Let's Talk About The Dice

[jusplay4fun]

I am tired of talk about DICE. This topic has been beaten beyond DEAD.

I did a search in this Forum:
Search found 975 matches: dice
on 39 pages in this Forum alone.

It has to be the #1 complaint about Risk and on CC.

This game is called RISK (in the original board version in the USA) partly because of the element of chance (i.e., DICE and LUCK, Card, Drop, and a few other smaller variables) in the game. If you want to play without the element of LUCK, play Chess.

[HerrHitzfeld]

I am tired of talk about DICE. This topic has been beaten beyond DEAD.

I did a search in this Forum:
Search found 975 matches: dice
on 39 pages in this Forum alone.

It has to be the #1 complaint about Risk and on CC.

This game is called RISK (in the original board version in the USA) partly because of the element of chance (i.e., DICE and LUCK, Card, Drop, and a few other smaller variables) in the game. If you want to play without the element of LUCK, play Chess.

Thank you for restating the obvious.

Does anyone have anything new or insightful to add?

This is an open conversation. Not a complaint forum.

[jusplay4fun]

I am tired of talk about DICE. This topic has been beaten beyond DEAD.

I did a search in this Forum:
Search found 975 matches: dice
on 39 pages in this Forum alone.

It has to be the #1 complaint about Risk and on CC.

This game is called RISK (in the original board version in the USA) partly because of the element of chance (i.e., DICE and LUCK, Card, Drop, and a few other smaller variables) in the game. If you want to play without the element of LUCK, play Chess.

Thank you for restating the obvious.

Does anyone have anything new or insightful to add?

This is an open conversation. Not a complaint forum.

I have READ so many dice complaints in the past few years and am frankly gotten bored with all such complaints. I therefore ignored for a while THIS one for that reason.

I have already offered my insights on many of the other threads in this Forum. I have re-read most of what is here in this one. I see no additional insights that have not been offered elsewhere.

I will offer something that JUS occurred to me a few minutes ago. If one plays enough games, one will LIKELY see some of the "wild swings" and other rather improbable dice outcomes that many complain about. Playing lots of games of anything and one will see "Crazy" and improbable situations. The same for growing vegetables or raising animals (from birth). One will see deformities in living things that most of us do not encounter in "normal" views of such phenomenon.

I will restate here for YOUR benefit what I said several places and that (I think it was Duk who said it HERE) we remember those dice scenarios that cause us to LOSE a key game. We remember that BAD dice that make us lose ONE, or a few games. We forget and/or do not even realize the games where good dice FOR US allow us to WIN. Losses HURT lots and MORE than most wins. We thus remember those painful losses for a long time and that VIEW obscures reality.

I will add that I do notice often where I lose 12v2 or similar unlikely scenarios. I do not keep track of those dice stats. When I do check dice stats, after a bad round, it rarely goes above minus 10% for me. I tend to be one in life (real and here) that would rather MOVE ON and not dwell on failures of the past. I have made enough mistakes in life; dwelling on them will JUS bring me down. I do not need more negative news and painful memories; I already have plenty. I doubt that you, in this thread, will get information that will give you great insight to accept the reality and the odds of DICE.

btw: I searched "LUCK" in this same Forum and found only 9 such posts soon after I did the "DICE" search. THUS, as I already stated, dice is the #1 complaint about CC.

[jusplay4fun]

New search:

Search found 2694 matches: dice
108 pages

Here is a thread with 10 pages:
Dice System
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... e#p5158150

ERGO: Dice are the biggest complaint on CC.

and this offers some interesting ideas on luck (and thus dice):
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... e#p5156831

[HerrHitzfeld]

I am tired of talk about DICE. This topic has been beaten beyond DEAD.

I did a search in this Forum:
Search found 975 matches: dice
on 39 pages in this Forum alone.

It has to be the #1 complaint about Risk and on CC.

This game is called RISK (in the original board version in the USA) partly because of the element of chance (i.e., DICE and LUCK, Card, Drop, and a few other smaller variables) in the game. If you want to play without the element of LUCK, play Chess.

Thank you for restating the obvious.

Does anyone have anything new or insightful to add?

