One more thing about the dice.

[The Neon Peon]

As for ignoring and appreciating - I appreciated you ignored data from your GOD (Random.org) itself, just to make personal attacks towards me.

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.

[RADAGA]

start 27x8 end 3x4 what are the odds.... well, here 100% - every players have had it´s share of it. ============ just another day at CC.

[soylentpurple]

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

[The Neon Peon]

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.

You lost me entirely. Never heard any of that before.

On topic: you still haven't addressed the random.org sample.

It's been addressed 50 times in this thread already. His 1k rolls don't even begin to compare with the stats of rolls of hundreds of thousands of rolls others have previously posted in the forums showing almost identical stats to the ideal ones.

edit: whoops, you're american, which means you are about to get really mad

Actually, I'm Ukrainian. I just happen to live here for the time being.

[RADAGA]

The random.org sample (the graphic) was taken from random.org itself, and consists of 100.000 numbers.

As for the blasphemy - send my name to the pope to be excomunicated.

And it is STILL weird... anyway...

here is an actual auto-attack I just made:

Combat (2 Defense) (0 double A / 0 tie / 1 double D)

Denmark: * 4 * 6 * 5
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 6 * 4

Combat (1A 1Def) (0 double A / 1 tie / 1 double D)

Denmark: * 1 * 5 * 3
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 5 * 2

Combat (0 double A / 1 tie / 2 double D)

Denmark: * 4 * 1 * 1
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 2 * 1

Combat (0 double A / 1 tie / 3 double D)

Denmark: * 3 * 6 * 1
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 4 * 3

Combat (0 double A / 1 tie / 4 double D)

Denmark: * 3 * 1 * 4
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 4 * 3

Combat (0 double A / 1 tie / 5 double D)

Denmark: * 1 * 2 * 3
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 1 * 5

Combat (0 double A / 1 tie / 6 double D)

Denmark: * 3 * 6 * 2
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 4 * 6

Combat (0 double A / 1 tie / 7 double D)

Denmark: * 2 * 3 * 2
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 6 * 4

Combat (0 double A / 2 tie / 7 double D)

Denmark: * 4 * 1 * 6
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 4 * 4

Combat (0 double A / 3 tie / 7 double D)

Denmark: * 4 * 3 * 4
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 3 * 6

Combat (0 double A / 4 tie / 7 double D)

Denmark: * 6 * 1 * 2
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 5 * 2

Combat (0 double A / 4 tie / 8 double D)

Denmark: * 3 * 1 * 2
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 5 * 4

Combat (0 double A / 4 tie / 9 double D)

Denmark: * 4 * 2 * 1
- vs -
Faroe Islands: * 3 * 4

NO double attack succeded. only FOUR ties, and NINE double defences. Thirteen rounds, and the sample that shouild accour 29% of the time almost 60% - twice as much.

[Timminz]

you still haven't addressed the random.org sample.

Did someone forget to log into their proper account before posting?



Anyway, to address the graphic from random.org. Do you have any idea what the graph represents? I don't, but I suspect that it's not as damning as you seem to think. It's listing intervals, not absolute values. If it's representing the frequency at which the different intervals between values present themselves, then it makes absolute sense that there are much more of the lower values, and fewer of the higher values. Large intervals require a low number, followed by a high one, or the opposite, whereas a low interval will present itself whenever a low number is followed by another low number, or a high followed by a high, or a mid value... and so on. As you can see, you SHOULD be seeing more lower intervals, in a truly random sequence.

Besides all that, do you really think random.org would willingly put up a graph that definitively proved their service was useless?

[RADAGA]

you still haven't addressed the random.org sample.

Did someone forget to log into their proper account before posting?

Oh, PLEASE, do make a formal multi account accusation! I am begging you, make my day. I would LOVE to see the outcome of such.

as for them posting things that disprove their service, I dont know, but those graphs are strange>

[spiesr]

http://www.random.org/statistics/frequency-monobit/copenhagen-hw1/2010-03-01.png

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.

[Doc_Brown]

As was pointed out earlier, you shouldn't complain about those graphs if you're not aware of what they actually mean. I have a BS in math, and I couldn't figure out exactly what they're plotting without trying to dig through the values. Certainly they're not just plotting a distribution of the produced values. The graphs they show are based on statistical frequency analysis of their random numbers. The following graphs all represent analysis of the exact same data:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Just because the last one looks flat and the first two don't doesn't say anything about how random the numbers are if you don't know what's actually being plotted. It's the mathematical equivalent of saying that f(x)=3x^2 can't be a quadratic function because the graph of its derivative (f'(x)=6x) is a straight line and its antiderivative (F(x)=x^3) is an odd function.

Some people have been pushing for an alternative random number generator. Here is a plot of how the random numbers from the PHP rand() function are distributed:

Click image to enlarge.

Here is the equivalent distribution from random.org:

Click image to enlarge.

Your other alternative is to have a deterministic dice algorithm that would ensure that all rolls fit the proper distribution. However, it wouldn't be difficult to reverse-engineer such a system and predict what the rolls should be in a given attack based on the previous rolls. In a truly random sample, a given set of rolls are completely independent of all previous rolls (the exact opposite of random numbers). The expectation values for various outcomes are not models that the random numbers are supposed to conform to. Rather, they're the statistical outcomes derived from the random samples.

Instead of posting a single bad attack sequence that went bad, why don't you record every single roll you make for a full week. Post the results in here and we can determine how bad your luck actually is.

