Conquer Club

Funkyterrance wrote:Ahh finally someone whose dice superstitions rival my own.

Of course you don't turn in busy public places, this is elementary and does not even require mentioning.
On the more supernaturally charged maps I have to spiritually sober myself up before rolling, otherwise: dice tank.
Whenever I have the option I switch my attacks back and forth between terts, giving the dice gods variety, the spice of life.
If I am about to turn in a particularly important game and get "that black feeling" I wait several hours until it feels "white" again.

I only wish I knew which deity actually controlled all of this. I always figure Zeus is as good a bet as any.

I think the dice gods are really very fair. Look at poor misguided Radaga up there. He curses them, he screams at them and insults them probably daily. Is it no wonder that the dice gods punish him by making his dice comedically awful? I on the other hand treat them with complete respect, I never curse them. And I tend to get great dice...and in this I mean I rarely get bad dice at crucial moments. Of course it happens...but not all that often...and I believe this is due to my treating the concept of luck with the utmost piety.

Very solid point Mr. C. The beauty of it all is that it is never too late for a heathen to "see the light" and start turning around 7 times (the number Zeus' house is ruled by) before every turn.
*Zeus rests back in his throne, smiles, outstretches his hand...*
Funkyterrance gained 18 points

yeah yeah. I found the ultimate explanation you all resort to "win" over the dice critics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

We are all morons therefor the dice are crooked
vs
The dice are crooked, therefor we act as morons, but if the dice were not crooked we would be gentleman?

I think it is: the dice are not as i like them, therefor i act as a moron. I am no moron because i can find the reply button, but hell internet has no mama eye's. So morons, here i moronicly come!

SirSebstar wrote:We are all morons therefor the dice are crooked
vs
The dice are crooked, therefor we act as morons, but if the dice were not crooked we would be gentleman?

I think it is: the dice are not as i like them, therefor i act as a moron. I am no moron because i can find the reply button, but hell internet has no mama eye's. So morons, here i moronicly come!

Thats Psychology. More precisely, R.D. Laing

high praise, thanks

RADAGA wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:We are all morons therefor the dice are crooked
vs
The dice are crooked, therefor we act as morons, but if the dice were not crooked we would be gentleman?

I think it is: the dice are not as i like them, therefor i act as a moron. I am no moron because i can find the reply button, but hell internet has no mama eye's. So morons, here i moronicly come!

Thats Psychology. More precisely, R.D. Laing

Moving from Psychology to Literature.... Have you ever read a tale of two cities? I think you might find a part relevant to your feelings about the dice.

cant believe people doubt that the dice are very streaky compared to how they should be. all you have to do is get out the boardgame game of risk at home and have a game (or ten), you wont find yourself being robbed of games nearly as often by the dice.

trinicardinal wrote:

RADAGA wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:We are all morons therefor the dice are crooked
vs
The dice are crooked, therefor we act as morons, but if the dice were not crooked we would be gentleman?

I think it is: the dice are not as i like them, therefor i act as a moron. I am no moron because i can find the reply button, but hell internet has no mama eye's. So morons, here i moronicly come!

Thats Psychology. More precisely, R.D. Laing

Moving from Psychology to Literature.... Have you ever read a tale of two cities? I think you might find a part relevant to your feelings about the dice.

Actually I did. I read about a book a week...

For the new feature, here the proof I complain either beccause I am very unlucky, or it is broken

Luck Avg Roll 1's 2's 3's 4's 5's 6's Luck Avg Roll 1's 2's 3's 4's 5's 6's

Assault -3% 3.43 23 12 17 19 18 16 -6% 3.36 5 11 7 8 10 3
Defend -24% 2.89 10 9 4 6 8 1 -13% 3.18 19 22 18 9 10 16
Total -8% 3.29 33 21 21 25 26 17 -10% 3.24 24 33 25 17 20 19

the lucks -3% / -24% / -8% ..... -6% / -13% / -10%

Are those the recent or overall results? Show us your overall battle outcome results. Those are the ones that matter.

