One more thing about the dice.

[RADAGA]

Maybe. Funny thing is that on some games I am very lucky, while on others, it is automatic: m iss one or two 3x1 before getting. It is not uniform.

[RADAGA]

Aaaand as usual, the kill and the cards will be given to another player. Reason - bad strategy - I thought 21 armies would suffice to get 7 defended-by-one territories. Silly me to believe there would be no streaks.

I should have known I would have four "loose 3 armies to 3x1 attacks" before getting it. on this run.

So I spent twenty one armies to get 6 territories. leaving 1 behind, and one on every conquered, I lost fourteen (and killed six) armies on this feeble attempt. Of course this is to be expected every time you try such, here. 14-to-six ration on 3x1 attacks are common... here.

and of course you will say that it is perfect possible forthis to happen.

Here in brazil, a man won 23 times in the lottery. He said that this was perfectly normal, and that only God´s hand helped him.

He is in jail, now, because "god" in his dictionary means "fraud the system"

I wonder what "random" means here...

[RADAGA]

I should win a prize.

EIGHT 3X1 LOSSES IN A ROW!!!!!

11 ARMIES TO KILL 3. I GOT THE FIRST 3X2 FULL, THE ENEMY STOOD WITH ONLY 1 ARMY.

THEN I LOST EIGHT 3X1

THIS IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. THIS MONTH ALONE I GOT THREE EIGHT-IN-A-ROW, TWO SEVEN-IN-A-ROW AND SEVERAL FOURS AND THREES.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DICE ARE RIGHT. THEY MIGHT BE FOR BULK VALUES, BUT THEY DO PRESENT STREAKS.

I think, now, without any emotion, having vented it already, that the so called random of random.org might be cyclical - simplifying it generates data like that:

112112322334344545656566

(this streak have 4 of each number, and would be a "uniform" distribuition when analysed.

that would be logical, since it reads data from the atmosphere, and those should increase and decrease gradually, generating those "random, but not quite so" data.

Any kind of vicious repetition in a system that favor one side when ties happen is catastrophic.

That explain the freak results we get when autorolling - either losing everything and killing almost none or killing a lot and losing way too few

And would explain the rows of losses on, in my case, 3x1

C´mon, guys eight losses in a row when rolling 3x1 is not normal, it is something that should be more rare than picking the right lottery numbers. To have THREE of such occorences within less than one thousand rolls is just plain wrong.

[Megadeth666]

while attacking 3-1 , hold down the Ctrl and Alt button you will always win

[RADAGA]

while attacking 3-1 , hold down the Ctrl and Alt button you will always win

[The Neon Peon]

Maybe. Funny thing is that on some games I am very lucky, while on others, it is automatic: m iss one or two 3x1 before getting. It is not uniform.

That is THE most hilarious post I've read in a long while.

Thanks.

[RADAGA]

Maybe. Funny thing is that on some games I am very lucky, while on others, it is automatic: m iss one or two 3x1 before getting. It is not uniform.

That is THE most hilarious post I've read in a long while.

Thanks.

Thats good. Whitout people like you many bad comedians would starve.

[RADAGA]

Just lost a game.

I had 34 armies, and had to conquer a stack of 9 and 6 territories with 1

A the end of the stack, I had 24 armies.

Then I lost 6 in a row for the first 3x1
Then I lost 4 in a row for the second 3x1
Then I lost 5 in a row for the third 3x1

Lame!

[RADAGA]

Lame me, trying to get a (paying) LT territories.

Game 5875491

I had 14 armies. He had 4 territories, one with 3, 4 with a single.

After conquering the 3 army stack, I had 10 left , 3 more territores to go, one on each.

Afetr conquering the first one, I had five armies left.

After conquering the second one, I had NO MORE ARMIES.

14 x 3 - lost 3 left one behind
10x1 - lost 4, left one behind (three of them sixes)
5x1 lost 2, left one behind (one six)
1x1 - lost to yet another six.

So, not even the odds were ALL WRONG, but in 9 rolls, defence rolled 5 sixes. OVER 50%.

I should learn, and stop trying to attack premium officers.

[trinicardinal]

I should win a prize.

you do. You win the prize for the most complaining ever

[urbansloth]

Wow - just tapped into this thread, this is hilarious. Mind if I have a go..?

I should win a prize.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DICE ARE RIGHT. THEY MIGHT BE FOR BULK VALUES, BUT THEY DO PRESENT STREAKS.

