I think the problem is that the dice seem to be very "streaky". For me at least, I seem to often have a bad-luck streak followed by a good luck streak, or vice-versa. I'm not sure if it's really supposed to happen as often as it seems to happen.
I convinced my dice that there was an AoG problem. It was really weird, since the d10s had a problem with not being a truly Platonic solid. I now only roll 5-dimensional Platonic Solids.
Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
Players have been complaining about the dice from the beginning...CC has been trying to fix the dice from the beginning or at least claiming to have fixed the dice.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
So do you not think that that is randomness?
It's not. It's been proven that it's not.
Proven? Where/how?
iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
So do you not think that that is randomness?
It's not. It's been proven that it's not.
Proven? Where/how?
Well if you cared to look in the forum instead of being some dumb fucking troll you would find your answer.
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
So do you not think that that is randomness?
It's not. It's been proven that it's not.
Proven? Where/how?
iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?
So randomness is that things should occur as they're expected to occur?
iAmCaffeine wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
So do you not think that that is randomness?
It's not. It's been proven that it's not.
Proven? Where/how?
Well if you cared to look in the forum instead of being some dumb fucking troll you would find your answer.
The problem is the dice are cutting me no slack in a few of my games. Recently lost seventeen armies killing four armies while managing to conquer two regions. SO IT GOES. No bitching here... it's all part of the game.
Army of GOD wrote:According to ztodd, the fact that you "lost 18v2" is evidence that the dice aren't random. I'm assuming that's because losing 18v2 isn't expected.
ITT: iAmCaffiene admits he's an idiot
Hahaha wrong! According to ztodd, there is a "dice problem". Don't confuse yourself in your own troll thread.
Army of GOD wrote:According to ztodd, the fact that you "lost 18v2" is evidence that the dice aren't random. I'm assuming that's because losing 18v2 isn't expected.
ITT: iAmCaffiene admits he's an idiot
Hahaha wrong! According to ztodd, there is a "dice problem". Don't confuse yourself in your own troll thread.
If you weren't staring into your own asshole maybe you wouldn't miss what he said.
ztodd wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:Had a stack of over 60, attacked a neutral 10 and lost 30 troops doing so. Also spent six rounds attacking a 7 with an 11 stack, a new stack every round, and never won. Opponent deployed 5 and took 7 regions in first turn. Rolled 91v86 and finished 2v11. Lost 18v2. Can claim it's random all you like but that shit doesn't happen on the board.
So do you not think that that is randomness?
It's not. It's been proven that it's not.
Proven? Where/how?
iAmCaffeine just gave pretty solid evidence- assuming it is true- how strong of evidence do you need before you will accept it as proof?
Nowhere does he use the exact phrase "dice problem" and he more closely agrees with the sentiment that it's not random.