wtf is wrong with the dice?

[mattattam]

See thread for another answer:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6&t=138420

[Woodruff]

Say that again, preferably in English this time. Thanks!

go f*ck youself and we will have a deal.

Brilliant reparte! And yet, despite it's brilliance, you were still too stupid to fix it.

then how would his last post make sense if he had fixed it?

How would his last post make sense if he had fixed it? Well, we won't know unless he DOES fix it, now will we? Here it is again:

"12v1 losing is not random. if you do it twice"

[jpreno]

I calculate that losing 12v1, that is, losing all 12 armies on an attack against 1, is over 10 million to one.

Check your math. It's more like 67,000 to one (and by the way, losing 12v1 means losing 11 armies in one attack for this calculation; losing 12 in one attack has odds against of about 200,000 to one).

Good check on the math, max. I apologize to all for screwing that up. Yikes I hit the wrong decimal point or something somewhere.

That means I retract my original statement about this being "suspicious". This is going to happen. And if you play this game enough, it's going to happen to you.

[Lubawski]

I think your rolling the dice wrong. Try using the other hand.

[rogower]

I don't care for the flippant, condescending responses (e.g., "You don't understand probability," "Boo hoo, stop your whining," "Maybe the problem is with your strategy"). They are not helpful and are akin to the sorts of irritating responses that you often receive from customer service representatives who are refusing to acknowledge that the company they work for screwed up and refusing to fix the problem. The folks behind this game should encourage their moderators to tone it down. Don't forget that you have paying customers!

I am a relative newcomer to CC and a former math geek in high school. There is very clearly something wrong with the dice generator that CC is using. Surely the techies understand this. I'd like to think that this is a problem that will soon be fixed.

200,000-to-1 odds are fairly astronomical. Hell, 500-to-1 odds are fairly astronomical. Yet we are seeing these sorts of outcomes way more frequently than we should be. And, yes, this makes the game less enjoyable. The sort of person who is drawn to the game of Risk is exactly the sort of person who is going to get frustrated by the flawed dice generator that CC is using.

I am going to experiment with not using the auto assault feature. Maybe that will help.

[jpreno]

200,000-to-1 odds are fairly astronomical. Hell, 500-to-1 odds are fairly astronomical.

In a 3v1 roll, the odds of rolling 6-6-6, and then losing to a defending 6 are 1295:1, but I'll bet you've seen that happen with real dice in the board game. I wouldn't call that "fairly astronomical"

[Woodruff]

I don't care for the flippant, condescending responses (e.g., "You don't understand probability," "Boo hoo, stop your whining," "Maybe the problem is with your strategy"). They are not helpful

But the truth SHOULD be helpful and if it is not, that does not fall to us, but rather to those who are ignoring it.

I am a relative newcomer to CC and a former math geek in high school. There is very clearly something wrong with the dice generator that CC is using. Surely the techies understand this. I'd like to think that this is a problem that will soon be fixed.

What is it that you believe is wrong?

200,000-to-1 odds are fairly astronomical. Hell, 500-to-1 odds are fairly astronomical.

Taken as a single entity, sure. Taken alongside the massive numbers of dice rolls seen on this site...not really, they're fairly mundane. Hell, 500-1 is downright routine...as it should be.

Yet we are seeing these sorts of outcomes way more frequently than we should be. And, yes, this makes the game less enjoyable. The sort of person who is drawn to the game of Risk is exactly the sort of person who is going to get frustrated by the flawed dice generator that CC is using.

The sort of person who is frustrated by the dice here are comparing it to what they have seen in a very few table-top Risk games, relatively-speaking...and that is the only flaw present.

I am going to experiment with not using the auto assault feature. Maybe that will help.

The ONLY thing that the auto-assault changes odds-wise is that you no longer have the ability to "stop rolling when you want to" (which is obviously a pretty important aspect). Other than that though, there is no stronger likelihood of "streaking" with either method.

[jpreno]

Here's some odds for you:

I just tracked a recent turn of mine, which had the following rolls, in order:
4-2-2
4-1-3
1-3-2
3-4-2
(yeah, it was a bad turn).
Anyway, the odds of getting this exact sequence is over 2 billion to 1!

[Woodruff]

Here's some odds for you:

I just tracked a recent turn of mine, which had the following rolls, in order:
4-2-2
4-1-3
1-3-2
3-4-2
(yeah, it was a bad turn).
Anyway, the odds of getting this exact sequence is over 2 billion to 1!

Astronomical! <smile>

[40kguy]

Here's some odds for you:

I just tracked a recent turn of mine, which had the following rolls, in order:
4-2-2
4-1-3
1-3-2
3-4-2
(yeah, it was a bad turn).
Anyway, the odds of getting this exact sequence is over 2 billion to 1!

those arent 12's tho.

