I'll admit it after 4,500 Games

[gimil]

Actually what he is saying is too many odd things occur that should only happen once in a blue moon. They happen every other game, for better or worse. I cannot tell you how many times this week I seen 12 vs 6 win losing 0 or 5 vs 1 lose all. Surely those things happen, but every other game is a bit much. Also tell me how 66 vs 119 wins with 15 left. In real life it never happens like that.

How often in real life do you roll 66v119 compared to on CC? Those sorts of odd things are more likely to happem on CC because they happen more often than in real life.

In real life the numbers rarely get that big, but for the same token, even a 15 vs 30 attack in real life never wins. And don't tell me you rolled double sixes 16 times in a row to wipe it out. 99% of the time you will lose 15 vs 30. All LFAW is saying it is happens to often on CC, and thus not a true real life random.

Perhaps, I haven't played real risk enought to comment on this comment. 16 double 6's in a row seems even me farfetched but I still wouldn't say it is impossible. Maybe those sort of 16xdouble streaks are a result of a glitch storing numbers on random.org? Who knows? But I bet you 16 double 6's in a row doesn't actually happen all the time

[Bruceswar]

1. Ever heard of attacker's advantage?
2. CC uses a string of 500000 dice. I would not be surprised to find that it does not split evenly among all dice since it is randomly generated. Perhaps we should get a new dice string?

Well duh.. all the speed game players know you have to get the auto off, as I already mentioned. BTW since when should attackers have an advantage when ties go to the defender?

[gimil]

Unless your study involves hundreds or better yet, thousands of 100v100 attempts and those results are repeated by others not much can be gleaned from it. There is a 36% chance to have 20 men left over after a 100v100 attack so it's not far-fetched. The fact that your single attacks ended in losses is not surprising either and actually probably averaged out your total dice during your study.

Point is why did not one of the single attacks work at all? 0 for 8, yet every single auto attack worked? Should they both not be the same in a sense?

I would put that down to bad luck. How the numbers on CC work can't make single attack work over autoattack. Both numbers would come from the same string on randomly generated numbers.

[Bruceswar]

Perhaps, I haven't played real risk enought to comment on this comment. 16 double 6's in a row seems even me farfetched but I still wouldn't say it is impossible. Maybe those sort of 16xdouble streaks are a result of a glitch storing numbers on random.org? Who knows? But I bet you 16 double 6's in a row doesn't actually happen all the time

I think it was ROS who hit on that very same thing you just said, glitches in the dice. Maybe not all the time, but more than it should is all that is being said.

[Bruceswar]

I would put that down to bad luck. How the numbers on CC work can't make single attack work over autoattack. Both numbers would come from the same string on randomly generated numbers.

OK so if 16 stacks 8 and 8 is bad luck, when does it become a problem? 30 stacks? 100 stacks? I still stand behind the fact auto attack works better than single attacking.

[gimil]

Perhaps, I haven't played real risk enought to comment on this comment. 16 double 6's in a row seems even me farfetched but I still wouldn't say it is impossible. Maybe those sort of 16xdouble streaks are a result of a glitch storing numbers on random.org? Who knows? But I bet you 16 double 6's in a row doesn't actually happen all the time

I think it was ROS who hit on that very same thing you just said, glitches in the dice. Maybe not all the time, but more than it should is all that is being said.

Well as far as I know random.org generates randomness 24 hours a day. It is possible that alot of glitching happens. I would still argue that it is better for randomness than anywhere else.

[gimil]

I would put that down to bad luck. How the numbers on CC work can't make single attack work over autoattack. Both numbers would come from the same string on randomly generated numbers.

OK so if 16 stacks 8 and 8 is bad luck, when does it become a problem? 30 stacks? 100 stacks? I still stand behind the fact auto attack works better than single attacking.

It becomes a problem when you don't know when to stop clicking on single attacks

[hwhrhett]

the real miracle here lfaw is that you can get horrible dice in EVERY game, but still manage to be a brigadier.... whats your secret??

[Bruceswar]

I would put that down to bad luck. How the numbers on CC work can't make single attack work over autoattack. Both numbers would come from the same string on randomly generated numbers.

OK so if 16 stacks 8 and 8 is bad luck, when does it become a problem? 30 stacks? 100 stacks? I still stand behind the fact auto attack works better than single attacking.

It becomes a problem when you don't know when to stop clicking on single attacks

That does not answer the question... Surely nobody would sit through even 2 stacks of 100 vs 100 and single attack them. What a waste of time. LOL With that being said the problem that ROS talked about some time back still exist. The problem is like you said randon.org glitches and you get large strings of winning dice and then losing dice as well. As for what dice would be better, not a clue, but surely something worth looking into.