I think, now, without any emotion, having vented it already, that the so called random of random.org might be cyclical - simplifying it generates data like that:

112112322334344545656566

(this streak have 4 of each number, and would be a "uniform" distribuition when analysed.

Let's try another angle of logic - aren't both the attacker's and defender's dice rolled from this same "cyclical" sample? Using your theory then, over, time, the defender would produce a predominate trend of winnning, due to winning a drawn dice. No one's stats show an abnormal skew towards the defender.

And here's another angle - isn't everyone using these same "broken" dice...? Yet you're the only one losing games...

When I played golf, I used to laugh my ass of when someone hit a score 2 or 3 shots over whatever won for the day, then say something like "but I would have knocked a couple of strokes off and won if the greens weren't so shit" - he must have thought the bloke who won played on different greens or something, I don't know.

[The Neon Peon]

I'd like to explain something I have found in life.

There are some people that ignore any logic that goes against what they have to say. These people are generally also idiots who do not understand basic principles. Arguing or using logic against these people is pointless. I have found that saying 'shut up' to them is more effective than trying to explain something as simple as 'if something is random, it is never fair.'

This does not go to just any particular person on CC. There are plenty of people in the world that are so tied to the way they think the world is that they think that the way they define a word is right and that everyone else's definition (including the guy that wrote the dictionary) is wrong. Just ignore them or tell them to shut up.

Please stop trying to use logic in this thread... it only makes them argue more.

[urbansloth]

Hahahahahaha, fair call!!

[decoulombe]

Maybe we should rename this the 'all new' intensity cubes complaints (merged) for dummies....lol...no jk

[72o]

Or "RADAGA's dice complaint thread...nothing to see here"

[TheMissionary]

With what you are saying about the 500,000 rolls regenerating, that would mean the odds were much better of being random if we do actually use auto attack. With this point forwards, does that mean that if someone else uses auto at the exact same time, are the odds of random split between the 2 different users? I personally have found that the dice can be particularly lucky for few days, then be the complete opposite for a period afterward. I've noticed a pattern in how my rank fluctuates, and I'm fairly sure that my game play technique doesn't change that sporadically. I'll reach my high score, maybe beat it by 70-100 points. Then it seems the luck changes, whether it be dice or drops, and I'll end up about the same point differential above my low score. This seems to be the pattern in my game play experience. Sure in the long run I'm gaining points, but it only seems to do that if I avoid 1v1 games where the odds are usually to 1 person or the other from the start of the game.

[RADAGA]

With what you are saying about the 500,000 rolls regenerating, that would mean the odds were much better of being random if we do actually use auto attack. With this point forwards, does that mean that if someone else uses auto at the exact same time, are the odds of random split between the 2 different users? I personally have found that the dice can be particularly lucky for few days, then be the complete opposite for a period afterward. I've noticed a pattern in how my rank fluctuates, and I'm fairly sure that my game play technique doesn't change that sporadically. I'll reach my high score, maybe beat it by 70-100 points. Then it seems the luck changes, whether it be dice or drops, and I'll end up about the same point differential above my low score. This seems to be the pattern in my game play experience. Sure in the long run I'm gaining points, but it only seems to do that if I avoid 1v1 games where the odds are usually to 1 person or the other from the start of the game.

No use argueing, the dice are perfect, the programmers are flawless, no one can commit any mistake when making the engine that deliver the rolls. You MUST have dual-personality disorder, and your "other you" plays differently. DIce are always right. Even in those 9 losses in a row on a 3x1. Not even when your opponent put 28 armies on a territory, take your 25 defending yours, and advances 15. Not even when you try to take back those with 16 armies and end up with 3 while, of the 15, 9 remain. Stop wasting your time, you´re going against perfect gods here.

For urbansloth:

No one's stats show an abnormal skew towards the defender.

I had, posted stats here, they were ignored. Whatever.

And here's another angle - isn't everyone using these same "broken" dice...? Yet you're the only one losing games...

I am not the only one losing games, and I do win 30-35% of them. But I am the only one playing without rigging teams, or preying on newbies and yet am concerned and trying to win points.

When you play even matches, you start paying attention to the odds. Whe you just rig triplets with your high level pals games against newbies, it does not matter.

TRY to suggest random team placement, and see how they will resist on someone attempt to dry their fountain.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can someone please throw down the stats for:

3 x 2:

2 attackers die:
2 defenders die:
each lose one:

I found some crap on wikipedia, but I highly doubt it...

[Timminz]

Can someone please throw down the stats for:

3 x 2:

2 attackers die:
2 defenders die:
each lose one:

I found some crap on wikipedia, but I highly doubt it...

