CC is declining again!

[BoganGod]

Down, down, down, to funky town. Bring back terrance.

[WILLIAMS5232]

there is still the halloween spike. i'm sure that will bring in several thousand new and old members while they sit around waiting to hand candy out to the kiddies.

[Army of GOD]

9630

[owenshooter]

9630

is this the new record low?! now, even i am getting nervous!!-Jésus noir

[WILLIAMS5232]

9630

is this the new record low?! now, even i am getting nervous!!-Jésus noir

that's actually the old record low. the current record is...

9613

[Endgame422]

is it only me or the whole cc is being lagged as f*ck right now?

In my experience, the lag has only gotten worse since the update.

Bollocks.

I have to agree there

[Dukasaur]

CC will rise again. That's all I can say. I can no longer offer a realistic guess on the time frame, only confidence that the steps that have been taken and/or are being taken will prevail in the long run.

[Army of GOD]

9598

[owenshooter]

CC will rise again.

you turn to racist rhetoric to further the discourse?!! THE SOUTH, er, CC WILL RISE AGAIN!!!

[ntcbadabing]

Yes, CC is declining because it's a piece of shit website.
When you consistently get screwed by dice it becomes obvious this is a waste of time and money.
Too many 'coincidences' happen in game play for it not to be true that there is nothing random on this piece of shit website.
Not to mention if you read some of the dice stat guru argument guys where they post the admin level dice stats, those guys get considerably better odds than everyone else.
They deny it all day long like we're a bunch of dumbasses.
So, to the people behind the scenes at CC, go f*ck yourselves, sorry I wasted my money buying your piece of shit manipulated game.

Yours truly,
BadaBing

[owenshooter]

Yes, CC is declining because it's a piece of shit website.
When you consistently get screwed by dice it becomes obvious this is a waste of time and money.
Too many 'coincidences' happen in game play for it not to be true that there is nothing random on this piece of shit website.
Not to mention if you read some of the dice stat guru argument guys where they post the admin level dice stats, those guys get considerably better odds than everyone else.
They deny it all day long like we're a bunch of dumbasses.
So, to the people behind the scenes at CC, go f*ck yourselves, sorry I wasted my money buying your piece of shit manipulated game.

Yours truly,
BadaBing

can you please post all of your evidence? otherwise, it is just paranoid ramblings of a conspiracy theorist... let's not forget, Team CC does not run the dice, a third party provides them... so, please post this info, i am intrigued at the stats you mention. particularly that members of team CC get better dics stats than non team CC members... thank you...-Jésus noir

[degaston]

can you please post all of your evidence? otherwise, it is just paranoid ramblings of a conspiracy theorist... let's not forget, Team CC does not run the dice, a third party provides them... so, please post this info, i am intrigued at the stats you mention. particularly that members of team CC get better dics stats than non team CC members... thank you...-Jésus noir

What is your basis for this statement? The last I heard, which was around the time of this thread, the code to get numbers from random.org was broken. They had been using the same flawed 50,000 roll data file for months, if not years, and everyone's dice stats were skewed as a result. I heard that they replaced that data file with one that was not skewed, but I have not heard that they ever returned to getting numbers from random.org.

This does not mean that the dice are being manipulated to favor one player over another, but they are not even close to being truly random.

[owenshooter]

can you please post all of your evidence? otherwise, it is just paranoid ramblings of a conspiracy theorist... let's not forget, Team CC does not run the dice, a third party provides them... so, please post this info, i am intrigued at the stats you mention. particularly that members of team CC get better dics stats than non team CC members... thank you...-Jésus noir

What is your basis for this statement? The last I heard, which was around the time of this thread, the code to get numbers from random.org was broken. They had been using the same flawed 50,000 roll data file for months, if not years, and everyone's dice stats were skewed as a result. I heard that they replaced that data file with one that was not skewed, but I have not heard that they ever returned to getting numbers from random.org.

