Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:55 pm**

owenshooter wrote:
Condestável wrote:
Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:I invite you to play a game with me and tell if I need advice,

You do.

I've won 47% of games.

You have won 42%.

What type of advice can you present me?

um... scoreboard? 2866 > 1312... much, much greater... i hate when people say shit about percentages, etc... hell, i have a 56% win ratio, means nothing to people that don't play team games... you have to take into account a lot of factors before you straight up try to compare your stats against another players stats... you kind of come off looking like a dolt with the statement you made... you should have taken him up on his offer, it might have gotten you out of the rank doldrums...-Jésus noir

Don't be a dolt yourself. He was being scornful and patronizing, to which I politely replied with a fact. And you are whiteknighting him and being even worse.

I get -5 to -20% (3.0 to 3.3 vs 3.6 to 3.7) in the dice rolls that matter against most people I've played with since I came back. And it was already like this when I left.

Read above, I already compared rolls with sites like
http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/risk/
http://www.phauna.org/risk/

It's ridiculous.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:37 pm**

Condestável wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Condestável wrote:
Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:I invite you to play a game with me and tell if I need advice,

You do.

I've won 47% of games.

You have won 42%.

What type of advice can you present me?

um... scoreboard? 2866 > 1312... much, much greater... i hate when people say shit about percentages, etc... hell, i have a 56% win ratio, means nothing to people that don't play team games... you have to take into account a lot of factors before you straight up try to compare your stats against another players stats... you kind of come off looking like a dolt with the statement you made... you should have taken him up on his offer, it might have gotten you out of the rank doldrums...-Jésus noir

Don't be a dolt yourself. He was being scornful and patronizing, to which I politely replied with a fact. And you are whiteknighting him and being even worse.

I get -5 to -20% (3.0 to 3.3 vs 3.6 to 3.7) in the dice rolls that matter against most people I've played with since I came back. And it was already like this when I left.

Read above, I already compared rolls with sites like
http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/risk/
http://www.phauna.org/risk/

It's ridiculous.

Sometimes I don't know of you're still trolling.

I've played lots of FFA's back in the game, dont expect a 50% winrate in 8 player games. You were bitching to somebody else stating you were clearly faultless, and fault me for saying you're bad.

I'll say it again because I've said it countless of times already. You're bad. If this is all for real, see a doctor or something. This level of "the world is against me" is a bit unhealthy.

Score doesn't always matter, I'm not the best player around, I don't consider myself very good. I don't play perfect turns, I just play better turns than my opponent. If the dice sucks, that's a bummer but it happens. You'll still win 90% of your games vs player X if your strategy is better than player X's. Good example is myself vs my clanmate [player]JBlombier[/player]. We've played quite a bit of poly 2, 3 and 4's and he wins around 60% , simply because he's a better player overall.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:41 pm**

Oh, small addition but not editing my post:
http://gamesbyemail.com/games/gambit/battleodds is by far the best odds calculator I've seen that is not an add-on.

Posted: **Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:52 pm**

[player]flacodoc[/player] is a extreme case but this is why win % is a out of context stat. FYI the training academy is not going to make u a better player , but it offers you a tried and true strategy to "maintenance" ur rank so u can get the benefit of "higher ranks dice" lol

Condestável wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Condestável wrote:
Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:I invite you to play a game with me and tell if I need advice,

You do.

I've won 47% of games.

You have won 42%.

What type of advice can you present me?

um... scoreboard? 2866 > 1312... much, much greater... i hate when people say shit about percentages, etc... hell, i have a 56% win ratio, means nothing to people that don't play team games... you have to take into account a lot of factors before you straight up try to compare your stats against another players stats... you kind of come off looking like a dolt with the statement you made... you should have taken him up on his offer, it might have gotten you out of the rank doldrums...-Jésus noir

Don't be a dolt yourself. He was being scornful and patronizing, to which I politely replied with a fact. And you are whiteknighting him and being even worse.

I get -5 to -20% (3.0 to 3.3 vs 3.6 to 3.7) in the dice rolls that matter against most people I've played with since I came back. And it was already like this when I left.

Read above, I already compared rolls with sites like
http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/risk/
http://www.phauna.org/risk/

It's ridiculous.

Posted: **Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:39 pm**

degaston wrote:
Symmetry wrote:The dice rolls are not truly random. This is a simple fact that any mathematician will be happy to confirm for you.

Last time I checked, the rolls were drawn from random.org, which generated numbers from atmospheric data, or something like that. The mods refuse to accept the judgements of the cat I've been keeping in a box for so long now that it's untrue.

Or true, possibly. I'd have to open the box.

I guess it's been a while since you checked. They stopped using random.org long ago. Now (or at least the last I heard) they're re-using one 50,000 roll data file over and over.

Are you telling me that my cat is dead? The only way you could know that for certain would be if you opened the box and collapsed the fields. Did you kill my cat?

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:48 am**

Symmetry wrote:Are you telling me that my cat is dead? The only way you could know that for certain would be if you opened the box and collapsed the fields. Did you kill my cat?