For reference, here's mine

Overall battle outcomes
natty_dread 4.8 vs all opponents
3 vs 2 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 2 vs 1 1 vs 2 1 vs 1
Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses
Assault -2% 1689 1545 -2% 644 358 +17% 9 7 -8% 13 13 -26% 0 3 -27% 1 6
Defend +1% 2238 2568 -1% 300 614 -23% 10 16 +2% 8 10 -25% 4 4 -1% 8 6
Total 0% 3927 4113 -1% 944 972 -7% 19 23 -4% 21 23 -25% 4 7 -10% 9 12

3 vs 2 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 2 vs 1 1 vs 2 1 vs 1
Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses
Assault 0% 1181 1005 0% 728 371 +11% 13 13 -9% 32 33 +8% 1 2 -8% 14 28
Defend -1% 1078 1306 -2% 319 673 -2% 55 39 -14% 20 50 +15% 17 2 0% 29 21
Total 0% 2259 2311 -1% 1047 1044 0% 68 52 -11% 52 83 +14% 18 4 -4% 43 49

Even then, all below average. Yours are, too.

Does ANYONE have above average results?

Let's look at your results, RAGADA...

3v2 rolls: Total 0%
3v1 rolls: Total -1%

Now, all the others are irrelevant, as the sample sizes for all the other categories are too small, therefore more variation is to be expected for them. So we're going to ignore those.

So, what you have is 0% in 3v2 results. That's a perfectly normal result: not worse than expected, not better. You do have -1% in 3v1 assaults. However, there's still only about 2000 results recorded, so the 1% difference falls well within expected deviation.

See, the way randomness works is: the larger the sample size, the closer the results will be to the expected mean. With smaller sample sizes, you can expect more variation. So you need to compare all results against the sample size.

In other words, you're getting perfectly normal dice.

natty_dread wrote:Let's look at your results, RAGADA...

3v2 rolls: Total 0%
3v1 rolls: Total -1%

Now, all the others are irrelevant, as the sample sizes for all the other categories are too small, therefore more variation is to be expected for them. So we're going to ignore those.

So, what you have is 0% in 3v2 results. That's a perfectly normal result: not worse than expected, not better. You do have -1% in 3v1 assaults. However, there's still only about 2000 results recorded, so the 1% difference falls well within expected deviation.

See, the way randomness works is: the larger the sample size, the closer the results will be to the expected mean. With smaller sample sizes, you can expect more variation. So you need to compare all results against the sample size.

In other words, you're getting perfectly normal dice.

That doesn't answer the bit about streakiness.

Metsfanmax wrote:That doesn't answer the bit about streakiness.

Of course it doesn't. That wasn't under question here.

What does answer the question of streakiness is, that random numbers are naturally streaky. Go to random.org and get a sample of as many random numbers as they give you for free. See how many streaks you can spot. Make it like a game, reward yourself with a slap on the back for each streak you see!

Oh, but that was. My WHOLE rant about dice is about it being streaky, not about it averaging out.

I have said SEVERAL times that, if you get this sample dice: 1;1;1;2;2;2;3;3;3;4;4;4;5;5;5;6;6;6 will show as a perfectly evened out sample of dice. 3 results for each, on a (6x3) sample.

however, it is streaky.

My whole point is not about 3x1 status being right or wrong, it is about you go on an attack like that

win/win/lose/lose/win/win/win/lose/win/lose (perfectly normal) then suddently, you hit a lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose

BTW, everyone here know about the streakiness, thats why you ALL advice against "Autoattack"

if it was THAT perfect, you won´t see ridiculous autoattack results a LOT of times when you use that option.

It is ACTUALLY very rare to autoattack an enemy stack with a stack of your own and see the that the outcome was pretty average.

USUALLY either you lose ALL and kill very little of the enemy, or you hardly lose an army, and kill the stack.

thats why some people always autoattack when on gross disadvantage. They are betting on the system, knowing that they have a fair chance to win that 40-army-stack with their 7, if they autoattack.