[Woodruff]

Here's some odds for you:

I just tracked a recent turn of mine, which had the following rolls, in order:
4-2-2
4-1-3
1-3-2
3-4-2
(yeah, it was a bad turn).
Anyway, the odds of getting this exact sequence is over 2 billion to 1!

those arent 12's tho.

12's?

[Metsfanmax]

Here's some odds for you:

I just tracked a recent turn of mine, which had the following rolls, in order:
4-2-2
4-1-3
1-3-2
3-4-2
(yeah, it was a bad turn).
Anyway, the odds of getting this exact sequence is over 2 billion to 1!

Clearly there's something wrong with the site. There's no way that the dice are random if that exact sequence happened. The chances were basically zero.

[rogower]

The sort of response that I just got from this Woodruff fellow is exactly the sort of response that I am referring to. It is condescending, flippant, unhelpful, rude, and surely not what the folks who are running this site want to see from its moderators, or so I'd like to think. If one of the head honchos would like to respond here and explain to me that they don't care that, just a few weeks ago, I paid the $25 premium fee, that they don't care if the consumers of their product are happy with the product, then I'd like to hear that.

An important point here to consider: for every one person who complains about a product or service, there are generally around 100 who feel the exact same way yet are not putting forth the time and effort to voice their feelings. CC should consider that MANY such individuals represent lost business, i.e., these folks don't stick around long enough to pay the premium, and, those who do pay the premium only pay it once. So CC needs to listen to us; we're not crazy, and there are a whole, whole lot of us. I grew up loving the game of Risk and was thrilled to find this website. How disappointing it has been to discover that the dice do not function properly. What is even more disappointing is the sorts of responses that those of us who are bringing this problem to CC's attention are receiving. Extremely disappointing.

In addition, Woodruff, your reasoning is utterly flawed, but, as an old friend once said to me, "Don't bother trying to reason with an unreasonable person." It's kind of like arguing with the sort of person who does not recognize that Fox News is propaganda. Just a waste of time.

The sorts of extremely, EXTREMELY low probability outcomes that some of us are referring to are happening way too frequently. There are only so many attacks in any one game. In any one game that I have played in recent days, there have been multiple, MULTIPLE, occasions where someone with a massive troop advantage just gets wiped out. We are talking about multiple 500-to-1 (or 2,000-to-1, or 15,000-to-1, or whatever) situations happening per game, on a regular basis.

CC can continue to ignore this problem if it is content with a flawed product. I would like to think that this is a kink in the system that can be fixed by smart, reasonable people. But, in order for this kink in the system to get fixed, CC needs to recognize that the kink ACTUALLY EXISTS. Important first step!

Back to the auto assault thing: this is just a working hypothesis on my part, but I'm not so sure that the problem isn't with auto assault. I am seemingly getting more predictable (and desirable!) results when I just sit and tap on the assault button.

[radiojake]

You do not seem to understand the definition of random - The dice are random on this site

[Metsfanmax]

The sort of response that I just got from this Woodruff fellow is exactly the sort of response that I am referring to. It is condescending, flippant, unhelpful, rude, and surely not what the folks who are running this site want to see from its moderators, or so I'd like to think. If one of the head honchos would like to respond here and explain to me that they don't care that, just a few weeks ago, I paid the $25 premium fee, that they don't care if the consumers of their product are happy with the product, then I'd like to hear that.

An important point here to consider: for every one person who complains about a product or service, there are generally around 100 who feel the exact same way yet are not putting forth the time and effort to voice their feelings. CC should consider that MANY such individuals represent lost business, i.e., these folks don't stick around long enough to pay the premium, and, those who do pay the premium only pay it once. So CC needs to listen to us; we're not crazy, and there are a whole, whole lot of us. I grew up loving the game of Risk and was thrilled to find this website. How disappointing it has been to discover that the dice do not function properly. What is even more disappointing is the sorts of responses that those of us who are bringing this problem to CC's attention are receiving. Extremely disappointing.

In addition, Woodruff, your reasoning is utterly flawed, but, as an old friend once said to me, "Don't bother trying to reason with an unreasonable person." It's kind of like arguing with the sort of person who does not recognize that Fox News is propaganda. Just a waste of time.

The sorts of extremely, EXTREMELY low probability outcomes that some of us are referring to are happening way too frequently. There are only so many attacks in any one game. In any one game that I have played in recent days, there have been multiple, MULTIPLE, occasions where someone with a massive troop advantage just gets wiped out. We are talking about multiple 500-to-1 (or 2,000-to-1, or 15,000-to-1, or whatever) situations happening per game, on a regular basis.

