Conquer Club

According to degaston's study, there's a discrepancy in the outcomes of rolls across individuals. Some mods have acknowledged that the dice are not random, but the lack of this fairness affects everyone equally; therefore, reform is not quite necessary.

Question: don't certain individuals roll more 6s than others--acc. to degaston's graph? If so, then how are the dice fair?

For example, if I tend to roll slightly more 5 and 6s than 1s and 2s, then how is this not a problem?

Well, you could roll 60 thousand dice and get 10,100 fours, fives, and sixes, and 9900 ones, twos, and threes. You are rolling slightly more of the good dice, but it is approximately normal. If it was fixed so that over the next 300 rolls you would only rolls the low numbers, then it wouldn't be random.

Random isn't balancing out numbers from the past, but rather, it's about being unbiased towards them. Doesn't matter how bad your previous roll was, the next one can be better, worse, or the same.

If you also roll more good numbers, and I roll them at the same rate, then the dice would also be "fair", but not considered true dice as the attack odds are slightly off. But that is a minute detail which has been in the game for years. Adapt or die.

BigBallinStalin wrote:According to degaston's study, there's a discrepancy in the outcomes of rolls across individuals. Some mods have acknowledged that the dice are not random, but the lack of this fairness affects everyone equally; therefore, reform is not quite necessary.

Question: don't certain individuals roll more 6s than others--acc. to degaston's graph? If so, then how are the dice fair?

For example, if I tend to roll slightly more 5 and 6s than 1s and 2s, then how is this not a problem?

We would have people rolling more 5s and 6s than 1s/2s in either scenario, and it would still be fair.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:According to degaston's study, there's a discrepancy in the outcomes of rolls across individuals. Some mods have acknowledged that the dice are not random, but the lack of this fairness affects everyone equally; therefore, reform is not quite necessary.

Question: don't certain individuals roll more 6s than others--acc. to degaston's graph? If so, then how are the dice fair?

For example, if I tend to roll slightly more 5 and 6s than 1s and 2s, then how is this not a problem?

We would have people rolling more 5s and 6s than 1s/2s in either scenario, and it would still be fair.

But if you look at degaston's graph, the distribution isn't the same for everyone, so... how is that fair?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:According to degaston's study, there's a discrepancy in the outcomes of rolls across individuals. Some mods have acknowledged that the dice are not random, but the lack of this fairness affects everyone equally; therefore, reform is not quite necessary.

Question: don't certain individuals roll more 6s than others--acc. to degaston's graph? If so, then how are the dice fair?

For example, if I tend to roll slightly more 5 and 6s than 1s and 2s, then how is this not a problem?

We would have people rolling more 5s and 6s than 1s/2s in either scenario, and it would still be fair.

But if you look at degaston's graph, the distribution isn't the same for everyone, so... how is that fair?

The distribution will never be the same for everyone. That's the point of randomness: if you have a finite sample, some people are going to have more 6's than 1's, and some will have the opposite.

In degaston's model, everyone is rolling from the same non-uniform distribution, which means that there's no inherent unfairness. It just means that, due to random chance, some people got more of the 6s (which may be more or less abundant than 1s) and some didn't. That would happen even if the list is perfectly uniform, all the time.

The "flaw" in the dice appears to be the overall lack of rolling 1's relative to other numbers. That is consistent amongst all CC players. The variance of the other numbers is just that...variance. You will always have statistical anomaly's in large samples but when everyone has the same then it is an issue. With respect to fairness, we are all in the same boat. However, I would suggest it puts a tilt toward defense and would suggest that the odds calculators would be wrong on attack probability. With fewer 1's being rolled there is a statistical increase in the probability of the defender getting a tie on any particular roll.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:According to degaston's study, there's a discrepancy in the outcomes of rolls across individuals. Some mods have acknowledged that the dice are not random, but the lack of this fairness affects everyone equally; therefore, reform is not quite necessary.

Question: don't certain individuals roll more 6s than others--acc. to degaston's graph? If so, then how are the dice fair?

For example, if I tend to roll slightly more 5 and 6s than 1s and 2s, then how is this not a problem?

We would have people rolling more 5s and 6s than 1s/2s in either scenario, and it would still be fair.

But if you look at degaston's graph, the distribution isn't the same for everyone, so... how is that fair?

Are you actually suggesting that random is supposed to be fair?

once again... random, unpredictable, and fair are all unique concepts... the dice can be fair or not fair and that discussion is a bit too nebulous for me, and I wouldn't care to take that much time thinking about it... they can also be unpredictable (which they are). But they are not random.. dice values chosen from a finite sample, regardless of the size of that sample cannot be, by definition, random..

Thanks, everyone--except Chocoboy, for the useful comments.

I'll be forwarding 3 violet stars to y'all's accounts. Keep an eye on your PayPal.