DICE PROBLEMS ??? CENSORED ???

[Ros]

These were 3 separate clicks.

The odds to get the same 5 digit number are : 6x6x6x6x6= 7056 and then 7056x7056x7056= 351.298.031.616.

That's a chance of 1 out of at least 351 billion !!

It's a little less than that -- given the first one, it's 6^-5 for the second one and another 6^-5 for the third one, but still 1 in 60.5 million. Maybe we can test for identical rolls like you had though, because it should almost never happen.

You're right Bean. Still 1 on 60.5 million is a very small chance.

Hopefully u guys can get a program to do some research on 'random picked file numbers'

[friendjonny]

shoot, I had a file stuck situation where it repeated the same five numbers but I forgot to record it

[Bean_]

Repeated once or more than once? Auto attack or not?

[Pedronicus]

and what the f*ck is up with the cards?
I play a set with China as a blue card, take a terri and get china as a card but this time green.

How does it get to the top of the pile (this happens a lot) and the colour changes.
Please can we have a stack of cards of the same colour each time being placed to the bottom of the pile.
If you were on china when you played the set - you're more or less going to be on china when you end your go.
I'd rather pick up 'Ontario' next and maybe work toward owning that.

Fucking sticking programmes.

On a 3 v 1 situation, and the defender throws 6, I've seen it throw another 5 sixes.
again ridiculous odds.

And this keeps happening.

I left this site because I was sick of the dice. I posted info after manual dice counting and was dismissed for not having a big enough sample to accurately determine a conclusion.
Since I rejoined, I got dice analyzer working. 11K throws should be a decent enough sample of throws and every dice should be around 16.6%
But if you can't defend against a 6 and attacking with a 1 won't win, guess whats being thrown by me and the defender?
correct....
Attacker dice distribution Defender dice distribution
1s 1934 / 11250 (17.19%) 934 / 5716 (16.34%)
2s 1867 / 11250 (16.6%) 971 / 5716 (16.99%)
3s 1918 / 11250 (17.05%) 965 / 5716 (16.88%)
4s 1797 / 11250 (15.97%) 967 / 5716 (16.92%)
5s 1855 / 11250 (16.49%) 900 / 5716 (15.75%)
6s 1879 / 11250 (16.7%) 979 / 5716 (17.13%)

[Timminz]

and what the f*ck is up with the cards?
I play a set with China as a blue card, take a terri and get china as a card but this time green.

How does it get to the top of the pile (this happens a lot) and the colour changes.

The cards don't come from a stack (or deck), they are assigned randomly out of the available terits when you draw it, and the colour is randomly assigned at that point too.

[Pedronicus]

The cards don't come from a stack (or deck), they are assigned randomly out of the available terits when you draw it, and the colour is randomly assigned at that point too.

Yeah, but even that random programme seems to stick.
My point is that the random programme that is being used is flawed, and that would be one method of reducing the workload on the randomizer and making the game fairer and more like playing risk.

I don't play monopoly and hand in my get out of jail card, placing it on top of the community chest to benefit someone else.

Cards to the bottom of a stack are important

[Timminz]

The cards don't come from a stack (or deck), they are assigned randomly out of the available terits when you draw it, and the colour is randomly assigned at that point too.

Yeah, but even that random programme seems to stick

Are you saying you got the same card over and over, or just twice in a row? You also said that it was a different colour. How would that show it was sticking? the odds for drawing a card that you just used to cash is 3 in 42, or 1/14. That's assuming all cards are available (ie. you cashed with only 3, and no one else has any). On the other end of that spectrum, if everyone in an 8-way game has 5 cards, and you cash, that'll leave you with 2 cards, and 35 others in play (7 people with 5 each). This would mean your odds for drawing a card that you just used would be 3 in 5. 60%

edit, for edit above....

My point is that the random programme that is being used is flawed, and that would be one method of reducing the workload on the randomizer and making the game fairer and more like playing risk.

I don't play monopoly and hand in my get out of jail card, placing it on top of the community chest to benefit someone else.

Cards to the bottom of a stack are important

You're not here to play RISK. You're here for

an online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.

"variation" being the operative word there.

[Pedronicus]

The variation is substandard to the original and I'm paying for the pleasure for a substandard load of random shite.