This does not mean that the dice are being manipulated to favor one player over another, but they are not even close to being truly random.

what?!! we don't use random.org anymore?!! ok, now i have to wait for a mod to weigh in on this... if that is the case, i am going to withdraw all my statements about dice complainers since the swap occurred... i had no idea!!!-Jésus noir

[degaston]

what?!! we don't use random.org anymore?!! ok, now i have to wait for a mod to weigh in on this... if that is the case, i am going to withdraw all my statements about dice complainers since the swap occurred... i had no idea!!!-Jésus noir

Read the thread starting at about page 3 if you want to learn about the dice. If you look at your own dice stats, you'll see that you've rolled fewer 1's than any other number - just like everyone else who played a large number of games during the time that CC was using that data file.

Good luck getting a mod to even acknowledge this. The official position seems to be that it doesn't matter that the dice are not random as long as it affects everyone equally.

[Metsfanmax]

can you please post all of your evidence? otherwise, it is just paranoid ramblings of a conspiracy theorist... let's not forget, Team CC does not run the dice, a third party provides them... so, please post this info, i am intrigued at the stats you mention. particularly that members of team CC get better dics stats than non team CC members... thank you...-Jésus noir

What is your basis for this statement? The last I heard, which was around the time of this thread, the code to get numbers from random.org was broken. They had been using the same flawed 50,000 roll data file for months, if not years, and everyone's dice stats were skewed as a result. I heard that they replaced that data file with one that was not skewed, but I have not heard that they ever returned to getting numbers from random.org.

This does not mean that the dice are being manipulated to favor one player over another, but they are not even close to being truly random.

what?!! we don't use random.org anymore?!! ok, now i have to wait for a mod to weigh in on this... if that is the case, i am going to withdraw all my statements about dice complainers since the swap occurred... i had no idea!!!-Jésus noir

I can confirm this. We hadn't been getting random numbers from random.org for several years, and we probably still aren't (I don't have new information since I left Team CC, but based on my understanding of the relevant parties, I find it unlikely that we resumed that activity).

[shickingbrits]

Let's face it, the dice may be random but certainly not in any individual game.

I'm an aggressive player and will attack wherever I have a dice advantage and deploy to maximize the advantage. Employing the same tactic wins me a 1-1 game in four rounds and loses me another in 4. Sure the dice balance out between the games, but that doesn't make the win feel any better or the lose more just.

Player after player says the same, this game was bs, darn you CC, I'm quitting. I often wonder why I am bothering to play when nothing feels like skill any more.

I used to gamble quite a bit. I had a friend who would bet on anything. Once, when nothing else was available, he said, I will throw up this shoe and we bet on the direction the toe points when it lands. To a gambler, they say, ok, throw it. But to the average person, who gives a darn about the shoe?

Who gives a darn about a game where at the end of the day there is nothing you can do to win, and nothing you can do to prevent a lose? Where after 1000 games, anything you learned is not going to increase your chance of winning an iota?

The dice need to be random, but in a game not across two or 50. My opponent starts, deploys, taps twice, loses four troops, ends turn. I deploy, take 4 of his terts. He deploys, taps twice, loses 4, ends turn. I deploy, take 6 of his terts. He deploys taps twice, loses 4, ends turn. I deploy, game over. I comment, sorry dude, that was bs. He comments #@#%^&&%%$%$$^%& CC in each orifice with no vaseline.

I used to gamble a lot, but I played texas hold'em, a popular game because it involves skill. When my buddy tossed the shoe, only one person wanted to play instead of the 9 who would have played hold'em had we had the fixings. So goes this site.

There is skill involved, but it depends on the size of the map, the settings, the number of players, your ability to click more quickly than your opponent. When it comes to medium sized maps, 1-1, the most common way to get a fast game, probably far and away the most played games on CC, then whichever direction the toe points declares the winner.

If a lucky start cannot be overcome by skill but instead just extends your opponents trend of luck, then what is the point?

Great, everyone can complain. Perhaps if I offer a suggestion, it turns the complaint into a preamble. So though not the appropriate place, and being too apathetic to check if such a suggestion has been made:

A luck meter per game, true for all players in the game. -2 to +2 troops per conquered troop. In a 14 tert game, at a luck meter of +2, I could conquer your 42 troops with 14 troops plus 14 to cover the conquered terts, when I have the attackers advantage. My opponent has the same requirement to take me out. In a -2 game, it takes me a minimum of 126 troops + 14 to cover the conquered terts to take out my opponent with attackers advantage.

