest dice are compared, was lifted from the RISK board game. In the board game, the settings are manual for initial troops, so typically each player places a few large groups of armies on one continent to obtain that continent's bonus by the second or third round. I've played the board game for decades and in the RISK Tournament of Champions for 18 years and never has dice streakiness been a complaint. The reason is that attackers typically use large armies to conquer and rarely attack with only a few armies. The only time they do is during an elimination when the attacker is running low on armies and must get the defender's cards to run the board. With large armies, many dice are rolled and losing streaks are almost always counterbalanced by winning streaks. This dice compare method was chosen for the board game because it requires only 5 dice no matter how many attacking and defending armies there are. However, this may not be as appropriate for the Conquer Club environment in which the automatic setting for initial troops is typically used. Plus, there's no reason to limit the compare method to only 5 dice since the server could easily handle a large number of dice for each attack.
This suggests some alternatives, one of which is to use the Axis and Allies game's method where one die is rolled for each attacking army piece and one for each defending piece. This would require more dice rolls during each attack and thus more random numbers, thus reducing the effects of streaks. There are other ways to increase the number of dice rolled for each attack, so let's hear your thoughts.
Lack, please consider adding another selection to the Start A Game form: "Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Per Army" (Axis and Allies system).
Tennisie wrote:The most extreme example I know of occurred to me when I lost 87 to 0 during a single auto-attack. The chances of that happening involve 20 digits of unlikelihood, BUT IT HAPPENED.
I believe you; it happened to me when I first got to CC; which is why I almost never use auto-attack now.
The most one I can remember I had 35 vs 1, and i lost and it was 1 vs 1. Of course, I'm one of the few that acknowledge ive seen it the other way around. I've had 5 vs 14 and won, and a few 3 vs 9's etc.
87 losses vs none, hard to imagine...but i wouldn't put it past auto assault.
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