This is an open conversation. Not a complaint forum.

I have READ so many dice complaints in the past few years and am frankly gotten bored with all such complaints. I therefore ignored for a while THIS one for that reason.

THIS one was not (intended) for complaining. In fact, more complaints and contemptuous replies have come from people who haven't offered anything to the discussion. I took it for granted that complaints about the dice have been beaten to death. I had no intention of making this thread into more of that. What I did intend for was to open discussion on why the dice get so many complaints. Why is it such a hot topic? Is it the algorithm? Does it represent true randomness? Is it human behavior? Is it because CC is so competitive? Would it be different if we weren't playing for ranks? Is it because the games are played over days or weeks instead of all at once as in real life? All these questions and more I was hoping to discuss. And a few people did offer some personal insight on these topics, which I appreciated. But you chose to interject despite not wanting to hear anything more on the topic. To be more negative than positive is an inherent trait of humans. Which is why it's hard to have a neutral discussion on a "controversial" topic.

I have already offered my insights on many of the other threads in this Forum. I have re-read most of what is here in this one. I see no additional insights that have not been offered elsewhere.

That may be true. However, I wanted to make a new thread (with a poll) where I could actively converse with people and at least try to lead the discussion to where I want it to go. And perhaps additional insights will be offered here in the future.

I will offer something that JUS occurred to me a few minutes ago. If one plays enough games, one will LIKELY see some of the "wild swings" and other rather improbable dice outcomes that many complain about. Playing lots of games of anything and one will see "Crazy" and improbable situations. The same for growing vegetables or raising animals (from birth). One will see deformities in living things that most of us do not encounter in "normal" views of such phenomenon.

Correct.

I will restate here for YOUR benefit what I said several places and that (I think it was Duk who said it HERE) we remember those dice scenarios that cause us to LOSE a key game. We remember that BAD dice that make us lose ONE, or a few games. We forget and/or do not even realize the games where good dice FOR US allow us to WIN. Losses HURT lots and MORE than most wins. We thus remember those painful losses for a long time and that VIEW obscures reality.

Correct.

I will add that I do notice often where I lose 12v2 or similar unlikely scenarios. I do not keep track of those dice stats. When I do check dice stats, after a bad round, it rarely goes above minus 10% for me.

I can't imagine anybody would keep track of their dice stats other than just what they can recall from memory.

I tend to be one in life (real and here) that would rather MOVE ON and not dwell on failures of the past. I have made enough mistakes in life; dwelling on them will JUS bring me down. I do not need more negative news and painful memories; I already have plenty.

This is just a game. If a game provokes you with such strong negative emotions then you probably shouldn't play that game. I posted here to have a casual conversation about the dice. Nobody has to participate if they don't want to.

I doubt that you, in this thread, will get information that will give you great insight to accept the reality and the odds of DICE.

The reality of LUCK behind the dice is something that nobody can fully comprehend. Although, now that you mention it, that would be another good topic for discussion.

btw: I searched "LUCK" in this same Forum and found only 9 such posts soon after I did the "DICE" search. THUS, as I already stated, dice is the #1 complaint about CC.

It probably is the #1 complaint. But again, you misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

[jusplay4fun]

I do not think that I am making statements that are irrational; I merely point out that I have engaged in several such discussions before and the complainers merely want to complain more.

I believe that Duk and I have offered insights on this topic, here and elsewhere. Have you gained insights from me or us? Or am I wasting my time?

Have you gained any insights from anyone at all? If so, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.

I am not sure what you hope to achieve, other than perhaps a bit more of an understanding of the dice algorithm used on CC? IDK. Even if you do, does that allow you to "beat the odds"? I doubt that will happen. I read somewhere in my looking that someone made some comparisons to other games of chance, such as Blackjack. It is rare to beat the odds and the few who do eventually lose more than they gain, if they play long enough. And games of chance, like many things in life, can become addictive.

The one other idea (or insight) I will add that auto roll will allow a REALLY bad sequence of dice to to be played. If I roll my 3 (and hopefully will I rarely roll fewer) dice each turn, I can stop the SLIDE before I hit a really bad streak.

