One more thing about the dice.

[SirSebstar]

Ragada, you hit the nail right on the head. except you seem to hit it from the bottum up..
Logical fallicy states your claims are incorrect.
|But lets cut to the chase. Your statement that one player saw 2 improbable things happening is exactly the kind of randomness random means.
Over all the 20k players it averages out. Tight now, you are a statistical anomaly if viewed by itself.

look up random org and do the math yourself.

[RADAGA]

Against Barum Boy AGAIN

20x8

ended 4x0

I NEVER got a fair roll against him. Other game we are playing, I lost 6x1 up to 2x0

And I cannot conquer any territory of his whithout loosing at least 2 armies. no matter if it is a 3x1.. I WILL lose two before getting it.

[RADAGA]

I am giving up!

2009-02-14 11:36:11 - Barum Boy deployed 20 troops on 352nd German Infantry 3
2009-02-14 11:36:13 - Barum Boy assaulted Easy Beach 6 from 352nd German Infantry 3 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:18 - Barum Boy assaulted Easy Beach 3 from Easy Beach 6 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:23 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 3 from Easy Beach 3 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:27 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 6 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 3 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:30 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Texas 3 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 6 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:42 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Texas 4 from U.S.S. Texas 3 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:46 - Barum Boy assaulted 916th Flyover from U.S.S. Texas 4 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:36:55 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 5 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 6 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:37:00 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 4 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 5 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:37:05 - Barum Boy assaulted U.S.S. Arkansas 4 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 4 and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-02-14 11:37:41 - Barum Boy reinforced 916th German Grenadiers 4 with 2 troops from 916th Bunker 1
2009-02-14 11:37:41 - Barum Boy gets spoils

THERE WAS NO TERRITORY OF MINE DEFENDED BY A SINGLE ARMY ON THIS SET HE GOT! THE FRONTIERS WERE DEFENDED BY 8 TROOPS

BUT WHATEVER. HE WITH 20 TROOPS DESTROYED EVERYTHING.

Now my turn:

I placed 5 armies on a territory to get one he defended with 2 - no use, two double losses
Then I tried to get the same territory with 5 armies again, from another frontier - no use, two double losses

Then I used 18 armies to try to regain my territores
They were good enough to get:

2009-02-14 11:53:38 - RADAGA assaulted Easy Beach 6 from Easy Beach 2 and conquered it from Barum Boy
2009-02-14 11:53:43 - RADAGA assaulted Easy Beach 3 from Easy Beach 6 and conquered it from Barum Boy
2009-02-14 11:53:47 - RADAGA assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 3 from Easy Beach 3 and conquered it from Barum Boy
2009-02-14 11:53:51 - RADAGA assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 6 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 3 and conquered it from Barum Boy
2009-02-14 11:54:11 - RADAGA assaulted U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 5 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 6 and conquered it from Barum Boy
2009-02-14 11:54:57 - RADAGA assaulted U.S.S. Texas 3 from U.S.S. Thomas Jefferson 6 and conquered it from Barum Boy

ALL OF HIS TERRITORIES WERE DEFENDED BY A SINGLE ARMY

18 ARMIES WERE ENOUGH TO GET 6 TERRITORIES, ONLY!

After that, I attacked randomly without even looking, just to burn my armies away, and gave up that game, even though yesterday I was holding half of it.

It is hard to believe there is no edge for paying players.

VERY HARD.

Whatever.....

[Timminz]

I am giving up!

I'm surprised it took you this long.

[RADAGA]

I am giving up!

I'm surprised it took you this long.

I dont like to give up things. One of my flaws, it seems.

[Timminz]

I am giving up!

I'm surprised it took you this long.

I dont like to give up things. One of my flaws, it seems.

That pesky masochistic streak....

[RADAGA]

I am giving up!

I'm surprised it took you this long.

I dont like to give up things. One of my flaws, it seems.

That pesky masochistic streak....

Yep.

But is IS frustrating.... And at least it gives me something to do at the office.

[anomalystream]

Anyone notice in a 3 on 3 attack, the attacker loses 2 armies over 75%+ of the time. At home I simply tested those odds myself and found that 50% resulted in attacker and defender losing 1 army each, 30% resulted in attacker losing 2 armies, and 20% resulted in defender losing both.

This has strong implications when the numbers increase. Attacker should lose only 5 for every 6 the defender loses.

