One more thing about the dice.

[The Neon Peon]

Okay, let's talk about some real data then.

You claim you lose 1.5% more men than you should according to statistic. Okay, I'll give you that. No one is trying to claim that the dice are perfectly random since they only use a finite string on random integers. Perhaps CC got unlucky and the 500,000 integer string is leaning to being bad for 3v1 attack.

I give you all that as fact for the purpose of this next argument, although I actually disagree with most of it.

Your dice are 1.5% worse than normal for 3v1. This means that you lose 3 attacks more every 200 you make. Now explain to me why you are complaining? You have rolled 1546 3v1 attacks. That means that over your entire CC history, you have lost 23 more 3v1 than you should have. However, those all did not happen at one time. Meaning that as an average of the 242 games you have finished, you lost a single 3v1 every ten games.

With that being said, please claim any of the following if you want to make yourself look stupid:
1. One 3v1 loss in ten games is so noticeable. I can tell that my dice are horrible because it affects my every day play.
2. I am only a low rank because I lose a single 3v1 attack every ten games. That attack obviously automatically causes me to lose those games, so my win rate should be 10% higher.

[Megadeth666]

Please correct me if i am wrong ...these so called 3 vs 1 rolls?...isn't the attacker only rolling 2 dies because 1 has to stay on a terit?...and if so, with the defender getting a tie, I would think the odds are even?,,if not better for the defender

[RADAGA]

Well, I got warned to stop or be banned.

Well, I will leave you alone and focus on plaing silently my own games.

Funny thing is that I never start calling you people idiots, morons, assholes or anything. I never begun a thread or a complain with a personal attack. Several times, however, people here have decided, to great amusement of the audience, to "shut me up" doing so. Those people, I bet, were never warned to tone it down and keep it non-personal. The might even receive pats on their backs for "troll bashing" by those who dont realize they are trolling themselves by invoking Ad hominems and fingerpointing to what should be a technical discussion, or a bad luck vent thread.

Any healthy system, ranging from governments to small business needs it´s dissidents, need those misguided voices that shout and make general noise against "the system". They all need those pesky little students standing in front of tanks and yelling to the world. Not to mention those "filthy slutty hippies clogging Central Park and singing for more love and less war" (irony). Those misfits keep the 99% fittier and healthier members of those societies on their toes.

Places that tend to shut those voices are places like north korea and venezuela.

That being said, I take my leave.

[Timminz]

They let you yammer on for months. Kinda difficult to play the "they're silencing the dissenters" card properly.

[anomalystream]

Every time after I complain my rolls improve. So complain, but that doesnt seem fair or random to me.

[Timminz]

Every time after I complain my rolls improve. So complain, but that doesnt seem fair or random to me.

Perception is everything.

[e_i_pi]

Okay, let's talk about some real data then.

You claim you lose 1.5% more men than you should according to statistic. Okay, I'll give you that. No one is trying to claim that the dice are perfectly random since they only use a finite string on random integers. Perhaps CC got unlucky and the 500,000 integer string is leaning to being bad for 3v1 attack.

IIRC, the numbers I analysed showed a propensity for all but one of the battle types to lean slightly towards the attacker. I don't have the stats any more though, unless you care to CSI my recycle bin.

[e_i_pi]

Funny thing is that I never start calling you people idiots, morons, assholes or anything. I never begun a thread or a complain with a personal attack.

LIES! You've been attacking this guy since the word go.

Places that tend to shut those voices are places like north korea and venezuela.

That being said, I take my leave.

Enjoy your stay in sunny Caracas!

[#1Buckeye]

My dice suck all the time whether I complain or not. Also whoever is attacking me always gets great dice. I am on a hella long losing streak. Win % has dropped to 32% and I have lost 2 ranks. Maybe CC hates the Buckeyes???

[Timminz]

Maybe CC hates the Buckeyes???

Everyone hates the Buckeyes.

Wait.

Who the hell are the Buckeyes?