Have I experienced BAD DICE? SURE I have. Does that cause me to complain to my teammates? Of course. Do I whine about bad dice publicly? Hopefully not often. (BUT I will here.) Do I have good streaks and bad streaks of dice and luck? Sure. Do I get too emotional? NO, I JUSplay4Fun.

[HerrHitzfeld]

I do not think that I am making statements that are irrational; I merely point out that I have engaged in several such discussions before and the complainers merely want to complain more.

I believe that Duk and I have offered insights on this topic, here and elsewhere. Have you gained insights from me or us? Or am I wasting my time?

Have you gained any insights from anyone at all? If so, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.

I am not sure what you hope to achieve, other than perhaps a bit more of an understanding of the dice algorithm used on CC? IDK. Even if you do, does that allow you to "beat the odds"? I doubt that will happen. I read somewhere in my looking that someone made some comparisons to other games of chance, such as Blackjack. It is rare to beat the odds and the few who do eventually lose more than they gain, if they play long enough. And games of chance, like many things in life, can become addictive.

The one other idea (or insight) I will add that auto roll will allow a REALLY bad sequence of dice to to be played. If I roll my 3 (and hopefully will I rarely roll fewer) dice each turn, I can stop the SLIDE before I hit a really bad streak.

Have I experienced BAD DICE? SURE I have. Does that cause me to complain to my teammates? Of course. Do I whine about bad dice publicly? Hopefully not often. (BUT I will here.) Do I have good streaks and bad streaks of dice and luck? Sure. Do I get too emotional? NO, I JUSplay4Fun.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you were making irrational statements. I assumed you figured I was here to complain and nothing more and so I elaborated on my thought process for you. Something I probably should have done in my OP. To clarify further, I'm not hoping to achieve anything. I don't care about the dice. There's nothing I or anyone else can do to change what they are or what they do so complaining about them is a waste of breath. I ask, to put it very simply, because I'm a curious person. I think a lot and I like to know what other people think as well. If you noticed, I also commented

I'm sure an entire thread could be dedicated to just talking about what maps and settings make for the most strategy dependent and least luck dependent games.

and

The reality of LUCK behind the dice is something that nobody can fully comprehend. Although, now that you mention it, that would be another good topic for discussion.

So these kinds of things interest me. I've asked other people the same questions in private and gotten a different answer almost every time. So why not ask publicly in the forum and get some sort of general consensus? Well, to be honest, I didn't really want to ask because I don't like chatting in public forums. I really just wanted to put my poll out there and see the results. (Which, by the way, are turning out pretty much the way I expected them too.) My OP was only a filler so I could ask my poll question. Which is why I didn't lay my thoughts out at the start and why I am doing so now. I also realize that these questions can be obscure, hard to answer and easily misunderstood if not elaborated upon.

Have I gained any new insights? Sure. In this thread specifically, to put it in my own words, it would seem that how someone might perceive the dice in any given game can be influenced by their intention going into that game. For example, if you go into a game expecting it to be a shut out and then the dice don't go your way causing you to struggle or even end up loosing the game, you might perceive those dice as being more "wild" than what you think "normal" dice are supposed to look like. If you continuously do something like that (and there are plenty of different states of mind that people could be playing their games in) you may, without even realizing it, be conditioning your mind to perceive the dice in a chronically false way. Which could, as you mentioned, play into some sort of chance/luck/dice related addiction. And of course, as with any type of addiction, it screws with your sense of reality around anything that has to do with whatever the addiction may be.

[jusplay4fun]

Yes, I do appreciate your thoughtful responses. I failed to acknowledge that before; my apologies.

Most of the threads about dice are complaints and/or suggestions on how the poster feels the Dice can be "Fixed." I think I spent a good deal of time and some thought on the matter last summer, so my immediate reaction was: "OKAY, another thread to complain about dice." I appreciate what you are attempting, which apparently is a thoughtful discussion of the dice as they are "present" (by whatever program or algorithm is used here on CC). I am certainly not an expert on such things. I hope I present a rational way of viewing "Bad Dice."

[HerrHitzfeld]

Yes, I do appreciate your thoughtful responses. I failed to acknowledge that before; my apologies.