Try this.

[captainwalrus]

If you never get really really bad dice then the dice aren't truly random. No roll is impossible only infinently improbable, and therefore guaranteed to happen, it just sucks that it happened to you.
But, if you are right, and the dice aren't random, do you have the pattern they follow figured out? Shouldn't by now you be able to make it so you win much more than you loose, by rolling in certain combinations or something? If I roll as certain sequence, would you be able to tell me what number comes next?

[RADAGA]

If you never get really really bad dice then the dice aren't truly random. No roll is impossible only infinently improbable, and therefore guaranteed to happen, it just sucks that it happened to you.
But, if you are right, and the dice aren't random, do you have the pattern they follow figured out? Shouldn't by now you be able to make it so you win much more than you loose, by rolling in certain combinations or something? If I roll as certain sequence, would you be able to tell me what number comes next?

Fallacious argument. I cannot tell the results the same way you cannot list me all possible moves on a chess match on the 10th round.

If you do list me all the possible board settings for a 10th round of chess, and tell me where each piece will be placed on each hypotesis, I will think about figureing out the dice.

Chess moves are NOT random, each piece have fixed rules on how they move. Go ahead.

After that, you can predict me the trajetory of all snooker balls after a cue hit. When you succeed, evolve to all the possible trajetories for all the possible angles and intensities the cue can interact weith the white ball.

All those, also not random, no probability involved, only physiscs.

[Timminz]

All those, also not random, no probability involved, only physiscs.

Pointing out that your own examples do not apply, is the funniest thing I've read all morning.

[RADAGA]

All those, also not random, no probability involved, only physiscs.

Pointing out that your own examples do not apply, is the funniest thing I've read all morning.

Acutally I was refuting his argument. He said I must be able to predict dice, once they are NOT random.

I pointed out that, EVEN FOR NON-RANDOM EVENTS, it might be impossilbe to predict due to sheer number of possible outcomes.

But I understand I might have been too sophisticated in my line of thought. Perhaps I should stick to apples and bananas, and Bob and Sue when talking math here.

Or drawing might help



and dont point i am being aggressive. ALL I have been seen here are Ad Hominem arguments, so, deal with it.

for the record, since I might have to explain later anyway>

Ad hominem, formal fallacy: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.

[SuicidalSnowman]

and dont point i am being aggressive. ALL I have been seen here are Ad Hominem arguments, so, deal with it.

for the record, since I might have to explain later anyway>

Ad hominem, formal fallacy: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.

OH NO YOU DID'ENT!

Since you went there, come along for the ride on the formal logic name dropping pedantic bandwagon!

1: Slippery slope/Unfounded Generalization: The writer assumes that because one minor fact is true, then, despite any further proof, a larger premise must also be true.

Ex:

THEN I LOST EIGHT 3X1

THIS IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. THIS MONTH ALONE I GOT THREE EIGHT-IN-A-ROW, TWO SEVEN-IN-A-ROW AND SEVERAL FOURS AND THREES.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DICE ARE RIGHT.

Original poster is using "RIGHT" to mean fair or random. -Ed. Note how in this statement, the original poster uses one example to make a broad generalization for the larger premise that the dice are not random. Additionally, see the majority of posts in this thread.

2: False Analogy: Comparing two objects or ideas that have too few similarities to establish a basis for a good comparison leads to a false analogy.

Ex:

Fallacious argument. I cannot tell the results the same way you cannot list me all possible moves on a chess match on the 10th round.

If you do list me all the possible board settings for a 10th round of chess, and tell me where each piece will be placed on each hypotesis, I will think about figureing out the dice.

Chess moves are NOT random, each piece have fixed rules on how they move. Go ahead.

After that, you can predict me the trajetory of all snooker balls after a cue hit. When you succeed, evolve to all the possible trajetories for all the possible angles and intensities the cue can interact weith the white ball.

All those, also not random, no probability involved, only physiscs.

Note in this example how the original poster attempts to draw a link between the mathematical probability in the dice generation with the physical properties of a snooker ball.

3. Oversimplification: This logical fallacy occurs when the writer assumes that there can be only one cause or one solution to a problem.

Ex.

Lame me, trying to get a (paying) LT territories.

Game 5875491

I had 14 armies. He had 4 territories, one with 3, 4 with a single.

After conquering the 3 army stack, I had 10 left , 3 more territores to go, one on each.

Afetr conquering the first one, I had five armies left.

After conquering the second one, I had NO MORE ARMIES.