[4myGod]

I think the die are random. However even with random there is a chance of getting quite odd rolls. It happened to me a lot playing the real board game of risk, one of the big reasons I stopped playing, I felt it was too much about luck and not enough about strategy, I'm back though. Whether or not you win or lose a game can have a lot to do with what your rolls are like. It's like your world domination depends on the skill of your men, and you can't control their skill... so what does it matter if you are an awesome General? I have won 3 games, and I have seen some pretty unbelievable rolls which have completely stopped my plans dead in their tracks, which I think is the point of "random."

Perhaps though it would be nice to add in some sort of miracle block... maybe after 3 0-2 rolls or 2-0 rolls it automatically switches. For example, if you are attacking someone and 3 times in a row they defend against you 0-6 total, then you automatically win the next roll, then back to random again. It would keep it slightly realistic, however then it could be that people attack and win 3 times in a row and then know that they will lose the next one, so they stop attacking. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. So it might be open to abuse.

There might be a way to make it unpredictable though. Maybe it can have a 50% chance after 2 rolls to add or minus 1 from the next roll. So if you win 2x in a row you have a 50% chance that the miracle block will kick in, and if it kicks in then it will give the defender a +1 to each of their dice on the next roll, if it doesn't kick and you win again then it will have another 50% chance for it to kick in the next turn and that will keep going each turn until it kicks in or until your streak stops. When it kicks in then you have to roll 2 wins or 2 losses in a row again before it has another chance to kick in. Hope I explained that well. So essentially it would be added protection to help stop long winning or losing streaks.

Example:
Roll 1. A: 2 2 5 D: 4 5 (D wins)
Roll 2. A: 1 1 1 D: 3 3 (D wins) (50% chance that D will receive -1 on each of the dice in the next roll)
Roll 3. A: 5 3 4 D: 5 5 (50% chance failed)(D wins again)
Roll 4. A: 3 4 6 D: 5 4 (50% chance success and 6 goes to 5 and 5 goes to 4 on defenders die)(Even losses)

I guess it would really change the game completely, so I don't think for a second that CC will implement it, but perhaps if the idea is liked then some other risk site might take it in.

[gimil]

I would put that down to bad luck. How the numbers on CC work can't make single attack work over autoattack. Both numbers would come from the same string on randomly generated numbers.

OK so if 16 stacks 8 and 8 is bad luck, when does it become a problem? 30 stacks? 100 stacks? I still stand behind the fact auto attack works better than single attacking.

It becomes a problem when you don't know when to stop clicking on single attacks

That does not answer the question... Surely nobody would sit through even 2 stacks of 100 vs 100 and single attack them. What a waste of time. LOL With that being said the problem that ROS talked about some time back still exist. The problem is like you said randon.org glitches and you get large strings of winning dice and then losing dice as well. As for what dice would be better, not a clue, but surely something worth looking into.

Actually if (I don't actually know if they do glitch or not) they glitched and you got a string of the same number those would be loosing dice. If random.org generated a line for CC that glitched then lets say you get:

35654665744444444444441224356876943 (obviously you don't get 7's on CC dice , bold part is the glitch)

This in an auto attack would translate into:

356 54
665 74
444 44
444 44
441 22
435 68
769 43

So you would lose if there was a glitch and the same number appeared 10, 20, 1000 times in a row (because a draw is the defenders win by default). So if you rolled triple 6's, 3 in a row and your opponened rolled double 2's (all auto attack) the number string that was generated would be:

666116661166611.

So glitching can explain unusual loses but not unusual wins. of course thou a million different things could happen in a glith, this is all just hypothetical.

[4myGod]

unless CC was pulling separate lines of code for the offense and defense, then if what you said happened and there was a glitch of the same number, it could be 111 46 - 111 32 - 111 24... etc. However perhaps the code that is helping randomize their rolls is glitched, maybe there is a 44444444 somewhere in their code that is somehow just making the rolls slightly smaller on one side or the other, or larger. I don't know, just a thought. I don't personally believe it's glitched.

[Georgerx7di]

Random.Org, CC's Assault Odds, I don't care, it's bullshit.

As one of the luckiest f*ckers on Conquer Club winning some of the most ridiculous rolls ever recorded (including the 12v83 with 7 left over roll).

Now however I have also experienced some of the worst rolls 25v2 for example.

After 4,500 games you may say, well thats 2 examples, but these ridiculously stupid results happen on a gamely basis.

I often experience ridiculous dice such as 6v10 with no losses and just now after losing a 5v1 and a 4v1 I won a 4v11. Thats all in the same game (check out my recent games 1v1 Australia. I lost btw.)