Most of the threads about dice are complaints and/or suggestions on how the poster feels the Dice can be "Fixed." I think I spent a good deal of time and some thought on the matter last summer, so my immediate reaction was: "OKAY, another thread to complain about dice." I appreciate what you are attempting, which apparently is a thoughtful discussion of the dice as they are "present" (by whatever program or algorithm is used here on CC). I am certainly not an expert on such things. I hope I present a rational way of viewing "Bad Dice."

It was my mistake for not laying out the purpose I had for this thread. I edited some of my earlier posts to add my expanded thoughts on the things I said. So hopefully that will bring additional clarification.

Also, I did go through and read some of the posts you made last year. You made some very good points. I especially liked the analogy you made about a ball being balanced at the top of a hill to represent the fragility of the first few rounds in a game and how both luck and strategy determine which way the ball is going to start rolling.

[jusplay4fun]

Yes, I do appreciate your thoughtful responses. I failed to acknowledge that before; my apologies.

Most of the threads about dice are complaints and/or suggestions on how the poster feels the Dice can be "Fixed." I think I spent a good deal of time and some thought on the matter last summer, so my immediate reaction was: "OKAY, another thread to complain about dice." I appreciate what you are attempting, which apparently is a thoughtful discussion of the dice as they are "present" (by whatever program or algorithm is used here on CC). I am certainly not an expert on such things. I hope I present a rational way of viewing "Bad Dice."

It was my mistake for not laying out the purpose I had for this thread. I edited some of my earlier posts to add my expanded thoughts on the things I said. So hopefully that will bring additional clarification.

Also, I did go through and read some of the posts you made last year. You made some very good points. I especially liked the analogy you made about a ball being balanced at the top of a hill to represent the fragility of the first few rounds in a game and how both luck and strategy determine which way the ball is going to start rolling.

Thanks. As I said, when I first saw this thread, I assumed (mistakenly) that this was another "Complaints about Dice" thread. I think there were a few of those posted, but most were not the usual (to put it succinctly) "Dice Suck"..!

I do put thought in most or many of my posts. I often edit some after thinking more about my points and arguments soon after I post.

And I like simple analogies. Yes, they over-simplify things; however, I think they tend to be lucid and cogent.

[HerrHitzfeld]

Thanks. As I said, when I first saw this thread, I assumed (mistakenly) that this was another "Complaints about Dice" thread. I think there were a few of those posted, but most were not the usual (to put it succinctly) "Dice Suck"..!

No worries. To be fair, my posts were rather ambiguous. Sorry about that.

I do put thought in most or many of my posts. I often edit some after thinking more about my points and arguments soon after I post.

A good thing to do in a place like this where any amount of ambiguity can so quickly and easily cause confusion or miscommunications. A lesson learned for myself.

And I like simple analogies. Yes, they over-simplify things; however, I think they tend to be lucid and cogent.

I agree.

[Dukasaur]

... and just like that, peace was restored in the kingdom.

[Nucker]

Hello

This thread is a perpetual issue. Unfortunately the CC higher ups don’t give any serious thought to it. Instead they refer to a lot of superstitious beliefs. And tell you (as in this thread) to suck it up or play chess. A very disrespectful way of dealing with clients. As much as I still feel there is a group of die hard enthusiasts here, CC lost its authenticity some time ago

I am going to try address a few of the dice issues. Please spend some time thinking about them before giving a unhelpful knee jerk reaction. I know CC is going to do nothing about the lottery they use.

First let’s deal with the fact that this site touts itself as a strategy site. It is not. There are far too many luck variables and no way to mitigate them.
So basically CC is a game of dice luck primarily. A LOT of games are over in the first two rounds of dice and drop luck.
For the purpose of this thread I am not going to go into detail about things like how cards and drop can be fixed. Just know that they can be. Easily.

Myth One: Risk is a game of luck. Specifically dice luck. And if you don’t like it play Chess.

