Conquer Club

Coleman wrote:It is just way to tempting to ruin the above joke. I hope you all realize this is a joke yes? Any chemistry folks out there?

lol, what they are failing to realize though is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is a primary component of one of the worlds greatest medicines. C12H22O11H2O

nikola_milicki wrote:Come one people!!!!! Give us your XXv1 dicerapes.
Maybe thats just one little bug in the program and could be easily fixed. We lose 5,6,7,8,...,14...units attacking just 1 every day and that will continue unless we react now

im actualy starting to think you are having a laugh. THE DICE ARE RANDOM, get over it unless you can present a valid argument why not, this is just stupid hypothesizing, the only people present any eveidence are those with ice analyzers and the 'dice are rigged' camp say that dice analyzers are rigged to.

If they are rigged, why would somebody wqant to.

Is there anybody that has a degree in maths preferably (stats side of maths that agrees that the dice are rigged

boberz wrote:

nikola_milicki wrote:Come one people!!!!! Give us your XXv1 dicerapes.
Maybe thats just one little bug in the program and could be easily fixed. We lose 5,6,7,8,...,14...units attacking just 1 every day and that will continue unless we react now

im actualy starting to think you are having a laugh. THE DICE ARE RANDOM, get over it unless you can present a valid argument why not, this is just stupid hypothesizing, the only people present any eveidence are those with ice analyzers and the 'dice are rigged' camp say that dice analyzers are rigged to.

If they are rigged, why would somebody wqant to.

Is there anybody that has a degree in maths preferably (stats side of maths that agrees that the dice are rigged

You see, that's the great thing about randomness. You could have a system that has never produced anything other than 6's for the defender and 1's for the attacker and still claim that it is random. Stats like that are incredibly unlikely, but they are still possible for a truely random system.

yes but equally it does not mean that our random system has to have a person that has always rolled sixes to make it random. Nobody kows whats coming next so for me that is random

boberz wrote:im actualy starting to think you are having a laugh. THE DICE ARE RANDOM, get over it unless you can present a valid argument

Actually. The dice used in CC is not, and cannot be random. Simply put, electronic dice are not capable of being random as is understood in a statistical sense. The dice simulates randomness, but they are not random.

However, I find them to be good enough. It's the best out there at the moment.

yes i suppose that is true but it still remains that their is no consapiracy

I've always enjoyed the fact that when you enter the lottery, the chances of your numbers coming up is exactly the same as the chances of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 coming up.

If you saw someone entering the lottery each week with those numbers, would you think them an idiot?

Can you imagine if those numbers did come up?

But it's just as likely as your numbers coming up!!

Stops me entering every time (not that the tempation is strong or anything)...

T7 wrote:I've always enjoyed the fact that when you enter the lottery, the chances of your numbers coming up is exactly the same as the chances of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 coming up.

If you saw someone entering the lottery each week with those numbers, would you think them an idiot?

Can you imagine if those numbers did come up?

But it's just as likely as your numbers coming up!!

Stops me entering every time (not that the temptaton is strong or anything)...

It's a good point you make there T7. The numbers you choose have no effect on the chances of you winning. But they do effect the chances of you having to share the jackpot with others if you do win.

You'd be surprised how many people play 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 thinking no one else will.

alstergren wrote:

boberz wrote:im actualy starting to think you are having a laugh. THE DICE ARE RANDOM, get over it unless you can present a valid argument

Actually. The dice used in CC is not, and cannot be random. Simply put, electronic dice are not capable of being random as is understood in a statistical sense. The dice simulates randomness, but they are not random.

However, I find them to be good enough. It's the best out there at the moment.

That isn't quite true. If you use an algorithm to "generate" numbers that resemble randomness, starting from a seed, those numbers are not truly random (and called pseudo-random number generators). However, if your electronic device measures random events in nature (such as radioactive decay), they should be truly random. Don't know about atmospheric noise -- I suppose that if the antenna is mounted at ground level and susceptible to nonrandom events around it (e.g., sprinklers turning on at 8 am every morning, people coming into work at 9, etc., etc.), then there should be deviations from randomness.

My position on this is that I haven't seen any evidence that the results are inconsistent with randomness, but anecdotal observations of someone losing 24v1 (which should happen on average once every 27 billion times) at least raise the possibility there may be an issue.

the dice are perfectly good enough on CC, even if they werent they are exactly the same for everyone anyway! u cannot blame the dice for a poor rank, u can blame them for a loss every now and then but not everytime. plus there are how many thousands of dice rolled every day on here? possibly hundreds of thousands of dice rolled everyday, this means the unexpected will happed more regularly than u expect........

yes thats what i think alex.

if your 24 v 1 happens once in a billion times (or whatever you said) then we must have had that many rolls on cc easy and therefore the 1 or 2 of that specific thing happening is perfectly possible

boberz wrote:yes thats what i think alex.

if your 24 v 1 happens once in a billion times (or whatever you said) then we must have had that many rolls on cc easy and therefore the 1 or 2 of that specific thing happening is perfectly possible

If it is 1 in 27 billion, there have been 600,000 completed games on CC, and each game has exactly 100 rolls of exactly 24v1, the chances of having one such result in the history of CC is about 0.22%. Even if there are 1000 rolls of 24v1 (which seems too high), the chances are still only about 2.21%.

