The Improbable Always Wins....WTF?

[natty dread]

[MNDuke]

A file of 50 000 random numbers from random.org is acquired. This file functions, basically, as an array. At each assault, a random location is chosen in the file, and as many numbers as are needed are read from that location. The file is updated to a new file every hour.

However, if it is a string of 50,000 random numbers, what is the point of choosing a random location for each assault. Why not just go right down the line? There is no need to hop into random locations if the numbers you are pulling from are already random. It seems that by jumping into random locations, you are increasing your chances for streaky dice. By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks. Yes it is possible that you could if you were to go down the line you could hit a spot that is 66666 66666 or 11111 11111, but then those dice would be more likely to get dispersed between the attacker and defender vs dropping into a location that is 11166 then hopping to another location that is 23466 then to 43564. From my understanding, the jumping to a random location could be creating the streakiness in the dice. It would be randomly unlucky or lucky to hop from the right/wrong location. As to where if it were in one continuous string you would reduce the chance of hopping in one of these unlucky streaks.

You cry about the whining and bitching natty, however when coherent rational thought is put on the table, you ignore it and opt to incite, flame and bait. You have shown your true colors and age. Please grow the f*ck up and shut up unless you have something constructive to say. It's a hard concept to grasp, but give it a shot.

[nikola_milicki]

oh boy oh boy I just had me a 8vs1 > 3vs1 autoattack against 6 6 6 6 6

meh Im done wasting time here, ltr dudes..

[natty dread]

however when coherent rational thought is put on the table,

Where?

[natty dread]

oh boy oh boy I just had me a 8vs1 > 3vs1 autoattack against 6 6 6 6 6

What do you think this posting of hand-picked battle results proves?

if it is a string of 50,000 random numbers, what is the point of choosing a random location for each assault.

It doesn't matter. Whether you choose the location from the beginning or from the middle, the numbers are random. I know it's a tough concept to grasp, but you should give it a shot.

By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks.

How do you figure that? What is this assumption based on?

[MNDuke]

oh boy oh boy I just had me a 8vs1 > 3vs1 autoattack against 6 6 6 6 6

What do you think this posting of hand-picked battle results proves?

if it is a string of 50,000 random numbers, what is the point of choosing a random location for each assault.

It doesn't matter. Whether you choose the location from the beginning or from the middle, the numbers are random. I know it's a tough concept to grasp, but you should give it a shot.

By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks.

How do you figure that? What is this assumption based on?

Actually try reading what I wrote. It's all there. This just proves you either didn't read it all or were unable to comprehend. I am not surprised you have the attention span of a 4 year old, judging from your posts. By jumping locations it is increasing the probability that you will land on the same numbers vs running through the string from start to end. Thus creating streakier dice.

By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks. Yes it is possible that you could if you were to go down the line you could hit a spot that is 66666 66666 or 11111 11111, but then those dice would be more likely to get dispersed between the attacker and defender vs dropping into a location that is 11166 then hopping to another location that is 23466 then to 43564. From my understanding, the jumping to a random location could be creating the streakiness in the dice. It would be randomly unlucky or lucky to hop from the right/wrong location. As to where if it were in one continuous string you would reduce the chance of hopping in one of these unlucky streaks.

Is it easier to read if its bolder and bigger?

[natty dread]

By jumping locations it is increasing the probability that you will land on the same numbers vs running through the string from start to end. Thus creating streakier dice.

Incorrect. In order to pick the same location twice, there needs to be a streak of two of the same numbers in the stream of random numbers that are used to choose the location. Therefore, streaks only happen when there are alreay streaks. No increase.

[Woodruff]

I also wonder if there's any way to correlate times of high usage with overall probability of the dice. To me, it seems like periods of high activity also favor the defender.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Why would the level of activity have any affect on whether the attacker or defender does better?

[MNDuke]

By jumping locations it is increasing the probability that you will land on the same numbers vs running through the string from start to end. Thus creating streakier dice.

Incorrect. In order to pick the same location twice, there needs to be a streak of two of the same numbers in the stream of random numbers that are used to choose the location. Therefore, streaks only happen when there are alreay streaks. No increase.