The dice may be truly random (debatable) but bear that in mind when you play me, you're either going to get someone thats going to make your armies disappear with very few of his or someone thats going to lose every army assaulting your 1's

It seems to me my luck comes in a rows, I throw a certain amount of dice nearly perfectly and the bad dice come and hit me. You would have thought after 4,500 games the dice would have become more even. Not on CC

Btw I don't know anyone else apart from me that wins 2v1 more often then he does 3v1 lol

LFAW

Um 6v10 with no losses isn't that rediculous. The odds are about 0.7%, so that's 1 in every 150 times roughly that you try it. I'm sure I've rolled a million dice on here, so it should have happened many times to me. Just means that defender looses both (37% change) 5 times. That doesn't seem that unreasonable. And since you said you've had great and terrible dice, then the numbers probably come out very close to the probability.

[Kotaro]

After 4,500 games, wouldn't you have had plenty of time to complain about the dice being too random and quit?

[gimil]

unless CC was pulling separate lines of code for the offense and defense, then if what you said happened and there was a glitch of the same number, it could be 111 46 - 111 32 - 111 24... etc. However perhaps the code that is helping randomize their rolls is glitched, maybe there is a 44444444 somewhere in their code that is somehow just making the rolls slightly smaller on one side or the other, or larger. I don't know, just a thought. I don't personally believe it's glitched.

I think that the numbers are all generated for the 1 string I believe. It has been a while since I read about how it works so I may be wrong. But I am 99% sure that they generate 1 large line that everyone takes their numbers from.

[LFAW]

Half the people that post here don't even read the entirity of my posts nor Bruces...

1) Those of you that suggest this is me whining due to a bad streak, thats complete bullshit I am higher then I have ever been. I am also not complaing about the dice because they are bad. I am complaining because the dice come and go in streaks. I don't get average dice I get unbelievably good and unbelievably bad dice game after game.

That may well even out on the Dice Analyser hence why I shan't bother to look. It doesn't show you every roll, it shows an average.

HOWEVER the fact they never come out in normal results shows Random.Org works in streaks. After 4,500 games, very few expected dice results, as Bruce rightly says, Auto Attack with anything is worth doing as there is a good chance of getting some amazing results.

Sorry George to pick your post out in particular but it must be addresed:

Um 6v10 with no losses isn't that rediculous. The odds are about 0.7%, so that's 1 in every 150 times roughly that you try it. I'm sure I've rolled a million dice on here, so it should have happened many times to me. Just means that defender looses both (37% change) 5 times. That doesn't seem that unreasonable. And since you said you've had great and terrible dice, then the numbers probably come out very close to the probability.

1) The 6v10 happens extremely often, I play alot of Feudal 1v1s and always auto from my castle, the odds may be 0.7% but I would auto everytime knowing I have a good chance of getting it.

2) As I said before, my dice may very well average out but the fact is why do they come in the streaks that they do, as often as they do?
Please answer that question.

l miracle here lfaw is that you can get horrible dice in EVERY game, but still manage to be a brigadier.... whats your secret??

I am going to take this as a joke. But incase you meant it seriously, getting horrible dice a couple of times every game isn't going to lose you it. I didn't get here through consistently good dice, its about taking advantage of what I've got in the game.

[AAFitz]

I thought this very issue was tested with very large sample sizes via a statistician here on conquer club. IIRC, the results proved no difference between auto attack and regular attack. It also proved the randomness of the dice. If this is true then there's really no point in talking smack about random.org because it's like trying to argue 1+1 = 3.

Not true... one night in a locked up 8 man fs speed game we had some fun testing the dice... We took stacks of 100 men vs 100 men.. Every single time we would auto we won with about 20-25 left over .. the stacks we single attacked with.. Not a single stack won. We tried about 8 of each if I remember correctly. If someone wants I will setup a game with them to test the dice again. We can take screen shots of the rolls and post them. Auto attack owns single attack all day long when then numbers get over 20.

Im tempted to do just that in the...well many long games I have going... very interesting. I think I need more to be convinced, though I am a religious auto-attacker... and all this time I thought I was just good

[gimil]

Even if the dice are streak it is start hard to blame in on random.org. Like I said the numbers are generated in lines like.

1524363432561252314653234

This for 5 straight autoattacks 3v2 into:

152 43
634 32
561 25
231 46
532 34

In order to justify that random.org isn't random prove that the number generated at a paticular time are being generate in such a way that you get three good numbers and two bad ones (for a good streak) and that those numbers are being produced anything other than randomly.

Remeber also that the attacker and defender dice are taken from the same string of numbers and in order for conistent good/bad streaks to happen (without randomness) that every set of 5 numbers has to be generate in such a way that it creates dice for that streck.

