Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86

Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.

Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages

That does NOT "reduce the streak in the dice" at all. The dice are as the dice are. Your PERCEPTION of the streakiness in the dice changes.

Dang. Woody. You argue just to argue.

What is being said AGAIN is that team games help to overcome some dice issues. When 1 player has crap random a partner can have good random and overcome the crap random.

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86

Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.

Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages

That does NOT "reduce the streak in the dice" at all. The dice are as the dice are. Your PERCEPTION of the streakiness in the dice changes.

Dang. Woody. You argue just to argue.
What is being said AGAIN is that team games help to overcome some dice issues. When 1 player has crap random a partner can have good random and overcome the crap random.

I don't argue just to argue. Words have meaning. Use them correctly. (Not YOU, you know...)

I don't get how a team game changes anything. There are still streaks. And if one person has a good streak and someone else has a bad streak, than that's just like playing a 1v1 game where you start with a good streak and end with a bad streak.

The dice remain random, strategy plays a bigger role though.

Army of GOD wrote:I don't get how a team game changes anything. There are still streaks. And if one person has a good streak and someone else has a bad streak, than that's just like playing a 1v1 game where you start with a good streak and end with a bad streak.

The dice remain random, strategy plays a bigger role though.

Dang. alex. You argue just to argue.

What is being said AGAIN is that team games help to overcome some dice issues. When 1 player has crap random a partner can have good random and overcome the crap random.

Or they can both have crap random so it's DOUBLY crap random. It's still the same odds for the streaks.

Army of GOD wrote:Or they can both have crap random so it's DOUBLY crap random. It's still the same odds for the streaks.

This isn't about odds. It's about who is the most randomly irritating people.^

And what do you know about strategy? There is no strategy on the planet that can overcome your random dice.

Whats being said is in team games 1 partner can have sufficiently good random to overcome your normal random. We have a couple wins that prove that.

WHAT THE CRAP IS WITH ALL THESE FREAKING AVIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its driving me nuts// i have to look at the names now to figure out who it is.. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I believe I know what Agent is trying to say. My understanding is that there is a dice file with a random list of numbers, and it is from this file that attack cube outcomes are derived. Within this list are naturally occurring, individual streaks.

Now, if you're playing a speed game or a 1 vs. 1 in RT, the chance of being the victim or the beneficiary of a dice streak is greater over the course of the game, because you're pulling numbers close together over a short period of time, so there are good odds that you could encounter a streak in the dice file.

But in team games, 1 player rolls, then 8 hours later another rolls, then 20 hours later, another rolls. Now, it is possible for each player to encounter an individual streak, but they won't encounter the same streak that you would in a speed game or 1 vs. 1 in RT.

Also, as team games tend to be on larger maps, there are more attack rolls and defensive rolls. The larger the sample size of the rolls, the better chance there is that they will appear random.

If I'm wrong about the way the dice are generated, feel free to ignore me, but I think that should make sense.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. You can compute the probability that heads will be flipped 1,000 times in a row, but not the actual outcome. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.[

If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.

Sorry, but woody is correct. And no, you don't understand that the outcome of a die flipped is far more predictable than those randome algorythms. When you study some advanced math .. not just basic Calculus and stats, but the heavy stuff, then maybe you can come back and talk. Until then... sorry, but you are showing what you don't know, not what you know.

That has got to be in the top 5 stupidest things I've read on this site. Algorithms are used to predict outcomes. It is possible to create an algorithm to tell you what card will come up next in casino auto-shuffler. Now you are trying to tell me that using an algorithm will create more random (thus, less predictable) numbers than a standard die.

And talk about showing what you don't know. You can't even spell algorithm, yet you somehow think you know more about them than I do.

People who join a 2 player game, get the first turn, but disappear for hours or a day without taking that turn.

I'm guilty of this, since I often don't have access throughout the entirety of the day!


--Andy

Master Fenrir wrote:I believe I know what Agent is trying to say. My understanding is that there is a dice file with a random list of numbers, and it is from this file that attack cube outcomes are derived. Within this list are naturally occurring, individual streaks.

Now, if you're playing a speed game or a 1 vs. 1 in RT, the chance of being the victim or the beneficiary of a dice streak is greater over the course of the game, because you're pulling numbers close together over a short period of time, so there are good odds that you could encounter a streak in the dice file.

But in team games, 1 player rolls, then 8 hours later another rolls, then 20 hours later, another rolls. Now, it is possible for each player to encounter an individual streak, but they won't encounter the same streak that you would in a speed game or 1 vs. 1 in RT.

