Moderator: Community Team
don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.
It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.mibi wrote:don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.
mine too.. drop 16 and can only take a few ones before the men are gone, but the opponent can drop 15 on a 2 and take 13 territoriesronc8649 wrote:lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.
Tisha wrote:mine too.. drop 16 and can only take a few ones before the men are gone, but the opponent can drop 15 on a 2 and take 13 territoriesronc8649 wrote:lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.
You play flat rate?ronc8649 wrote:Tisha wrote:mine too.. drop 16 and can only take a few ones before the men are gone, but the opponent can drop 15 on a 2 and take 13 territoriesronc8649 wrote:lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.
THE DICE PROBLEM IS GETTING WORSE PEOPLE.
i wish i was freemium so i didnt have a bunch of turns to take. i find myself not attacking. just deploying and forting, even in flat rate.
THIS IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS.
kristen, could you make a cliffs notes version for me? thanksKristenAmazon wrote:I've gone through the last few games losing up to 12-18 troops to kill 3-4. While early in the game these are pretty critical rolls and especially if my opponent is capable of starting with a dominant position to claim a bonus region.
But I also find that in some cases, after the game has finally been decided, the last few "resistance" fighters get some great rolls. For instance deploying a 3 on a 2. My 5 troops will take out 4 ones or it will take out 2 threes before dying itself.
When I look at the numbers, It is still technically a great roll. The timing I get the roll is pointless because by this time my opponent is getting more than double my income but nonetheless, these are rolls that are shockingly similar to what my opponent had at the beginning. The only difference being, their rolls came and established a dominant start, my rolls came near the end during their "clean-up" phase and it is almost seeming like a mockery because you want the game to end and hopefully have a better start next time.
But this has also happened for me. I remember playing a game where my opponent's chat was: "Oh sure, NOW my guys start fighting." lol. At this point and from the tone, you can imagine the game was decided and it was almost a pain to prolong the game another 2-3 rounds but my question hasn't changed regarding "random dice".
That question is: Why can we put our own barriers on what should be random. If something is not random, then it can be studied, anticipated, implemented and planned for. The reason I attack even if there is a chance of failure is because in most cases, after my deployment, I have the right odds. I can't assume I will lose every troop in a fight. In hindsight after rolling into 4 defensive 6s during a 7 vs 3 attack, I can look back and say: "If I didn't attack, I would still have a 7 man army to work with next round."
When I made that decision to attack and try to secure "australia", I was waging the reward of capturing the region with the risk of losing a portion of my army to try it. Still, 7 vs 3 to gain the +2 and a chance to defend it well gave me good "pot odds" to go for it. It would be worth it in the end, it was a sustainable bonus if I took it and it gave me a powerful position to work from. I never attack planning to lose 6 guys on the first round, I always look ahead at: "What will I do after I take this region" even before I take the region because when I assess the odds, I've already decided to make the attack.
I find that it is in the early game where a few good rolls sets up for what I call the "extermination rounds" which are generally rounds 6-9 on average sized maps. Some great dice by player A on rounds 1-2 will be more valuable than the exact same rolls by player B on rounds 8-9 just because of the investment return and flowing economy sustained by player A at the time. The loss to player B in rounds 1-2 are far more critical than the same loss #s to player A 8 rounds down the road.
I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.Symmetry wrote:It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.mibi wrote:don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.
It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.
Yes- the dice are learning.
Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.
More disturbing evidence that the dice are evolving:mibi wrote:I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.Symmetry wrote:It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.mibi wrote:don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.
It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.
Yes- the dice are learning.
Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.
Realy? please tell me something new,this is what im all ready know.CC DICE ARE BULLSHIT!

LOL...Symmetry wrote:More disturbing evidence that the dice are evolving:mibi wrote:I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.Symmetry wrote:It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.mibi wrote:don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.
It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.
Yes- the dice are learning.
Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.
You have virtually no chance of beating one of these. Our best bet is to capture a die and "load" it in our favour. Then send it back in time to protect the creator of Risk.
Or destroy him.
Whatever.


That was in the game against me! How dare you, sir! How dare you, indeed.Incandenza wrote:2009-09-25 13:50:02 - the.killing.44 [team]: 26v21 -> 21v0
2009-09-25 13:50:19 - the.killing.44 [team]: Auto-assault: Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!
![]()
![]()
![]()

This post made me laugh...very funny stuff. 'The dice are learning!'Symmetry wrote:It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.mibi wrote:don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.
It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.
Yes- the dice are learning.
Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

Ahhh - I have evolved beyond the limit of six sides. You should follow in my footsteps and install my seven-sided dice script. Just think how often you can win when the defenders can always lose.mibi wrote:I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.Symmetry wrote:
Yes- the dice are learning.
Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.
Einstein is famous for saying that God "does not throw dice". Clearly the dice were the creation of another power. A power darker, and much more malevolent than we can possibly imagine.Robinette wrote:
This proves Einsteins theory...
the 2nd law of Thermodienamics clearly states that dice were created spawntaniously during the big bang!
Well..., either that, or the hand of God had something to do with it...