Dummy! You were only supposed to leave the cat in the box for an hour! If you left it in there and haven't fed it since the time when they were using random.org, then it's not my fault that it's dead. And if you're the kind of person who would put their cat in a box with poison, and not feed it, then you shouldn't get another one.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:21 am**

degaston wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Are you telling me that my cat is dead? The only way you could know that for certain would be if you opened the box and collapsed the fields. Did you kill my cat?

Dummy! You were only supposed to leave the cat in the box for an hour! If you left it in there and haven't fed it since the time when they were using random.org, then it's not my fault that it's dead. And if you're the kind of person who would put their cat in a box with poison, and not feed it, then you shouldn't get another one.

Damn, there was no way I could have predicted that. I should probably ring the bell for my doggie waste disposal. I'm worried that I'm overplaying the signal though

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:01 am**

Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Condestável wrote:
Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:I invite you to play a game with me and tell if I need advice,

You do.

I've won 47% of games.

You have won 42%.

What type of advice can you present me?

um... scoreboard? 2866 > 1312... much, much greater... i hate when people say shit about percentages, etc... hell, i have a 56% win ratio, means nothing to people that don't play team games... you have to take into account a lot of factors before you straight up try to compare your stats against another players stats... you kind of come off looking like a dolt with the statement you made... you should have taken him up on his offer, it might have gotten you out of the rank doldrums...-Jésus noir

Don't be a dolt yourself. He was being scornful and patronizing, to which I politely replied with a fact. And you are whiteknighting him and being even worse.

I get -5 to -20% (3.0 to 3.3 vs 3.6 to 3.7) in the dice rolls that matter against most people I've played with since I came back. And it was already like this when I left.

Read above, I already compared rolls with sites like
http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/risk/
http://www.phauna.org/risk/

It's ridiculous.

Sometimes I don't know of you're still trolling.

I've played lots of FFA's back in the game, dont expect a 50% winrate in 8 player games. You were bitching to somebody else stating you were clearly faultless, and fault me for saying you're bad.

I'll say it again becauise I've said it countless of times already. You're bad.

You're worse.

And not very smart.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:02 am**

Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Condestável wrote:
Extreme Ways wrote:
Condestável wrote:I invite you to play a game with me and tell if I need advice,

You do.

I've won 47% of games.

You have won 42%.

What type of advice can you present me?

um... scoreboard? 2866 > 1312... much, much greater... i hate when people say shit about percentages, etc... hell, i have a 56% win ratio, means nothing to people that don't play team games... you have to take into account a lot of factors before you straight up try to compare your stats against another players stats... you kind of come off looking like a dolt with the statement you made... you should have taken him up on his offer, it might have gotten you out of the rank doldrums...-Jésus noir

Don't be a dolt yourself. He was being scornful and patronizing, to which I politely replied with a fact. And you are whiteknighting him and being even worse.

I get -5 to -20% (3.0 to 3.3 vs 3.6 to 3.7) in the dice rolls that matter against most people I've played with since I came back. And it was already like this when I left.

Read above, I already compared rolls with sites like
http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/risk/
http://www.phauna.org/risk/

It's ridiculous.

Sometimes I don't know of you're still trolling.

I've played lots of FFA's back in the game, dont expect a 50% winrate in 8 player games. You were bitching to somebody else stating you were clearly faultless, and fault me for saying you're bad.

I'll say it again becauise I've said it countless of times already. You're bad.

You're worse.

And not very smart.

Then again you're only 19. Every western kid that age is a pedantic baby.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:19 am**

Condestável wrote:You're worse.

And not very smart.

Then again you're only 19. Every western kid that age is a pedantic baby.

Haha, coming from the petulant fella who thinks you can just compare any win ratio :lol:

If you hate the luck-factor so much, then why the f*ck are you playing 1v1's? Multiplayer games(3-12 players) in general are much less luck dependent.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:39 am**

Condestável wrote:You're worse.

And not very smart.

Then again you're only 19. Every western kid that age is a pedantic baby.

I'm not very smart because I just now read 2 spelling errors I made. "Of" instead of "If" and "Game" instead of "Day". I'm sorry for that.

Hey, if you're such a cool kid who's fighting bullshit dice who's clearly better than anybody else but can't even reach 1400 point playing 1v1's only, you can't be wrong. When playing 1v1's only, major probably is the highest you'll get (except if you're GLG farming NR's). I'd bet everybody who has thus far responded in this thread will beat you 8 out of 10 times minimum when challenged at poly quads or trips with either escalating or no spoils on standard gameplay maps.

Also, you've mentioned you're just posting stats like my winrate. Check your dice stats, battle outcomes, all time :roll:

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:07 am**

waauw wrote:
Condestável wrote:You're worse.

And not very smart.

Then again you're only 19. Every western kid that age is a pedantic baby.

Haha, coming from the petulant fella who thinks you can just compare any win ratio
If you hate the luck-factor so much, then why the f*ck are you playing 1v1's? Multiplayer games(3-12 players) in general are much less luck dependent.

I haven't attacked anyone or boasted anything, I just use this thread to post the permanently shitty numbers. You don't have to come here.

Did I boast anything, did I call anyone names?

