Moderator: Community Team
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.
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.
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?
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.
iAmCaffeine wrote:The absence of evidence is evidence of existence!
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?
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?
jammyjames wrote:Calm it caff![]()
Wouldn't want you to rupture something
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?
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.
Army of GOD wrote:So randomness is that things should occur as they're expected to occur?
Army of GOD wrote:I'm sorry for your little butt.
Also, I take it you have no proof then.
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
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.
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?
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: bergy1