Moderator: Community Team



Yes and we all have something similar. Loutil seems to say the same thing, and the very common 3.51 average proves there is a problem and those dice are biaised (although i personally roll 3.50 average and my opponents 3.51 lol).Gilligan wrote:I have rolled 2028245 dice
16.38% 1s
16.79% 2s
16.65% 3s
16.79% 4s
16.75% 5s
16.62% 6s
In a perfect world, they should all be 16.66%
While the actual quantity of numbers rolled may differ by a few thousand, it hardly makes a difference percentage-wise, only 0.41% in greatest difference.
My opponents have rolled 1940030 dice
16.36% 1s
16.76% 2s
16.68% 3s
16.77% 4s
16.70% 5s
16.70% 6s
shockingly close.


.41 may not seem like a lot but it is statistically significant as the pattern holds true across the CC landscape.Gilligan wrote:I have rolled 2028245 dice
16.38% 1s
16.79% 2s
16.65% 3s
16.79% 4s
16.75% 5s
16.62% 6s
In a perfect world, they should all be 16.66%
While the actual quantity of numbers rolled may differ by a few thousand, it hardly makes a difference percentage-wise, only 0.41% in greatest difference.
My opponents have rolled 1940030 dice
16.36% 1s
16.76% 2s
16.68% 3s
16.77% 4s
16.70% 5s
16.70% 6s
shockingly close.
according to your dice stats, you roll 3 the most yet it doesn't have the largest percentage (unless you're including opponents?)BigBallinStalin wrote:15.21% 1s
16.17% 2s
16.44% 3s
16.76% 4s
17.14% 5s
17.50% 6s

That's one possibility!Gilligan wrote:according to your dice stats, you roll 3 the most yet it doesn't have the largest percentage (unless you're including opponents?)BigBallinStalin wrote:15.21% 1s
16.17% 2s
16.44% 3s
16.76% 4s
17.14% 5s
17.50% 6s
The other is that you are a lying communist bastardBigBallinStalin wrote:That's one possibility!Gilligan wrote:according to your dice stats, you roll 3 the most yet it doesn't have the largest percentage (unless you're including opponents?)BigBallinStalin wrote:15.21% 1s
16.17% 2s
16.44% 3s
16.76% 4s
17.14% 5s
17.50% 6s
In school, I learned Soviet Economics. It is superior to Western Economics!loutil wrote:The other is that you are a lying communist bastardBigBallinStalin wrote:That's one possibility!Gilligan wrote:according to your dice stats, you roll 3 the most yet it doesn't have the largest percentage (unless you're including opponents?)BigBallinStalin wrote:15.21% 1s
16.17% 2s
16.44% 3s
16.76% 4s
17.14% 5s
17.50% 6s
Most people would not consider a Gulag to be school...BigBallinStalin wrote:In school, I learned Soviet Economics. It is superior to Western Economics!loutil wrote:The other is that you are a lying communist bastardBigBallinStalin wrote:That's one possibility!Gilligan wrote:according to your dice stats, you roll 3 the most yet it doesn't have the largest percentage (unless you're including opponents?)BigBallinStalin wrote:15.21% 1s
16.17% 2s
16.44% 3s
16.76% 4s
17.14% 5s
17.50% 6s
Yeah, but I'm really good at estimating the present discounted value of a rock pile.loutil wrote:Most people would not consider a Gulag to be school...BigBallinStalin wrote:In school, I learned Soviet Economics. It is superior to Western Economics!loutil wrote:The other is that you are a lying communist bastardBigBallinStalin wrote:That's one possibility!Gilligan wrote:according to your dice stats, you roll 3 the most yet it doesn't have the largest percentage (unless you're including opponents?)BigBallinStalin wrote:15.21% 1s
16.17% 2s
16.44% 3s
16.76% 4s
17.14% 5s
17.50% 6s
The assumption that deliberately reducing 1s by that percentage hoping players will notice less 1s and thus get less frustrated, as well as the assumption that players do notice such a disturbance and complain because of it are similar to the probability of spreading pure materials in a field, hoping a strong wind will blow, twisting them around and making them form a fully operational, fully fueled and ready for take-off airplane full of living passengers.betiko wrote:Yes and we all have something similar. Loutil seems to say the same thing, and the very common 3.51 average proves there is a problem and those dice are biaised (although i personally roll 3.50 average and my opponents 3.51 lol).Gilligan wrote:I have rolled 2028245 dice
16.38% 1s
16.79% 2s
16.65% 3s
16.79% 4s
16.75% 5s
16.62% 6s
In a perfect world, they should all be 16.66%
While the actual quantity of numbers rolled may differ by a few thousand, it hardly makes a difference percentage-wise, only 0.41% in greatest difference.
My opponents have rolled 1940030 dice
16.36% 1s
16.76% 2s
16.68% 3s
16.77% 4s
16.70% 5s
16.70% 6s
shockingly close.
I am pretty sure that it s the way the program works and that they tried to roll slightly less 1s as it s supposed to annoy the most. As a result, not having fair dice annoys people even more. And each time we calculate odds, they are wrong as they are based on fair dice, but the dice we play with are biaised.
Oh, and totally missed the thread you are talking about.
So where exactly do you stand here? Do the stats, or read the stats. It s a fact. 1s are not represented as they should. The general dice average on the site is 3.51 and it proves there is a bias.Kaskavel wrote:The assumption that deliberately reducing 1s by that percentage hoping players will notice less 1s and thus get less frustrated, as well as the assumption that players do notice such a disturbance and complain because of it are similar to the probability of spreading pure materials in a field, hoping a strong wind will blow, twisting them around and making them form a fully operational, fully fueled and ready for take-off airplane full of living passengers.betiko wrote:Yes and we all have something similar. Loutil seems to say the same thing, and the very common 3.51 average proves there is a problem and those dice are biaised (although i personally roll 3.50 average and my opponents 3.51 lol).Gilligan wrote:I have rolled 2028245 dice
16.38% 1s
16.79% 2s
16.65% 3s
16.79% 4s
16.75% 5s
16.62% 6s
In a perfect world, they should all be 16.66%
While the actual quantity of numbers rolled may differ by a few thousand, it hardly makes a difference percentage-wise, only 0.41% in greatest difference.
My opponents have rolled 1940030 dice
16.36% 1s
16.76% 2s
16.68% 3s
16.77% 4s
16.70% 5s
16.70% 6s
shockingly close.
I am pretty sure that it s the way the program works and that they tried to roll slightly less 1s as it s supposed to annoy the most. As a result, not having fair dice annoys people even more. And each time we calculate odds, they are wrong as they are based on fair dice, but the dice we play with are biaised.
Oh, and totally missed the thread you are talking about.


