Conquer Club

You will have to find someone more compatible with your propensities, Sergeant, as this is the last post I will be placing or reading in this thread:

Flame wars are for low-ranked, immature bitches, win or lose, and so I don't participate in them.

I win!

stop complaining i just lost 24 v 2, me being 24, im not complaining coz i got 290armies the next turn [game]2390329[/game]

My 2 cents,

In the long run, I believe the dice are random statistically. I think there is a corelation between dices over short time periods.
I don't know if other ppl noticed - It seems to me that auto-attacks tend to give more extreme results than a series of single attacks. If I want a miracle from the dice, I use auto. If I want results close to the statistics, I single attack with ~10sec space between rolls.

Maybe only me - but this method proved itself in my limited statistics.

gp

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: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.

What's with all the shit on dice threads?

just make sure you don't eat the dice....then you really get some shitty dice....

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.

blakebowling wrote:

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.

What's with all the shit on dice threads?

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: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.

A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".

Timminz wrote:

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.

A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".

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)

bedub1 wrote:

Timminz wrote:

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.

A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".

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)

There is a 42% chance of that happening. Not as unlikely as one might think.

If there were no bad dice, then every game would be a stale mate until the value of a set overtakes the number of armies on the board.

Timminz wrote:

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.

A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".

Like that guy who took three armies to my seven, and got a clean sweep.
He killed me by getting lucky.

TNine wrote:

Timminz wrote:

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.

A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".

Like that guy who took three armies to my seven, and got a clean sweep.
He killed me by getting lucky.

There is no such thing as luck.

TNine wrote:

Timminz wrote:

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.

A "suicider who gets unnaturally lucky with the dice" is just another way of saying "the guy who killed me".

Like that guy who took three armies to my seven, and got a clean sweep.
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".

Risk is inherently a game of chance. It happens when you play the board game etc. taking out 120 armies with 100 is not really very unusual given the advantages of the attackers.

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.

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.

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 inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.

lancehoch wrote:

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 inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.

but wouldn't you rather have good dice, than random?

blakebowling wrote:

lancehoch wrote:

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 inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.

but wouldn't you rather have good dice, than random?

Absolutely, but that would mean my opponents all got better attack dice too, and I definitely don't want that.

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.

That's exactly what i am saying.
And i don't really care about my rank.

I got some supremely sucky rolls in the game I just played... but my opponent had even worse luck. I won. The dice are fine. Sometimes I hate them, but they are fine.

lancehoch wrote:

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 inherently means that the numbers are not random. Controlled is the opposite of random.

Yeah, that's the point.