Well, I should know that these types of sites are prone to attract basement dwellers who will come with shit and circlejerk.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:20 am**

Another day at Conquer Club.

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:36 am**

How aren't you a cook then?

Posted: **Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:18 pm**

Let's play another relaxing game:

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:24 pm**

Condestável wrote:
waauw wrote:
Condestável wrote:You're worse.

And not very smart.

Then again you're only 19. Every western kid that age is a pedantic baby.

Haha, coming from the petulant fella who thinks you can just compare any win ratio
If you hate the luck-factor so much, then why the f*ck are you playing 1v1's? Multiplayer games(3-12 players) in general are much less luck dependent.

I haven't attacked anyone or boasted anything, I just use this thread to post the permanently shitty numbers. You don't have to come here.

Did I boast anything, did I call anyone names?

Well, I should know that these types of sites are prone to attract basement dwellers who will come with shit and circlejerk.

Yes you called names. Read what's between the the quotation brackets lad.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:18 am**

I would be very interested to see the result of dice stats versus various ranks. I would wager that the stats are better against lower ranks than higher. I have lost 600 rank points by only playing people higher ranked. Yes, of course they may well be better players but I had won over 30% of games I'd played (and most are 5+ players) and I've lost every single game.

IT's hard to see the dice stats like this but I can see consistently poor luck scores over 25 throws with players better and similarly my dice stats are consistently better against weaker players (not that there are many of them now I have my lowest rank ever!)

Over and over you lose 9 v 2 for example and almost always when it is strategically important.

I'm aware this sounds like sour grapes and it is!!!

Would love to see CC prove me wrong!

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:57 am**

sprucey wrote:I would be very interested to see the result of dice stats versus various ranks. I would wager that the stats are better against lower ranks than higher.

this is just hilarious... i don't understand why mediocre/low ranked players are forever whining about the dice. usually, it is freemium members whining that premium members get better dice. you sir, are unique. the first low ranking premium member that i have seen make the accusations you have made... the black jesus is both pleased and amused... thank you...-Jésus noir

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:00 pm**

If that's the case, why is my score constantly fluctuating ~800pts?

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:26 pm**

iAmCaffeine wrote:If that's the case, why is my score constantly fluctuating ~800pts?

you just play shitty games... that was really THAT confusing to you? ha!! you know you are my fav!!! the black jesus has spoken...-Bj

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:40 am**

Yawn....

Show me where CC state that this is a simple random number generator and not some algorithm. Routinely dice are better against lower ranked opposition. I've been sad enough to check them it's that irritating.

Instead of the tool 'black Jesus' be great if CC could confirm categorically that it's as simple as a random number generator at all times

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2016 4:34 pm**

sprucey wrote:Yawn....

Show me where CC state that this is a simple random number generator and not some algorithm. Routinely dice are better against lower ranked opposition. I've been sad enough to check them it's that irritating.

Instead of the tool 'black Jesus' be great if CC could confirm categorically that it's as simple as a random number generator at all times

I'd be interested in looking at your data. A while ago I proposed a sub forum for stats discussion, but it was damned from the start, partly because people would use it to analyse stats.

How did you run your numbers?

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:12 pm**

sprucey wrote:Yawn....

Show me where CC state that this is a simple random number generator and not some algorithm. Routinely dice are better against lower ranked opposition. I've been sad enough to check them it's that irritating.

Instead of the tool 'black Jesus' be great if CC could confirm categorically that it's as simple as a random number generator at all times

The closest thing I'm aware of to an official statement is from 2010:

lackattack wrote:We haven't touched the dice... erm, intensity cubes since February 14, 2006 because they were pretty darn random (see here). However, thanks to some prodding and advice from Dako, sherkaner and jakewilliams I became convinced that it is worthwhile to make some alterations.

This is how the intensity cubes now work:
We have a series of 50,000 high quality random numbers from random.org
Each time the game engine generates a random intensity cube, the next number is read in sequence from the series (e.g. in a 3v1 attack 4 numbers are read sequentially)
When the last number in the series is read, we "rewind" and continue with the first number in the series

The advantages are twofold:
Each individual number in the series is used for both attacker and defender, so our intensity cubes cannot be biased for either side.
The series is stored in memory so the dice perform much faster. This makes a huge difference when auto-assault is used with large numbers of troops on both sides.

An interesting note - as of June 2010 Conquer Club processes 1,000,000 assaults each day!

The thread is here

In this thread, it was claimed that the dice data was updated every hour, but this was proven to be false because there was a bias in the data that they were using. As far as I know, they normalized the dice data to remove the bias, but did not make any other changes.

There was never any indication that the dice were being manipulated to favor one player over another. Go ahead and show your proof if you think you have it. There is no benefit to them doing this, and it would needlessly complicate the code. I've examined a sample of about 40 player's dice stats, and there is a fairly strong correlation between how people choose to play, and their score.

Posted: **Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:24 pm**

It's almost as if there could be a sub forum

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2016 6:07 am**

Symmetry wrote:It's almost as if there could be a sub forum

You should start a thread and see who'd join.

Conquer Club

dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks

Re: dice sucks