That is incorrect. You still fail to read and comprehend what I have written. Please try again. Concentrate this time. I never said the same location would be used twice. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Lets say I click assault and it lands on 234 66. I hit assault and it lands on 143 56. I click it again and it hits on 444 46. In essence a streak has just been created. Unintentionally. However if the assault used numbers that were in a stream it seems less likely you would end up in a streak. It seems the dice would be more balanced and there is less of a chance of the attackers hitting 3 numbers equal or less than the def dice.

Can someone please post an actual copy of a string of random numbers that CC has been using. Lets say like 50-100 numbers. Otherwise, I'll come up with something when I am not working to better illustrate my point.

[MNDuke]

Example A:
15426515431542165431315451215456132156456315646132456315641564
36611541515132166511654133354154531245645611566555413215465156
15645643145454641321325645121224565156645451545612316654236414
55245135416661254321414523354132432635212132224516352353354163
65654124565132154632122156462332165411546451654654664856414551
65543231154623151463154321456163232156413215643215656135156321

Example B:
15426512431542165431315451215456132156456315646132456315641564
36611541515132166511654133354154531245645611566555413215465156
15645643145454641321325645121224565156645451545612316654236414
552451354166612543214145233541324326352121322245163 52353354163
65654124565 13215 46321 22156 46233 21654 11546451654654664856414551
655432311546231514631543214561632 32156413215643215656135156321

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.

Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

[JaneM]

I also wonder if there's any way to correlate times of high usage with overall probability of the dice. To me, it seems like periods of high activity also favor the defender.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Why would the level of activity have any affect on whether the attacker or defender does better?

It seems to me (highly anecdotal) that periods of high use seem to favor the defender. It sems to me (highly anecdotal) that, at these times, single troops are the most difficult to conquer, no matter the number of opposing troops.

But, apologies, I was imprecise; it seems high activity would increase the chance of grabbing a string of improbable numbers. Though the numbers be random, the string decreases probability.

Someone used a coin toss analogy earlier. Sure, in 100 tosses, you'll probably get 50/50 head/ tails. But you might also get a string of 12 heads in a row (among other strings). The more often you pick a string of five containing those 12 heads, the less random the tosses will appear, even though they are random.

With 50,000 numbers and no doubt many strings, I'll guess many players are never going to see to finite possibilities of the entire string (as in the 100 coin tosses) and thereby conclude that the dice aren't random.

Is it even possible to grab individual numbers for each die rather than a string?

[spincr]

Its all good that the dice aren't really random. What really is annoying however is that if you have 1 bad turn, say you just need atleast 1 continent, and all that’s stopping you is an enemy of 3, and you go in with 11, you lose, while the opponent goes home with 2 armies left. And with that your game is pretty much over.

[natty dread]

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.

Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

This is flawed logic.

We have two random streams, one is used to pick chunks of numbers from the other. The first stream consists of numbers from 1-50 000.

Now, you see, streaks occuring on a random stream of numbers between 1-50000 are a lot less likely than streaks in a narrower stream, where the numbers are between 1 and 6. In other words, it's a lot less likely to get 2 same numbers next to each other when both numbers are between 1 and 50 000 than it is for numbers between 1 and 6. To be precise, the chance to get a streak of n numbers in the first stream is 1 in 50 000 ^ n, ie. 2 consequtive numbers has a chance of 50 000*50 000 of happening. In other words, to get the same number 2 times has a probability of 1 in 2 500 000 000.

So we can say for all practical purposes that each roll gets picked from a different location. Because they do, except for that 1 time in 2,5 million rolls.

[Woodruff]

It seems that by jumping into random locations, you are increasing your chances for streaky dice. By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks.

I'm curious as to why you believe randomly selecting different locations as the starting point would increase the chance of streaks. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I don't follow the logic at all. Can you explain why that would be the case?

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.
Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

Ok, I understand what you're thinking with your examples. However, you're not randomly selecting those locations. It's JUST AS POSSIBLE that streaks would be broken up by the jumping around as it would be to create more streaks. It's just (and I hate to put it this way, but it's accurate) random as to which would be the case.

[Woodruff]

I also wonder if there's any way to correlate times of high usage with overall probability of the dice. To me, it seems like periods of high activity also favor the defender.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Why would the level of activity have any affect on whether the attacker or defender does better?

It seems to me (highly anecdotal) that periods of high use seem to favor the defender. It sems to me (highly anecdotal) that, at these times, single troops are the most difficult to conquer, no matter the number of opposing troops.