And it has to be rolled by someone who monitors and posts in the forum.

As I said, I don't have any stake in this except curiosity and am agnostic about it all. But the 24v1, if proved to have occurred, would be some evidence against randomness. My point is that you can calculate or estimate the likelihood of something like this happening (even given the aggregate number of dice rolled on CC) and go from there.

And yes, presumably the dice (random or otherwise) are the same for everyone a priori, and the Dice Analyzer results all seem to cluster around the correct probabilities. But if there is nonrandom streakiness in the results (which has yet to be determined), that is a problem when correct strategies based on perfect dice are based on the "proper" level of streakiness that randomness would imply.

it would be exactly evidence FOR randomness! i dont understand how an unlikely event can disprove randomness! that is completely ridiculous, random means anything can happen, so what if its unlikely it still can be random and happen every single time! this is kinda a foolish argument as i expect the guy that posted exaggerated anyway in his anger. plus the dice are good enough.

alex_white101 wrote:it would be exactly evidence FOR randomness! i dont understand how an unlikely event can disprove randomness! that is completely ridiculous, random means anything can happen, so what if its unlikely it still can be random and happen every single time! this is kinda a foolish argument as i expect the guy that posted exaggerated anyway in his anger. plus the dice are good enough.

No, it's not *proof* of nonrandomness, but it is evidence for nonrandomness. Suppose you toss a coin 100 times and every time it comes up heads. Is it possible that this is a random result with a perfectly fair coin? Of course. But it's much more likely that the coin is weighted.

I do agree that it is possible that the 24v1 is exaggerated; I have seen in my game chats people complain about certain results (I lost 15-2 on that round!) when I was watching and they lost something like 8-4.

i still dont see how the fact that something with a small % chance of happening happens how that is evidence for non-randomness....

if that made any sense....

alex_white101 wrote:i still dont see how the fact that something with a small % chance of happening happens how that is evidence for non-randomness....

if that made any sense....

It does make sense and I hear what you are saying. The thing is that we only have the results in front of us and not the process, and we have to infer from the results what whether we think the process is random or not random.

Suppose you toss a physical die and it comes up 1 for 3 straight times. That is *some* evidence that the die is loaded towards rolling 1s. Pretty weak evidence, however. If you toss it 10 more times and it keeps coming up 1s every time. Well -- this could happen out of randomness but it's quite unlikely. So it is much stronger evidence. If you toss it another 100 times and it comes out 1s every time -- it's convincing at that point, even though there is some very, very small chance it all could have been random.

Back to the original point -- losing 24v1 is very unlikely to occur, even in the millions of dice that have been thrown in CC to date. Not impossible (and perhaps not more unlikely than if the next 4 dice I toss all come out 1s). But it's unlikely enough to bear watching.

By contrast, if someone says, "I lost 24v7 in a game once" -- that happens about 0.1% of the time so I have no doubt that in 600,000 games, it will have happened dozens of times. So that is not unusual and wouldn't raise any suspicions at all.

i still think it is random. remember people dont remember average dice when was the last time you heard somebody come on and say look it rolled 5million 4's for me in a row yet 7v1 are coplained about

does anyone ever complain when they go on a streak of decent dice? of course not, you barely notice it and yet people still post threads complaining about the statisically sound dice...........

Overall stats
Attacker threw 24728 dice.
Defender threw 12744 dice.
Wins / Ties / Loses █████████████████████████ 4584 / 1249 / 3037
█████ Attacker wins
█████ Attacker wins 1, defender wins 1
█████ Defender wins


none of this adds up???

why not if the dice are random it does

36000 dice threw and only results for 8,000??????????

jaseleo wrote:36000 dice threw and only results for 8,000??????????

Well, you usually roll 3 dice, and the defender rolls 2. So for each win/loss/tie, about 5 dice are thrown. Hope that makes things clearer .

OnlyAmbrose wrote:The dice aren't changing. Get over it.

Everyone's fine with them except a few malcontents. Dice analyzer stats indicate that they're normal. And we all deal with the same hinderances or helps from the dice, so it evens out whether or not they're random.

Focus on having a good time, man. Forget about the dice.

agreed...it's all for fun anyway right?!

luns101 wrote:But in all seriousness...the more you play, you will discover that there is a randomness to the dice.

True, but lately the dice have been killing me.

How are the dice random when according to the dice analyser you throw an equal number of each dice, surely if they were random they wouldn't be equal?