Conquer Club

iAmCaffeine wrote:Yes please continue to take what I say out of its context and into one where you can try and make your argument sound coherent. I might disagree on some things with Mets but at least he knows what he's talking about and doesn't appear to have his head stuck up a rabbit conqueror. Hop off and stop being so pathetic as to blindly disagree with everything I say.

IcePack wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Yes please continue to take what I say out of its context and into one where you can try and make your argument sound coherent. I might disagree on some things with Mets but at least he knows what he's talking about and doesn't appear to have his head stuck up a rabbit conqueror. Hop off and stop being so pathetic as to blindly disagree with everything I say.

Please explain how I took anything out of context? I quoted you, word for word. Then I showed how it was false. Pretty simple dude.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

IcePack wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Yes please continue to take what I say out of its context and into one where you can try and make your argument sound coherent. I might disagree on some things with Mets but at least he knows what he's talking about and doesn't appear to have his head stuck up a rabbit conqueror. Hop off and stop being so pathetic as to blindly disagree with everything I say.

Please explain how I took anything out of context? I quoted you, word for word. Then I showed how it was false. Pretty simple dude.

It's kind of embarrassing when you quote something, reply to it and fail to take in what is actually being said. The title of your announcement is "September Updates - Club Store, Celebrations, and More!". In the post you then state you can buy auto-renewal subscriptions for cash - you didn't go into any details and made no real effort to draw it to anyone's attention. Why is that? Also, an announcement is generally something that you want the relevant people to hear/see. You posted it in a small forum of which not even 10% of the relevant people will have seen. Nice "announcement". You've literally tried to put me down in so many ways already it's kind of funny watching you fail over and over. I've even received PMs about your posts in this thread.

You're full of bullshit, almost on the same tier as bW only a little lower so that his rabbit shit can drop onto your face. Your literal first post in this thread was full of sarcasm and attempts at humour with good purpose. Sure, I don't sugar coat things and I f*ck about quite a lot but I still raise a valid point and I'm still open to discussing it as I have done with GoranZ and Mets. Meanwhile you just act like the right hand man nobody really likes, regardless of the dickhead you're serving. You literally serve no purpose in this thread, you're a pretty mediocre player and you're a biased as f*ck mod. What relevance have you brought to the topic at hand? Literally f*ck all. Go tell some other people about your "announcement" and all the information you have but you can't share man because quite frankly I'm tired of seeing your bullshit around. At one point you were much more down to earth, trustworthy and less of an underhand mule, but times change and not always kindly.

Now if you can refrain from posting unless it's about the topic at hand - CC's dice algorithm - I would greatly appreciate it. I don't want to have to report a mod for trolling and being off topic in a thread where some people are having legitimate discussions. I'm sure you know better anyway.

iAmCaffeine wrote: I haven't asked for change because we're nowhere close to being able to get any. I'm simply asking for some kind of data or information to show that the dice have "improved" since the 50k file. Why is that information not provided? It has negative effects on the integrity of the site.

Where did you answer my question? I haven't seen a reason for withholding the information.

Metsfanmax wrote:Basically if you took any player that had been under a year old at the time

IcePack wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

G0rgatr0n wrote:On a side note to the dice. What happened with the auto renewal. I noticed it happened this year and I was pretty sure I never agreed to that. Also I have had horribly bad dice runs that have cost me games I shouldn't have lost.

Go to store > account or something like that and you can opt out of the automatic renewal. There was never an official announcement about it. Real cool.

Wrong again caffeine boy, I know because I wrote the damn thing. Another uneducated response. Announced in 2014 with the store.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=207470

G0rgatr0n wrote:

IcePack wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

G0rgatr0n wrote:On a side note to the dice. What happened with the auto renewal. I noticed it happened this year and I was pretty sure I never agreed to that. Also I have had horribly bad dice runs that have cost me games I shouldn't have lost.

Go to store > account or something like that and you can opt out of the automatic renewal. There was never an official announcement about it. Real cool.

Wrong again caffeine boy, I know because I wrote the damn thing. Another uneducated response. Announced in 2014 with the store.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=207470

If the announcement was in 2014 then why did it start in 2017. To me that is the same as I communicate. I don't remember and announcement form 3 years prior.

IcePack wrote:blah blah lies and bullshit blah blah

Metsfanmax wrote:(That doesn't prove that there aren't other problems related to, say, streaks, but it is evidence that a positive change was made.)

Metsfanmax wrote:The answer to the question was that bW does not want to publish the dice strategy, because in his view the information cannot help anyone, but it can only instigate more complaints.

iAmCaffeine wrote: If a positive change was made and there can be even a small amount of data published to show players that, then they'd be rather idiotic to complain don't you think? Nobody is going to sit here and say "f*ck sake the dice were perfectly fine before".

iAmCaffeine wrote: I have always told people that if they have a few very bad rolls then to stop playing and come back later because the dice are streaky as f*ck. Apparently that was the case with the 50k file and it's still the case now. You even mention streaks yourself.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote: If a positive change was made and there can be even a small amount of data published to show players that, then they'd be rather idiotic to complain don't you think? Nobody is going to sit here and say "f*ck sake the dice were perfectly fine before".

Do you think people would actually accept that data? I could foresee players saying that BW faked the data to appease the masses.