This is the modern era where even your favorite fairy tale has been rewritten. As such many sites including this one have made adaptions. Fog, Parachute, team games, different maps, winning scenarios etc etc etc... please can we bury the traditional argument as hypocritical at best. Even Hasbro has made changes to their dice generator.
Chess is a two player game and in my experience most on CC do play Chess. Risk is a multiplayer political game of position and guile. Players like myself enjoy the added aspect of multiplayer for its political aspect. This alone creates more than enough luck without even needing dice. No knee jerk reactions please.
Massive MMOs miss the point and are primarily pay to win type affairs.
Risk does not and should not still be a game of dice luck.


Myth two; Players will personally perceive that the dice is against them and don’t see when it works for them. The dice always balance.

Wining by dice luck is as unsatisfactory for strategy lovers as losing due to dice luck.
The dice balancing in another game or even several turns later is not actual balancing. By this time enough advantage has been handed to another player.
The dice percentage of wining three vs one is about 64%. This is not reflected in the thousands of games I play in, regularly losing 4 to 5 vs 1 and sometimes over 10, this is not every now and then but regularly. We all know that for some unexplained/ignored reason auto attack produces results with a difference of 20 plus troops 30 vs 30 (and worse).
This makes the whole strategy a farce and knowing how to place your troops is a purely fictional thing as luck will determine how it plays out. This is extremely upsetting.
As most of games/turns are low numbers like 5 vs 4 a single run of bad luck vs good luck (this is happening in over 50% of turns) can mean you lose. I have often had games where it has taken up to 10 turns to take a single or two stack. And those are games where opponents have not capitalized on this and allowed me to keep trying. This is NOT strategy. Just dice luck.
My point is that most of Risk turns involve small numbers that are affected hugely by random dice.
It is not a question of the dice evening out eventually or perceiving they are working against you.
It is about first acknowledging that you have a problem (clearly as this issue has been around since before forever here on CC) then doing something to fix it rather than hide behind outdated and invalid arguments.


Myth three: You need dice to play Risk.

No you don’t need dice. There is enough luck naturally built into the game. Multi players, human stupidity, various strategies to win, cards, drop, missing turns etc etc...
Please understand I am not saying CC must drop the dice. This is not a my way or highway thing. CC can make adaptations featured as options. Like you do with type of cards and players and other settings.
Hasbro already have a balanced dice option.
You could have limited luck by only letting dice factor in battles above 6 and restricted to 10%
You can offer a no dice option on settings (why CC has not done this long long time ago hurts my sensibilities). What happened to giving customers what they want.
There really are lot of options/fixes you can apply. If you are struggling then please contact me.

Finally I know from painful experience with CC that nothing will be done. Lack of will, understanding and a whole lot of we don’t give a ....
The fact that the site itself is soooo outdated is proof of this. Personally I think players who want genuine multi player strategy have long since walked away.

Put factually; Dice, particularly CC dice make farce out of what could be a very competitive format.

Thank you

[general cod]

Nucker raises many good points which as he says are so easily brushed over.

[HerrHitzfeld]

@Nucker

Wow. A lot of food for thought right there. I will come back to this after I've had some time to think about it.

[jusplay4fun]

I looked at Hasbro's online Risk and I did not find the NO DICE (or Balanced Dice) option in my brief look there on STEAM. Dice were a HUGE part of their tutorial. Finding a NO DICE option is interesting to me to see how the determine battle outcomes.

I do not understand what is "Balanced Dice" option. That too interests me. too, as many complain about the dice and the dice algorithms used on CC now.

The Hasbro version, based on my cursory look, does not seem as "sophisticated" when compared to CC. BUT again, I only did a quick look around.

[Dukasaur]

There was an interesting article posted in one of these dice threads many years ago. I still remember it although of course I can't quote it verbatim, so I'll do my best to paraphrase.

They were talking about one of the digital music services. I think it may have been iTunes although I'm not sure about that. The music service used to get a lot of complaints that their random shuffle "wasn't random." It would often happen that people might hear a bunch of songs by the same artist. In fact, in a random shuffle it is perfectly plausible to get a bunch of similar things in succession, but it didn't match people's expectation of what they wanted from a random shuffle. What people expected was that every song would be significantly different from the song that came before. The music service did comply with people's expectations; it reprogrammed its "random shuffle" to always make sure that a song is noticeably different than the song before. In effect, they made their random shuffle seem more random by actually being less random.

