Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:42 pm**

DarthFrog wrote:I admit that I read this post 10+ times, and I still don't see how this has anything to do with dice and how they work/are random/suck/are great/whatever.

In other words, I don't know if there is a point here, and if there is.... I don't get it.

the point was we are able to get the entire string of rolls proposed here by hitting auto-attack

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:21 pm**

MeanestBossEver,

Thanks a million for your post!
It was exactly the sort of information I was looking for to further understand the issue. Especially interesting and enlightening to me was your point on a real-life rolling sequence warping the game if it had an unevenly distributed outcome.
I could kiss you!

Funkyterrance

P.S.

Is this the way it currently works? I was under the impression that the dice rolls were generated from atmospheric noise. But then I suppose they are equally random eh? Solid point lol.

Funky

Posted: **Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:35 pm**

The dice currently work like this:

CC gets a string of 50 000 numbers between 1-6 from random.org (which gets it's random numbers from atmospheric noise). This string is updated once an hour, ie. CC gets a new string each hour, regardless of the amount of rolls within that time.

For each individual assault, a random location is chosen from that string of 50 000, and the required 2-5 dice are read from that position.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:04 pm**

Hmm, well this is interesting...
So going with the whole "game warping" aspect, if this string of 50,000 is weighted one way or another (lots of low or high rolls), It could actually warp the game for that particular hour. If you turned during a "good hour" and your teammate rolled during a "bad hour", you would have an advantage. This basically shows that the current system is actually not "perfectly random".

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:27 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:Hmm, well this is interesting...
So going with the whole "game warping" aspect, if this string of 50,000 is weighted one way or another (lots of low or high rolls), It could actually warp the game for that particular hour. If you turned during a "good hour" and your teammate rolled during a "bad hour", you would have an advantage. This basically shows that the current system is actually not "perfectly random".

No, it does not. It just means that for small sample sizes the results will not be temporally uniform.

Also, real dice rolls are less fair than random.org numbers.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:58 pm**

Uhh, yes it does.
Also, real dice rolls are equally fair to random.org numbers provided they are distributed in a random fashion. I suggest you read this thread from start to finish so you have a more comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:04 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:Uhh, yes it does.

The only way this situation could be avoided is if, for all scales, there was a uniform frequency for all possible outcomes. Basic random number theory tells us this will not be the case for small scales -- unless your sample sizes grow very large, you would in general not expect two arbitrary samples to be uniform in frequency.

Also, real dice rolls are equally fair to random.org numbers provided they are distributed in a random fashion.

Real dice rolls are not distributed in a random fashion, for the same reason that coin flips are not.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:06 pm**

How is a string of 50 000 numbers that happened to be slightly weighted to one side, any different from 50 000 rolls (With real dice) that happened to be slightly weighted to one side?

And how do you know that the strings we get from Random.org aren't already perfectly, or near perfectly uniform?

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:45 pm**

TheForgivenOne wrote:How is a string of 50 000 numbers that happened to be slightly weighted to one side, any different from 50 000 rolls (With real dice) that happened to be slightly weighted to one side?

And how do you know that the strings we get from Random.org aren't already perfectly, or near perfectly uniform?

There's a ton of information on Random.org to better understand randomness and why what they're doing is the right way to go.

http://www.random.org/

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:23 pm**

Forgiven they are not any different but that is beside the point. While the numbers from random.org may be random, there is something lost in the translation between random.org and cc since the numbers are recycled here during the course of every hour. Please read the whole thread to see where all this information is coming from.

Metsfan,

You are going to have to remember the basis of this thread is in regards to real dice since this is one main complaint that players have against the current system (they trust dice but not random.org). While real dice are arguably not 100% random, the difference is so nominal that most people accept them to be random. The same goes for the flip of a coin.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:39 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:You are going to have to remember the basis of this thread is in regards to real dice since this is one main complaint that players have against the current system (they trust dice but not random.org). While real dice are arguably not 100% random, the difference is so nominal that most people accept them to be random. The same goes for the flip of a coin.

The arguments in this thread have already demonstrated why having a list of 1000 dice, sampled constantly across the entire site (even if you don't understand or disagree with those arguments), is far worse than the alternative. People may have some absurd belief that the dice on this site are unfair, but the fact is that this has never been proven in any fashion, and it's more important to have actually fair dice than to rig the dice to appease the minority who think they aren't fair.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:56 pm**

If you read the thread we have gotten past the argument about the randomness of different systems, etc,. I very early on agreed that theoretically random.org is as random as it gets. You are completely missing the point of this whole discussion and are only repeating what others have demonstrated with much more tact and understanding. This is not a thread arguing about randomness (there are enough of those). It is a thread constructively discussing how different random systems can be applied. If there is a system that can please everyone, why not explore it? This site is a business so appeasing the greatest amount of people only makes sense. Doing otherwise would be foolish.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:00 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:If there is a system that can please everyone, why not explore it? This site is a business so appeasing the greatest amount of people only makes sense.

There is no perfect system that will please everyone. Dice complainers will keep complaining when they get bad dice. People complained that the dice were faulty before, and lack tweaked the system. Guess what? People kept complaining.