Id rather play this closer to man for man like the odds should represent, rather than at all being uncertain when attacking 5 men with 15.

[anomalystream]

There shouldnt be an edge for paying players, but then you also shouldnt lose in a 3 on 1 attack over half the time either.

[anomalystream]

20 to 3, occupied territory with 10. These things happen every second roll.

Placed 20 armies on 1 territory to attack a string of 11 adjacent armies. 4 defenders remain; 19 armies for 7 is a bad exchange rate. Based on actual odds, I should have succeeded with 11 armies.

[Megadeth666]

Anyone notice in a 3 on 3 attack, the attacker loses 2 armies over 75%+ of the time

That sounds about right, because the attacker of 3, actually is only rolling 2 dies(cause 1 has to stay on the terit) and if the defender, which has 3, and wins on a tie, that just means the defender as the advantage I Think

[Timminz]

Yeah. the dice aren't the problem. attacking 3v3 is.

[Dave67]

Actually, I'm starting to believe that it is the dice.

I just started up another game, making my first attack 8v3. I won, but only on the final die roll. This had the defender winning on just one die 4 times in a row, including when I rolled 3 6's - a 1-in-216 chance.

[Timminz]

Actually, I'm starting to believe that it is the dice.

You are? I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess we should all ignore the mathematical studies that have been done, grab our torches, and pitchforks, and run the dice out of town.

[Bones2484]

1-in-216 chance.

These odds should never happen on a site where hundreds of thousands of turns are taken each day.

[Timminz]

1-in-216 chance.

These odds should never happen on a site where hundreds of thousands of turns are taken each day.

Hell. I roll more than 200 times a day, sometimes. Does that mean I'm going to see awful results like THAT every day?

[Fruitcake]

1-in-216 chance.

These odds should never happen on a site where hundreds of thousands of turns are taken each day.

Hell. I roll more than 200 times a day, sometimes. Does that mean I'm going to see awful results like THAT every day?

Well it could do if you were unlucky enough.

This has always been my niggle with the whole file/discard and renew system. If a once a day visitor player was particularly unlucky then he/she could end up getting an awful attack result time after time. This happened to me a few months back and the impact is still there on my dice records, although my score then rose again once the results became more stable. However, during this period I dropped over 400 points pretty quickly. Also one should remember that it was my instinct that something was awry with my dice that caused me to install the analyser to start with, the logic being that the figures were, in fact, even worse than my records show!

When I first started tracking my rolls via the Dice Analyzer they were terrible, this is the first set below. Even some 6 months later, although better they are still on the wrong side of the averages given, and now the sample size is quite large. I really do look forward to the day when I get to see the other side of the coin in that my averages are better....which of course one would expect to happen at some time.

Aug 13 2007
Attack dice distribution - Defender dice distribution
1s 5178 / 28220 (18.35%) - 2151 / 13378 (16.08%)
2s 4704 / 28220 (16.67%) - 2178 / 13378 (16.28%)
3s 4806 / 28220 (17.03%) - 2218 / 13378 (16.58%)
4s 4558 / 28220 (16.15%) - 2198 / 13378 (16.43%)
5s 4538 / 28220 (16.08%) - 2245 / 13378 (16.78%)
6s 4436 / 28220 (15.72%) - 2388 / 13378 (17.85%)

Feb 17 2007
1s 23677 / 139854 (16.93%) - 12750 / 76668 (16.63%)
2s 23649 / 139854 (16.91%) - 12566 / 76668 (16.39%)
3s 23216 / 139854 (16.60%) - 12658 / 76668 (16.51%)
4s 22978 / 139854 (16.43%) - 12742 / 76668 (16.62%)
5s 23160 / 139854 (16.56%) - 13003 / 76668 (16.96%)
6s 23174 / 139854 (16.57%) - 12949 / 76668 (16.89%)

[Mr Changsha]

Here is a good tip for all you conspiracy theorists out there....

Forget randomn and trust in fate!

It seems that most of the people who write about dice don't really understand what 'randomn' means. Our esteemed contributors can't even agree on how often 3 dice should beat 1.

"You have a 76.45% chance."

"No, you stupid pube. You have a 72.35% chance and I must be right - I studied statistics at High School."

"You're both wrong! It is a 73.38% - just check random.org!"

