One more thing about the dice.

[Joodoo]

holy crap, first time I'm agreeing with KLOBBER
and RADAGA, you're not making any sense

[Dardobul]

i don't know a great deal about coding, but why not have say 30 lists of numbers, and have the seed refer to the lists sequentially? that way, even if the seeds are similar it won't matter as drawing the 177th number twice in 2 unrelated random series still produces 2 random results.

Of course, the other way of looking at it even with odds of 7 million to one, it IS quite likely to occur at some point due to the sheer volume of dice rolled on CC. also, probabilities don't scale quite as you think.... you only need 20 people in a room for the chance to be 50% that 2 of them share a birthday.....

[blakebowling]

i don't know a great deal about coding, but why not have say 30 lists of numbers, and have the seed refer to the lists sequentially? that way, even if the seeds are similar it won't matter as drawing the 177th number twice in 2 unrelated random series still produces 2 random results.

Of course, the other way of looking at it even with odds of 7 million to one, it IS quite likely to occur at some point due to the sheer volume of dice rolled on CC. also, probabilities don't scale quite as you think.... you only need 20 people in a room for the chance to be 50% that 2 of them share a birthday.....

But if you refer to the lists sequentially.. that's not random.. that's just an order.

[RADAGA]

2009-04-08 11:07:36 - RADAGA deployed 14 troops on Outaouais
2009-04-08 11:07:38 - RADAGA assaulted North Bay from Outaouais and conquered it from nwaters
2009-04-08 11:07:50 - RADAGA assaulted Timmins from North Bay and conquered it from nwaters
2009-04-08 11:07:54 - RADAGA assaulted Thunder Bay from Timmins and conquered it from nwaters
2009-04-08 11:08:00 - RADAGA assaulted Fort Severn from Thunder Bay and conquered it from nwaters
2009-04-08 11:08:05 - RADAGA assaulted Kenora from Fort Severn and conquered it from nwaters
2009-04-08 11:08:23 - RADAGA assaulted Thompson from Kenora and conquered it from nwaters

All of them defended by 1 troop.

When I got into thompson, I had no more troops left. 14 troops to get six territories. 42% win ratio on a 3x1.

Go me!

3v1 █████████████████████████ 1644 / 909 (64.39% / 35.61%) (65.97% / 34.03%)

[e_i_pi]

Ugh big deal. It happens. I recently had a 9 stack left, and needed to kill 4 singles to get someones cards and win the game. I lost 0-1 over and over on the very first single until I had only a 3 stack. It happens. Deal with it for crying out loud.

[RADAGA]

2009-04-17 12:10:32 - RADAGA receives 2 troops for holding Sculpture
2009-04-17 12:10:32 - RADAGA receives 3 troops for 5 regions
2009-04-17 12:10:44 - RADAGA deployed 5 troops on Kline
2009-04-17 12:10:52 - RADAGA assaulted Rothko from Kline and conquered it from eideanaute
2009-04-17 12:11:07 - RADAGA assaulted Newman from Rothko and conquered it from eideanaute
2009-04-17 12:11:29 - RADAGA assaulted Duchamp from Newman and conquered it from eideanaute
2009-04-17 12:11:36 - RADAGA assaulted Man Ray from Duchamp and conquered it from eideanaute
2009-04-17 12:11:41 - RADAGA assaulted Van Der Rohe from Man Ray and conquered it from eideanaute
2009-04-17 12:11:43 - RADAGA assaulted Adams from Van Der Rohe and conquered it from eideanaute
2009-04-17 12:12:09 - RADAGA reinforced Kline with 10 troops from Smith
2009-04-17 12:12:09 - RADAGA gets spoils

I had, then 19 troops in Kline.

All the six territories I got were defended by 1

and at the end, I have NONE left. Lost NINE freaking 3x1 in a row, just to loose THREE more in sequence.

NOT STREAKY, of course. It is perfectly normal to lose NINE 3x1 in a row, then three more. Should happen every day with every player, due to the raw number of rolls.

[Timminz]

While I may not agree with your complaint, I must say that I admire your dedication to making it.

[KLOBBER]

Should happen every day with every player, due to the raw number of rolls.

No, it shouldn't. If it did, then the dice would be predictable.

At present, the dice are unpredictable, and all is as it should be.

Thank you for posting this: its bottom line proves only that the dice are unpredictable, nothing more, and nothing less.

[RADAGA]

While I may not agree with your complaint, I must say that I admire your dedication to making it.

Well, someone must keep this thread alive. Otherwise, who else KLOBBER would smash on?