[RADAGA]

2010-03-09 13:48:24 - RADAGA cashed in a group of Troisvierges, Wiltz, and Bourglinster worth 10 troops
2010-03-09 13:48:24 - RADAGA got bonus of 2 troops added to Troisvierges
2010-03-09 13:48:24 - RADAGA got bonus of 2 troops added to Wiltz
2010-03-09 13:48:30 - RADAGA deployed 9 troops on Echternach
2010-03-09 13:48:56 - RADAGA deployed 9 troops on Mersch
2010-03-09 13:49:05 - RADAGA assaulted Redange from Feulen and conquered it from Commander62890
2010-03-09 13:49:15 - RADAGA assaulted Capellen from Redange and conquered it from Commander62890
2010-03-09 13:49:37 - RADAGA assaulted Bourglinster from Mersch and conquered it from Commander62890
2010-03-09 13:50:44 - RADAGA assaulted Grevenmacher from Echternach and conquered it from Commander62890
2010-03-09 13:50:52 - RADAGA assaulted Remich from Grevenmacher and conquered it from Commander62890

I had already two groups of 8 armies on three territories.

So I used 18+8+8 = 34 armies. I used ALL of those to conquer those FIVE lands, each guarded by a single defender.

Funny thing this guy is a premium captain, as usual. I even made an autoattack 11x1 just to advance 4 armies, after a massacre including 4 sixes in a row for the defender, among other wins.

[RADAGA]

AND OF COURSE, I LOST THAT GAME

no matter I had 15 lands, and 37 armies.

The two other players had 3 and 2 lands, and 8 and 5 armies.

on round later, one of them killed the other, and advanced towards my armies, losing none in the way.

I tried to fight back, just to stop in a wall of SIXes on my 3x1 attacks.

next round, he got 6 armies, and conquered 6 of my territories.

I got 7, and conquered ONE

then I gave up. whatever.

[Doc_Brown]

I think I know what your problem is. You have angered the dice gods. By proclaiming their random judgments to be unfair, you are attempting to turn others from proper veneration of the dice gods. So long as you persist in this path, they will continue to curse you with terrible rolls, ensuring that you lose your games. Your only hope to regain good dice is to turn from your wicked ways and repent of your failure to trust in the just judgment of the dice gods. They may continue to test you with bad dice until they are sure that you truly believe in them and trust them once again. Only then will you again receive fair dice rolls. Also, as additional penance, they may require that you purchase premium in order to fully sate their wrath. (But then, their ways are truly random, so I may be wrong!)

[RADAGA]

Or I could stop complaining here, and the mod´s will take away the tag that adds +1 to the defence dice values if they are <than 3

[RADAGA]

lost 5 3x1 in a row just to see, in the same game, 10 rolls later, lose another 7 in sequence.

plain lame

[blakebowling]

This doesn't exactly fit the theme of suggestions, so I'm Moving it to GD, where the complaining may continue.

[jimboston]

Wow... Radaga... you've been Bitchin' about the Dice for a long time!

Perhaps we need a new Medal. The "Dice-Bitch" medal, for anyone who creates more than three posts bitchin' about how the dice suck so bad!

Or instead of CC Prom Queen we can all vote on the CC Queen of Dice-Bitchin'

[RADAGA]

That just proves that dice have been consistently awkward and not at all behaving like random "dice" would.

just now, again, 13 rolls
1 3x2 - won 2
1 2x2 - lost 2
4 3x1 won
7 3x1 lost

0,04572% chance off happening the 7 3x1. here it is a weekly event

[AndyDufresne]

That just proves that dice have been consistently awkward and not at all behaving like random "dice" would.

just now, again, 13 rolls
1 3x2 - won 2
1 2x2 - lost 2
4 3x1 won
7 3x1 lost

0,04572% chance off happening the 7 3x1. here it is a weekly event

It's a stretch to say your complaint/post history proves that the dice have been consistently awkward I think.


--Andy

[nikola_milicki]

first three rounds in monster dubs I didnt kill shit!!! I prolly shudve had all the monster + wizad bonuses, +2 each, but I got shit thanks to 0-6, 0-4, 2-4! these turns were in 10-12 minutes range... so f*ck ur dice!!

[MNDuke]

first three rounds in monster dubs I didnt kill shit!!! I prolly shudve had all the monster + wizad bonuses, +2 each, but I got shit thanks to 0-6, 0-4, 2-4! these turns were in 10-12 minutes range... so f*ck ur dice!!

I think I have to agree with this after going for the elminination in a Term game and coming up short with a 33 on 18. I as well didn't kill shit and consequently won't be running the table like I fucking should be and instead will be coughing up 29 points. Thanks CC for making this such a memorable experience. Now shove your new dice system up your ass and wave goodbye to getting another $25 from me. Fucking joke.

[MNDuke]

Will not be renewing for sure. This site has become a complete joke and waste of time. Last 3 turns I've lost 37 and killed 15. That is almost close to simulating real dice, but not close enough.

[MNDuke]

Getting pretty sick of the dice. Gone from for sure wins and netting about 100 pts to losing 29 in one game. Can't win 7v3s, 5v1s or anything with a decent probability of winning. The extreme chance and odds of what should happen, happens all the time and expected results are no where to be found. What the f*ck gives? I blame shitty programming myself.

[hmsps]

i echo your sentiments there MNDuke, there has been a definate shift in the last couple of months

[#1_stunna]

/me waits for owenshooter to chime in...

[#1_stunna]

/me is still waiting for owenshooter to discuss how bad GD has gotten.