wtf is wrong with the dice?

[natty dread]

good for you Natty, you can interpret as you want since it doesn't affect my life either way. but just to give you my interpret, what i'm reading from you is "we play by the rules in this sandbox. you either follow them or i'll go tell the principal on you" er.. you got something brown on your nose btw.

as far as logic. it's possible to win the lottery, but i'm sure that many will not believe me if i came on here and told you that. i wonder though.. if someone comes on here and says that they win the lottery 3 weeks in a row, will you reply to them "it's possible!"? sure.. it's possible, but chances are.. the person is lying of course. and if it is true, chances are the person is cheating the system somehow. but through your eyes.. you just see it being possible, shrug your shoulder and probably argue with those who say it isn't. or go tell the principal.

oh dear, i predict another worthless reply because you are not the type who thinks that you have to share your "opinion" to every post on here about those school rules. someone give this kid a whistle!

I thought you didn't have to defend your opinion. For someone who doesn't care what I post you sure seem to get agitated about them...

"As far as logic", you still have not addressed the fact that the site has millions of dice rolls per day. You still haven't provided any arguments that we haven't heard from a hundred other dice complainers... You have to understand, we hear these same arguments over and over, every week, and it has been the same ever since the site started... and yet, none of you ever provide any substantial data of flawed dice. Every dice analyzer data I've seen has shown acceptable results.

Perhaps you should consider that there may be nothing wrong with the dice, but instead it's your perception that is flawed. You tend to notice the real bad dices more than the good or average ones. When you have a 5v1 battle you expect to win it. So you tend to notice it more when you lose it, but forget about all the times you win that 5v1...

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfanmax.. just because it says random doesn't necessary mean that it works that way, but believe what you want. it doesn't matter to me as i stick with my beliefs.

random.org compiles comprehensive statistics regarding their data on a continuous basis. I'm not just taking their word for it - their statistical evidence proves the quality of the random numbers. This won't be a very fruitful discussion if you're just doing to disregard the actual reasoning and make unjustified assumptions.

[natty dread]

just because it says random doesn't necessary mean that it works that way, but believe what you want. it doesn't matter to me as i stick with my beliefs.

You know... you sound just like a young earth creationist. It doesn't matter what evidence you throw in their face, they just counter with "just because scientific evidence over the last 200 years says something it doesn't mean it works that way, I stick with my beliefs"....

[jefjef]

Metsfanmax.. just because it says random doesn't necessary mean that it works that way, but believe what you want. it doesn't matter to me as i stick with my beliefs.

random.org compiles comprehensive statistics regarding their data on a continuous basis. I'm not just taking their word for it - their statistical evidence proves the quality of the random numbers. This won't be a very fruitful discussion if you're just doing to disregard the actual reasoning and make unjustified assumptions.

Yes. Many people/corporations/political organizations/governments have and do compile statistics. Good thing statistics are never skewed and always accurate and are never bent to support a claim.

Random.Org strives to be statistical average. That means they control and manipulate their generation of random in order to achieve it. And who really knows what happens to it when it hits the CC server.

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfanmax.. just because it says random doesn't necessary mean that it works that way, but believe what you want. it doesn't matter to me as i stick with my beliefs.

random.org compiles comprehensive statistics regarding their data on a continuous basis. I'm not just taking their word for it - their statistical evidence proves the quality of the random numbers. This won't be a very fruitful discussion if you're just doing to disregard the actual reasoning and make unjustified assumptions.

Yes. Many people/corporations/political organizations/governments have and do compile statistics. Good thing statistics are never skewed and always accurate and are never bent to support a claim.

The statistics are right there on their site, every single day. If you don't believe the claim, go look at the statistics. If you don't understand statistics, then just trust me that they do it right (and if you don't understand the statistics, then you don't really have a justification in saying what you're saying). They have a good reputation because the data is all there for everyone to see. They have also been certified independently as having high quality random numbers.

Random.Org strives to be statistical average. That means they control and manipulate their generation of random in order to achieve it. And who really knows what happens to it when it hits the CC server.

We know exactly what happens to the numbers; lack has told us how the numbers are used.

[natty dread]

Random.Org strives to be statistical average. That means they control and manipulate their generation of random in order to achieve it. And who really knows what happens to it when it hits the CC server.

Now all you have to do is tie the "guvmint" in with it somehow...

[jimboston]

Is this a dice-bitch thread that I can troll?

[jefjef]

Is this a dice-bitch thread that I can troll?

Is there a thread you don't troll?

It's just a thread that discusses true random vs manufactured and controlled random.

[TalynStarburst]

Natty.. who says i'm defending my opnion? your so called opnion has turned more into personal attacks, so yeah i'm replying.. but don't think you are getting to me in any way. this is the internet, you do not even know what i look like.. much less what my facial expressions are. you just have my words. but as i said before.. think what you want and continue to waste your time. and as i also said before, i'm not here to try to prove anything as i don't care too.. i had put my 2 cents in, made my decision and sticking by it. you are the one who continues to pursue my beliefs with your posts.. and it's not working. so tell me again what things i need to address so i can tell you again that i won't stretch myself that far.

and yes, i stick to what i know from experience as you seem to do as well.. just because you reside here in games, maps, and on forums doesn't make you the head of the household.