14 x 3 - lost 3 left one behind
10x1 - lost 4, left one behind (three of them sixes)
5x1 lost 2, left one behind (one six)
1x1 - lost to yet another six.

So, not even the odds were ALL WRONG, but in 9 rolls, defence rolled 5 sixes. OVER 50%.

I should learn, and stop trying to attack premium officers.

Note how in this example it is assumed that the only cause of poor dice rolls can be a player's premium or non-premium status.

4. Non-Sequitur: When the writer reaches a conclusion that does not follow or is not warranted by the evidence offered, he has committed a non sequitur.

Ex.

Aaaand as usual, the kill and the cards will be given to another player. Reason - bad strategy - I thought 21 armies would suffice to get 7 defended-by-one territories. Silly me to believe there would be no streaks.

I should have known I would have four "loose 3 armies to 3x1 attacks" before getting it. on this run.

So I spent twenty one armies to get 6 territories. leaving 1 behind, and one on every conquered, I lost fourteen (and killed six) armies on this feeble attempt. Of course this is to be expected every time you try such, here. 14-to-six ration on 3x1 attacks are common... here.

and of course you will say that it is perfect possible forthis to happen.

Here in brazil, a man won 23 times in the lottery. He said that this was perfectly normal, and that only God´s hand helped him.

He is in jail, now, because "god" in his dictionary means "fraud the system"

I wonder what "random" means here...

Notice how in this case, the writer begins by detailing dice rolls. Although the English is not perfect, it is presented logically and with specific examples to back it up. The writer then concludes that a man in Brazil committed fraud to win the lottery, and therefore, the dice on Conquer Club are unfair.
Non Sequitur means "It does not follow" in Latin. -Ed.

5. Reasoning from Statistics: The writer presents statistics, and then concludes that there can be no other interpretation of them except for her conclusion.

Ex.

I should win a prize.

EIGHT 3X1 LOSSES IN A ROW!!!!!

11 ARMIES TO KILL 3. I GOT THE FIRST 3X2 FULL, THE ENEMY STOOD WITH ONLY 1 ARMY.

THEN I LOST EIGHT 3X1

THIS IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. THIS MONTH ALONE I GOT THREE EIGHT-IN-A-ROW, TWO SEVEN-IN-A-ROW AND SEVERAL FOURS AND THREES.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DICE ARE RIGHT. THEY MIGHT BE FOR BULK VALUES, BUT THEY DO PRESENT STREAKS.

I think, now, without any emotion, having vented it already, that the so called random of random.org might be cyclical - simplifying it generates data like that:

112112322334344545656566

(this streak have 4 of each number, and would be a "uniform" distribuition when analysed.

that would be logical, since it reads data from the atmosphere, and those should increase and decrease gradually, generating those "random, but not quite so" data.

Any kind of vicious repetition in a system that favor one side when ties happen is catastrophic.

That explain the freak results we get when autorolling - either losing everything and killing almost none or killing a lot and losing way too few

And would explain the rows of losses on, in my case, 3x1

C´mon, guys eight losses in a row when rolling 3x1 is not normal, it is something that should be more rare than picking the right lottery numbers. To have THREE of such occorences within less than one thousand rolls is just plain wrong.

Notice how in this post, many, many numbers are thrown about. In the end, however, the author is able to reach only one conclusion. Since statistics are subject to interpretation, watch them carefully. -Ed.

6.

Ad hominem, formal fallacy: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.

Ex.

Thats good. Whitout people like you many bad comedians would starve.

All these examples taken from only the last TWO pages of this 45 page thread. And although I did not record it, I have a hunch that the majority came from the same user, based on grammar/spelling and use of capitalization.

I suppose my logical fallacy is the first, the over generalization. Although some of CC comes up with gems such as this:

Maybe. Funny thing is that on some games I am very lucky, while on others, it is automatic: m iss one or two 3x1 before getting. It is not uniform.

the vast majority of CC users probably understands how the dice work.

Perhaps for my next post I will find some examples of sound logic.
Also, logic definitions taking from an LSAT prep book, except Ad Hominem, which was more or less correct so taken from this topic. All examples anonymously selected from the last two pages of this topic.
Hopefully I have done some good with my last 45 minutes.
*Edited a few times to fix spelling errors and my poor use of BBC tags

[Timminz]

But I understand I might have been too sophisticated in my line of thought. Perhaps I should stick to apples and bananas, and Bob and Sue when talking math here.

I must admit, you are a comedic genius, and I, for one, appreciate the good work you do here at conquer club. Bravo!