"Randomn.org is OWNED by Lack. Didn't you know that? Anyway, it's a 74.22%" chance.

...and so on.

Why the debate? Because science and technology (and certainly maths!) has reached a level whereby almost no one can properly understand it anymore. I would guess that maybe 3 people in CC Land truly understand just what randomn means. Many think they do...on both sides of the argument. If someone asked me "Do you understand the concept of 'infinity'?" I would say no. I know what it means of course, but that doesn't mean I understand what it is . This concept of 'randomness' presents similar difficulties for the layman. Sure, we know the meaning of the word, but it doesn't therefore follow that we understand what 'randomness' is.

One might relate our problem here to the issue of global warming. Notice again how there are two sides both absolutely loaded with scientific evidence and a hell of a lot of conjecture on top. The real truth is in there somewhere, but how can one realise it when it is surrounded by competing theories all to some extent validated by chaps with numerous letters after their name?

We can't, hence the debate.

So I give you the truly ancient concept of fate. We can all wrap our heads around it and for the purposes of CC it works pretty well at explaining what will happen/should happen/has happened. It also has the advantage of making you less unhappy when your 14 stack tanks on a 9 (lost the first 4 roles soundly) to take a game. Instead of thinking "Lack, cheating premiums/high rankers, not really fucking randomn is it, how can THAT be randomn I quit this fucking game, cheating bastards!!!!!", you can just think "Ah, it wasn't meant to be..." Think Sting, think tantric sex, think zen, peace and calm. That's what I do and do you ever see me bitching about anything? You don't, because I've got my concepts sorted. You see?

[Fruitcake]

Here is a good tip for all you conspiracy theorists out there....

Forget randomn and trust in fate!

It seems that most of the people who write about dice don't really understand what 'randomn' means. Our esteemed contributors can't even agree on how often 3 dice should beat 1.

"You have a 76.45% chance."

"No, you stupid pube. You have a 72.35% chance and I must be right - I studied statistics at High School."

"You're both wrong! It is a 73.38% - just check random.org!"

"Randomn.org is OWNED by Lack. Didn't you know that? Anyway, it's a 74.22%" chance.

...and so on.

Why the debate? Because science and technology (and certainly maths!) has reached a level whereby almost no one can properly understand it anymore. I would guess that maybe 3 people in CC Land truly understand just what randomn means. Many think they do...on both sides of the argument. If someone asked me "Do you understand the concept of 'infinity'?" I would say no. I know what it means of course, but that doesn't mean I understand what it is . This concept of 'randomness' presents similar difficulties for the layman. Sure, we know the meaning of the word, but it doesn't therefore follow that we understand what 'randomness' is.

One might relate our problem here to the issue of global warming. Notice again how there are two sides both absolutely loaded with scientific evidence and a hell of a lot of conjecture on top. The real truth is in there somewhere, but how can one realise it when it is surrounded by competing theories all to some extent validated by chaps with numerous letters after their name?

We can't, hence the debate.

So I give you the truly ancient concept of fate. We can all wrap our heads around it and for the purposes of CC it works pretty well at explaining what will happen/should happen/has happened. It also has the advantage of making you less unhappy when your 14 stack tanks on a 9 (lost the first 4 roles soundly) to take a game. Instead of thinking "Lack, cheating premiums/high rankers, not really fucking randomn is it, how can THAT be randomn I quit this fucking game, cheating bastards!!!!!", you can just think "Ah, it wasn't meant to be..." Think Sting, think tantric sex, think zen, peace and calm. That's what I do and do you ever see me bitching about anything? You don't, because I've got my concepts sorted. You see?

You don't half talk a load of bollocks sometimes mr C.

My argument isn't about how random the 'dice'are, it has not been for a long time. My argument is that the delivery of these results is where the flaw lays.

[Mr Changsha]

Here is a good tip for all you conspiracy theorists out there....

Forget randomn and trust in fate!

It seems that most of the people who write about dice don't really understand what 'randomn' means. Our esteemed contributors can't even agree on how often 3 dice should beat 1.

"You have a 76.45% chance."

"No, you stupid pube. You have a 72.35% chance and I must be right - I studied statistics at High School."

"You're both wrong! It is a 73.38% - just check random.org!"

"Randomn.org is OWNED by Lack. Didn't you know that? Anyway, it's a 74.22%" chance.

...and so on.

