Conquer Club

Funkyterrance wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Just_essence wrote:Well, the reason the dice complainers don't have a solution is because what they're doing is just complaining.

This has yet to be proven. Innocent until proven guilty. Etc., Etc., Etc..

On second thought, I think I interpreted your post incorrectly. You were saying that they aren't providing any evidence of their own AKA the burden of proof is up to them since they are the ones complaining?
If so, that's not how it's done in a court of law. The accusors in this case are the dice complainer antagonists and the dice complainers the accused of being crazy.
There are plenty of threads defending the dice but lets consider this one a counter suit.

In An AMERICAN court of law. In a Yoshi court, we use a wheel of justice. It has about the same accuracy.
Law is pretty much the most random aspect of life.
Witness Testimony is apparently a gold standard even though there is no evidence that witness testimony is accurate (and there is lots of experimental evidence proving it is not).
Expert Testimony is held to a high degree, even though in every realm of assessment, statistics are better than experts at predicting something.

The laws themselves are generally dumb.

I would take the CC intensity cubes over any modern legal system any day.

I have played many a game the old fashioned way, and these dice are unreal. The overall averages come out even, but that proves nothing. If the defender rolls the exact same thing as you do 14 times in a row, you lose 14 times in a row but they will still average out at 3.5. If they use the same random number generator for offense and defense, it appears at times they sink up. The number of times I was winning and then got beat by the dice is ridiculous. 14 versus 2 for the guys last spot and his 5 spoils for an easy run at the game and lose, makes me want to throw my laptop out the window because it happens more than it should. perhaps odds should be taken on how often certain losing runs are made and compare that to real stats, say 7/1 and lose, how many times does it really happen versus what the true odds are.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Just_essence wrote:Well, the reason the dice complainers don't have a solution is because what they're doing is just complaining.

This has yet to be proven. Innocent until proven guilty. Etc., Etc., Etc..

On second thought, I think I interpreted your post incorrectly. You were saying that they aren't providing any evidence of their own AKA the burden of proof is up to them since they are the ones complaining?
If so, that's not how it's done in a court of law. The accusors in this case are the dice complainer antagonists and the dice complainers the accused of being crazy.
There are plenty of threads defending the dice but lets consider this one a counter suit.

Oh, no. What I mean is that the only purpose of their post is to complain about how there's "bias" and how we should get a more random dice generator, but they don't actually post on the basis of trying to find a solution. They just want to have an outlet for their anger at their own misfortune, not a solution. Well, they want one, but none of them post expecting a "solution" to rise up.

uno13 wrote:The overall averages come out even, but that proves nothing. If the defender rolls the exact same thing as you do 14 times in a row, you lose 14 times in a row but they will still average out at 3.5.

When looking at dice stats be sure to look at the page for battle outcomes.

uno13 wrote:If they use the same random number generator for offense and defense, it appears at times they sink up.

The dice are actually read from a list so this isn't a thing.

show

uno13 wrote:perhaps odds should be taken on how often certain losing runs are made and compare that to real stats, say 7/1 and lose, how many times does it really happen versus what the true odds are.

Back in the day somebody did some analysis and "streaks" didn't appear any more often than they should statistically. Perhaps someone less lazy than I could dig up a link.

So I just lost 8 armies to a 1 army tert a few minutes ago. Not complaining, just figured: "When in Rome".

I would just like to reiterate that I'm not saying it's impossible for the computer to roll at least as good as all of my dice for 8 rolls in a row, I'm just saying there will always be an element of doubt when dealing with a system not derived from "actual dice" and you can't fault someone for doubting an outside source's absolute randomness. Create a system where the stats are taken from actual rolls taken from legitimate casinos from throughout the world where there are many levels of checks to make sure the dice are fair and I'd gamble that less people would doubt it. Obviously this example is probably not cost effective but you get my point. Atmospheric noise is just way too far from most people's comfort zone when it comes to randomness.

Funkyterrance wrote:So I just lost 8 armies to a 1 army tert a few minutes ago. Not complaining, just figured: "When in Rome".