Translating from music shuffle to dice terms, we see much the same thing. Truly random sequences have long streaks of "more of the same". There are long winning streaks and long losing streaks. To a mathematician, that is the universe unfolding as it should. But to the average player, it doesn't feel random. Most people "feel" that the dice should be balanced: if you get some really bad rolls, you are due for some really good rolls soon.

It is certainly possible that the dice could be reprogrammed to a more balanced mode, which would "feel" more random even while being less random. I'm skeptical whether that would actually improve the experience. But it's certainly conceivable that it could.

[HerrHitzfeld]

@Nucker

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. A lot of your comments had to do with how the dice might be improved (as opposed to understanding them as they are currently) but there were a couple things you said that really got me thinking and I'd like to expand on those.

First, I'll say quickly that I looked into Hasbro's online Risk game. I wasn't able to find anything on a "no dice" option (unless maybe you were talking about some other online Risk based website?) but I did see they have something called a "balanced blitz" dice option. Although, everything I read about "balanced blitz" on Reddit and elsewhere, it was no more liked than the "normal" dice option. Now I'm no expert on algorithms or statistics and I have no idea what "balanced blitz" entails but as Dukasaur mentioned

To the average player, it [true randomness] doesn't feel random. Most people "feel" that the dice should be balanced: if you get some really bad rolls, you are due for some really good rolls soon. Truly random sequences have long streaks of "more of the same".

So is that part of the problem some people have with the dice? Do they go into games with false expectations about dice luck simply out of ignorance? And if those expectations don't pan out the way they had expected, might they perceive the random number generator to be faulty or rigged? May be. As I said, I'm no expert.

Moving forward, there's two things you said that I'd like to share my thoughts on.

First

There are far too many luck variables and no way to mitigate them.
So basically CC is a game of dice luck primarily. A LOT of games are over in the first two rounds of dice and drop luck.

I partially agree with you here. I don't think that there are too many luck variables or no way to mitigate them. I think CC is evenly split between luck and strategy. However, I do agree that a lot of games are over in the first few rounds of dice and to a lesser extent drop luck. Let me explain at least one reason why I think this is by sharing a small life story with you. I started playing Parker Brothers 1980 version of Risk when I was a kid. It was handed down to me from my older brothers. I immediately took a liking to it. I got as many of my friends and family to play it with me as I could, as often as I could. In 2011, with years of Risk experience now under my belt, I joined CC. I immediately took a liking to it as well. But in those early days that I was on this site, I kept feeling like it was much more difficult than the real life game. And I was even playing the most basic map and settings that you can play here. Five players, Classic map, escalating, chained, no fog. I thought I was already a pretty good Risk player, but it took quite some time before I felt that I was up to par with the average CC player. Which is the point I want to make here. The people that play on this website are probably some of the best Risk players in the world. I can't imagine anybody that plays here would have anyone they know IRL that could out-strategize them in a game of Risk. Unless of course they play on this site as well. But what I'm saying is, this website is extremely competitive. When you surround yourself with people who are just as good at a game as you are, people who literally have their strategy down to a science, the game, in a very broad and oversimplified sense, becomes a giant stalemate. Let me explain further with another example from my life. About a year ago, I started teaching a friend how to play Risk. For a while we had a lot of fun. I won most of the games simply because I was way better than he was but that didn't matter. We were both fighting to conquer the world and it was enjoyable for both of us. But the more we played, the more I taught him and the better he got, our enjoyment of the game began to decrease until it was no fun anymore and we stopped playing. Why? Because our skill levels began to equalize. It got to the point where we could barely get through two rounds before one of us raised the white flag. We could see that early on who was going to win and it just became pointless to play it out. And I think it's kind of a similar situation on CC. When everybody is so good, and when everybody plays a perfect strategy every time, there's nothing left to decide a game except luck. Which I think raises our awareness to the luck factor and hence also our awareness of bad luck which we tend to remember more both because we're human and that's what humans do and also because we know that we did everything else right. Now obviously this is a gross oversimplification, there are so many more factors at play here, especially on CC where we have much more complicated maps and settings. But I think in really luck dependent games, like a 1v1 on a small map, this will ring true for many players. So to summarize, CC is NOT primarily a dice luck game. It is just as much strategy as it is luck. It may just seem like it's primarily a dice luck game because we're all such good players. There's just as many strategic variables to the game as there are luck variables. In the regular game of Risk there may not be a way to mitigate the luck factor, but with all that CC has to offer, there are lots of ways to mitigate luck if that's what you want in your games.