Yes, it may be a fact, an irrelevant fact. Each time we calculate the odds, they are not wrong because "they are based on fair dice, but the dice we play with are biased". They are correct. If you calculate 42.5% chance to win the battle, then it is 42.5%. Maybe it is not 42.546% the calc says, but 42.545% because of "reduced odds of 1s" that should offer some tiny edge to the defender, but that's all. We are not playing a game with biased unfair dice. This conversation about unfair dice has become ridiculus over the years.betiko wrote:So where exactly do you stand here? Do the stats, or read the stats. It s a fact. 1s are not represented as they should. The general dice average on the site is 3.51 and it proves there is a bias.Kaskavel wrote:The assumption that deliberately reducing 1s by that percentage hoping players will notice less 1s and thus get less frustrated, as well as the assumption that players do notice such a disturbance and complain because of it are similar to the probability of spreading pure materials in a field, hoping a strong wind will blow, twisting them around and making them form a fully operational, fully fueled and ready for take-off airplane full of living passengers.betiko wrote:Yes and we all have something similar. Loutil seems to say the same thing, and the very common 3.51 average proves there is a problem and those dice are biaised (although i personally roll 3.50 average and my opponents 3.51 lol).Gilligan wrote:I have rolled 2028245 dice
16.38% 1s
16.79% 2s
16.65% 3s
16.79% 4s
16.75% 5s
16.62% 6s
In a perfect world, they should all be 16.66%
While the actual quantity of numbers rolled may differ by a few thousand, it hardly makes a difference percentage-wise, only 0.41% in greatest difference.
My opponents have rolled 1940030 dice
16.36% 1s
16.76% 2s
16.68% 3s
16.77% 4s
16.70% 5s
16.70% 6s
shockingly close.
I am pretty sure that it s the way the program works and that they tried to roll slightly less 1s as it s supposed to annoy the most. As a result, not having fair dice annoys people even more. And each time we calculate odds, they are wrong as they are based on fair dice, but the dice we play with are biaised.
Oh, and totally missed the thread you are talking about.