Also, as team games tend to be on larger maps, there are more attack rolls and defensive rolls. The larger the sample size of the rolls, the better chance there is that they will appear random.

If I'm wrong about the way the dice are generated, feel free to ignore me, but I think that should make sense.

No offense but that is the dumbest logic I have ever head about the dice.

Let's take a set of those dice rolls, but with variables rather than random numbers. Each "roll" represents a single number 1-6 in the file that you mentioned.

Roll 1, Roll 2, Roll 3, Roll 4, Roll 5,
Roll 6, Roll 7, Roll 8, Roll 9, Roll 10,
Roll 11, Roll 12, Roll 13, Roll 14, Roll 15,
Roll 16, Roll 17, Roll 18, Roll 19, Roll 20,
Roll 21, Roll 22, Roll 23, Roll 24, Roll 25,
Roll 26, Roll 27, Roll 28, Roll 29, Roll 30,
Roll 31, Roll 32, Roll 33, Roll 34, Roll 35...

So you're trying to tell me that when I attack consecutively in a 1v1:

Roll 2, Roll 3, Roll 4, Roll 5,
Roll 6, Roll 7, Roll 8, Roll 9, Roll 10,
Roll 11, Roll 12

That those sets of rolls will somehow be more streaky than performing them over a long period of time:

Roll 2, Roll 3, Roll 14, Roll 19,
Roll 26, Roll 27, Roll 34, Roll 55, Roll 105,
Roll 111, Roll 120

How the **** is taking some random numbers all at once any more streaky than taking some random numbers but waiting a bit between each one?

Master Fenrir wrote:I believe I know what Agent is trying to say. My understanding is that there is a dice file with a random list of numbers, and it is from this file that attack cube outcomes are derived. Within this list are naturally occurring, individual streaks.

Now, if you're playing a speed game or a 1 vs. 1 in RT, the chance of being the victim or the beneficiary of a dice streak is greater over the course of the game, because you're pulling numbers close together over a short period of time, so there are good odds that you could encounter a streak in the dice file.

But in team games, 1 player rolls, then 8 hours later another rolls, then 20 hours later, another rolls. Now, it is possible for each player to encounter an individual streak, but they won't encounter the same streak that you would in a speed game or 1 vs. 1 in RT.

Also, as team games tend to be on larger maps, there are more attack rolls and defensive rolls. The larger the sample size of the rolls, the better chance there is that they will appear random.

If I'm wrong about the way the dice are generated, feel free to ignore me, but I think that should make sense.

You do seem to understand how the dice are generated, so that's good.

However, there is no difference in "streakiness" if you take the rolls all together at once or whether you spread them apart completely. Here's why...

It's just as possible, in spreading your rolls apart, to still simply hit the 6-6-6 rolls, just as if the 6-6-6 were the three dice in a row in the "generator". In other words, your perception of the streakiness doesn't change at all, even though the actual streakiness (the numbers that are in the file) may differ.

The Neon Peon wrote:No offense but that is the dumbest logic I have ever head about the dice.

No offense, but your lack of understanding has more to do with your perception of "the dumbest logic" than the logic itself.

Imagine that you could see the entire string of numbers that makes up the dice file. Now, say that there is a random set of 1,000 numbers that, when analyzed by itself and not as part of the larger more random whole, would be considered streaky. Say that of these 1,000 numbers 80% of them are numbers ranging from 1-3 and 20% of them range from 4-6. If you're playing a speed game, and you're pulling dice from a particular set such as this, your dice would be "bad dice" because of the random streak in the dice file.

It is some team players' hope that with the passage of time, they minimize the damage done by such streaks. They may roll a few times their turn, receive these "bad dice" and then hope that by the time the next teammate takes his or her turn, some other poor, hapless fool has drawn these bad dice, and their teammates can draw more favorable numbers in a new portion of the dice file.

However, it is completely possible that the next player pulls equal or worse bad dice.

Woodruff wrote:You do seem to understand how the dice are generated, so that's good.

However, there is no difference in "streakiness" if you take the rolls all together at once or whether you spread them apart completely. Here's why...

It's just as possible, in spreading your rolls apart, to still simply hit the 6-6-6 rolls, just as if the 6-6-6 were the three dice in a row in the "generator". In other words, your perception of the streakiness doesn't change at all, even though the actual streakiness (the numbers that are in the file) may differ.