One thing to add to this, the strongest player should go last. After deployment, the board should rate the strength of position and allocate the last turn to the strongest position.

I would expect a poll for this idea to fair poorly, and yet given the option, I expect I'd see more games played along these settings than the current ones.

[Metsfanmax]

Let's face it, the dice may be random but certainly not in any individual game.

...

The dice need to be random, but in a game not across two or 50.

Even a perfectly random dice generator will often not appear random if your sample is small enough. A perfectly random generator could generate the sequence "66661111," and it would be just as likely as any other sequence of eight rolls, and you would see that and say "hey, there's a pattern there." Yet that's what happens when you don't see enough rolls to get the full effect of the randomness. To ask for the dice to "be random" in any arbitrarily small sample is both 1) a misunderstanding, since the mechanism for generating the dice is either random or it is not, and 2) a contradiction in terms, because any attempt to force the dice to be less streaky (which is what I think you are asking) would of course be an intentional act to make the dice less random.

[degaston]

Even a perfectly random dice generator will often not appear random if your sample is small enough. A perfectly random generator could generate the sequence "66661111," and it would be just as likely as any other sequence of eight rolls, and you would see that and say "hey, there's a pattern there." Yet that's what happens when you don't see enough rolls to get the full effect of the randomness. To ask for the dice to "be random" in any arbitrarily small sample is both 1) a misunderstanding, since the mechanism for generating the dice is either random or it is not, and 2) a contradiction in terms, because any attempt to force the dice to be less streaky (which is what I think you are asking) would of course be an intentional act to make the dice less random.

The problem is, if you take a group of 8 truly random rolls, the exact sequence 66661111 (or any other sequence you name) should come up only once every 1.68 million tries. But if you're reading numbers from a 50,000 roll data file, that sequence either appears in the file, or it does not. So it will come up either once every 50,000 tries (or possibly more if it appears more than once in the file), or it will never come up. Either condition violates the concept of randomness.

If the data file contains some long sequences that result in the attacker losing much more than expected, then players will encounter those sequences much more often than they should. Just speculation, but might this be contributing to the great decline?

[Metsfanmax]

If the data file contains some long sequences that result in the attacker losing much more than expected, then players will encounter those sequences much more often than they should.

There is no such sequence as one that "results in the attacker losing much more than expected." That's because hitting that sequence at a different point will necessarily result in the attacker winning much more than expected. If you have the sequence "654321654321" then yes, if your attacker hits 321 then they will lose -- but if they hit 654 then they will win. It is possible that such a bias in the distribution could measurably alter the expected outcome of battles. My intuitition says that this is unlikely given the large database of rolls and the large number of players who are reading through that database. However, there is no need to speculate because one could directly test this hypothesis if one were enterprising enough. Write a Python code that generates a pseudo-random list of 50k numbers, and then sample it pseudo-randomly a large number of times, recording the battle outcomes each time. Then post the distribution of outcomes.

I don't have time for this right now because I have to prepare two talks for next week, but if no one's done it within a couple of weeks I'll do it.

[degaston]

There is no such sequence as one that "results in the attacker losing much more than expected." That's because hitting that sequence at a different point will necessarily result in the attacker winning much more than expected. If you have the sequence "654321654321" then yes, if your attacker hits 321 then they will lose -- but if they hit 654 then they will win. It is possible that such a bias in the distribution could measurably alter the expected outcome of battles. My intuitition says that this is unlikely given the large database of rolls and the large number of players who are reading through that database. However, there is no need to speculate because one could directly test this hypothesis if one were enterprising enough. Write a Python code that generates a pseudo-random list of 50k numbers, and then sample it pseudo-randomly a large number of times, recording the battle outcomes each time. Then post the distribution of outcomes.

I don't have time for this right now because I have to prepare two talks for next week, but if no one's done it within a couple of weeks I'll do it.

Of course there is such a sequence. The most obvious (though unrealistic) example is a data file that contains all the same number:

The table on the left is the dice data. The one on the right shows how many troops the attacker loses depending on the starting point. If you start with column D, the attacker gets the dice from D,E, and column A from the next row, and the defender gets the dice from column B and C from the next row. In this case, it doesn't matter where you start, the attacker always loses.

