Moderator: Community Team
Army of GOD wrote:9630
owenshooter wrote:Army of GOD wrote:9630
is this the new record low?! now, even i am getting nervous!!-JĆ©sus noir
Serbia wrote:Pirlo wrote: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.
Dukasaur wrote:CC will rise again.
ntcbadabing wrote: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 wrote: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...-JĆ©sus noir
degaston wrote:owenshooter wrote: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...-JĆ©sus 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 wrote: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!!!-JĆ©sus noir
owenshooter wrote:degaston wrote:owenshooter wrote: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...-JĆ©sus 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!!!-JĆ©sus noir
shickingbrits wrote: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.
Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote: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.
Metsfanmax wrote: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.
Army of GOD wrote:9573
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
Serbia wrote:Army of GOD wrote: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 wrote:Serbia wrote:Army of GOD wrote: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.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
Serbia wrote: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.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users