People complained about dice when I got here, people complain now. They will complain that their 15v5 loss should Never happen, but it always could.

iAmCaffeine wrote:I never really thought dice would be the reason I quit this site but one day I'm pretty convinced it will be. The game is no fun when you have wins firmly locked down turn into losses against: players who sit on the border of your bonus for five rounds and don't try to break once; players who miss turns and never defend their one troop border of their bonus whilst you fail 5v1 and 8v2 over and over in attempts to break before losing the game. I'm sure we've all had games that were "sure wins" turned sour, but when it's approximately 15 games per week you know it aint right.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Do you think the great, wondrous bigWham has actually improved the dice or do you believe he is so blatantly lying out of his shit-filled mouth like a pathetic f*ck because he's trying to con other members into believing the system is better when it isn't? I mean we already know he loves conning other people out of his money by instigating the automatic premium renewal and not informing anyone about it. It's also more expensive to buy premium for a friend than it is for yourself. So yeah, we know he's no stranger to underhand behaviour. I'm just wondering who actually thinks the dice are any better than they've ever been?

bigWham won't even post here and comment on the question anyhow. He's told me in PM that the dice have been improved since the 50k loop or whatever the f*ck it was, but he refuses to share any details as to how. Definitely sounds legit. His bullshit stinks more than riskllama on a weekend bender.

I never really thought dice would be the reason I quit this site but one day I'm pretty convinced it will be. The game is no fun when you have wins firmly locked down turn into losses against: players who sit on the border of your bonus for five rounds and don't try to break once; players who miss turns and never defend their one troop border of their bonus whilst you fail 5v1 and 8v2 over and over in attempts to break before losing the game. I'm sure we've all had games that were "sure wins" turned sour, but when it's approximately 15 games per week you know it aint right.

These are facts, my friend. I will most likely be silenced by the thought police for distributing such information amongst the masses but it should be known that rabbitWhon is a bigger con-artist than whoever the fake admin account was that was used to shut down Flame Wars. Dukasaur might appear and say that people who had a 3.50 average saw it increase to 3.51 but what does that actually prove? Nothing. What are the dice stats being controlled by? Does anyone know? They're about as legitimate as the actual dice so let's just throw it all into the bullshit bubble and pop it.

narutoserigala wrote:Right now, the way the dice is behaving (considered to be routinely bizarre), it does a huge disservice to the gamers (both losers and winners alike), from what I have been hearing. I do track battle outcomes turn by turn for each one of my games for the past 4 years! I do not know if there is anyone else who does this besides myself. In my opinion, to discount dice concerns to merely perception does injustice to a site we care about.

To me, randomness is just merely a convenient assumption. That is not saying that there are no random factors or randomness in things. In fact, as an Econometrician, by training, I look for patterns (if it exist) between one variable to another (or others). If the theory is sound & my model is correctly specified, then any errors away from the model predictions are assumed to be due to random factors.

The question whether the dice is random or not, is not particularly interesting to me.

I think that it is more informative to know if the kill/loss ratios (from actual battles) conforms to the norms associated with random dice. Take for example given normal attacker advantage, you can expect 12 kills for each 10 troops you lose, right?

In essence, 1) Knowing how far & how persistently the actual results sampled, deviate from these norms (either above or below norms) especially in early game stage (significance test), then compiling these results for each player will help us to make more informed opinions 2) if these deviations are likely to be generated by random processes or otherwise and 3) tabulate /scatter plot these historical results per player overtime for tracking purposes.

Modern analytical statistical tools should be helpful & hopefully these ideas might be more fully explored

Cheers,
Narutoserigala.

Thorthoth wrote:After all these years pointless dice griping and the accompanying inane probability analyses are bot bigger than ever.
...and all because the ego level of the average CC player must credits all his wins to exceptional skill and all his losses to horrible luck.

JPlo64 wrote:

narutoserigala wrote:Right now, the way the dice is behaving (considered to be routinely bizarre), it does a huge disservice to the gamers (both losers and winners alike), from what I have been hearing. I do track battle outcomes turn by turn for each one of my games for the past 4 years! I do not know if there is anyone else who does this besides myself. In my opinion, to discount dice concerns to merely perception does injustice to a site we care about.

To me, randomness is just merely a convenient assumption. That is not saying that there are no random factors or randomness in things. In fact, as an Econometrician, by training, I look for patterns (if it exist) between one variable to another (or others). If the theory is sound & my model is correctly specified, then any errors away from the model predictions are assumed to be due to random factors.

The question whether the dice is random or not, is not particularly interesting to me.

I think that it is more informative to know if the kill/loss ratios (from actual battles) conforms to the norms associated with random dice. Take for example given normal attacker advantage, you can expect 12 kills for each 10 troops you lose, right?

In essence, 1) Knowing how far & how persistently the actual results sampled, deviate from these norms (either above or below norms) especially in early game stage (significance test), then compiling these results for each player will help us to make more informed opinions 2) if these deviations are likely to be generated by random processes or otherwise and 3) tabulate /scatter plot these historical results per player overtime for tracking purposes.

Modern analytical statistical tools should be helpful & hopefully these ideas might be more fully explored

Cheers,
Narutoserigala.

Care to share your data?

IcePack wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:I never really thought dice would be the reason I quit this site but one day I'm pretty convinced it will be. The game is no fun when you have wins firmly locked down turn into losses against: players who sit on the border of your bonus for five rounds and don't try to break once; players who miss turns and never defend their one troop border of their bonus whilst you fail 5v1 and 8v2 over and over in attempts to break before losing the game. I'm sure we've all had games that were "sure wins" turned sour, but when it's approximately 15 games per week you know it aint right.

15 games per week isn't that bad when you are playing 274 active games right now (i just searched). Considering even something with 99% probability to succeed is going to FAIL 1 out of a 100 times, even if you play half those games once per day (137) each day of the week (137*7) means you play 959 turns per week. Even if its 1% fail thats still 10 games and you'll have multiple rolls each game, not just one roll per game. Probably even multiple 99% chance of success rolls within each game multiple times per week, so frankly yeah your scenario actually sounds pretty plausible?

I mean, people argue "i never had this kind of crap when we played around the table at home!" but you also didn't play 274 games around the table, all week long either.