Conquer Club

As far as I understand, he's just asking for a smaller standard deviation on dice outcomes.

If one accepts that there is nothing particularly non-random about CC "intensity cube" outcomes, then this suggestion is equivalent to saying that the game inherently gives too many unbalanced outcomes. CC tends to shy away from changes to the mechanics that alter the fundamental nature of the game (of course, some options like Nuclear spoils do this, but they are just options).

I don't have a problem with other dice suggestions, but i wish someone would think through what it means what they are suggesting.

Have you really REALLY considered the extend of your proposal?
This means that your suggestion contains all the pro's and con's and all the adjustments that need to be made to gameplay so it can be implemented?
...
let us consider your proposal..
the highest attacking cube vs the lowest defending...
..
omg, the attacker has 2's in every region and forces the big defending stack to defend with 2 dice…1 dice vs 2, and the defender instead of having the advantage in such a situation actually now has the disadvantage, since he defends with the LOWEST dice and not the highest dice…! And that took me a full 0.5 second to think off….

Other than that, even if you tweak it, it means the attacker gains an even greater advantage then it already has. The current advantage is enough, you don’t need to increase it.
I think this ends the suggestion where it stands.. sorry

Frogmanx82 wrote:Concise description:

• Instead of using the highest attacking against the highest defending, I propose using the highest attacking against the lowest defending, then take the next highest attack roll against the highest defending.

Specifics/Details:

• If attacker rolls 6-4-1 and defender rolls 5-2, the current way would be a 2-0 attacker, this way it would split. You could still get a 2-0 or 0-2 result, but they would be much less frequent. I'd suggest this vs my other suggestion of no dice and using a straight one for one removal.

• This would result in a lot more split decisions and a lot less 10-0 or 0-10 turns. I do not think this would harm the defender as they would be more likely to win at least one. Against a single defender things wouldn't change. As an option we could call this fair dice.

Funkyterrance wrote:Mets,

Considering the information that Natty provided, the current system has a potential flaw. A string of numbers is taken from random.org intermittently, therefore it is not a true interpretation of the numbers generated there. I feel like I am repeating myself but no one is debating the validity of random.org.

You feel like you're repeating yourself? Lol, try talking to a dice complainer for even 2 or 3 posts.

Anyway, your perception of a "flaw" is a flawed one. Two main requirements for random numbers are a) that they are impossible to predict and b) that previous results do not affect the results after them. The system currently employed by CC satisfies both of these requirements. It doesn't matter if CC's dice are a "true interpretation of the numbers" whatever that means... all that matters is that the resulting numbers are random, which they are.

natty_dread wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Mets,

Considering the information that Natty provided, the current system has a potential flaw. A string of numbers is taken from random.org intermittently, therefore it is not a true interpretation of the numbers generated there. I feel like I am repeating myself but no one is debating the validity of random.org.

You feel like you're repeating yourself? Lol, try talking to a dice complainer for even 2 or 3 posts.

Anyway, your perception of a "flaw" is a flawed one. Two main requirements for random numbers are a) that they are impossible to predict and b) that previous results do not affect the results after them. The system currently employed by CC satisfies both of these requirements. It doesn't matter if CC's dice are a "true interpretation of the numbers" whatever that means... all that matters is that the resulting numbers are random, which they are.

I agree with natty here. any flaw would be that these could be determined predetermined numbers. However, the predetermined numbers are not used more then once. Therefore the numbers do not risk reoccurrence…considering the numbers are still independently formed from each other, there is no problem with this.

as to the validity of random org. what is there to debate?

personally I think this suggestion makes the dice less random.

Yeah, I didn't think about attacking 1 vs 2 since you would normally never do that. Really the best option is the no dice option and just remove one for one.

Frogmanx82 wrote:Yeah, I didn't think about attacking 1 vs 2 since you would normally never do that. Really the best option is the no dice option and just remove one for one.

Then that removes a huge element of the game that this game revolves around. You have to take a "risk" at taking something (This game isn't all strategy). I've constantly been against a no dice option.