[Timminz]

The variation is substandard to the original and I'm paying for the pleasure for a substandard load of random shite.

ok then. you could just saved your $25/year and play in real life everyday.

[Dancing Mustard]

Moar Mudkips!!!

[Pedronicus]

I left here because of the dice.
I will leave here once my premium runs out.

[edbeard]

I left this site because I was sick of the dice. I posted info after manual dice counting and was dismissed for not having a big enough sample to accurately determine a conclusion.
Since I rejoined, I got dice analyzer working. 11K throws should be a decent enough sample of throws and every dice should be around 16.6%
But if you can't defend against a 6 and attacking with a 1 won't win, guess whats being thrown by me and the defender?
correct....
Attacker dice distribution Defender dice distribution
1s 1934 / 11250 (17.19%) 934 / 5716 (16.34%)
2s 1867 / 11250 (16.6%) 971 / 5716 (16.99%)
3s 1918 / 11250 (17.05%) 965 / 5716 (16.88%)
4s 1797 / 11250 (15.97%) 967 / 5716 (16.92%)
5s 1855 / 11250 (16.49%) 900 / 5716 (15.75%)
6s 1879 / 11250 (16.7%) 979 / 5716 (17.13%)

actually 11k really isn't a large enough sample. you'll see variation for even 100k throws. you need a huge sample to get everything at .166

Though a 95% confidence interval does contain all your values

attacker (.1591, .1728)
defender (.1564, .1756)

which shows that the dice are most likely following the proper distribution. We're 95% confident a distribution where .166 is the p^ falls into this interval.


how to calculate:

p^ +- z(alpha/2) * sqrt[(p^)*(1-p^)/n]

for the attacker:

.166 +- 1.96 * sqrt(.166*.834/11250) = .166 +- sqrt(.000012306) = .166 +- 1.96(.00350801) = .166 +- .006875699

lets round to .166 +- .00688 = (.15912, .17288)

for the defender:

.166 +- .009645995 = (.1564, .1756)

[Itrade]

Are the lines of dice random? Maybe in the end there are 416,666 instances of each number turning up (that's five hundred thousand lines of dice rolls multiplied by five dice in each roll divided by the six numbers) but the attacker's sixes are hidden in the columns for the dice that aren't included in 3 v 1s and 2 v 1s.

Or maybe it's like this. Imagine twelve lines. You'll end up with 60 numbers. If it's fairly distributed you'll end up with 10 ones, 10 twos, 10 threes, 10 fours, 10 fives, and 10 sixes. However, if the lines look like this:
12112
22122
11212
21112
34334
44344
33434
43334
56556
66566
55656
65556
The defender will end up winning every single time.

Oh, dang, I forgot my point.

[gloryordeath]

I voted I'm with you now here is my last post from one of a long list of these endless threads....

OK your right now fix it! I'll wait for you to poop out a better web sight for dice. I get pissed as much as the next guy but I am just as tiered of the lack of useful input. This is a problem so where is a fix or even a what if we tried this? If it is so easy to make a random generator that will work better then tell me how. I like learning this stuff and it would be flipping cool as ship if I could learn how to do it and start my own web sight that sets this stuff up for sites like this to use, I could even make a bit of cash if it was that good.

[edbeard]

These were 3 separate clicks.

The odds to get the same 5 digit number are : 6x6x6x6x6= 7056 and then 7056x7056x7056= 351.298.031.616.

That's a chance of 1 out of at least 351 billion !!

It's a little less than that -- given the first one, it's 6^-5 for the second one and another 6^-5 for the third one, but still 1 in 60.5 million. Maybe we can test for identical rolls like you had though, because it should almost never happen.

you're post is a bit misleading (and by a bit I mean very). this is the same chance of (given starting with 12615) getting any specific combo of five dice where no two in the either portion (3 for attacker and 2 for defender are the same)

EG: after getting 12615, if I wanted to see the chance of getting 12345 then 65432 it's the same chance of getting 12615 then 12615


though I do agree it looks suspect and is worth checking to see if there is a problem of CC somehow reading the same line twice.

[dustn64]

After seeing the dice counter, I have no problem with the rolls. In fact, they seem to go in my favor most of the time.