[#1Buckeye]

You know Transformers but don't know the Ohio St Buckeyes??

[#1Buckeye]

I just got ass-fucked some more by the dice...YAY! It has become quite predictable...I lose at least 1st four every turn

[RADAGA]

Attacker dice distribution Defender dice distribution
1s █████████████████████████ 3110 / 18692 (16.64%) █████████████████████████ 1711 / 10059 (17.01%)
2s █████████████████████████ 3106 / 18692 (16.62%) █████████████████████████ 1638 / 10059 (16.28%)
3s █████████████████████████ 3144 / 18692 (16.82%) █████████████████████████ 1696 / 10059 (16.86%)
4s █████████████████████████ 3102 / 18692 (16.6%) █████████████████████████ 1646 / 10059 (16.36%)
5s █████████████████████████ 3162 / 18692 (16.92%) █████████████████████████ 1701 / 10059 (16.91%)
6s █████████████████████████ 3068 / 18692 (16.41%) █████████████████████████ 1667 / 10059 (16.57%)

Battle Outcomes Actual Stats Ideal Stats
3v2 █████████████████████████ 1325 / 1149 / 1046 (37.64% / 32.64% / 29.72%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)
3v1 █████████████████████████ 1608 / 881 (64.6% / 35.4%) (65.97% / 34.03%)
2v2 █████████████████████████ 25 / 31 / 35 (27.47% / 34.07% / 38.46%) (22.76% / 32.41% / 44.83%)
2v1 █████████████████████████ 109 / 66 (62.29% / 37.71%) (57.87% / 42.13%)
1v2 █████████████████████████ 12 / 28 (30% / 70%) (25.46% / 74.54%)
1v1 █████████████████████████ 38 / 55 (40.86% / 59.14%) (41.67% / 58.33%)

The distribuition is EVEN, defence got more ones than everything else.

STILL my win vs loss is WAY OFF the average, with thousands of rolls (especially 3x1)

Yet another proof it might be random on the bulk but that they come in streaks, a DISASTER for a system where ties favor a side. It doesnt matter if Attackr get 10.000 sixes if defense also does get them at the same time. A hundred ones, folowed by 100 "2" 100 "3" 100 "4" 100 "5" and 100 "6" still strike as perfectly random for the 600 sample.

Whatever. See you in another month, with new statistics.

[Night Strike]

RADAGA, it looks to be like you have good dice, just bad skill. There's not much room to complain when your 3v1 percentage is just 1.37% lower than ideal, but your 2v2, 2v1, and 1v2 are MUCH higher than ideal. You shouldn't be making those rolls very often, which is probably why you keep losing games.

[RADAGA]

RADAGA, it looks to be like you have good dice, just bad skill. There's not much room to complain when your 3v1 percentage is just 1.37% lower than ideal, but your 2v2, 2v1, and 1v2 are MUCH higher than ideal. You shouldn't be making those rolls very often, which is probably why you keep losing games.

Funny. I though the main argument against off-margin dice were "you did not rolled enough"

Now you compare a statistic that have less than 100 samples with one with 2.500 and another with over 3000.

Oh, and just in case: I won 4 of the past 6 games. All of them NOT rigged ones, in DIFFERENT maps and with FIVE or more opponents. Those, with my dice.

Pure bad skill.

[blakebowling]

RADAGA, it looks to be like you have good dice, just bad skill. There's not much room to complain when your 3v1 percentage is just 1.37% lower than ideal, but your 2v2, 2v1, and 1v2 are MUCH higher than ideal. You shouldn't be making those rolls very often, which is probably why you keep losing games.

Funny. I though the main argument against off-margin dice were "you did not rolled enough"

Now you compare a statistic that have less than 100 samples with one with 2.500 and another with over 3000.

Oh, and just in case: I won 4 of the past 6 games. All of them NOT rigged ones, in DIFFERENT maps and with FIVE or more opponents. Those, with my dice.

Pure bad skill.