[RADAGA]

Same game:

2009-04-17 15:13:31 - eideanaute deployed 10 troops on Kandinsky
2009-04-17 15:13:35 - eideanaute deployed 5 troops on Baudrillard
2009-04-17 15:13:37 - eideanaute assaulted Adams from Baudrillard and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:13:40 - eideanaute assaulted Van Der Rohe from Adams and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:13:43 - eideanaute assaulted Man Ray from Van Der Rohe and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:13:46 - eideanaute assaulted Duchamp from Man Ray and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:14:07 - eideanaute assaulted Kline from Kandinsky and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:14:20 - eideanaute assaulted Newman from Duchamp and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:14:37 - eideanaute assaulted Rothko from Newman and conquered it from RADAGA
2009-04-17 15:14:54 - eideanaute reinforced Kline with 3 troops from Calatrava
2009-04-17 15:14:54 - eideanaute gets spoils

So, with 15 armies, he conquered seven territories. there is a BIG PERHAPS: the last one was guarded by 11 armies, as you can see in:

2009-04-17 12:12:09 - RADAGA reinforced Kline with 10 troops from Smith

So, tactics or no tactics, I lost the game. Due solely to poor strategy, of course. 19 armies lost to kill six (one on each territory) and then he cames back at me with 15 armies and kill 17.

So, I lost yet another game due to ridiculous dice.

[KLOBBER]

So, I lost yet another game due to ridiculous dice.

No.

We all use the same dice, so you really have no excuse.

Games are won or lost due to experience, skills, and intelligence -- or lack thereof.

Those of us who understand how the dice work (unpredictably) and use this to our advantage rather than attempting to use them as a flimsy excuse afterwards are in a superior position, intellectually speaking.

[Tennisie]

I once lost 89 armies in a row. The opponent lost 0. What are the odds of that?
The moderator verified that it was just "very bad luck", not a bug.

Fortunately, persistence - dunderheaded, unswerving, mindless, fanatical - persistence, can overcome even the worst luck.

[KLOBBER]

I once lost 89 armies in a row. The opponent lost 0. What are the odds of that?

If that actually happened, then the "odds" of it happening were 100%, at the time that it happened.

Fortunately, since the dice are unpredictable, nobody can ever tell in advance what the "odds" are.

This is as it was planed by the dice designers, and it is as it should be.

[RADAGA]

More info to be ignored:

The dice distribuition is even with 20.000 rolls. One can almost believe they are truly random.

1s █████████████████████████ 3347 / 20204 (16.57%) █████████████████████████ 1838 / 10839 (16.96%)
2s █████████████████████████ 3355 / 20204 (16.61%) █████████████████████████ 1783 / 10839 (16.45%)
3s █████████████████████████ 3425 / 20204 (16.95%) █████████████████████████ 1806 / 10839 (16.66%)
4s █████████████████████████ 3354 / 20204 (16.6%) █████████████████████████ 1779 / 10839 (16.41%)
5s █████████████████████████ 3411 / 20204 (16.88%) █████████████████████████ 1835 / 10839 (16.93%)
6s █████████████████████████ 3312 / 20204 (16.39%) █████████████████████████ 1798 / 10839 (16.59%)

BUT then you see that the defence still get more victories than it should. both in 3x2 and in 3x1.

Battle Outcomes Actual Stats Ideal Stats
3v2 █████████████████████████ 1424 / 1239 / 1114 (37.7% / 32.8% / 29.49%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)
3v1 █████████████████████████ 1753 / 962 (64.57% / 35.43%) (65.97% / 34.03%)

That´s yet another strong evidence that the dice come in streaks.

But you can feel free to ignore. And leave us with our streaks of seven misses in a row on 3x1 like the one I had (again) today.

[KLOBBER]

Dude, if the dice come in streaks, then use that to your advantage instead of complaining. Your constant complaints prove that they do NOT come in streaks. If you had some way to predict the dice, which you obviously do not, then you would surely be smart enough to keep quiet about it and use it to win more games....

Your data is thoroughly unscientific.

You use the term "should" erroneously. Your arbitrary predictions of what you think they should produce is what is wrong, not the dice. Actually, the dice ALWAYS produce EXACTLY the numbers that they should produce. They SHOULD produce unpredictable numbers, and guess what?!? THEY ALWAYS DO!

The fact that you are wrong every time you try to predict them only proves that the dice perform EXACTLY as they should -- unpredictably!

[cicero]

Please note that this thread exists purely for people to complain and generally let off steam about the 'intensity cubes' (sometimes known as 'dice').

It does not exist to complain about or otherwise criticise those people who choose to post in this thread.

[RADAGA]

Please note that this thread exists purely for people to complain and generally let off steam about the 'intensity cubes' (sometimes known as 'dice').

It does not exist to complain about or otherwise criticise those people who choose to post in this thread.

[KLOBBER]

I apologize if my post seemed to be a personal criticism.

I was mainly attempting to dispel what I consider to be a serious logical fallacy on the part of the other poster in regards to how the dice work, and specifically, to his unrealistic expectations as to what patterns he thinks they "should" manifest.

The fact is that his arbitrary expectations are incorrect and unscientific, and his frustration stems from his own misconceptions about the dice, not from any flaw in the dice themselves.

[RADAGA]

But them, why the the dice analyzer itself says that there are a set of stats that are ideal?

The average odds should be impossible to calculate, since the dice do not behave in any predictable way, not even by the statistical axioms.

[KLOBBER]

The "dice analyzer," whatever in the world that may be, is obviously wrong.

Maybe you should get an "intensity level" analyzer, or better yet, realize that predicting the unpredictable is impossible, no matter what you call your predictable and unscientific computer program.