Second

Wining by dice luck is as unsatisfactory for strategy lovers as losing due to dice luck.

I think that's true. But I've never been able to think of a way to play Risk without any luck factor in it that still sounded fun. Luck is an integral park of Risk. Does it get upsetting sometimes? Yes! But I'd rather play a game of Risk that was fun and had wild swings of luck in it rather than to play a boring game of Risk that that didn't have a luck factor. Because ultimately, to have fun is what we're here to do.

[Nucker]

Thanks for the replies people, it is appreciated.

HerrHitzfeld, you may be right about CC having the best players in the world, but given the insistence on things like fog settings, I am not so sure.
Saying something like an even balance of luck and strategy is not actually commentary about strategy but rather falls squarely into luck. Genuine strategy needs only a small element of luck to break the stalemates you speak of.
Thank you for sharing your story, for some reason the players here all have the same theme about getting boring because of the absence of luck. These are gamblers thoughts not those of serious strategy players.
Serious players are in it till the bitter boring end and love it. Before anyone opens everlasting stacking games scenario, there are plenty of ways to deal with this.
Even implying that great players need luck to break stalemates, ie win the game, is ludicrous.
I appreciate that you are here to have the thrill or disappointment of rolling the dice. I have no issue with that. But I don’t understand why the good people of CC keep using diversionary arguments to stop players like me who don’t need or want dice outcomes. It can be an option. Also saying there is a balance of luck and strategy that can only determined by luck after everything has been explored is admitting to it being a luck game and a huge overstatement of human ability. Here chess and AI are proof of this. Humans have not even come close to being able to unravel a competitive puzzle. I think that we need to understand this before we go hurtling to future unknown outcomes as if we have been there. We have not, particularly CC.
Once again you refer to traditional Risk play arguments while while approving many elements that have been added.
CC is no longer the traditional game. Please stop believing it is and drop the “this is why we play” factor.
Personally I get no joy from the dice and play in spite of them. If I enjoyed gambling like throwing dice then I would be on a gambling site (to counter the chess argument)

The glimmer of hope for me is that a seed may have been planted that this should not be do we dice or not but rather that options are available, explore them.
We have the beta site. Why don’t we use it?

[HerrHitzfeld]

Thanks for the replies people, it is appreciated.

HerrHitzfeld, you may be right about CC having the best players in the world, but given the insistence on things like fog settings, I am not so sure.
Saying something like an even balance of luck and strategy is not actually commentary about strategy but rather falls squarely into luck. Genuine strategy needs only a small element of luck to break the stalemates you speak of.
Thank you for sharing your story, for some reason the players here all have the same theme about getting boring because of the absence of luck. These are gamblers thoughts not those of serious strategy players.
Serious players are in it till the bitter boring end and love it. Before anyone opens everlasting stacking games scenario, there are plenty of ways to deal with this.
Even implying that great players need luck to break stalemates, ie win the game, is ludicrous.
I appreciate that you are here to have the thrill or disappointment of rolling the dice. I have no issue with that. But I don’t understand why the good people of CC keep using diversionary arguments to stop players like me who don’t need or want dice outcomes. It can be an option. Also saying there is a balance of luck and strategy that can only determined by luck after everything has been explored is admitting to it being a luck game and a huge overstatement of human ability. Here chess and AI are proof of this. Humans have not even come close to being able to unravel a competitive puzzle. I think that we need to understand this before we go hurtling to future unknown outcomes as if we have been there. We have not, particularly CC.
Once again you refer to traditional Risk play arguments while while approving many elements that have been added.
CC is no longer the traditional game. Please stop believing it is and drop the “this is why we play” factor.
Personally I get no joy from the dice and play in spite of them. If I enjoyed gambling like throwing dice then I would be on a gambling site (to counter the chess argument)

The glimmer of hope for me is that a seed may have been planted that this should not be do we dice or not but rather that options are available, explore them.
We have the beta site. Why don’t we use it?