[natty dread]

personal attacks

Again with this. What is it with you dice-complainers. The minute you can't defend your argument, you start yelling "personal attack! personal attack!"

Do you know the meaning of "personal attack"?

If I went around saying "TalynStarburst is an ugly buttface and that's why his opinion is wrong!" that would be an ad hominem and a personal attack. Notice how I'm not actually doing that? You would, if you would bother reading the posts you reply to.

so tell me again what things i need to address so i can tell you again that i won't stretch myself that far.

In other words: you're not interested in a rational discussion, you just want to bitch about your bad luck. Amirite?

[TalynStarburst]

lol, didn't take you long natty. it really seems that you cannot read, but you should just go back to the first post i made. yes it's personal attacks.. same ones i'm using back on you. it doesn't have to be 'you're ugly, blah blah' to be a personal attack. you sit there making the whole 'you sound like..' scenes.. it's all the same as i tell you that you have some brown still on your nose.

and if you once again go back to my first post, i didn't ask for any rational conversations, did i? i was pretty much straight forward that i wasn't going to put the time into this because i have my own experience to justify how i feel. i was simply stating my side of the story on all of this.. you chose to pursue that though, which got you nowhere. and you continue to try to pursue it.. which still gets you nowhere. i'm only here replying to see how long it's going to take you to get that through that stubborn skull of yours.

it's like 'oh no! someone is talking bad about my home.. i'll be damned if i'll let that happen, natty to the rescue!'. that's because natty just can't let it go, can he?

[natty dread]

Ok, now you're pretty much just ranting.

[TalynStarburst]

rant? me?? aren't you a genius? but perhaps it is the conclusion that you need to make in order for you to be able to move on. i put in my 2 cents in the beginning.. anything after that is just fair game as far as i'm concern. may this be the last we speak, but i'm up for more if it is what you wish.

[scatt]

II. Assaulting Your Enemies

You may now assault any opponent's region from one of yours, as long as both regions are adjacent and your assaulting region has a minimum of two troops. This part is optional in that you may choose not to assault anyone.

Each time combat is initiated, the game engine will generate a random intensity cube for each troop involved. The outcome is determined by the intensity of the assaulting troops versus the intensity of the repelling troops. There are 6 possible intensity cubes that may be assigned, listed here from weakest to strongest:

1. Pathetic
2. Sad
3. Decent
4. Strong
5. Awesome
6. Heroic

The more troops involved on either side, the better the chances that side has of winning. But not all troops in the regions are necessarily involved. To be more specific, the game engine will assigned a random intensity cube for each assaulting troop, less 1 troop that stays behind, up to a maximum of 3 troops. Likewise, the game engine will assign a random intensity cube for each repelling troop, up to a maximum of 2 troops.

as is written in how to play all i can say is its random with a twist if u got 1v6 baced on above that could be the reason

[natty dread]

The pathetic etc. just refer to the numbers on the dice. They're not a secondary attribute, despite the confusing help text. There's no secret variables for the troops, it's all dice.

You're not the first one to be confused by the help text, though.

[scatt]

ok thanks for clearing that one up read it complety dif now lol glad am blond

[natty dread]

Don't worry, like I said, you're not the first one to get confused by it. Personally I think they should change the text, it confuses so many new guys (and even veterans sometimes...)

[AndyDufresne]

Don't worry, like I said, you're not the first one to get confused by it. Personally I think they should change the text, it confuses so many new guys (and even veterans sometimes...)

Do you have a suggestion for how else you would word it? Without using wording that is getting into content that is Hasbro related?


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Don't worry, like I said, you're not the first one to get confused by it. Personally I think they should change the text, it confuses so many new guys (and even veterans sometimes...)

Do you have a suggestion for how else you would word it? Without using wording that is getting into content that is Hasbro related?


--Andy

Uh.. numbers? I don't believe they are copyrighted yet

Perhaps a "spin of a dial" instead of dice?

[scatt]

as said by god know who only man will try to put order where there can be none

[natty dread]

Don't worry, like I said, you're not the first one to get confused by it. Personally I think they should change the text, it confuses so many new guys (and even veterans sometimes...)

Do you have a suggestion for how else you would word it? Without using wording that is getting into content that is Hasbro related?


--Andy

You don't necessarily have to change it, just add some clarification that clearly statest that the "intensity levels" indeed refer to the numbers on the "intensity cubes" and are not a secondary variable.

As for an exact wording... ask ender, he's good with wordstuff like this.