Why the debate? Because science and technology (and certainly maths!) has reached a level whereby almost no one can properly understand it anymore. I would guess that maybe 3 people in CC Land truly understand just what randomn means. Many think they do...on both sides of the argument. If someone asked me "Do you understand the concept of 'infinity'?" I would say no. I know what it means of course, but that doesn't mean I understand what it is . This concept of 'randomness' presents similar difficulties for the layman. Sure, we know the meaning of the word, but it doesn't therefore follow that we understand what 'randomness' is.

One might relate our problem here to the issue of global warming. Notice again how there are two sides both absolutely loaded with scientific evidence and a hell of a lot of conjecture on top. The real truth is in there somewhere, but how can one realise it when it is surrounded by competing theories all to some extent validated by chaps with numerous letters after their name?

We can't, hence the debate.

So I give you the truly ancient concept of fate. We can all wrap our heads around it and for the purposes of CC it works pretty well at explaining what will happen/should happen/has happened. It also has the advantage of making you less unhappy when your 14 stack tanks on a 9 (lost the first 4 roles soundly) to take a game. Instead of thinking "Lack, cheating premiums/high rankers, not really fucking randomn is it, how can THAT be randomn I quit this fucking game, cheating bastards!!!!!", you can just think "Ah, it wasn't meant to be..." Think Sting, think tantric sex, think zen, peace and calm. That's what I do and do you ever see me bitching about anything? You don't, because I've got my concepts sorted. You see?

You don't half talk a load of bollocks sometimes mr C.

My argument isn't about how random the 'dice'are, it has not been for a long time. My argument is that the delivery of these results is where the flaw lays.

Well I wasn't really directing it at you, old boy. I would have quoted you if I had been...

I just like the idea of replacing "The fucking dice aren't fucking random enough" (the popular statement that just happens to prove my central premise) with "The fates are against me! Against me I tell you!"

However, you are right to point out that I do, every once in a while, write utter garbage. Yet sometimes my kafkaesque mind strikes gold and then you laugh like crazy and realise that, in the end, I am usually right about everything that really matters to anyone with any sense of the 'concept' of rightness.

[Timminz]

when your 14 stack tanks on a 9 (lost the first 4 roles soundly) to take a game. Instead of thinking "Lack, cheating premiums/high rankers, not really fucking randomn is it, how can THAT be randomn I quit this fucking game, cheating bastards!!!!!", you can just think "Ah, it wasn't meant to be..." Think Sting, think tantric sex, think zen, peace and calm. That's what I do and do you ever see me bitching about anything? You don't, because I've got my concepts sorted. You see?

You must be new around here. People seem to thrive on bitching about the dice not being "fair".

[RADAGA]

See? Even my 3x1 are off the media, with over a thousand of rolls (over 4.000 dice involved)

3v1 █████████████████████████ 775 / 417 (65.02% / 34.98%) (65.97% / 34.03%)

And it is getting worse. On monday they were about 34.6%

They will, eventually, reach 50-50, I believe, if things go like that for a while.

[e_i_pi]

1-in-216 chance.

These odds should never happen on a site where hundreds of thousands of turns are taken each day.

Hell. I roll more than 200 times a day, sometimes. Does that mean I'm going to see awful results like THAT every day?

No Timminz, Bones is right. Anything below 50% chance should never happen. Here's the maths:

50% = 0.5
<50% = <0.5
Round <0.5 to 0 decimal places = 0
Therefore <0.5 = 0
0 = 0% chance
QED

[lancehoch]

See? Even my 3x1 are off the media, with over a thousand of rolls (over 4.000 dice involved)

3v1 █████████████████████████ 775 / 417 (65.02% / 34.98%) (65.97% / 34.03%)

And it is getting worse. On monday they were about 34.6%

They will, eventually, reach 50-50, I believe, if things go like that for a while.

So, you are complaining about 0.95% on 1192 attacks of this type? Just to be clear, you have lost 11 times that you should have won. That seems pretty average to me, almost random.

[RADAGA]

I am complaining you advertise the error margin is 0,02% only, and all my margins are biigger than those. My victories occour WAY LESS than the expectes minus 0,02% and my losses beahve the opposite.

The offense dice ALWAYS have more dice on the 1-2-3 range than on the 4-5-6, even if by minimum ammounts

The defence dice ALWAYS had more rolls on the 4-5-6

Very weird.