CC can continue to ignore this problem if it is content with a flawed product. I would like to think that this is a kink in the system that can be fixed by smart, reasonable people. But, in order for this kink in the system to get fixed, CC needs to recognize that the kink ACTUALLY EXISTS. Important first step!

Back to the auto assault thing: this is just a working hypothesis on my part, but I'm not so sure that the problem isn't with auto assault. I am seemingly getting more predictable (and desirable!) results when I just sit and tap on the assault button.

The dice on this site are both random and fair. What would you like to hear? This sort of behavior is inevitable on a site like this. The admins can obviously not do anything about the situation, because they (and most of us) don't believe there is a problem. If you cannot be convinced that your assessment of the dice is wrong, then you are simply part of the opportunity cost of running a site with a luck-based game.

[TalynStarburst]

Obviously those who will argue with such determination about the dice being "random" here on this site has not suffered a sufficient amount of "bad luck" for a long period of time that would seem very impossible.. I myself can handle bad random dice in games. Lose a few here.. and lose a few there. For months, it's been what I consider fair. These last two week though is a different story. In about 90% of my games, I have seen the impossible in everyday play in games. I can go on about how I lost 13 men only taking out 1 out of 2.. and then going to the next game and losing 11 men taking 2 out of 9... and moving onto a few turns later on another game (within a few minutes) having a 42 drop and losing it all taking out a total of 16 men. And this is my typical day for the last 2 weeks. But really.. what is the point when we get those who are so SURE that they are just random and will sit here and belittle those who are having a tough time, huh? Why not just let players vent their frustration and leave them alone? Or maybe you are all the type who would exploit those players to feel better about your own life?

Anyway, i'm not going to bother to complain much nor try to present proof by tracking my dice as i simply just do not have the time to put it all into something like that. but as someone had pointed out, there are many many others who has seen the horrible dice patterns.. and don't get me wrong.. i've also had some time periods with the most amazing godlike dice that also doesn't seem possible.

point is.. probability. learn about statistics before you start downing people. and as far as my problem.. it's simple. next month my premium membership will be up for renewal. i won't renew. i'll go back to playing as a freemium. and no.. it's not just the bad dice that had lead to this decision. but it certainly got the process going. and one day when i feel ready.. maybe i'll go back to premium.

and if someone wants to reply to my post and try to argue with whatever.. or try to belittle me.. then i say good luck because you won't simply just change my views or mind by stating your opinion.. since imo, you cannot argue against probability and i have all the information that i really need with the samples of my games to be convinced.. which is all that matters as i can care less to convince anyone else.

[jefjef]

The dice are random. The numbers are COMPUTER generated numbers it was PROGRAMMED to generate based on it's reaction to COMPUTER translated atmospheric noise.

Those random COMPUTER generated numbers are then transmitted to CC's COMPUTER which then accesses those numbers, as it's PROGRAMMED to do, and then assigns those numbers to determine outcomes, as it was PROGRAMMED to do.

Now those drops are kinda suspicious...

[natty dread]

The dice are random. The numbers are COMPUTER generated numbers it was PROGRAMMED to generate based on it's reaction to COMPUTER translated atmospheric noise.

It simply samples atmospheric noise into a bitstream. A simple analog->digital signal conversion. There's no "computer-generated" there since the random numbers are taken directly from the noise signal.

In about 90% of my games, I have seen the impossible in everyday play in games.

Clearly it is not impossible.

But really.. what is the point when we get those who are so SURE that they are just random and will sit here and belittle those who are having a tough time, huh? Why not just let players vent their frustration and leave them alone?

Because those people come here demanding that the dice be changed into something that is not random. We who disagree with the idea that the dice should be changed are obviously going to post our disagreement.

Besides, this is a public forum, everyone is free to post here.

Obviously those who will argue with such determination about the dice being "random" here on this site has not suffered a sufficient amount of "bad luck" for a long period of time that would seem very impossible..

Now who's making assumptions.

[TalynStarburst]

natty, yes it's a public forum.. but what is your purpose here? to police those who disagree with the dice system and try to put them in their place?

you can try to put me in my place, but it won't work. you make tons of assumptions yourself.. so i wouldn't try to bring up any assumptions that i make. give it up and go play your "random" dice games because you won't get anywhere with me. as i had mentioned.. there was no need to reply to me. but you only prove me right with my statement by your direct reply to me.

not that it's a surprise from what i have seen on these forum with the cc brown nosers.

oh and if you want to try to argue with me, then telling me what is possible and what isn't won't be the way to go. it's possible to win the lottery. if many starts winning the lottery though, then something is likely not right because it shouldn't be something that is common. now if you want to talk probability then maybe we'll discuss something.. but i seriously thing it's worth putting any effort into it.

