Page 29 of 30
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:41 pmby Dibbun
Holy shit, do you ever stop to think that when you have good dice, your opponent is having bad dice? Cry more for fucks sake, I have the same dice odds as anyone else and I hold a decent rank because part of strategy is accounting for the possibility that you will have bad dice.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:46 pmby SuperGoogleman
Dibbun wrote:Holy shit, do you ever stop to think that when you have good dice, your opponent is having bad dice? Cry more for fucks sake, I have the same dice odds as anyone else and I hold a decent rank because part of strategy is accounting for the possibility that you will have bad dice.
yes i do stop and think during good times, often i wish my opponents would have better luck so we could have more enjoyable tightly fought tactical games. I wasnt personally moaning, most the time i just laugh at bad dice or have a quick vent in chat and get back to having fun, but i love this place and want it to be successful for us all, so had, what seemed like, an interesting thought and felt like posting it to see how other people thought about it.
And i get your points that most think real dice are best but if it ment having more closely fought games i think i would be ok knowing the dice werent always fully random
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:35 pmby zimmah
i'd support the 'no dice option' over this one.
i believe the no dice option has been suggested before, it's basicly like this:
you have the option while creating the game to choose for this option, and in a game with no dice when 6 armies face 4 armies they will always take the country and have 2 armies left (1 on each country). the outcomes of battle will allways be predictable like this. it will be impossable to attack from a country with 2 armies to avoid any balance issues.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:56 pmby xenowolff
zimmah wrote:i'd support the 'no dice option' over this one.
i believe the no dice option has been suggested before, it's basicly like this:
you have the option while creating the game to choose for this option, and in a game with no dice when 6 armies face 4 armies they will always take the country and have 2 armies left (1 on each country). the outcomes of battle will allways be predictable like this. it will be impossable to attack from a country with 2 armies to avoid any balance issues.
Bad idea, -1.
I like the dice just how they are. leave them be.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:57 amby Criticalwinner
If you rely on not getting horrible streaks to win, then you're not a good enough player to begin with. Streaks are a part of the game, just like the board game version. Many people just get greedy or stupid with their rolling procedures. The dice are fine just the way they should be.
*Hint: Don't Auto-Assualt when you care enough that you can't lose over half your armies.... 'Cause it will (very rarely) happen.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:16 pmby tarcellius
If some kind of "make the dice more fair" algorithm were added to reduce good/bad streaks, can you imagine how loud the complaints will be when people feel screwed by bad dice? Because now there will be an actual human-created algorithm to blame!
Leave the random dice alone, that's my vote.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:23 pmby rhp 1
stop crying about the damn dice. just become a better player through strat, and the streaks of winning will be longer than the losing regardless of the dice.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:26 pmby rhp 1
Dibbun wrote:Holy shit, do you ever stop to think that when you have good dice, your opponent is having bad dice? Cry more for fucks sake, I have the same dice odds as anyone else and I hold a decent rank because part of strategy is accounting for the possibility that you will have bad dice.
you have a decent rank?
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:27 pmby chapcrap
rhp 1 wrote:stop crying about the damn dice. just become a better player through strat, and the streaks of winning will be longer than the losing regardless of the dice.
Stop bringing up dead threads with nothing to add.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:46 amby Edshuster
Agree'd - let the dice be. Random is a good thing. Afterall, that is how we live our lives
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:06 pmby rokus35
[url]MajorCommand.com[/url] has an option for fixed force which lets you have set battle outcomes.
I think its sounds cool but its only for premiums. I think that's weird because fixed force would be cheaper.
They would know we copied them though. You know MajorCommand has a lot of cool options but not very many maps and it is very very slow. Conquerclub is probably at least 10x faster.
CC Dice Teller 3.0
Posted:
Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:32 pmby grifftron
Welcome to "CC Dice Teller 3.0"
Concise description:
After its predecessors CC Dice Teller 1.0 & CC Dice Teller 2.0, Dice Teller 3.0 will be able to tell you what you are gonna roll 5 rolls ahead unlike DT 1.0 which could only tell you 1 roll ahead and DT 2.0 which could only tell you 3 rolls ahead.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This would be great for when you are attacking huge stacks, you can just click on DT 3.0 see what you will roll in the next 5 rolls and decide if it will be worth it or not.
Re: CC Dice Teller 3.0
Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:44 amby TheForgivenOne
I don't know if this is possible :s From what I know (which isn't a lot), the "dice" are picked from the string of 50 000 numbers. And since people are constantly taking turns, your "next 3/5" numbers are always going to be changing based on who else is rolling the dice.
Maybe someone who is a bit more tech savvy can confirm/deny this.