Frogmanx82 wrote:Yeah, I didn't think about attacking 1 vs 2 since you would normally never do that. Really the best option is the no dice option and just remove one for one.

normally never?
what is you only had a 1 and the other had a 2.. sorry, you must see that there are so many holes to fill, that this is not a good suggestion. Other then that the creator has already said no to a no dice game. I expect the demand will be there though, but i am unsure if it is going to be implemented

I think the problem with this is it would shift the current slight advantage to the attacker over to the defender, thus fundamentally altering the game. If this was implemented the attacker would have to roll two dice higher than the highest attack die to win 2-0

Funkyterrance wrote:You are going to have to remember the basis of this thread is in regards to real dice since this is one main complaint that players have against the current system (they trust dice but not random.org). While real dice are arguably not 100% random, the difference is so nominal that most people accept them to be random. The same goes for the flip of a coin.

My granny doesn't trust the weird electrical signals running through tubes. She only trusts handwritten notes with signatures to be an accurate representation of what she wanted. She'd be much happier if this site would allow people to physically mail their turns to the other players. That way she wouldn't be so worried about the computers changing what she wanted.

Well frankly I am honored that this thread is still active. Haven't looked at it for a while but I can honestly say that I still stick to my guns that the idea is not entirely impractical, at least in the sense that it is no less random than the way the numbers from random.org are used here. The difference is that my suggested system would possibly be more acceptable to those who complain about the dice. I would like to hear the opinions of an actual dice complainer on this if that is all possible, not someone who thinks they understand how a dice complainer thinks.

Concise description:
When a defending territory gets reduced to 2 men, the dice is reduced to 1


Specifics/Details:
you can sort of imagine the defenders base being ocuppied by 1 troop, the rest run out and attack the attackers, so when the defending troops are reduced to 2, there is only 1 attacking outside the "base"

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
May make the dice 'fairer' or at the least make the game more aggressive


ps: im insane already so no need to point that out

this doesn't make sense, if i'm defending why do i have to send troops out to defend? or even attack the defender?

they don't build castles just so everyone can run out and fight on even ground.

maybe cus all your troops dont fit in your castle

gingerswimmer wrote:Concise description:
When a defending territory gets reduced to 2 men, the dice is reduced to 1


Specifics/Details:
you can sort of imagine the defenders base being ocuppied by 1 troop, the rest run out and attack the attackers, so when the defending troops are reduced to 2, there is only 1 attacking outside the "base"

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
May make the dice 'fairer' or at the least make the game more aggressive


ps: im insane already so no need to point that out

How will it make the dice "More fair"? The attacking dice already have advantage in 3v2 situations, why increase it?

this suggestion is not better.

not really, defending dice win draws do they not? it would encourage more aggresive fighting

and i hate to say it, but original risk follows this way, and no one ever complained about unfair dice then

and im only saying reduce to 1 when troops gets reduce to 2

gingerswimmer wrote:not really, defending dice win draws do they not? it would encourage more aggresive fighting

and i hate to say it, but original risk follows this way, and no one ever complained about unfair dice then

and im only saying reduce to 1 when troops gets reduce to 2

If you did actual statistics on the dice, you would realize that on a 3v2 attack (By that, I mean 3 dice vs 2 dice), the Attacker has the advantage.

Odds in a 3v2 attack wrote:Attacker: three dice; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins both: 37.17 %
Defender wins both: 29.26 %
Both win one: 33.58 %

And I never ever played Risk this way before. I've only played it the way that it is done on this site.

hey, i know when im beaten, ive always played risk where 2 defending troops only get 1 dice to defend with, my games have always been hyper aggresive, just wondered wether it might improve the....err..............complaints

gingerswimmer wrote:hey, i know when im beaten, ive always played risk where 2 defending troops only get 1 dice to defend with, my games have always been hyper aggresive, just wondered wether it might improve the....err..............complaints

fair enough

i'm not interested in improving the complaints though.

the way i see it is, if you have a castle and you are down to your last 2 defenders then it is all hands on deck (sorry for the mixed metaphor).

i have heard a variation of this where the defender gets to observe the attackers roll and choose how many dice to roll, but never this... personally i'm not in favor of it, especially as a non-option change

gingerswimmer wrote:hey, i know when im beaten, ive always played risk where 2 defending troops only get 1 dice to defend with, my games have always been hyper aggresive, just wondered wether it might improve the....err..............complaints

What kind of rules were those, they are NOT the official risk rules

*gets out really old box of risk* says it right here

gingerswimmer wrote:*gets out really old box of risk* says it right here

http://boardgames.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi ... sk1959.PDF

rules from hasbro 1959 nor 1999 version nor any version inbetween mention it. what version does mention you can only defend with 1 troops if you have 2 army's?
I think you are reading the rules wrong