How are you determining when is a "period of high use"?

But, apologies, I was imprecise; it seems high activity would increase the chance of grabbing a string of improbable numbers. Though the numbers be random, the string decreases probability.

But WHY? I'm just not seeing the point you're making (which may well be my own issue, but maybe you can explain it in a different way).

Someone used a coin toss analogy earlier. Sure, in 100 tosses, you'll probably get 50/50 head/ tails.

I disagree - you probably WON'T get 50/50 of heads/tails. The odds of it being 50/50 aren't particularly high.

But you might also get a string of 12 heads in a row (among other strings).

This is certainly true - I see it all the time at the roulette wheel. NOT THAT I PLAY ROULETTE...I ONLY WATCH IT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES!

The more often you pick a string of five containing those 12 heads, the less random the tosses will appear, even though they are random.

Sure, but by the same token, the random starting location may mean that the 12 heads are avoided entirely for long stretches at a time.

Is it even possible to grab individual numbers for each die rather than a string?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying instead of having the routing grab "five numbers" have it grab only one, and then "go random again"? I'm sure it could do that. The only difference (I would expect) would be that the site would slow down considerably.

[MNDuke]

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.

Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

This is flawed logic.

We have two random streams, one is used to pick chunks of numbers from the other. The first stream consists of numbers from 1-50 000.

Now, you see, streaks occuring on a random stream of numbers between 1-50000 are a lot less likely than streaks in a narrower stream, where the numbers are between 1 and 6. In other words, it's a lot less likely to get 2 same numbers next to each other when both numbers are between 1 and 50 000 than it is for numbers between 1 and 6. To be precise, the chance to get a streak of n numbers in the first stream is 1 in 50 000 ^ n, ie. 2 consequtive numbers has a chance of 50 000*50 000 of happening. In other words, to get the same number 2 times has a probability of 1 in 2 500 000 000.

So we can say for all practical purposes that each roll gets picked from a different location. Because they do, except for that 1 time in 2,5 million rolls.

Well that's funny. Because In the 20 turns I took today, I managed to roll 111 twice. So what you are saying is that the chance of that happening is 1 in 2,500,000,000 yet it manages to happen all the time....odd. It seems that the title of this thread is strangely appropriate then.

Each set of off/def gets picked from a different location. Not each dice or roll of the dice.

[MNDuke]

It seems that by jumping into random locations, you are increasing your chances for streaky dice. By jumping locations you are in essence increasing the chance you can roll in streaks.

I'm curious as to why you believe randomly selecting different locations as the starting point would increase the chance of streaks. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I don't follow the logic at all. Can you explain why that would be the case?

Note these are examples based off my understanding of the dice. Example A is showing how it would be possible to create streaks by jumping in random locations in the string of random numbers for each assault. If it was a 10 v 10 the attacker would have just went 0-10.
Example B is when the attacks go right down the line. From beginning to end. I chose a random starting point as to not be bias. But it seems to me that probability of a streak occurring increases when random starting locations are chosen vs going right down the line.

And I understand that it is just as likely as it will cause a streak as prevent it. But, I believe this is the cause for the increase in streaks. That's just my opinion. I don't have enough information to back this up. Yes, those were just examples to try and iterate my point better. Regardless though, I believe the random locations for each assault is the cause for the increase in streaks.

Ok, I understand what you're thinking with your examples. However, you're not randomly selecting those locations. It's JUST AS POSSIBLE that streaks would be broken up by the jumping around as it would be to create more streaks. It's just (and I hate to put it this way, but it's accurate) random as to which would be the case.

[natty dread]

Well that's funny. Because In the 20 turns I took today, I managed to roll 111 twice. So what you are saying is that the chance of that happening is 1 in 2,500,000,000 yet it manages to happen all the time....odd. It seems that the title of this thread is strangely appropriate then.

Each set of off/def gets picked from a different location. Not each dice or roll of the dice.

What??? You managed to roll 111 twice??? Oh wow, in light of this compelling evidence, I'm convinced, the dice must not be random at all! These kinds of horrible streaks cannot exist in random dices!

Each roll of the dice meaning each time you roll the dice, ie. each time you assault. That means, each set of 2-5 dice. Since the offset can be any of the 50000, there's 50000 possible places to pick a maximum of 5 dices from.