While this example is unrealistic, and with truly random numbers, players should sometimes encounter series of identical numbers, using a single, static data file will cause these sequences to appear with an unrealistic frequency and regularity, whether it's more or less often than would be expected by chance.

But it doesn't have to be just a single number:

With this set of dice data, the attacker will have a win rate of 48%. Definitely not what he should see.

If you reverse the numbers, you get:

Now he's getting a win rate of 68%. Again, this is messed up.

I'm not saying that the data file they are using is this bad, but there may be sections of it that are. And every player that goes through that section may suspect that something is wrong.

Even if the data file doesn't have any unusually bad sequences, and averages out to exactly the correct win rate, that would still be unrealistic, because occasionally, a player should have extremely bad or good luck. I doubt that anyone has done this kind of analysis on the file they are using. And, of course, it wouldn't be necessary if they would just return to using random.org.

Edit: There's a mistake in the bottom of column B for the 2nd and 3rd tables. The win rates should be 50% and 67%.

[Army of GOD]

9573

[Serbia]

9573

I'd like to know how many of the users on the active scoreboard are freemium.
I counted the number of freemiums on the first page, and on the last full page (page 38). On page 1, 67 out of 250 were freemium. On page 38, 194 of the 250 were freemium. Averaged out, this would mean roughly 52% of the scoreboard is freemium. Taking 9573, and guessing at the 52% freemium, that would leave us with roughly 4595 paying members on the active scoreboard.

Of course, I'm fully admitting these are not actual numbers, but rather an estimate given a small sample size, but I'd love to see actual numbers on this. How many paying members comprise of the scoreboard? Because while having fewer than 10,000 active members is a problem, having fewer than 5,000 PAYING members would be an even bigger indicator of trouble for this site.

Bollocks.

[Dukasaur]

9573

I'd like to know how many of the users on the active scoreboard are freemium.
I counted the number of freemiums on the first page, and on the last full page (page 38). On page 1, 67 out of 250 were freemium. On page 38, 194 of the 250 were freemium. Averaged out, this would mean roughly 52% of the scoreboard is freemium. Taking 9573, and guessing at the 52% freemium, that would leave us with roughly 4595 paying members on the active scoreboard.

Of course, I'm fully admitting these are not actual numbers, but rather an estimate given a small sample size, but I'd love to see actual numbers on this. How many paying members comprise of the scoreboard? Because while having fewer than 10,000 active members is a problem, having fewer than 5,000 PAYING members would be an even bigger indicator of trouble for this site.

Bollocks.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's changed much. I've never had the patience to do more than small random slices of the list, but anytime I've counted it's always been something just under 60% freemium. That percentage hasn't changed since I first did it more than three years ago.

[Serbia]

9573

I'd like to know how many of the users on the active scoreboard are freemium.
I counted the number of freemiums on the first page, and on the last full page (page 38). On page 1, 67 out of 250 were freemium. On page 38, 194 of the 250 were freemium. Averaged out, this would mean roughly 52% of the scoreboard is freemium. Taking 9573, and guessing at the 52% freemium, that would leave us with roughly 4595 paying members on the active scoreboard.

Of course, I'm fully admitting these are not actual numbers, but rather an estimate given a small sample size, but I'd love to see actual numbers on this. How many paying members comprise of the scoreboard? Because while having fewer than 10,000 active members is a problem, having fewer than 5,000 PAYING members would be an even bigger indicator of trouble for this site.

Bollocks.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's changed much. I've never had the patience to do more than small random slices of the list, but anytime I've counted it's always been something just under 60% freemium. That percentage hasn't changed since I first did it more than three years ago.

Based on your count then, we're closer to 4000 active paying members. That's a problem. And sadly, it doesn't seem the count is going up; it's going down.

Bollocks.

[degaston]

Based on your count then, we're closer to 4000 active paying members. That's a problem. And sadly, it doesn't seem the count is going up; it's going down.

This is why I suggested unlimited wait-lists for freemiums, and implementing a game matchmaker.

There aren't enough users to fill games quickly like they used to. Games that sit unfilled for a long time make the site seem dead, and cause both paid and freemium members to drop out. These suggestions would help fill games quicker and could help renew interest in the site.