Dice rolls

by **rolax** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:57 am

Are they random? Just asking because I lose EVERY godamn ROLL :evil:

Just now I had a bunch of blood thirsty mofos ready to get their swords stained, because.. hey.. the other territory had only 3 peasants.

Excuse me while I listen to Simple Plan
/wrist

by **White Moose** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:58 am

rolax wrote:Are they random? Just asking because I lose EVERY godamn ROLL
Just now I had a bunch of blood thirsty mofos ready to get their swords stained, because.. hey.. the other territory had only 3 peasants.

Excuse me while I listen to Simple Plan
/wrist

They are Random, live with it.

by **Kemmler** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:46 am

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2783040

I just lost 13 to kill 1, 14 on 9 for the game and I lose ALL my forces for 1!

THIS IS NOT RANDOM!

by **Robinette** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:53 am

Most likely, your opponent had a dice patch which either improved his dice, or reduced yours... You cannot do both.

Thinking back, I remember that feeling of despair when it seemed lady luck had abondoned me. But rather than just take it, I worked long and hard to write my own dice patch to gain an edge by maniuplating the dice program.

Now before someone responds with a lecture about this being cheating, let me just say that many threads have already debated the difference between cheating and exploiting a weakness in the program. This is no more cheating than a double turn in a freestyle game, or partnering with someone with an ultra low score, noob hunting triples games, etc, etc. By the way, for the record I don't do ANY of those other things. So again, this is NOT cheating, and if lack really wanted to prevent all these little game exploitations he could change the game parameters to prevent it.

Anyway, for those who haven't seen it yet, I'm reposting the basic method to hack into the dice program, just know that it is a bit complicated to explain without a whiteboard.
First off, it doesn't work with flat rate, and it doesn't work with team games. Here 's why... it is all about the Cyclomatic Code Complexity within this site. The simple part to explain is that on this site the code complexity is defined by control flow, and obviously there are different ways of measuring complexity (e.g. data complexity, module complexity, algorithmic complexity, call-to, call-by, etc.), and although these other methods are effective in the right context, it seems to be generally accepted that control flow is one of the most useful measurements of complexity, and high complexity scores have been shown to be a strong indicator of low reliability and frequent errors. That's simple enough, but it's what we do with it that's so cool... This measure provides a single ordinal number that can be compared to the complexity of other games. Because of static software metrics intended to be independent of language and language format, Cyclomatic Code Complexity becomes a measure of the number of linearly-independent paths through a program module and is calculated by counting the number of decision points found in the code. Stay with me people... I use a Lutz Roeders Reflector which basically allows the user to point his Reflector tool at any Common Langauge Runtime (CLR) assembly, and it will then de-compile this creating an entirely reflected treeview with all the objects from the source assembly shown, with code. Yes with code. Great stuff. Basically you can use this tool to see how any valid CLR (assuming it has not been obfuscated) assembly works. Anyway the up shot of it, is that we get a boolean to say that the current file is valid or not, that is all we care about at the moment. So if the file requested is not a valid CLR type an error message is shown, and nothing else is done. However, if the input file is a valid CLR file, it is then checked to see if the file is a "System" assembly, and if it is... eureka! My lowest die becomes a 6. Ok so thats pretty much all there is to it.

A while back I started to modifiy this to work with flat rate, but I don't think it would really be worth all the effort. So if you really want this for flat rate, let me explain how far I got and you could work on finishing it. You would have to revisit the treeview with ONLY valid namespaces and ONLY valid classes created. We would also have to find the NameSpaces object which contains the list of strings (for namspaces) and for each string of ucClass objects (for the classes). The list of ucClass objects are created by this and are then ready and waiting to be placed on a suitable code. But as yet we dont know what classes the user needs, it could be all of them, or it could be 1 of them or even none of them. It depends on what the user selects from the treeview on the mainform (frmMain.cs). And that's where I got stuck. So I looked and I looked for an answer. The only thing simliar at all, was GDI+ and in order to do something like this, a destination target needs to be created at the full string size, and then the viewable (onscreen) fragments are printed to individual page framements and saved into the destination image at the correct x/y co-ordinates. In order to do this the application has to programatically perform scrolling to get the next page fragment code to merge with the destination code. I managed to get this to work, but it was a complete nightmare, and there were definetly bugs everywhere, which resulted in losing more dice rolls than I gained! So if there is anyone reading this that is totally rad and knarly at GDI+, and knows how to save the entire contents of a scrollable control to an existing code, please feel free to let me know. As for the above code, it is code that I am kind of 1/2 proud of, but would rather wasn't there. Do you know what I mean? After all, sometimes you just get completely stuck with trying to patch all these code fragments together, to form the final destination code.

by Robinette... reprinted with permission 8-)

by **Kemmler** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:59 am

When did you bother to write that Robinette? Who will ever believe you?

by **dividedbyzero** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:01 pm

Robinette - will you ever post the secrets of your card "fix" ? I mean once the dice patch is in place, all you need to dominate is the card fix.