For simplicity, let us assume we're picking 5 dice numbers. 5 dices can form 6*6*6*6*6 different combinations, that is, 7776 different combinations of 1-6. There are 50000 locations, which all overlap each other to an extent, so it stands to reason that a lot of the combinations of 5 dice would probably appear multiple times in each list of 50000.

So, no, the fact that you rolled 111 twice is no proof that the first random stream would have picked the same location. To be honest, the fact that you rolled 111 twice is no proof about anything at all, period.

[MNDuke]

Except that each dice is not independent of each other. What you say would be true if this were the case, but it is not. Each location is chosen at random and a string of 5 numbers is then presented representing the off/def numbers.

[JaneM]

I also wonder if there's any way to correlate times of high usage with overall probability of the dice. To me, it seems like periods of high activity also favor the defender.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Why would the level of activity have any affect on whether the attacker or defender does better?

It seems to me (highly anecdotal) that periods of high use seem to favor the defender. It sems to me (highly anecdotal) that, at these times, single troops are the most difficult to conquer, no matter the number of opposing troops.

How are you determining when is a "period of high use"?

Mainly by how slow the site is to respond, ie how slow the maps load, how slow page navigation is, whether the dice time out or roll for an unusally long time. There have been threads complaining about this, so I judge that it isn't my connection. This happens more in the afternoon than at 6 am, further emphasizing that perception.

Those are the times I can count on one troop defeating seven. If a game churns through all its players at one of these times, it doesn't seem uncommon to me to see multiple players with one troop on multiple territories, no reinforcing at the end of the turn.

I don't have site stats and am not inclined (or even motivated by this discussion) to count the number of registered users signed on at a paticular time, but that's my impression.

But, apologies, I was imprecise; it seems high activity would increase the chance of grabbing a string of improbable numbers. Though the numbers be random, the string decreases probability.

But WHY? I'm just not seeing the point you're making (which may well be my own issue, but maybe you can explain it in a different way).

If there are long strings of certain numbers, and the code is grabbing them, then this effect will happen more often (or with more frequency) with more people playing.

Someone used a coin toss analogy earlier. Sure, in 100 tosses, you'll probably get 50/50 head/ tails.

I disagree - you probably WON'T get 50/50 of heads/tails. The odds of it being 50/50 aren't particularly high.

Actually, you'll get pretty close to 50/50, maybe 60/40, well within a range of probablility. Do it 10,000 times, and you're even closer to 50/ 50, if not dead on.

I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't random; as the title of the thread indicates, I think they're improbable.

But you might also get a string of 12 heads in a row (among other strings).

This is certainly true - I see it all the time at the roulette wheel. NOT THAT I PLAY ROULETTE...I ONLY WATCH IT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES!

Legend has it that a good croupier can effect the outcome. Not sure we want to go there.

The more often you pick a string of five containing those 12 heads, the less random the tosses will appear, even though they are random.

Sure, but by the same token, the random starting location may mean that the 12 heads are avoided entirely for long stretches at a time.

Entirely possible, and it's probably happening, but that doesn't seem to be the crux of the complaints. No one is going to complain about good dice.

Is it even possible to grab individual numbers for each die rather than a string?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying instead of having the routing grab "five numbers" have it grab only one, and then "go random again"? I'm sure it could do that. The only difference (I would expect) would be that the site would slow down considerably.

Every die gets its own number picked randomly from the string of 50,000 numbers, ideally at the same time. At the very least, the site could confidently claim that the dice are both random and the results probable.

A seemingly common reply to complaints about the "new" dice is that people complained about the old dice, too. People will always complain about the fickle nature of chance, but it seems to me that some of these complaints will be inherent in a system that grabs a string of five numbers.

For the record, I'm not complaining; it's an interesting conversation.

[Funkyterrance]

Isnt there supposed to be a randomly generated morale of each army? So if u auto assault and the defending army has high morale, ur going to lose a lot on that roll right?

[maasman]

Isnt there supposed to be a randomly generated morale of each army? So if u auto assault and the defending army has high morale, ur going to lose a lot on that roll right?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Funkyterrance]

Hmm maybe im thinking of a different game...

[maasman]

Hmm maybe im thinking of a different game...

Most likely.

[Leehar]

1. Pathetic
2. Sad
3. Decent
4. Strong
5. Awesome
6. Heroic
aren't morale levels?