You're fun. The team players who play under the same assumption that Agent does are aware that their perception is just their perception. They're hoping that by waiting out the dice file, the "actual streakiness" will change, preferably in their favor. Like I said, the entire thought process is based largely on hope, and usually hope in vain, as the new dice have the same probability to be just as bad as the old dice, as they do to be noticeably better.

Say that of these 1,000 numbers 80% of them are numbers ranging from 1-3 and 20% of them range from 4-6. If you're playing a speed game, and you're pulling dice from a particular set such as this, your dice would be "bad dice" because of the random streak in the dice file.

Negative. The defender's dice are pulled from the same string as the attacker's dice so it does not matter if that part of the file has more low numbers or more high numbers.

natty_dread wrote:

Say that of these 1,000 numbers 80% of them are numbers ranging from 1-3 and 20% of them range from 4-6. If you're playing a speed game, and you're pulling dice from a particular set such as this, your dice would be "bad dice" because of the random streak in the dice file.

Negative. The defender's dice are pulled from the same string as the attacker's dice so it does not matter if that part of the file has more low numbers or more high numbers.

Ties go to the defender. If you're both pulling the same kind of dice, the attack will still lose more than the defender. In my scenario, whoever lucks out and happens to pull more of the 20% good dice is the victor.

My intention wasn't to get into an argument or analysis about the way the dice are generated. It was simply to say that Agent's statement that team games avoid [actual] dice streaks, wasn't necessarily illogical.

Master Fenrir wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Say that of these 1,000 numbers 80% of them are numbers ranging from 1-3 and 20% of them range from 4-6. If you're playing a speed game, and you're pulling dice from a particular set such as this, your dice would be "bad dice" because of the random streak in the dice file.

Negative. The defender's dice are pulled from the same string as the attacker's dice so it does not matter if that part of the file has more low numbers or more high numbers.

Ties go to the defender. If you're both pulling the same kind of dice, the attack will still lose more than the defender. In my scenario, whoever lucks out and happens to pull more of the 20% good dice is the victor.

Nope, still not good, sorry. Say you have a string of only 1:s, 2:s, and 3:s. It is still just as likely to win with these numbers as it is within a string of all numbers 1-6: for one, attacker gets an extra dice, but more importantly, there's still variation within the numbers, so you can get 3-3-3- vs 2-2 where you win or you can get 1-1-1 vs 2-3 where you lose.

And let's not forget that on a site this big, several people are always rolling dice. On some times, thousands of people are rolling dice at the same time. Even if you play a speed game, between 2 dice rolls you make, it may be that 1000 or 2000 rolls are rolled by other people.

So as you see your theory is flawed in many ways.

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:

NO. It's impossible to get EQUAL and FAIR randomness. Especially here.

There is no such thing as "equal and fair randomness". It cannot exist.

Equal and fair no. Asking for equal and fair randomness is like asking for a blue ball thats red.

Fair however is possible, assuming that you consider random fair, even if you lose more than the other guy at times.
Fair only refers to the probability, and if both have the same probabilities, than it is completely fair, regardless of the actual outcome.

natty_dread wrote:Nope, still not good, sorry. Say you have a string of only 1:s, 2:s, and 3:s. It is still just as likely to win with these numbers as it is within a string of all numbers 1-6: for one, attacker gets an extra dice, but more importantly, there's still variation within the numbers, so you can get 3-3-3- vs 2-2 where you win or you can get 1-1-1 vs 2-3 where you lose.

And let's not forget that on a site this big, several people are always rolling dice. On some times, thousands of people are rolling dice at the same time. Even if you play a speed game, between 2 dice rolls you make, it may be that 1000 or 2000 rolls are rolled by other people.

So as you see your theory is flawed in many ways.

Your scenario has nothing to do with streaks. You just eliminated possible outcomes. I didn't say the string was only 1-3. I said:

Master Fenrir wrote:Say that of these 1,000 numbers 80% of them are numbers ranging from 1-3 and 20% of them range from 4-6...

In my scenario, whoever lucks out and happens to pull more of the 20% good dice is the victor.

ND wrote:And let's not forget that on a site this big, several people are always rolling dice. On some times, thousands of people are rolling dice at the same time. Even if you play a speed game, between 2 dice rolls you make, it may be that 1000 or 2000 rolls are rolled by other people.

I'm aware. I used the number 1,000 because I figured it'd be easier for the average reader to believe that a set of 1,000 numbers could be streaky, as opposed to 10,000 or 100,000, even though in an infinite set of random numbers, the possibility of having a streak that long still exists.

natty_dread wrote:So as you see your theory is flawed in many ways.

