DIE ROLLS

[Michael Kowalson]

yes sometime the dice seem "stuck". but as mentioned in another topic i recently read, "it is human nature to remeber your loses more than your wins". therefore causing you to think that it is unfair or bias against you. in other words....SUCK IT UP AND DRIVE ON. or you could quit and go home. your choice.

that may be our tendency - which is why I logged the dice and I am WAY off random with 11000 die rolls recorded so far

[Vader_09]

well ive lost over 200 points and gone down 2 ranks in the past 3 days b/c my dice have been so bad.

[fohr_fun]

I would have to agree with this. The auto attack button seems to streak. What I mean by this is that you end up with winning 10 then loosing 8 then winning 14 then loosing 17. The regular attack button does not tend to streak. It is more even. This is probably because the random dice generator sends out it's dice in streaks so that it will be more consistent with the regular attack button which people use more. At the same time, this is creating what would seem impossible, possible with the auto attack button in terms of these huge wins and losses.

Yes law of averages comes into play eventually but the streaks can be so large that it takes a while for those laws to set in. 10 armies isn't enough for law of averages anymore. Now you need 30. Besides, when do you really ever have a 30 on 30 battle. Big battle usually are considered 10-20 armies in my experience.

Also, I think the auto attack button favors the attacker a little more in terms of streaks.

[MeDeFe]

Here's a thesis: It is possible to lose every roll while still having a normal distribution of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s and 6s for both the attacker and the defender.

[F1fth]

If you really think that the auto-attack button is broken, then why not just use the normal attack button. It may take a while longer, but at least then we wouldn't have to see all these bad dice posts.

[graeme89]

I'd like to know what numbers you guys are attacking with, if you attack 6 v 3 then theres a good chance you will lose, however attack 60 v 30 then you will almost certainly win, in other words it takes time for averages to work out. Anyway, what could CC possibly gain by rigging the dice?. Its a conspiracy theory for losers.

[Michael Kowalson]

I'd like to know what numbers you guys are attacking with, if you attack 6 v 3 then theres a good chance you will lose, however attack 60 v 30 then you will almost certainly win, in other words it takes time for averages to work out. Anyway, what could CC possibly gain by rigging the dice?. Its a conspiracy theory for losers.

Let's be clear I am in NO WAY suggesting CC is rigging the dice. - I have checked random.org and rolled 400 rolls of 2 dice and found that doubles (two of the same die) occurred 38% of the time. That is far above statistical probability. If you read their explanations and they make sense but the actual probabilities don't bear them out well. point is there is an issue that needs to be looked at. There is no benefit to CC rigging the dice and in fact, with premium members it would be in their benefit not to as it could cost money to prove dice rigging - not to mention fraud etc with the money involved for membership.

CC rigging the dice is NOT an option. The random generation being flawed - that IS on the table and exactly what I am saying.

[MeDeFe]

Did you decide to look for doubles before you rolled those dice, or did you roll them and the see if you could find anything odd?

[tzor]

Part of the problem is that we look at the average roll, 3 dice against 2 and assume this is a great thing for the attacker. It's hard to reconcile in our heads the 3 against 2 verses the notion that the ties goes to the defender. So I finally decided to throw all the combinations of 5d6 onto a spreadsheet and average up all the armies won against the armies lost.

In a 3 on 2 attack the attacker has the advantage ... well if you consider an average of 0.158179012 per roll all that of an advantge. You have a 29% chance of loosing both your armies, a 34% chance of loosing one army (and your opponent loosing one army) and a 37% chance of having your opponent loose both their armies.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. You see while logic would demand that attcker and defender both loosing an army is a draw, raw emotional logic on the part of the attacker puts that in the realm of minor bad mojo. Let's say for the moment that you have 4 units and the opposition has 4 units. You now loose one and your opponent looses one which is the bad for you because now you have 3 units and you have to atack with 2 dice against his two dice, if you decide to continue the fight.

So dice rolling comes down to three events, the big suck, the little suck, and hey that's what supposed to happen so I'm not really all that impressed. No wonder why we hate the dice! It also explains the law of major numbers, as long as you have enough numbers to apply the law of averages and not drop below a 3 to 2 attack ratio, you should see moderate dgrees of happiness, but alas never enough; never enough.

[edbeard]

I'm well aware of how to do a proper and ethical statistical analysis - used to do it for a living - and I'm saying - over 20 games - now at 23 and the odds are totally NOT matching up.

I have checked random.org and rolled 400 rolls of 2 dice and found that doubles (two of the same die) occurred 38% of the time. That is far above statistical probability. If you read their explanations and they make sense but the actual probabilities don't bear them out well. point is there is an issue that needs to be looked at.

for someone that knows 'how to do a proper...statistical analysis,' you sure don't understand the law of large numbers. Or, you are choosing to ignore it, which would be even worse.

[Ray Rider]

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. You see while logic would demand that attcker and defender both loosing an army is a draw, raw emotional logic on the part of the attacker puts that in the realm of minor bad mojo. Let's say for the moment that you have 4 units and the opposition has 4 units. You now loose one and your opponent looses one which is the bad for you because now you have 3 units and you have to atack with 2 dice against his two dice, if you decide to continue the fight.

So dice rolling comes down to three events, the big suck, the little suck, and hey that's what supposed to happen so I'm not really all that impressed. No wonder why we hate the dice!

Heh heh, that's very interesting. I never thought of it like that before.