Re: CC Dice Teller 3.0
Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:33 pmby blakebowling
TheForgivenOne wrote:I don't know if this is possible :s From what I know (which isn't a lot), the "dice" are picked from the string of 50 000 numbers. And since people are constantly taking turns, your "next 3/5" numbers are always going to be changing based on who else is rolling the dice.
Maybe someone who is a bit more tech savvy can confirm/deny this.
I'm fairly certain this is a joke TFO.
Re: CC Dice Teller 3.0
Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:35 pmby TheForgivenOne
blakebowling wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:I don't know if this is possible :s From what I know (which isn't a lot), the "dice" are picked from the string of 50 000 numbers. And since people are constantly taking turns, your "next 3/5" numbers are always going to be changing based on who else is rolling the dice.
Maybe someone who is a bit more tech savvy can confirm/deny this.
I'm fairly certain this is a joke TFO.
Probably, can I smack grifftron with my paddle that i wish I had?
Re: CC Dice Teller 3.0
Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:38 pmby blakebowling
TheForgivenOne wrote:blakebowling wrote:TheForgivenOne wrote:I don't know if this is possible :s From what I know (which isn't a lot), the "dice" are picked from the string of 50 000 numbers. And since people are constantly taking turns, your "next 3/5" numbers are always going to be changing based on who else is rolling the dice.
Maybe someone who is a bit more tech savvy can confirm/deny this.
I'm fairly certain this is a joke TFO.
Probably, can I smack grifftron with my paddle that i wish I had?
Fine by me.
dice
Posted:
Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:03 amby battlemania
new dice simulator
CCan weplease have better dice...this is crap...im sure many agree...cheers
better dice, fairer with less stress
Re: dice
Posted:
Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:30 amby blakebowling
The dice are fair (as has been posted many many times). Changing the way a randomization code works won't effect the direct outcomes of the dice.
Rejected -- Please use the search form next time, it's your friend.
Re: dice
Posted:
Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:11 amby battlemania
dont know about your logic, but there are deffinate patterns in the dice and there is deffinite bs
Re: dice
Posted:
Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:19 amby codierose
blakebowling wrote:The dice are fair (as has been posted many many times). Changing the way a randomization code works won't effect the direct outcomes of the dice.
Rejected -- Please use the search form next time, it's your friend.
its your friend lol not like the dice
Re: dice
Posted:
Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:24 amby TheForgivenOne
battlemania wrote:dont know about your logic, but there are deffinate patterns in the dice and there is deffinite bs
And what do you suggest? rolling each dice individually? Is there any actual website that you suggest we use?
Re: dice
Posted:
Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:38 pmby tkr4lf
Maybe CC could raise the price of premium to $100 a year. With the extra income, you guys could pay an army of homeless people to do nothing but sit around and roll dice all day. They could use IPad 2's to then upload the results to the website.
I think this would stop all dice complaining.
Thanks.
Re: less random dice
Posted:
Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:35 pmby Criticalwinner
Good strategy will usually prepare you for the bad dice rolls. I feel your pain, but it's just a part of the game.
A cap limit on the dice luck
Posted:
Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:20 pmby SiriusCowKing
The problem:
As heard many times before, luck on dice is sometimes impossible. It was proven that luck is just random, but the other day I won a game because the other player couldn't kill my last unit going 10vs1. I am happy that I won, but not this way. At some point you should just be able to roll over the enemy if you have enough units.
The solution:
Put a cap on the maximum and minimum units you should lose when attacking someone. In the help section line 25 there is the chances to win an attack. If you attack with 3 dices vs 2 dices you have 54% chances to win, and 66% chances for a 3 dices vs 1 dice. Based on that you should lose 85% of your enemy's stack when going 3v2 and 50% when going 3v1 (so 1 unit or 0). I suggest that when pressing the auto attack button, you can only lose from half to twice the units based on these statistics. So a 200 vs 100 would result in assured capture, losing from 43 to 170 units. In the case of attacking a 1 unit territory with at least 4 units (3vs1 dices), the outcome would result in assured capture with losses of 1 or 0 units.
How it can be implemented:
When a player press the auto attack button, the 2 stacks are saved as variables. The outcome is calculated as usual, but the maximum and minimum caps on units lost are also calculated, rounded up. If the random result is over the maximum cap, use the maximum instead. If the random result is under the minimum cap, use the minimum instead. If the defender is not eliminated in the fight and the losses were over the maximum units lost cap, use the maximum to calculate how many troops the defender should lose.
Re: A cap limit on the dice luck
Posted:
Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:43 pmby Swifte
Sorry, but I'll live with the crazy. This is a game of chance after all. If you hard-code guaranteed results, you completely change the nature of the game.