Not every human mind can comprehend the fact that, just because an odd has a low probability of happening, doesn't mean it won't happen, especially with the HUGE amount of rolls thrown here daily.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:12 pm**

I agree with you 100% about the whole human aspect thing Forgiven, believe me. However if you have options that can decrease this doubt it would increase productivity. It's a matter of pennies on the dollar really but pennies add up. If lack didn't care about this issue, as some of you obviously don't, he never would have tweaked the system in the first place. I am a little bored with folks touting intellectual superiority when their posts support the opposite in their failure to follow a train of thought.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:59 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:I agree with you 100% about the whole human aspect thing Forgiven, believe me. However if you have options that can decrease this doubt it would increase productivity. It's a matter of pennies on the dollar really but pennies add up. If lack didn't care about this issue, as some of you obviously don't, he never would have tweaked the system in the first place. I am a little bored with folks touting intellectual superiority when their posts support the opposite in their failure to follow a train of thought.

There are no options that decrease the doubt but sustain the current level of fairness. This topic has been debated ad nauseum on CC for years now -- if there were a simple alternative, it would very likely have been found by now. Besides that, logically this has to be the best solution -- it's absolutely fair. No one objects to the use of random.org or the methods they use to generate random numbers. What people object to is perceived bias. It doesn't matter where the dice come from, it only matters that people perceive the results as being uniform. Do you really think if we tried another method like recording results of a rolled dice by hand, and people perceived biased results, they wouldn't complain?

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:14 pm**

Mets,

Considering the information that Natty provided, the current system has a potential flaw. A string of numbers is taken from random.org intermittently, therefore it is not a true interpretation of the numbers generated there. I feel like I am repeating myself but no one is debating the validity of random.org.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:23 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:Mets,

Considering the information that Natty provided, the current system has a potential flaw. A string of numbers is taken from random.org intermittently, therefore it is not a true interpretation of the numbers generated there. I feel like I am repeating myself but no one is debating the validity of random.org.

No one is debating the validity of random.org because there isn't much room to debate about the site itself. There has indeed been discussion in other threads on the problem you allude to, which is how we call numbers from random.org. I don't see where you're trying to attack it from, though. What do you mean it's not a true "interpretation" of their numbers? Assuming that their numbers are approximately temporally constant in consistency, then it doesn't matter when we ask for the numbers.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:25 pm**

deeuuumb

good post wizard.

Posted: **Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:23 pm**

Okayyyy...
With that eloquent post, moving right along... =D>

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 8:56 am**

Concise description:

Instead of using the highest attacking against the highest defending, I propose using the highest attacking against the lowest defending, then take the next highest attack roll against the highest defending.

Specifics/Details:

If attacker rolls 6-4-1 and defender rolls 5-2, the current way would be a 2-0 attacker, this way it would split. You could still get a 2-0 or 0-2 result, but they would be much less frequent. I'd suggest this vs my other suggestion of no dice and using a straight one for one removal.

This would result in a lot more split decisions and a lot less 10-0 or 0-10 turns. I do not think this would harm the defender as they would be more likely to win at least one. Against a single defender things wouldn't change. As an option we could call this fair dice.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 8:58 am**

the dice wont change.

nice try though

so says the ignorant

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 9:17 am**

That is indeed an ignorant comment. The dice would change, there would be a very high percentage of split rolls.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:53 pm**

okay i worded the post wrong

conquer club WILL not change the dice.

it has been suggested many times and has failed every time.

so says the ignorant

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2011 12:23 am**

Then I am the ignorant one. I did get the feeling they were a bit sensitive on the subject. I just wonder why they are so reluctant to add an option that would satisfy such a widely and deeply felt need. How does my suggestion rate compared to others? I think it changes the game the least and gives people what they want, more balanced dice results. The only way to do that is to make more split rolls.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2011 1:00 am**

Frogmanx82 wrote:Then I am the ignorant one. I did get the feeling they were a bit sensitive on the subject. I just wonder why they are so reluctant to add an option that would satisfy such a widely and deeply felt need. How does my suggestion rate compared to others? I think it changes the game the least and gives people what they want, more balanced dice results. The only way to do that is to make more split rolls.

If you have noticed, the website hasn't really deviated away from the main concept of the board game? The dice are used the same way (Are used 3v2 if most cases, based on troops, and the attacker has to beat the defender to be considered a win). The cards are cashed the same way (By that, I mean they are cashed in groups of 3, and are either 1 of each color or 3 of the same color). This is changing how the dice are worked. This will only increase the Attackers advantage, by quite a bit, even though it already has the advantage.

Edit** Attackers Advantage excludes jefjef. For him it is always the Defenders advantage

Conquer Club

Dice Complaints and Various Suggestions to Fix Them

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Re: New Idea for Random Dice

Change the dice attack order to make more split rolls

Re: Change the dice attack order to make more split rolls

Re: Change the dice attack order to make more split rolls

Re: Change the dice attack order to make more split rolls

Re: Change the dice attack order to make more split rolls

Re: Change the dice attack order to make more split rolls