I hope someone understand what I mean by it is hard to say that the randomness isn't random because something that makes the dice streaky. I just realised that people might not understand what I am saying here

[Bruceswar]

I thought this very issue was tested with very large sample sizes via a statistician here on conquer club. IIRC, the results proved no difference between auto attack and regular attack. It also proved the randomness of the dice. If this is true then there's really no point in talking smack about random.org because it's like trying to argue 1+1 = 3.

Not true... one night in a locked up 8 man fs speed game we had some fun testing the dice... We took stacks of 100 men vs 100 men.. Every single time we would auto we won with about 20-25 left over .. the stacks we single attacked with.. Not a single stack won. We tried about 8 of each if I remember correctly. If someone wants I will setup a game with them to test the dice again. We can take screen shots of the rolls and post them. Auto attack owns single attack all day long when then numbers get over 20.

Im tempted to do just that in the...well many long games I have going... very interesting. I think I need more to be convinced, though I am a religious auto-attacker... and all this time I thought I was just good

Lets do it Fitz... we can document everything

[chipv]

What's the point in compiling statistics? gimil already tried to explain that

Auto attack NOT equal to Single Attack.

Auto attack gets you a subsequence of random numbers.
Single attacks dont unless you're lightning fast and/or no-one else is playing on CC.

[MrMoody]

Okay, here's how the dice work:

I have a list of 50,000 dice rolls I got from random.org. Each line in the file looks like this: A1 A2 A3 D1 D2

So each time you attack I only use the numbers you need and then erase the line from the file. When the file is empty it is automatically re-loaded. We currently consume 30,000 rolls each day.

So every 50,000 rolls the dice repeat themselves, and this is why I don't want to publish the list. If you attack twice quickly at 4:00 AM Montreal time, there is a good chance you would get consecutive lines in the file. Granted, it would be very hard to cheat if you had the file but I'm not sure it should be made public.

Maybe my 50,000 rolls does have a lot of lossing streaks in it. Maybe I should replace it with another file with higher variance. If anyone knows how to assess the variance of a file of 50,000 dice rolls please raise your hand!

Sorry Gimil but your just way off on how the numbers in the file work

[Timminz]

Okay, here's how the dice work:

I have a list of 50,000 dice rolls I got from random.org. Each line in the file looks like this: A1 A2 A3 D1 D2

So each time you attack I only use the numbers you need and then erase the line from the file. When the file is empty it is automatically re-loaded. We currently consume 30,000 rolls each day.

So every 50,000 rolls the dice repeat themselves, and this is why I don't want to publish the list. If you attack twice quickly at 4:00 AM Montreal time, there is a good chance you would get consecutive lines in the file. Granted, it would be very hard to cheat if you had the file but I'm not sure it should be made public.

Maybe my 50,000 rolls does have a lot of lossing streaks in it. Maybe I should replace it with another file with higher variance. If anyone knows how to assess the variance of a file of 50,000 dice rolls please raise your hand!

Sorry Gimil but your just way off on how the numbers in the file work

I didn't think Gimil said anything that contradicted that quote.

[MrMoody]

Actually if (I don't actually know if they do glitch or not) they glitched and you got a string of the same number those would be loosing dice. If random.org generated a line for CC that glitched then lets say you get:

35654665744444444444441224356876943 (obviously you don't get 7's on CC dice , bold part is the glitch)

This in an auto attack would translate into:

356 54
665 74
444 44
444 44
441 22
435 68
769 43

So you would lose if there was a glitch and the same number appeared 10, 20, 1000 times in a row (because a draw is the defenders win by default). So if you rolled triple 6's, 3 in a row and your opponened rolled double 2's (all auto attack) the number string that was generated would be:

666116661166611.

So glitching can explain unusual loses but not unusual wins. of course thou a million different things could happen in a glith, this is all just hypothetical.

just pointing out this is not at all how the string of numbers works.

[maniacmath17]

Here's a little exercise for you: This is a hypothetical string. It goes 654321 and repeats. So assuming we are doing 3 v 2 attacks where 5 numbers at a time are taken, after 6 attacks we will find ourselves back at the start of the string.
I strongly urge you to check this for yourself.

654321654321654321654321654321654321654321654321654321654321

After 6 attacks (it doesn't matter where on the string you start!) here are the results for the attack.

Killed:Lost:percentage

2:0 50%
1:1 33.3%
0:2 16.7%

This is much more in favor of the attacker than what it would be for random dice which is 37%, 34% and 29% respectively.
While this is a bit extreme, it does show how a string can repeat all 6 numbers evenly and still heavily favor the attacker. There must be a better way to get random numbers...

[MrMoody]

WOW!!!! thats so cool. What the hell does it have to do with CC or the Dice?