Moderator: Community Team
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
What's with all the shit on dice threads?TNine wrote:The dice ARE random, lots and lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and by community members. -Conquer Club I am not complaining that the dice aren't random, let's just get that out of the way.
I am complaining that just because there random doesn't mean that their good. In fact, that means they might be bad, as chance is very uncontrollable. I would much rather have a fair random numbers algorithm. Just a point for the dice are random argument.
TNine wrote: I am complaining that just because there random doesn't mean that their good. In fact, that means they might be bad, as chance is very uncontrollable. I would much rather have a fair random numbers algorithm. Just a point for the dice are random argument.
In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.blakebowling wrote:What's with all the shit on dice threads?TNine wrote:The dice ARE random, lots and lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and by community members. -Conquer Club I am not complaining that the dice aren't random, let's just get that out of the way.
I am complaining that just because there random doesn't mean that their good. In fact, that means they might be bad, as chance is very uncontrollable. I would much rather have a fair random numbers algorithm. Just a point for the dice are random argument.
A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".TNine wrote:In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.
What if it was a guy that took 100 vs your 120? And won and killed you? I'd call him a suicider until he got those great dice....(2 left)Timminz wrote:A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".TNine wrote:In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.
There is a 42% chance of that happening. Not as unlikely as one might think.bedub1 wrote:What if it was a guy that took 100 vs your 120? And won and killed you? I'd call him a suicider until he got those great dice....(2 left)Timminz wrote:A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".TNine wrote:In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.
Like that guy who took three armies to my seven, and got a clean sweep.Timminz wrote:A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".TNine wrote:In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.
TNine wrote:Like that guy who took three armies to my seven, and got a clean sweep.Timminz wrote:A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".TNine wrote:In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.
He killed me by getting lucky.

OK. what do you suggest they do about that? Should they make it so that TNine never loses and improbable roll? Or maybe the game could just ask you what numbers you'd like to roll? The thing about probability, is that "improbable" does NOT mean "impossible".TNine wrote:Like that guy who took three armies to my seven, and got a clean sweep.Timminz wrote:A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".TNine wrote:In the last five games i've played i've lost four to suiciders who get unnaturally lucky with the dice, no matter what i do.
He killed me by getting lucky.


That inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.TNine wrote:I'm not saying that the improbable shouldn't be totally impossible. But i am saying that a good random numbers algorithm would be better, as it is more controlled and fair. I'm simply saying this due to the large amounts of totally unfair rolls i've had, but maybe it's just me.
but wouldn't you rather have good dice, than random?lancehoch wrote:That inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.TNine wrote:I'm not saying that the improbable shouldn't be totally impossible. But i am saying that a good random numbers algorithm would be better, as it is more controlled and fair. I'm simply saying this due to the large amounts of totally unfair rolls i've had, but maybe it's just me.
Absolutely, but that would mean my opponents all got better attack dice too, and I definitely don't want that.blakebowling wrote:but wouldn't you rather have good dice, than random?lancehoch wrote:That inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.TNine wrote:I'm not saying that the improbable shouldn't be totally impossible. But i am saying that a good random numbers algorithm would be better, as it is more controlled and fair. I'm simply saying this due to the large amounts of totally unfair rolls i've had, but maybe it's just me.
That's exactly what i am saying.Timminz wrote:Random DOES NOT equal fair. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will be able to incorporate the dice into your strategy, and rise through the ranks.

Yeah, that's the point.lancehoch wrote:That inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.TNine wrote:I'm not saying that the improbable shouldn't be totally impossible. But i am saying that a good random numbers algorithm would be better, as it is more controlled and fair. I'm simply saying this due to the large amounts of totally unfair rolls i've had, but maybe it's just me.