RADAGA wrote:Yeah, for instance, I should expect things likewhat just happened>
No. You should stop expecting the dice to behave in any predictable fashion.
Moderator: Community Team
RADAGA wrote:Yeah, for instance, I should expect things likewhat just happened>
Streaker wrote:The dice are just unfair today.
I lost my entire stack on taking someone's 1's all the way to his castle, and I had 22 against his 49. I won with 19 left and won easily.
That's just unfair
RADAGA wrote:You just think it is normal because your perceptions are weird.
Timminz wrote:RADAGA wrote:You just think it is normal because your perceptions are weird.
Hey now! You're not allowed to use that argument!
RADAGA wrote:14x10 - end 2x9
The Neon Peon wrote:Other than that, if you want anyone to care, you should post a dice analyzer of hundreds of thousands of rolls. On my old laptop, I had it get up to somewhere around 700,000-800,000 rolls with me winning 0.2% more than probable. As far as I'm concerned, you're getting average dice in your other games, seeing as you come here to complain about every bad roll, yet only do so once a week. I can only assume that all the other rolls you had that week were good.
RADAGA wrote:I simply cannot accept it is perfectly normal to lose 11x3 up to 2x3 (yesterday) and today, attacking 3x1 I got a 6,5,1 x 6, another 6,6,2 x 6 another 4,2,1 x 6 and another 1,1,6 x 6 defending, and then moving toward another attack, manage to get a 3x2 rolling 6,5,2 and the defender get a 6,6 - just too many sixes to be believable.
21 dice - should wield 3 or 4 of each number, in the average. - and it got twice as expected sixes. not one more or one less, but TWICE
last week I posted an autoattack where defence got TWICE the expected wins as well, pooling over 70% of the results.
Autoattack and observe - it ALWAYS come like that - a row of 3-7 double wins, or a roll of 3 - 7 double losses, with negligible exceptions.
In large numbers, you get a lot of sixes in a row but a lot of others in a row as well, and get a good average, compatible with the statisticals expectancies.
Again, if the numbers tend to come in streaks and ties always favor defence, it gets complicated.
The Neon Peon wrote:Btw, I found it rather funny that you chose to ignore my pointing out of how it is impossible to lose an odd number of troops while losing 2 troops at a time in the previous post and then came up with another case that did the same thing this time.
Thanks for the laugh. I appreciated it.
...because you won't find a streak of more than 100 rolls that proves your point.
RADAGA wrote:ANY statistic book would say that you should DECREASE the discrepancy between real and expected when you increase the universe of observations.
The Neon Peon wrote:The Neon Peon wrote:sigh... what did I say about using logic in this thread?
Now he's gonna come back, say something to the effect of "you're an idiot," ignore most or all of what you said, and repeat something he's said before.
2 out of 3... not bad.
RADAGA wrote:As for ignoring and appreciating - I appreciated you ignored data from your GOD (Random.org) itself, just to make personal attacks towards me.
The Neon Peon wrote:Off topic: Maybe you're not a religious person, but that is blasphemy and is "taking the Lord's name in vain."
The only thing I said in my last post is that you've been making up your data, even if you do want to accuse me of flaming (for which there is a button right next to the quote one in the shape of a triangle), there's absolutely no reason to do so through blasphemy. I know you might not take things like that seriously, but many people do, including myself.
soylentpurple wrote:The Neon Peon wrote:Off topic: Maybe you're not a religious person, but that is blasphemy and is "taking the Lord's name in vain."
The only thing I said in my last post is that you've been making up your data, even if you do want to accuse me of flaming (for which there is a button right next to the quote one in the shape of a triangle), there's absolutely no reason to do so through blasphemy. I know you might not take things like that seriously, but many people do, including myself.
Off topic: how is blasphemy against the christian god even possible, since in the bible he impregnates his own mother, which can only be considered incest? Comparing god to a random number generator is hardly worse than that.
On topic: you still haven't addressed the random.org sample.
edit: whoops, you're american, which means you are about to get really mad
soylentpurple wrote:you still haven't addressed the random.org sample.
Timminz wrote:soylentpurple wrote:you still haven't addressed the random.org sample.
Did someone forget to log into their proper account before posting?
Thus graph is not really relevant to the CC dice in any way. CC does not go to random.org to generate dice every time a roll is made. It reads from a large dice file that was generated one time from random.org. This file has been analyzed in the past and been shown to not have any real significant bias in it.RADAGA wrote:http://www.random.org/statistics/frequency-monobit/copenhagen-hw1/2010-03-01.png
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users