[musicalmaven]

hey - i go away for a couple of weeks and the discussion just stops?
when i last posted a comment metsfan asked for the numbers behind the 123,000 dice throws.
well here they are - straight from todays dice analyer (which now shows 130,000+ throws)
3 vs. 2 - 8,579 / 7,694 / 6,564 and i am +.4 of a point (this is a high point , usually i have been +.25 to .33, as i was a month ago.)
3 vs. 1 - 13,100 / 6,857 and i am -.33 of a point
2 vs. 2 - 49 / 71 / 97 and i am - .18 of a point (this too is a high point for me. a month ago i was a - 1% to a - 3 %.)
2 vs. 1 - 404 / 293 and i am + .09 of a point (this was a negative three weeks ago when i said i was below average on 5 out of the 6 categories on the dice analyzer).
1 vs. 2 - 14 / 55 and i am -5.17% (in january this was a - 16%)
1 vs. 1 - 135 /212 and i am - 2.77% (in january this was a - 6 to a - 8%)
over the past month i have been on a decent roll, despite to terrible individual rolls, so the numbers have improved.
as i said before, i have kept records for over 4 years, and over those 4 years my accumulative total has never been above normal.
now i do not break it down like the dice analyzer, i simply count my wins and loses when i attack 2 defenders and when i attack 1 defender. i do not break it down to how many men i was using to try and win. i am only interested in whether or not i won.
while i believe the over-all dice mechanism is random, i believe there is something wrong when it gets down to the individual level.
i believe there are players who constantly get good dice and there are players who constantly get lousy dice.
let's face it - most people have a decent sense of strategy. yes, some are better than others, but your strategy can only be implemented if and when the dice cooperate. if you are trying to kill off an opponent with 14 men, get his cards, cash-in and do the same to the next guy and you can only kill 12 of his while losing 22 of your own, well, so much for strategy.
maybe the better strategy would have been to stockpile and allow him to cash-in and get lousy dice (like that ever happens). or to stockpile and let a 3rd player try to take that player out, and fail, so you can take both out (i'm sure everybody waits for an opponent to fail, and i am the exception who takes a pro-active stance, because the odds are suppose to be in my favor).
anyway, my position is, and has been for years, there is something wrong with the dice. i cannot say what, i can only point to hard data, over a long period, showing poor results from my dice rolls and hope someone believes and can correct it.

[Metsfanmax]

well here they are - straight from todays dice analyer (which now shows 130,000+ throws)
3 vs. 2 - 8,579 / 7,694 / 6,564 and i am +.4 of a point (this is a high point , usually i have been +.25 to .33, as i was a month ago.)
3 vs. 1 - 13,100 / 6,857 and i am -.33 of a point

The first result is well within one standard deviation of the mean for your sample size, and the second is just over one standard deviation (I'm not looking at the other results because the sample sizes are far too small). This is not a result that should cause anyone to suspect that the dice are flawed.

[Woodruff]

i believe there are players who constantly get good dice and there are players who constantly get lousy dice.

That really doesn't make sense, unless the number of games being played is excessively small.

let's face it - most people have a decent sense of strategy.

This really is not true. I'm sorry...but there are individuals on this site that I truly wonder if they don't just randomly select how they're going to attack.

yes, some are better than others, but your strategy can only be implemented if and when the dice cooperate.

Absolutely wrong. If your strategy does not take the dice into account, then your strategy is, quite honestly, terrible.

[musicalmaven]

okay.
first - metsfan. i concur with your analysis of my numbers from the dice analyzer. as i have said before - since the inception of the intensive dice, my numbers have been better than in the past, and since the dice analyzer was only incorporated onto my computer 9 months or so ago their closeness to normal is a lot better than under the prior methodology.
second - woodruff, the amount of games i've played over the past 4 years certainly does not qualify for a "too small a sample" statement.
as i have stated before, over the 4 years that i have kept records on, i have never had my cumulative numbers go over normal, so i am looking for another answer.
i do not believe that you can reach the higher ranks without cooperative dice and certainly not if your rolls are always below the norm.
also, i believe i stated that most players have a decent sense of strategy. ergo - some do not, so your statement questioning some players abilities in this area merely concurs with my statement, it doesn't contradict it.
finally, oh wise one - as reflecting the example i gave of the dice controlling the strategy - what would you do? you have a chance to knock out a player. he has 14 men - you have 22. he has enough cards to allow you to cash - in again and continue the attack to try and knock out yet another player. do you attack? or do you say, "i don't have enough men to pull this off" and sit and wait for better odds?
i believe most of us would attack. the odds say we should win the attack and the reward for succeeding is also strong enough to justify the attack.
hence, most of us have taken into account the possibilities of failure and have determined that the rewards are worth the risk.
now, i do agree that there are players who, if they do not succeed every time, they complain about lousy dice. but i believe there are players who fail under this, and similar scenarios, far too often, and have a legitimate claim toward lousy dice.
again, 4 years of below average dice has really got me frustrated.
if you go into my old records - where we used to make comments, pro & con, about those we played against, you'll find that even way back then, about 1/3 of the comments from my opponents were about how bad my dice were.
just to be aware of how bad your opponents dice were tells you that my dice were really bad and that it was obvious to someone who could not see them, and also so bad that they felt obligated to say something.