Moderator: Community Team
Jtfc, more of this shit, they just won't listen....greenoaks wrote:do you have proof the dice results are not supported by reality?
your dice stats suggest they are spot on.

No, his dice stats (and yours, and everyone else's) suggest that there is a bias against rolling 1's...greenoaks wrote:do you have proof the dice results are not supported by reality?
your dice stats suggest they are spot on.


Frankie, you were already in the large graph from the "what number do you roll the most" thread, but since then your percentage of 1's has only gotten worse. At 160k rolls, you're still on the low end for sample size.frankiebee wrote:Blabla I have a major in Philosophy, blabla my son has a math major blabla.
With all those majors you should know that when you state something as a fact, you should have evidence to back it up.

riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
I actively posted in that thread, and to the question:''are the CC dice random?'' I would answer a 100% no, the dice are everything but random.degaston wrote:Frankie, you were already in the large graph from the "what number do you roll the most" thread, but since then your percentage of 1's has only gotten worse. At 160k rolls, you're still on the low end for sample size.frankiebee wrote:Blabla I have a major in Philosophy, blabla my son has a math major blabla.
With all those majors you should know that when you state something as a fact, you should have evidence to back it up.
Plenty of evidence has been given to show that the dice are not random, and I haven't seen anyone show any evidence to refute that.
Well, aren't you a jolly douchebag???KoolBak wrote:Well Mr. Doktor Professur Elf....first off, if you're gonna spout all that "I'm so smart" bullshit, at least have the courtesy to spell check your shit![]()
To the point....aren't we still using http://www.random.org ? If so, how the HELL could your super-smart kids "look at the program" and determine it was insufficient?? What a load of crap.....
I'm not supporting the randomness here as gods know it is twitchy / streaky and has pissed me off to the point of breaking shit, but in the long run it's perfect and we all have to deal with the same crap![]()
Now.....should I start bragging on my boys????
greenoaks wrote:do you have proof the dice results are not supported by reality?
your dice stats suggest they are spot on.
Lolelfish_lad wrote:
I'm going to avoid the riffraff who are flaming this post. .... All others who responded as douche bags can continue to live in their parents basements.
If this is true, you should have an advantage in your dice stats for rolling 2vs2,2vs1 etc. But none of your stats reached more than +1% and some are even -1%.elfish_lad wrote: Never roll 4v2 unless you have no choice. Never, ever roll 3v2 unless your life depends upon it. And by gawd avoid 2v1 unless your significant other promises sex if you roll and come to bed. Unless... the program is running hot for the attacker. Then take all the damn turns that you can. Although all that is thrown out the window if you are on a map that bombards like Arms Race or Waterloo.¨
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Thanks Kool.... glad to see you got a sense of humor.KoolBak wrote:I'll miss you when you're gone diesel
Your dice stats don't depend on how many attackers or defenders there are. Each roll of a die is added to your stats independently.elfish_lad wrote:... The data for my dice are not accurate mate...
They say they are, but if I get dice rolls directly from random.org, they don't show any bias like the CC dice, so they are doing something wrong. Most likely, they are not refreshing their data set, and are re-using a set that has fewer 1's, and more 2's & 4's than it should.KoolBak wrote:... To the point....aren't we still using http://www.random.org ?
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
No, but you can get me logging in for the first time in 2 years. That's bonus points, right?KoolBak wrote:Interesting....can we get a mod / admin in here and testify?

riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.

Foxglove wrote:I miss the good old days when lack was around, and no one complained about dice because they were perfect and random and, in fact, predictably random. I miss the days when past dice were predictors of future dice, so that you would know if you were on a "hot streak" you could count on more good dice ahead, and give thanks to our benevolent dictator.
I miss the days when the forums weren't filled with dice threads created by complaining whinypants. I miss the days before dice stats when players could cry about the fickle nature of the dice without a shred of proof regarding their own history of offensive and defensive rolls.
I'm not sure when those past days were, but surely they must have existed.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
The future ain't what it used to be.2dimes wrote:It's true, nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