I say we remove the dice and change it where you have to quick aim at a small target.. the outermost ring is 1 and the innermost is 6...

[teetdogs]

OK so 7 turns in 4 different games I took 15 troops against 3 and lost ALL OF THEM how is this possible? pretty much soul crushing I have given up in all of those games and am just waiting to die. That is all.

[mpjh]

You are not unlucky, just too stubborn for your own good.

Soft attack, then stop when the dice are not working. You may lose 3 men, but you will still be in the game.

[psinno]

You are not unlucky, just too stubborn for your own good.

Soft attack, then stop when the dice are not working. You may lose 3 men, but you will still be in the game.

This is definitely good advice. Far too many times I have seen the dice get stuck on the attacker losing 2 guys a turn. Now I try to change attacking country when this happens. I don't think the dice here are random but it is hard to know since the whole point of randomness is that anything can happen. Their apparent brokenness is VERY VERY frustrating as sometimes it really feels like it is the reason you do not win.

[thenybuffs]

I have been keeping track of all the Defensive dice rolls for well over 100,000 rolls for several weeks now. I have finally tallied up the rolls and here are my results.
To land on a specific number there is a 16.66% chance

105,497 rolls
14,337 were 1's 13.59%
17,987 were 2's 17.05%
18,841 were 3's 17.86%
18,367 were 4's 17.41%
17,312 were 5's 16.41%
18,651 were 6's 17.68%

The more dice that are rolled the closer the average 16.66% should be to each dice rolled. However in my case only 5's were close. 1's were so far off from average with over 100,000 rolls that there must be something wrong! These Stats were for DEFENSE DICE rolls ONLY! The reason why I started keeping track was because I could tell that Defense was winning way too many battles than they should. I felt that 3+ was rolled way too many times to be "Random".

So Defense not only has the advantage of breaking the tie breaker difference but also has an extra 3% advantage to rolling anything except a 1 which gives a dramatic outcome difference when so many dice are being rolled. I would like a explanation of this if possible.

Thanks
"THENYBUFFS"

[KLOBBER]

I have been keeping track of all the Defensive dice rolls for well over 100,000 rolls for several weeks now. I have finally tallied up the rolls and here are my results.
To land on a specific number there is a 16.66% chance.

105,497 rolls
14,337 were 1's 13.59%
17,987 were 2's 17.05%
18,841 were 3's 17.86%
18,367 were 4's 17.41%
17,312 were 5's 16.41%
18,651 were 6's 17.68%

The more dice that are rolled the closer the average 16.66% should be to each dice rolled.

>>>That's not true, if the dice are either "random" or unpredictable, or both. If the dice are supposedly random, then you cannot predict what they should or should not manifest; same for if they're unpredictable. Since you failed to predict what they would come out to beforehand, we can conclude that the dice are unpredictable (your arbitrarily chosen number, 16.66%, was incorrect for all six numbers).

However in my case only 5's were close.

>>>Yes, your arbitrary prediction was incorrect. I would not say that you were "close," though, on any of them. Your numbers were all "just plain" wrong.

1's were so far off from average with over 100,000 rolls that there must be something wrong!

>>>Yes, what was wrong was your prediction, which was chosen arbitrarily by you, even though what you chose to use to describe an unpredictable system was itself very predictable. That was your mistake, not the mistake of the dice designers.

These Stats were for DEFENSE DICE rolls ONLY! The reason why I started keeping track was because I could tell that Defense was winning way too many battles than they should. I felt that 3+ was rolled way too many times to be "Random".

>>>You are wrong about that. According to random numbers theory, random numbers are supposedly wholly divorced from any kind of design that could possibly be predicted. However, nobody has ever been able to produce a string of actually random numbers at any time in history.

These dice are unpredictable, as they are overtly designed to be. They are not random, and they don't conform to any arbitrary or orderly rule imagined by any player here.

LOVE THE DICE!!!

[Timminz]

I kept track of a little more than 250k defensive rolls. Here are the results.