RADAGA wrote:... hit a lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose

BTW, everyone here know about the streakiness, thats why you ALL advice against "Autoattack"
...

no they don't. i use it always.
Not doing it however can give you some fallback position so you can cut your lossess. It is not about the dice being streaky, it is about being in control and making your own go/no go desicion

RADAGA wrote:3 vs 2 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 2 vs 1 1 vs 2 1 vs 1
Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses
Assault 0% 1181 1005 0% 728 371 +11% 13 13 -9% 32 33 +8% 1 2 -8% 14 28
Defend -1% 1078 1306 -2% 319 673 -2% 55 39 -14% 20 50 +15% 17 2 0% 29 21
Total 0% 2259 2311 -1% 1047 1044 0% 68 52 -11% 52 83 +14% 18 4 -4% 43 49

Even then, all below average. Yours are, too.

Does ANYONE have above average results?

Yes, I have +2% in defend, assult and total.
(And in battle outcomes: 3vs2 +1% +2% +1%, 3vs1 0% 0% 0%)

conquer club are so purposely ignorant to their dice failings.
the original poster has it right.


just now, in a great lakes game, a stack of 41 vs 27 spread out like so:
4,8,1,1,1,1,1,1,7,1,1


i rolled this same set of combat TEN times with physical dice, and this how many armies the attacker had standing after winning each time:

27,26,20,14,31,21,19,26,20,23


what happened in CC? the attacker didn't even kill the defender. the defender ended with 3 armies spread 1,1,1.

not only is CC inaccurate, it's off by -17 from the worst outcome, and by -25.7 from the average outcome, and -34 from the best outcome.

i invite anyone to take their physical dice at home and roll these attacks and see how many they have left over each time after ALWAYS WINNING.

not on CC's messed up system though.

people are quitting because it's so unrealistic & well they should.


***

and the new 'dice stats' are irrelevant, even if they're tracking accurately. the numbers rolled are irrelevant when the attackers 3 6s are matched by a 6 & then the attacker's 2-3-4 is paired with a 4, etc. the stats should track number of times 3v2 resulted in win 2, lose 2, or 1-1 & in what streaks. but then you'd be providing evidence of your system's brokenness, so you wouldn't want to do that.

GeneralAnestetic wrote:and the new 'dice stats' are irrelevant, even if they're tracking accurately. the numbers rolled are irrelevant when the attackers 3 6s are matched by a 6 & then the attacker's 2-3-4 is paired with a 4, etc. the stats should track number of times 3v2 resulted in win 2, lose 2, or 1-1 & in what streaks. but then you'd be providing evidence of your system's brokenness, so you wouldn't want to do that.

Yeah, don't let facts ruin your rants. It's not like the dice stats track battle outcomes or anything... oh wait, they actually do?

Overall battle outcomes
GeneralAnestetic 4.1 vs all opponents
3 vs 2 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 2 vs 1 1 vs 2 1 vs 1
Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses Luck Kills Losses
Assault 0% 12832 11012 +1% 6845 3402 -2% 239 399 +1% 323 226 +4% 46 111 +3% 143 179
Defend +1% 8511 9775 0% 3071 6094 +1% 247 151 +1% 316 410 -4% 69 29 0% 263 192
Total 0% 21343 20787 0% 9916 9496 -1% 486 550 +1% 639 636 +1% 115 140 +1% 406 371

Your overall total in battle outcomes is 0% in 3v2, 3v1, +1% in 2v1, 1v2 and 1v1, and only in 2v2 you have negative -1%.

So what was it that you're complaining about again?

Could the dice streakiness be a result of us simply playing a lot of games? The possibilety of getting a long dice streak must be higher if you toss the dices manny times. Also as everybody knows we remember suprising results while we tend to forget what is normal. I played a lot of risk IRL when I where younger and the dice felt pretty streaky back than to

kachiun wrote:Could the dice streakiness be a result of us simply playing a lot of games? The possibilety of getting a long dice streak must be higher if you toss the dices manny times. Also as everybody knows we remember suprising results while we tend to forget what is normal. I played a lot of risk IRL when I where younger and the dice felt pretty streaky back than to

Yes, but apparently it's much more fun to just whine and complain how the dice are being "manipulated".

Yeah, of course. I just did 3 attacks>

12x1 end 7x0
7x1 end 3x1
5x1 end 3x1

in other words, in the previous 11 3x1 rolls I lost 10, won 1

this should not happen with my rolling sample size. I dont have 200.000 rolls to see one of those.