It's not my theory, it's a theory. I was just attempting to explain the thought process behind it.

I voted for number 1.

However number 3 is equally annoying I would say.

I don't think 2-Player Games are by default 'real-time' and therefore don't see that as being an issue. i do think if someone agrees to play real-time they should stick it out till the end or till a pre-agreed upon time.

I see this has turned from a "people bitch" thread to another "dice bitch" thread.

I would rather bitch about people.

Is stupidity and rudeness random?

Master Fenrir wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You do seem to understand how the dice are generated, so that's good.

However, there is no difference in "streakiness" if you take the rolls all together at once or whether you spread them apart completely. Here's why...
It's just as possible, in spreading your rolls apart, to still simply hit the 6-6-6 rolls, just as if the 6-6-6 were the three dice in a row in the "generator". In other words, your perception of the streakiness doesn't change at all, even though the actual streakiness (the numbers that are in the file) may differ.

You're fun. The team players who play under the same assumption that Agent does are aware that their perception is just their perception. They're hoping that by waiting out the dice file, the "actual streakiness" will change, preferably in their favor. Like I said, the entire thought process is based largely on hope, and usually hope in vain, as the new dice have the same probability to be just as bad as the old dice, as they do to be noticeably better.

Exactly correct. I'm not, however, convinced that Agent86 understand this, based only on his statements in this thread.

jimboston wrote:I voted for number 1.

However number 3 is equally annoying I would say.

I don't think 2-Player Games are by default 'real-time' and therefore don't see that as being an issue. i do think if someone agrees to play real-time they should stick it out till the end or till a pre-agreed upon time.

I agree no game (unless stated in advance by ALL parties) should be assumed to be Real Time.

However, there is a difference between someone joining a game, taking a turn and then leaving and someone who joins a game, sees its their turn and then leaves without taking even one turn (barring unusual circumstances, of course). I still am not saying these are reasons for foing someone or even giving bad ratings, its just ..irritating.

Master Fenrir wrote:Your scenario has nothing to do with streaks. You just eliminated possible outcomes. I didn't say the string was only 1-3. I said:

Master Fenrir wrote:Say that of these 1,000 numbers 80% of them are numbers ranging from 1-3 and 20% of them range from 4-6...

In my scenario, whoever lucks out and happens to pull more of the 20% good dice is the victor.

And it doesn't change a thing. The attacker and the defender are both equally likely to pull those 4:s 5:s and 6:s from that string of numbers.

Don't you see? It doesn't matter what the numbers are in a particular string of numbers, the attacker and defender pull the numbers from the same string... if we assume you're attacking 3v2, the dice get pulled from the file in blocks of 5 numbers at a time. 3 of those will be assigned to the attacker and 2 to the defender.

I'm aware. I used the number 1,000 because I figured it'd be easier for the average reader to believe that a set of 1,000 numbers could be streaky, as opposed to 10,000 or 100,000, even though in an infinite set of random numbers, the possibility of having a streak that long still exists.

It exists but it doesn't matter.

It's not my theory, it's a theory. I was just attempting to explain the thought process behind it.

I was just trying to explain why said thought process is flawed.

It's not my theory, it's a theory. I was just attempting to explain the thought process behind it.

I was just trying to explain why said thought process is flawed.[/quote]
Well congrats to both of us on the effort. I'm going to leave it there.

jimboston wrote:I see this has turned from a "people bitch" thread to another "dice bitch" thread.

I would rather bitch about people.

We weren't bitching about the dice, just talking about them.

To get back on topic, I dislike when people stall losses, too, but it only applies to me in team games, as it's rare for me to play 1 vs. 1s.

Master Fenrir wrote:

It's not my theory, it's a theory. I was just attempting to explain the thought process behind it.

I was just trying to explain why said thought process is flawed.

Well congrats to both of us on the effort. I'm going to leave it there.

jimboston wrote:I see this has turned from a "people bitch" thread to another "dice bitch" thread.

I would rather bitch about people.

We weren't bitching about the dice, just talking about them.

To get back on topic, I dislike when people stall losses, too, but it only applies to me in team games, as it's rare for me to play 1 vs. 1s.[/quote]

This is true. I'm still waiting for our epic 1v1 Arms Race battle to start. Good thing I'm not holding breath. Oh and by the way, when isn't Fen bitching about the dice? Crybaby general.