Conquer Club

I've heard this term thrown around in a bunch of threads and have no idea what the hell it is.

GO

the "dice" has problems...-el Jesus negro

The problem with the dice is that they are random*. People don't understand randomness, so they complain about it.

*OK, not really, as has been discussed in another thread. But close enough, I suppose.

All chefs think alike.

Metsfanmax wrote:The problem with the dice is that they are random*. People don't understand randomness, so they complain about it.

*OK, not really, as has been discussed in another thread. But close enough, I suppose.

This thread isn't "tell AoG exactly what he thinks".

I think the problem is that the dice seem to be very "streaky". For me at least, I seem to often have a bad-luck streak followed by a good luck streak, or vice-versa. I'm not sure if it's really supposed to happen as often as it seems to happen.

This one/many times the dice didn't go the way I wanted them to; therefore, the dice are problem.

The debate is over.

I convinced my dice that there was an AoG problem. It was really weird, since the d10s had a problem with not being a truly Platonic solid. I now only roll 5-dimensional Platonic Solids.

Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

iAmCaffeine ITT:

iAmCaffeine wrote:The absence of evidence is evidence of existence!

Players have been complaining about the dice from the beginning...CC has been trying to fix the dice from the beginning or at least claiming to have fixed the dice.

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

Well if you cared to look in the forum instead of being some dumb fucking troll you would find your answer.

Calm it caff

Wouldn't want you to rupture something

jammyjames wrote:Calm it caff

Wouldn't want you to rupture something

You know as well as I do that I'm calm mate.

ztodd wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?

So randomness is that things should occur as they're expected to occur?

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

Well if you cared to look in the forum instead of being some dumb fucking troll you would find your answer.

I'm sorry for your little butt.

Also, I take it you have no proof then.

Army of GOD wrote:So randomness is that things should occur as they're expected to occur?

Nobody has said that, and that argument is very old. Keep up.

Army of GOD wrote:I'm sorry for your little butt.

Also, I take it you have no proof then.

It's little but perky.

There is proof in this forum. I don't care enough to find it just to prove to a troll that the dice are not random.

The problem is the dice are cutting me no slack
in a few of my games. Recently lost seventeen
armies killing four armies while managing to
conquer two regions.
SO IT GOES.
No bitching here... it's all part of the game.

According to ztodd, the fact that you "lost 18v2" is evidence that the dice aren't random. I'm assuming that's because losing 18v2 isn't expected.

ITT: iAmCaffiene admits he's an idiot

Army of GOD wrote:According to ztodd, the fact that you "lost 18v2" is evidence that the dice aren't random. I'm assuming that's because losing 18v2 isn't expected.

ITT: iAmCaffiene admits he's an idiot

Hahaha wrong! According to ztodd, there is a "dice problem". Don't confuse yourself in your own troll thread.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:According to ztodd, the fact that you "lost 18v2" is evidence that the dice aren't random. I'm assuming that's because losing 18v2 isn't expected.

ITT: iAmCaffiene admits he's an idiot

Hahaha wrong! According to ztodd, there is a "dice problem". Don't confuse yourself in your own troll thread.

If you weren't staring into your own asshole maybe you wouldn't miss what he said.

ztodd wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.

So do you not think that that is randomness?

It's not. It's been proven that it's not.

Proven? Where/how?

iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?

Nowhere does he use the exact phrase "dice problem" and he more closely agrees with the sentiment that it's not random.

This is most amusing, do carry on