1s 43097 / 257429 (16.74%)
2s 42759 / 257429 (16.61%)
3s 43094 / 257429 (16.74%)
4s 42653 / 257429 (16.57%)
5s 42826 / 257429 (16.64%)
6s 43000 / 257429 (16.7%)

How did you track yours?

[obliterationX]

I can pretty easily predict that the dice roll will be between 1 and 6, so, for that, the dice are predictable. Nevertheless thenybuffs, for such an extraordinarily low number of rolls of one, it cannot be guaranteed that the dice are certainly random. I would question your research, however. Did you manually count them? Ha-ha. Either that or your opponents have some extremely good, random, dice!

[RADAGA]

(Your arbitrarily chosen number, 16.66%, was incorrect for all six numbers).

However in my case only 5's were close.

>>>Yes, your arbitrary prediction was incorrect. I would not say that you were "close," though, on any of them. Your numbers were all wrong.

How can it be wrong? 100% / 6 = 16,6666666666666666666666666666666666666666

Or you are pointing out that he should have used 16,66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667% chance for each dice? or even more decimals?

I think instead you used this "argument" to ignore his point and save yourself the trouble of countering it.

[KLOBBER]

How can it be wrong?

>>>It is wrong because it is an attempt, without any rhyme or reason, to apply a 100% predictable mathematical rule --namely, the law of averages -- to a system that is 100% unpredictable. That attempt, his (and your) main error, is based on an incorrect assumption that is diametrically opposed to reality.

Or you are pointing out that he should have used 16,66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667% chance for each dice? or even more decimals?

I think instead you used this "argument" to ignore his point and save yourself the trouble of countering it.

>>>Oh, so you think he actually HAD a point?

In any case, I'm not quibbling over decimal places; we all knew that he (and you) meant 16 2/3 (no decimal places are required to display this number in precise exactitude, BTW).

Your collective thinking is much more clueless and erratic, and your assumption much more uninformed, arbitrary, and fundamentally unscientific than merely neglecting an infinite number of decimal places, however.

I'm simply pointing out that his predictions were consistently incorrect for all six numbers, no matter how many decimal places you extend as an unintelligent afterthought. Your continued insistence on the same incorrect prediction for all six numbers, even after already seeing with your own eyes that it is an incorrect prediction, is completely inexplicable as far as I'm concerned. For Christ's sake, even a stopped clock is right by accident twice each day! Not the two of you, though -- you are just plain *WRONG X 6* in each and every case, every moment of every day.

The dice, conversely, always produce the exactly correct number that they were designed to produce.

Extending a handful of decimal places is not an acceptable remedy for your fundamentally flawed and lazy thinking. Continuing to cling to a foregone and clearly confirmed scientific error is not only unscientific -- it is truly moronic.

His prediction was 100% incorrect -- all 6 wrong out of 6 possible correct predictions -- wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. His own stats show clearly how thoroughly incorrect he was, and also how incorrect you are now.

This is a very straightforward assertion -- why do you have trouble apprehending it?

Your application of the law of averages may or may not be mathematically correct, but it is definitely ignorant by dint of being logically incorrect. You may as well insist that each and every die throw should produce 3.5 without fail, as 3.5 is the average of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. This example of a ridiculous application of the law of averages may also be mathematically correct, but it is no more illogical, misplaced, or erratic than your own incorrect application, above.

Your flawed application of the law of averages is a total non-sequitur, and like the brief example directly above, it makes absolutely no sense.

The conclusion is that your theory is unscientific and incorrect, and the results of this "experiment" have clearly showed this to be the most important fact in this issue. The dice, and their designers, are not the problem here -- they designed the dice to be unpredictable, and all these ridiculous displays of incorrect and unscientific errors serve only to show that they have succeeded in making them unpredictable, just as they planned to do.

Your sloppy, flawed thinking is the real problem here.

LOVE THE DICE!!!

See more info about CC dice at the bottom of this blog.