[jefjef]

The dice are random. The numbers are COMPUTER generated numbers it was PROGRAMMED to generate based on it's reaction to COMPUTER translated atmospheric noise.

It simply samples atmospheric noise into a bitstream. A simple analog->digital signal conversion. There's no "computer-generated" there since the random numbers are taken directly from the noise signal.

Really? You mean the atmospheric noise is actually numbers and not a signal that is translated by a program into numbers? Ok Natty.

[AndyDufresne]

Obviously those who will argue with such determination about the dice being "random" here on this site has not suffered a sufficient amount of "bad luck" for a long period of time that would seem very impossible.

I've had my sufficient amount of bad luck. I still believe the dice are random.

Try hypno-therapy by repeating those two phrases again and again.

I've had my sufficient amount of bad luck. I still believe the dice are random.
I've had my sufficient amount of bad luck. I still believe the dice are random.
I've had my sufficient amount of bad luck. I still believe the dice are random.
I've had my sufficient amount of bad luck. I still believe the dice are random.
I've had my sufficient amount of bad luck. I still believe the dice are random...

What were we talking about? Suddenly I want to cluck like a chicken.


--Andy

[natty dread]

It simply samples atmospheric noise into a bitstream. A simple analog->digital signal conversion. There's no "computer-generated" there since the random numbers are taken directly from the noise signal.

Really? You mean the atmospheric noise is actually numbers and not a signal that is translated by a program into numbers? Ok Natty.

Do you understand the concept of sampling an analog signal and converting it to digital form?

When represented as a digital signal, yes, atmospheric noise is actually numbers. No "translation" apart from the intial analog-digital conversion is necessary.

Look into it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

natty, yes it's a public forum.. but what is your purpose here? to police those who disagree with the dice system and try to put them in their place?

My purpose is to post my opinion in a public forum. I also like to correct common misconceptions about the dice when I see them. What's your purpose?

you can try to put me in my place, but it won't work.

What is your place, exactly? I'm just asking out of curiosity, since you're the one who brought the whole "putting into place" thing up...

you make tons of assumptions yourself..

Such as?

so i wouldn't try to bring up any assumptions that i make.

Logical fallacy. Even if I was making assumptions (which you have yet to demonstrate) it does not make my pointing out that you make assumptions any less valid.

give it up and go play your "random" dice games because you won't get anywhere with me.

Oh damn! Here I was hoping we could have taken a nice moonlight stroll after I buy you ice cream.

as i had mentioned.. there was no need to reply to me.

By the same logic... There was no need for you to post in the first place. There was also no need for you to reply to my reply.

You can't post on a public forum and complain that you only want people who agree with you to reply to you. That's kind of silly, don't you think?

but you only prove me right with my statement by your direct reply to me.

Right about what?

oh and if you want to try to argue with me, then telling me what is possible and what isn't won't be the way to go.

It isn't? Because you seemed to have some trouble with the concept.

So far, you're not putting up a very good show. I hear lots of smack talk and e-penis waving, but little of any substance. How about actually trying to support your arguments instead of just telling me how you are definitely going to do it if I dare to argue with you?

Let's see what else you got...

it's possible to win the lottery. if many starts winning the lottery though, then something is likely not right because it shouldn't be something that is common.

Right, but you have yet to demonstrate that the lottery is won beyond normal frequency here at CC.

See, evidence is what matters. Nobody has so far been able to provide any evidence beyond personal anecdotes that there is anything wrong with the dice. There are numerous people who have recorded their dice rolls with the dice analyzer tool, and every statistically significant sample has shown a normal distribution of dice rolls.

So if you really want to convince people that there's something wrong with the dice, gather some data that backs up your claims. People will take you a lot more seriously when you can present evidence for your claims.

[40kguy]

well im done with this fucking site. sick of the dice, sick of the panzy asses that wont play freestyle. sick of everything

[natty dread]

well im done with this fucking site. sick of the dice, sick of the panzy asses that wont play freestyle. sick of everything

That time of month?

[Metsfanmax]

and if someone wants to reply to my post and try to argue with whatever.. or try to belittle me.. then i say good luck because you won't simply just change my views or mind by stating your opinion.. since imo, you cannot argue against probability and i have all the information that i really need with the samples of my games to be convinced.. which is all that matters as i can care less to convince anyone else.

You're right, you cannot argue against probability.

http://www.random.org/statistics/