Moderator: Community Team
Cynthia wrote:Hitman079 wrote:i wonder when I'LL get quoted *sniffle*
same here
Kahless wrote:I thought a mixed set was the same value as any other
happy2seeyou wrote:You should really read the game instructions before you post on here. It would have saved you the trouble of posting this. It explains this exactly.
Thanks
happy2seeyou wrote:You should really read the game instructions before you post on here. It would have saved you the trouble of posting this. It explains this exactly.
Thanks
tahitiwahini wrote:happy2seeyou wrote:You should really read the game instructions before you post on here. It would have saved you the trouble of posting this. It explains this exactly.
Thanks
He asked why it was true, not whether it was true.
Why do people feel the need to post for the sole purpose of telling other people that they shouldn't have posted something?
Trust me, as irritating as the original post may have been (and it this case I don't think it was at all), it's as nothing compared to reading the posts from people saying how the original question shouldn't have been asked.
You don't have to read the post if you don't want to, and you certainly don't have to respond to it.
Maybe the original post was in fact a rhetorical question. It seemed entirely reasonable to me. Maybe you should go back and read the question again before you post a response.
happy2seeyou wrote:I didnt type that to be mean at all. I actually thought it was in there. And I did read it wrong. Sorry to upset you so.
detlef wrote:They are, after all, far more common.
For instance, after 3 cards your chances of drawing the following sets:
Red: 1 in 27
Green: 1 in 27
Blue: 1 in 27
Mixed: 2 in 9
I can't think of any other chance-oriented game where the most common result pays the most.
detlef wrote:Perhaps you should read someone's post before answering it. I wasn't asking what the values were, I was asking why they were that way relative to how common they were. Thanks for playing though.
joeyjordison wrote:this has been said before.
READ OTHER TOPICS!
as far as i know cards are auto assigned colours as they are picked up by a player thus each of the events is independent and the chances are exactly the same.
if it is not like this then the chances are minutely greater for a mixed set but you definitely have got the chances wrong. if the events were dependent it would be like this:
let X be number of ters on board and let each of the card colours be their first letter; R,B,G
X/3=R=B=G
if X/3=10
player 1 gets a random card; 1/3
card is R
next card (presuming nobody else gets a card) chances are:
R=9/29
B=10/29
G=10/29
repeat etc....
thing is CC didn't make up the rules for the card values.
if they were changed then people who have played the board game would get really confused.
joeyjordison wrote:this has been said before.
READ OTHER TOPICS!
as far as i know cards are auto assigned colours as they are picked up by a player thus each of the events is independent and the chances are exactly the same.
if it is not like this then the chances are minutely greater for a mixed set but you definitely have got the chances wrong. if the events were dependent it would be like this:
let X be number of ters on board and let each of the card colours be their first letter; R,B,G
X/3=R=B=G
if X/3=10
player 1 gets a random card; 1/3
card is R
next card (presuming nobody else gets a card) chances are:
R=9/29
B=10/29
G=10/29
repeat etc....
thing is CC didn't make up the rules for the card values.
if they were changed then people who have played the board game would get really confused.
Though I'm sure this has been discussed before and I should be having a hissy fit about why you are lame enough to ask this question that has been asked so many times before, I'm just going to be a sport and answer your question. Is that cool?joeyjordison wrote:anyway isn't there a full set of territory cards 1 of each type for each territory? so wouldn't that make the events independent of each other and the only variable is what cards other people hav?
ABSOLUTE_MASTER wrote:There is one card for every country. A map with 42 countries will have 42 cards, 14 red, 14 green and 14 blue. As each player receives a card, the number of cards available is reduced, ergo, the probability of the cards change, hence, these are not independent events.
Example:
Start with 42 cards, the probabilities for each card will be
RED: 14/42
BLUE: 14/42
GREEN: 14/42
If the first player receives a red card, you don't have 42 cards anymore, but 41, probabilities for the next card will be
RED:13/41
BLUE: 14/41
GREEN: 14/41
If the second player receives a red card, you have now 40,
RED:12/40
BLUE: 14/40
GREEN: 14/40
See how the probability of the third card to be a red is less now? This will continue until one player uses a set. Now, if we are clear about this NOT being independent events, you may want to go over your probabilities again. This time, remember that you have to consider the order as well, there is a big difference between combinations and permutations.
AM
And it will continue like this
detlef wrote:Though I'm sure this has been discussed before and I should be having a hissy fit about why you are lame enough to ask this question that has been asked so many times before, I'm just going to be a sport and answer your question. Is that cool?joeyjordison wrote:anyway isn't there a full set of territory cards 1 of each type for each territory? so wouldn't that make the events independent of each other and the only variable is what cards other people hav?
The cards are not drawn from a finite set. Just yesterday, I played a set that had a blue Kamchatka. The very next card I drew was a green Kamchatka.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users