C'mon...post it up.

by **Robinette** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:09 pm

Kemmler wrote:When did you bother to write that Robinette? Who will ever believe you?

Hey... you MIS the point... I'm the scientist... you're the politician.

by **Robinette** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:12 pm

dividedbyzero wrote:Robinette - will you ever post the secrets of your card "fix" ? I mean once the dice patch is in place, all you need to dominate is the card fix.

C'mon...post it up.

i could never get that one to work quite right. :oops:

by **Plutoman** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:14 pm

Kemmler wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2783040

I just lost 13 to kill 1, 14 on 9 for the game and I lose ALL my forces for 1!

THIS IS NOT RANDOM!

Actually, the fact of it happening lends evidence to the randomness.

If it didn't happen, it wouldn't be random.

by **Kemmler** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:28 pm

Plutoman wrote:
Kemmler wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2783040

I just lost 13 to kill 1, 14 on 9 for the game and I lose ALL my forces for 1!

THIS IS NOT RANDOM!

Actually, the fact of it happening lends evidence to the randomness.

If it didn't happen, it wouldn't be random.

The thing is though, it happens all the time!

Robinette, not funny.

by **negoeien** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:45 pm

you! actually use something like that robinette?
No wonder I can't win if you are in a game of mine :X
Why do i just depend on pure tactics maybe taht's why I'm so low on points

by **White Moose** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:46 pm

Kemmler wrote:
Plutoman wrote:
Kemmler wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2783040

I just lost 13 to kill 1, 14 on 9 for the game and I lose ALL my forces for 1!

THIS IS NOT RANDOM!

Actually, the fact of it happening lends evidence to the randomness.

If it didn't happen, it wouldn't be random.

The thing is though, it happens all the time!

Robinette, not funny.

Perhaps you should think about the rolls you win and not the ones you lose..

My own dice analyser is perfectly random with the rolls. It's not that accurate yet, only has a few thousand. But as of now its very random to me.

by **Robinette** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:56 pm

negoeien wrote:you! actually use something like that robinette?
No wonder I can't win if you are in a game of mine :X
Why do i just depend on pure tactics maybe taht's why I'm so low on points

Don't fret neg... i've never used it against you or in any high ranked game...

i only use it when playing lower ranks because they attack way too much...

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:02 pm

sigh

"OMG I DIDNT EXPECT THAT! THAT MUST MEAN IT ISNT RANDOM!"

ran·dom (răn'dəm)
adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

by **Kemmler** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:09 pm

In fact they are not random, since they do have a pattern according to Moosey

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:16 pm

Kemmler wrote:In fact they are not random, since they do have a pattern according to Moosey

Yes, they are consistently unpredictable!

by **Plutoman** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm

Kemmler wrote:In fact they are not random, since they do have a pattern according to Moosey

First off - who's Moosey?

And has he taken in every roll? When 15 are done every second, a record of only your own rolls cannot by any means be evidence of a pattern.

Second - as Kaplowitz said...

"1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance."

No specific pattern. It happens frequently, due to the mathematics of numbers. But can you predict them? Can anyone here predict the numbers that appear ahead of time, with the exception of lack checking the logs before they are used? They are based off of atmospheric noise, and such noise as it comes in is effectively random, as we have no methods of predicting amounts or types coming in to the receivers. Then the splits off between many different rolls of players creates a larger set of randomness, taking it to another degree. Patterns that hold together in your own and defenders rolls, over the sets of numbers, are not patterns set there. It is the chance of numbers being in a certain position as they are read for your own rolls.

I hope I described that clearly enough.

by **Kemmler** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:49 pm

Plutoman wrote:
Kemmler wrote:In fact they are not random, since they do have a pattern according to Moosey

First off - who's Moosey?

And has he taken in every roll? When 15 are done every second, a record of only your own rolls cannot by any means be evidence of a pattern.

Second - as Kaplowitz said...

"1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance."

No specific pattern. It happens frequently, due to the mathematics of numbers. But can you predict them? Can anyone here predict the numbers that appear ahead of time, with the exception of lack checking the logs before they are used? They are based off of atmospheric noise, and such noise as it comes in is effectively random, as we have no methods of predicting amounts or types coming in to the receivers. Then the splits off between many different rolls of players creates a larger set of randomness, taking it to another degree. Patterns that hold together in your own and defenders rolls, over the sets of numbers, are not patterns set there. It is the chance of numbers being in a certain position as they are read for your own rolls.