I would just like to reiterate that I'm not saying it's impossible for the computer to roll at least as good as all of my dice for 8 rolls in a row, I'm just saying there will always be an element of doubt when dealing with a system not derived from "actual dice" and you can't fault someone for doubting an outside source's absolute randomness. Create a system where the stats are taken from actual rolls taken from legitimate casinos from throughout the world where there are many levels of checks to make sure the dice are fair and I'd gamble that less people would doubt it. Obviously this example is probably not cost effective but you get my point. Atmospheric noise is just way too far from most people's comfort zone when it comes to randomness.

Now, despite what Jurassic Park teaches you, dice aren't entirely random. Since the holes in the dice have quantifiable non-weight, and the distribution of plastic has miniscule differences, a dice is less random than a computer.

Although, wouldn't it be cool if we could play RISK at a casino? Personally I would prefer to gamble on this site, but that's a no-no.

DoomYoshi wrote:Although, wouldn't it be cool if we could play RISK at a casino? Personally I would prefer to gamble on this site, but that's a no-no.

Now that would be interesting lol. Only it would probably make the dice complainers even more fierce and outspoken.

Defend stats after 10
1's 2's 3's 4's 5's 6's
-69% 1.78 10 4 2 2 0 0

NOT MOANING JUST WONDERED IF ANY CAN BEAT -69% AFTER 10 THROWS. I PLAY THIS FOR FUN AND YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH SOMETIMES.

barsteward36 wrote:Defend stats after 10
1's 2's 3's 4's 5's 6's
-69% 1.78 10 4 2 2 0 0

NOT MOANING JUST WONDERED IF ANY CAN BEAT -69% AFTER 10 THROWS. I PLAY THIS FOR FUN AND YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH SOMETIMES.

10 throws is an impossibly small sample size to even comment on the outcome, except to say, you happen to be the one that got it at that particular time.

One could say the odds of that roll not happening, would be greater than it actually happening, overall.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:So I just lost 8 armies to a 1 army tert a few minutes ago. Not complaining, just figured: "When in Rome".

I would just like to reiterate that I'm not saying it's impossible for the computer to roll at least as good as all of my dice for 8 rolls in a row, I'm just saying there will always be an element of doubt when dealing with a system not derived from "actual dice" and you can't fault someone for doubting an outside source's absolute randomness. Create a system where the stats are taken from actual rolls taken from legitimate casinos from throughout the world where there are many levels of checks to make sure the dice are fair and I'd gamble that less people would doubt it. Obviously this example is probably not cost effective but you get my point. Atmospheric noise is just way too far from most people's comfort zone when it comes to randomness.

Now, despite what Jurassic Park teaches you, dice aren't entirely random. Since the holes in the dice have quantifiable non-weight, and the distribution of plastic has miniscule differences, a dice is less random than a computer.

Although, wouldn't it be cool if we could play RISK at a casino? Personally I would prefer to gamble on this site, but that's a no-no.

Funnily enough, the fact that the 1 side of the dice is the heaviest and the 6 side of the dice is the lightest and that they are opposite of each other means that it's technically more likely to roll a 6 than a 1 with actual dice, no other factors included.

Just_essence wrote:Funnily enough, the fact that the 1 side of the dice is the heaviest and the 6 side of the dice is the lightest and that they are opposite of each other means that it's technically more likely to roll a 6 than a 1 with actual dice, no other factors included.

Yes, but I think this is a more accurate depiction of how a dice complainer envisions their attacking dice:

I've been spending a lot of time over the past few years on a pet project which is the disproof of Cantor's set theories (particularly concerning infinite sets).

I am thinking that if I approach it from a type theory perspective, the entire argument breaks down. Thesis: there is an infinite random set. Any infinite random set would be a proof of that, but is there one?

DoomYoshi wrote:Thesis: there is an infinite random set. Any infinite random set would be a proof of that, but is there one?

It's the complement of the set of Conquer Club dice.