Perhaps you're right. Maybe I do have some gamblers blood in me. If that's the case, I accept it. I'm definitely not one to stay in to the bitter boring end. As for adding a no dice option, I'm not campaigning for or against that. I am simply here to come to a greater understanding of the game as it currently is. Specifically an understanding of what makes the dice such a provocative topic.

Of course I approve of the added elements of CC in relation to the traditional game of Risk. Risk is the foundation upon which CC is built. Without Risk, there is no Conquer Club. Now I'm sure we could argue about that, as well as you're thoughts about great players not needing luck to win games (assuming that they're paired with someone of equal skill level... if they weren't, I would have some agreements with you). But again, that's not really what I'm here to discuss.

As for fun being the reason why we play, I'll take the "we" back. I can't speak for everyone. Fun is the reason why I play.

Also, I'm not sure what beta site you're talking about?

[jusplay4fun]

Nucker wrote:
Humans have not even come close to being able to unravel a competitive puzzle.

Do you mean humans cannot solve a competitive puzzle? If so, I strong disagree. To improve one's play at Chess, one can solve chess puzzles. People solve crossword puzzles and sudoku puzzles everyday. There is a world Puzzle Championship. Do you need more examples? OR did I miss what you meant here?

https://www.worldpuzzle.org/

[jusplay4fun]

(A) For me, dice and thus the element of LUCK is an inherent aspect of the Game of Risk.

I cannot really understand the game without dice or some random means to determine battle outcomes.

(B) FURTHUR: It seems to me that most complaints about dice involve what are:

1) truly or perceived to be UNUSUAL streaks and outcomes (e.g., losing 12 troops to the enemy loss of 2), OR

2) Dice results that defy our expectation of what "FAIR" and truly "Random" dice should be like.

[HerrHitzfeld]

(B) FURTHUR: It seems to me that most complaints about dice involve what are:

1) truly or perceived to be UNUSUAL streaks and outcomes (e.g., losing 12 troops to the enemy loss of 2), OR

2) Dice results that defy our expectation of what "FAIR" and truly "Random" dice should be like.

So maybe a better understanding of statistics and randomness would clear up some of these false perceptions and expectations and also give us a more objective mindset when we do encounter truly unusual streaks and outcomes.

[jusplay4fun]

(B) FURTHUR: It seems to me that most complaints about dice involve what are:

1) truly or perceived to be UNUSUAL streaks and outcomes (e.g., losing 12 troops to the enemy loss of 2), OR

2) Dice results that defy our expectation of what "FAIR" and truly "Random" dice should be like.

So maybe a better understanding of statistics and randomness would clear up some of these false perceptions and expectations and also give us a more objective mindset when we do encounter truly unusual streaks and outcomes.

Perhaps. That may help SOME.

But I contend that no matter what the explanation or dice algorithm used, there will STILL be a huge number of complaints about Bad Dice that causes games to be lost, despite brilliant strategy.

I will add that soon after I type that I rarely see bad streaks that are unusual, I then go minus 60% on defense in ONE game. I lost, if there was any doubt. Teaches me AGAIN NOT TO BRAG.

[HerrHitzfeld]

(B) FURTHUR: It seems to me that most complaints about dice involve what are:

1) truly or perceived to be UNUSUAL streaks and outcomes (e.g., losing 12 troops to the enemy loss of 2), OR

2) Dice results that defy our expectation of what "FAIR" and truly "Random" dice should be like.

So maybe a better understanding of statistics and randomness would clear up some of these false perceptions and expectations and also give us a more objective mindset when we do encounter truly unusual streaks and outcomes.

Perhaps. That may help SOME.

But I contend that no matter what the explanation or dice algorithm used, there will STILL be a huge number of complaints about Bad Dice that causes games to be lost, despite brilliant strategy.

I will add that soon after I type that I rarely see bad streaks that are unusual, I then go minus 60% on defense in ONE game. I lost, if there was any doubt. Teaches me AGAIN NOT TO BRAG.

Agreed.