I hope I described that clearly enough.

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:05 pm

Kemmler wrote:
Plutoman wrote:
Kemmler wrote:In fact they are not random, since they do have a pattern according to Moosey

First off - who's Moosey?

And has he taken in every roll? When 15 are done every second, a record of only your own rolls cannot by any means be evidence of a pattern.

Second - as Kaplowitz said...

"1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance."

No specific pattern. It happens frequently, due to the mathematics of numbers. But can you predict them? Can anyone here predict the numbers that appear ahead of time, with the exception of lack checking the logs before they are used? They are based off of atmospheric noise, and such noise as it comes in is effectively random, as we have no methods of predicting amounts or types coming in to the receivers. Then the splits off between many different rolls of players creates a larger set of randomness, taking it to another degree. Patterns that hold together in your own and defenders rolls, over the sets of numbers, are not patterns set there. It is the chance of numbers being in a certain position as they are read for your own rolls.

I hope I described that clearly enough.

Then why are you complaining :roll:

by **rolax** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:54 pm

Agh, so it's possible to cheat in this game.. just great.

by **Plutoman** on Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:23 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:Then why are you complaining

You took the words right out of my mouth <_<

Logical explanations refuted by a simple disbelief of the possibility that he could lose dice rolls.

by **MeanestBossEver** on Tue May 10, 2011 11:12 pm

I did a bit of looking into Robinette's comments earlier and this information is radically out of date.

As you may know, Lack has done some significant upgrades in system functionality and security. The holes previously described have been closed. However, new functionality, most critically "clickies" have created opportunities. Specifically, this has created a potential for an AJAX-based JANUS attack.

As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, a JANUS attack can be combined successfully with a Turing based brute force attack. This is especially true if Wegman-Carter authentication is used (as it is on this site.)

I've done some testing using a GUI I built in visual basic (it's a crappy language but easy to use) and have been able to demonstrate a proof-of-concept that this form of attack is possible. Unfortunately, visual basic suffers from floating point accuracy problems so my 6's often ended up being 6.000001 or 5.99999.

Not surprisingly, this caused bugs and ended up corrupting my entire stack of armies. As soon as I have time I plan to rewrite this using a modern language such as Ruby.

Those of you playing straight Conquer Club or using the beginner plug-ins like BOB are missing on the real war behind the war. It's an arms race of hackers and I plan to compete with the best of them.

by **natty dread** on Wed May 11, 2011 12:53 am

MeanestBossEver wrote: Unfortunately, visual basic suffers from floating point accuracy problems so my 6's often ended up being 6.000001 or 5.99999.

by **Robinette** on Wed May 11, 2011 9:44 am

MeanestBossEver wrote:I did a bit of looking into Robinette's comments earlier and this information is radically out of date.

As you may know, Lack has does some significant upgrades in system functionality and security. The holes previously described have been closed. However, new functionality, most critically "clickies" have created opportunities. Specifically, this has created a potential for an AJAX-based JANUS attack.

As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, a JANUS attack can be combined successfully with a Turing based brute force attack. This is especially true if Wegman-Carter authentication is used (as it is on this site.)

I've done some testing using a GUI I built in visual basic (it's a crappy language but easy to use) and have been able to demonstrate a proof-of-concept that this form of attack is possible. Unfortunately, visual basic suffers from floating point accuracy problems so my 6's often ended up being 6.000001 or 5.99999.

Not surprisingly, this caused bugs and ended up corrupting my entire stack of armies. As soon as I have time I plan to rewrite this using a modern language such as Ruby.

Those of you playing straight Conquer Club or using the beginner plug-ins like BOB are missing on the real war behind the war. It's an arms race of hackers and I plan to compete with the best of them.

I promised lack that i wouldn't develop that any further, so that's why it looks out of date. I was up to #4 on the scoreboard by the time he noticed. anyway, if you do go this route, then you deserve every point you get, because it is some serious work.

But stealing games out from other people, and watching them blame the dice, well, it's priceless...

by **Funkyterrance** on Wed May 11, 2011 10:03 am

I love how those people out there who complain about people complaining about the dice are the first to start bumping these types of threads. Berating these complaining players, through sarcasm or otherwise, is only feeding the fire. If you really don't like threads about the dice, why contribute to them? Is it some sort of ego stroking exercise where the feeling of superiority simply overwhelms you into a state of ecstasy? Do you wake up dazed in your computer chair hours later, drool dribbling down your chin, feeling like every atom in your body has been completely and utterly revitalized?