[Stopper]

Here's a thesis: It is possible to lose every roll while still having a normal distribution of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s and 6s for both the attacker and the defender.

I remember this post made by tahitiwahini back in April:

...When we talk about streaks at CC we usually mean bad attack outcomes. So for instance if we get the following dice rolls:

1 2 3 4 5 2 5 2 5 2 1 4 6 5 6 3 2 4 4 3 2 1 5 6 3 2 1 6 3 6

looks pretty random, yes?

What if we were making a series of 3v2 dice attacks and we received the above dice rolls:

[(1 2 3) (4 5)] = attacker loses two armies
[(2 5 2) (5 2)] = attacker loses two armies
[(1 4 6) (5 6)] = attacker loses two armies
[(3 2 4) (4 3)] = attacker loses two armies
[(2 1 5) (6 3)] = attacker loses two armies
[(2 1 6) (3 6)] = attacker loses two armies

We've just lost 12 attacking armies and the defender has lost none. All this carnage resulted from an innocent (and random) looking string of dice rolls...

I don't know if it really reveals much, but it struck me as interesting enough not to forget it...

[-ShadySoul-]

no strategy in the world will help u against brutal dice
even though i have played very few games, i already got a taste of its power

[Robinette]

Okay, I think we can all agree that Random dice CAN be streaky, and that is in itself part of being Random... Fortunately there are fewer than 2% of players benefiting from a dice patch, and the benefit is much smaller than most people realize. Some of you already know how difficult the patch is to manipulate the color of cards, but for those who haven't tried it, the dice patch is much much harder and only adds 1 to less than 40% of the dice.

Adding 1 to less than 40% of the dice does NOT make you invincible, you will still lose LOTS of rolls, it is clearly only a SMALL advantage, about equivalent to the advantage of using greasemoney... so clearly even with that advantage it's not like there is some sort-of "golden" dice club dominating and controlling the dice. Lucky streaks and unlucky streaks remain the key element here.

Most use Greasemonkey because it is easy, a few use the card patch because it is hard, but VERY FEW use the dice patch because it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. And I personally think that anybody who takes the time to do it, deserves the small advantage it affords. For those who are interested, here's how it's done:

First off, it is all about the Cyclomatic Code Complexity within the dice algorithm . The simple part to explain is that on this site the dice algorithm code complexity is defined by control flow, and obviously there are different ways of measuring complexity (e.g. data complexity, module complexity, algorithmic complexity, call-to, call-by, etc.), and although these other methods are effective in the right context, it seems to be generally accepted that control flow is one of the most useful measurements of complexity, and high complexity methods have been shown to be a strong indicator of low reliability and frequent errors. That's simple enough, but it's what we do with it that's so cool... This measure provides a single ordinal number that can be compared to the complexity of other methods. Because of static software metrics intended to be independent of language and language format, Cyclomatic Code Complexity becomes a measure of the number of linearly-independent paths through a program module and is calculated by counting the number of decision points found in the code. Stay with me people... I use a Lutz Roeders Reflector which basically allows the user to point his Reflector tool at any Common Langauge Runtime (CLR) assembly, and it will then de-compile this creating an entirely reflected treeview with all the objects from the source assembly shown, with code. Yes with code. Great stuff. Basically you can use this tool to see how any valid CLR (assuming it has not been obfuscated) assembly works. Anyway the up shot of it, is that we get a boolean to say that the current file is valid or not, that is all we care about at the moment. So if the file requested is not a valid CLR type an error message is shown, and nothing else is done. However, if the input file is a valid CLR file, it is then checked to see if the file is a "System" assembly, and if it is... eureka! You get an extra digit on the dice. Ok so thats pretty much all there is to it.

[MeDeFe]

I take my hat off to you Robinette, that's the most convincing literary piece of nonsense I have ever seen on these forums.

[MOBAJOBG]

Robinette, I shall read your response during the weekend when I have much more time to spare.

[graeme89]

Also consider using a slightly more defensive strategy if the dice so favour the defender, ever remember if someone was attacking you and you got lucky?, I rarely hear people talking about that. I remember being attacked by 20 armies against my 5 and I held out.
Also I suppose in real warfare the defender often holds out against greater numbers.

[-ShadySoul-]

Robinette, I shall read your response during the weekend when I have much more time to spare.

I second that

[Herakilla]

Robinette, I shall read your response during the weekend when I have much more time to spare.

I second that

all of robinettes posts are like than when she gets into it.

my english teacher would call said posts

"a bunch of verbose, pompous nonsense!"

[-ShadySoul-]

Robinette, I shall read your response during the weekend when I have much more time to spare.

I second that

all of robinettes posts are like than when she gets into it.

my english teacher would call said posts

"a bunch of verbose, pompous nonsense!"

thats how my English teacher comments on my work

[Herakilla]

thats not a good thing man!

[-ShadySoul-]

I am starting to think she is after me....

[The_Inevitable]

cause you really give a dang what i think...

My issue with the dice is that the random atmospheric generation is great IF you have a constant stream of new data coming in. The set that is used technically comes from a random source, but the fact that it's a closed set is a problem.

Has anybody actually run hypothesis tests on the data set used? I'd be interested in seeing the results.

[BaldAdonis]

Has anybody actually run hypothesis tests on the data set used? I'd be interested in seeing the results.

There's a dice analyzer in the Plug-Ins section, a lot of people post their results if you want to look for them. The probabilities always end up where they should.

[-ShadySoul-]

with a few % differences