If you set for yourself an impossible task, then you are bound to fail, and this is what has happened to you, sadly.

I'm very happy with the dice, as I simply accept them as they are: unpredictable.

Learn.

[e_i_pi]

Ok RADAGA, read over this...

Lets take for example something that occurs 1 in 1000 times (ie - 0.1% chance). For it not to occur once in a sample of 1000 times would require a probability of 0.999 to the power of 1000, a probability of 36.8%. This means that this individually unlikely event has a probability of 63.2% of happening if 1000 chances are given. In other words, even given a highly unlikely event, the chance that it never happens, given enough time, is even less likely.

Because we never find it notable when the likely thing happens, we highlight unlikely events and notice them more.

[Dardobul]

i had a thought aboout a different way to use the random numbers from random.org. I apologise if this has already been brought up, but 34 pages is a little to much for me to be patient and read all of it!

early on in the thread lack was talking about using a dice file, and complaints were made that it was more likely for some outcomes to occur than others because of the closed file. to get around this, why not create a file with multiple copies of the list of possible outcomes, and then use random numbers to determine the order? If the file is still many times the size of the number of possible dice rolls, it should be an improvement for all the people who were complaining about some rolls being more likely than others.

[KLOBBER]

...omplaining about some rolls being more likely than others.

One problem with the complaints that you mention is that nobody has ever proven that some rolls will be more likely to occur than others -- listing past rolls proves ***absolutely nothing at all*** about any future rolls.

Another problem with those complaints is that if they were true, then those players who supposedly know about the so-called "greater likelihoods" could certainly use such likelihoods to their advantage in the games. The fact that nobody who makes such complaints has ever been able to use such unscientific dice theories to his advantage (ie, winning more assaults and defenses than other players, and thus winning more games) proves that these theories are all complete and total BS.

The following, in red, is an absolutely irrefutable fact:

There are absolutely no predictable likelihoods, greater or lesser, associated with the actual dice patterns on this site. Every single one of these complaints is based on unscientific, incorrect theories and bad predictions, nothing more, nothing less.

The dice are 100% unpredictable, and the fact that the complainers' arbitrary predictions are ***ALWAYS*** wrong proves this fact to be true, and does not prove anything else about the dice whatsoever.

I could also set up an arbitrary number pattern and say that the dice "should" manifest according to my prediction, but I would also be wrong. The difference is that I comprehend before the fact that any and all such arbitrary predictions would be wrong because the dice are truly unpredictable, and therefore I make no predictions. These complainers start with a false conclusion, and that is that they imagine themselves somehow able to predict the unpredictable. Then when their predictions are proven to be incorrect, rather than accept that their own theory was unscientific from the get-go, they attempt to blame the dice for manifesting the "wrong" patterns.

To the complainers: YOU are wrong, and you are predictable. The dice are ALWAYS right, and always unpredictable. My challenge to any of these complainers is to set up a theory about how the dice will manifest in the future, and then show that he was right. Up to now all the complainers have ever shown is that they were wrong. Being right for once will warrant deeper attention to your theories, but as of this point in time, they warrant no serious attention, as they are all simply WRONG, every single time.

The dice designers are very intelligent, and they have succeeded in producing dice that do exactly what they are designed to do, for ever single roll: to be UNPREDICTABLE.

[cicero]

The following, in red, is an absolutely irrefutable fact:

There are absolutely no predictable likelihoods, greater or lesser, associated with the actual dice patterns on this site. Every single one of these complaints is based on unscientific, incorrect theories and bad predictions, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm going to try a different tack in an attempt to make the point I tried to make 8 posts back ...

This is the new tack:
I completely agree with your irrefutable fact Klobber. I mean that sincerely.

This is the clever bit ( ) :
That is why I long ago gave up posting in this thread (to argue that the dice are in fact legitimate). It's good for my health and, more importantly, good for the health of thread which can then serve its purpose of allowing the dice-unbeliever's to let off steam. Coming in here to argue with the dice un-believers blocks their outlet ...

[Dardobul]

I counted 54 1;1;1;1;1 and 78 6;6;6;6;6. Statistically there should be around 64 of each. Now since this is random, I don't expect it........

I was referring back to here, where the conversation was less about complaining and more about attempting to fix the percieved problem.

I DON'T DOUBT THAT THE DICE ARE FAIR, after all we all use the same dice so even if they are slightly biased they're slightly biased for EVERYONE.

I'm interested simply because i like my opponents knowing i won because I AM THE ALL CONQUERING DEMON OF THE APOCOLYPSE rather than because the dice are biased (what, everyone has an inner megalomaniac ).

the quote is from page 3 by the way, if you feel like looking at the part i was talking about.

As i said i stopped reading around that point, because i realised there was 34 pages of this stuff, and guessed (by your and cicero's annoyance, i assume correctly) that it would very quickly lose focus on the percieved problem of having numbers generated in the way lack described, and fall into people arguing over the fairness of dice. I was just wondering wether the problem was ever taken an further, and wether or ot that idea had been put forward before.

I apologise in advance for bad grammar, though i think i at least spelled everything right this time! I do physics, english isn't my strongpoint thanks for your time.