Conquer Club

As with every other dice complaint thread - I know this will be met with the usual "The dice are random" BS response, but the truth is CC dice have ruined this site for MANY players, and I'm one of them.
I'm glad I'm not paying for this shit anymore. -Four games at a time is plenty frustration when you never know when you're going to hit one of those streaks where the defender pretty much only rolls 6's.

lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.

Waaahhh

2009-09-25 13:50:02 - the.killing.44 [team]: 26v21 -> 21v0
2009-09-25 13:50:19 - the.killing.44 [team]: Auto-assault: Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!



I love dice complaint threads, mostly because there's always an undercurrent of individual persecution, i.e. "only I am getting bad dice! So unfair! I hate this site! My score would be so much higher if I and I alone wasn't being singled out for bad dice by lack, random.org, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bavarian Illuminati!"

Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

Actually elijah is right.

I have noticed lately that not only are my dice bad, the people i am attacking are also getting bad rolls!

I thought it was CC dice persecuting just me but now they are going after everyone

really!!!!! another thread on dice omg the dice are RANDOM THAT MEANS YOU COULD SEE BAD DICE what is so hard about that ????

Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.

mibi wrote:

Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.

It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.

It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.

Yes- the dice are learning.

Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

ronc8649 wrote:lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.

mine too.. drop 16 and can only take a few ones before the men are gone, but the opponent can drop 15 on a 2 and take 13 territories

Tisha wrote:

ronc8649 wrote:lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.

mine too.. drop 16 and can only take a few ones before the men are gone, but the opponent can drop 15 on a 2 and take 13 territories

THE DICE PROBLEM IS GETTING WORSE PEOPLE.

i wish i was freemium so i didnt have a bunch of turns to take. i find myself not attacking. just deploying and forting, even in flat rate.

THIS IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS.

ronc8649 wrote:

Tisha wrote:

ronc8649 wrote:lately elijah, they are way worse than ever.

mine too.. drop 16 and can only take a few ones before the men are gone, but the opponent can drop 15 on a 2 and take 13 territories

THE DICE PROBLEM IS GETTING WORSE PEOPLE.

i wish i was freemium so i didnt have a bunch of turns to take. i find myself not attacking. just deploying and forting, even in flat rate.

THIS IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS.

You play flat rate?

i play a mix of everything. i dont stick to one style. even though flat rate makes up 5 percent of my total games, if not less.

point is this. i have been a "dice are random, shut the f*ck up" person in the past.

i am completely with all of the "whiners" now. what i have come across in the past week is fucking ridiculous. i can predict my dice from the drop almost.

when is this going to change?

I've gone through the last few games losing up to 12-18 troops to kill 3-4. While early in the game these are pretty critical rolls and especially if my opponent is capable of starting with a dominant position to claim a bonus region.

But I also find that in some cases, after the game has finally been decided, the last few "resistance" fighters get some great rolls. For instance deploying a 3 on a 2. My 5 troops will take out 4 ones or it will take out 2 threes before dying itself.

When I look at the numbers, It is still technically a great roll. The timing I get the roll is pointless because by this time my opponent is getting more than double my income but nonetheless, these are rolls that are shockingly similar to what my opponent had at the beginning. The only difference being, their rolls came and established a dominant start, my rolls came near the end during their "clean-up" phase and it is almost seeming like a mockery because you want the game to end and hopefully have a better start next time.

But this has also happened for me. I remember playing a game where my opponent's chat was: "Oh sure, NOW my guys start fighting." lol. At this point and from the tone, you can imagine the game was decided and it was almost a pain to prolong the game another 2-3 rounds but my question hasn't changed regarding "random dice".

That question is: Why can we put our own barriers on what should be random. If something is not random, then it can be studied, anticipated, implemented and planned for. The reason I attack even if there is a chance of failure is because in most cases, after my deployment, I have the right odds. I can't assume I will lose every troop in a fight. In hindsight after rolling into 4 defensive 6s during a 7 vs 3 attack, I can look back and say: "If I didn't attack, I would still have a 7 man army to work with next round."

When I made that decision to attack and try to secure "australia", I was waging the reward of capturing the region with the risk of losing a portion of my army to try it. Still, 7 vs 3 to gain the +2 and a chance to defend it well gave me good "pot odds" to go for it. It would be worth it in the end, it was a sustainable bonus if I took it and it gave me a powerful position to work from. I never attack planning to lose 6 guys on the first round, I always look ahead at: "What will I do after I take this region" even before I take the region because when I assess the odds, I've already decided to make the attack.

I find that it is in the early game where a few good rolls sets up for what I call the "extermination rounds" which are generally rounds 6-9 on average sized maps. Some great dice by player A on rounds 1-2 will be more valuable than the exact same rolls by player B on rounds 8-9 just because of the investment return and flowing economy sustained by player A at the time. The loss to player B in rounds 1-2 are far more critical than the same loss #s to player A 8 rounds down the road.

KristenAmazon wrote:I've gone through the last few games losing up to 12-18 troops to kill 3-4. While early in the game these are pretty critical rolls and especially if my opponent is capable of starting with a dominant position to claim a bonus region.

But I also find that in some cases, after the game has finally been decided, the last few "resistance" fighters get some great rolls. For instance deploying a 3 on a 2. My 5 troops will take out 4 ones or it will take out 2 threes before dying itself.

When I look at the numbers, It is still technically a great roll. The timing I get the roll is pointless because by this time my opponent is getting more than double my income but nonetheless, these are rolls that are shockingly similar to what my opponent had at the beginning. The only difference being, their rolls came and established a dominant start, my rolls came near the end during their "clean-up" phase and it is almost seeming like a mockery because you want the game to end and hopefully have a better start next time.

But this has also happened for me. I remember playing a game where my opponent's chat was: "Oh sure, NOW my guys start fighting." lol. At this point and from the tone, you can imagine the game was decided and it was almost a pain to prolong the game another 2-3 rounds but my question hasn't changed regarding "random dice".

That question is: Why can we put our own barriers on what should be random. If something is not random, then it can be studied, anticipated, implemented and planned for. The reason I attack even if there is a chance of failure is because in most cases, after my deployment, I have the right odds. I can't assume I will lose every troop in a fight. In hindsight after rolling into 4 defensive 6s during a 7 vs 3 attack, I can look back and say: "If I didn't attack, I would still have a 7 man army to work with next round."

When I made that decision to attack and try to secure "australia", I was waging the reward of capturing the region with the risk of losing a portion of my army to try it. Still, 7 vs 3 to gain the +2 and a chance to defend it well gave me good "pot odds" to go for it. It would be worth it in the end, it was a sustainable bonus if I took it and it gave me a powerful position to work from. I never attack planning to lose 6 guys on the first round, I always look ahead at: "What will I do after I take this region" even before I take the region because when I assess the odds, I've already decided to make the attack.

I find that it is in the early game where a few good rolls sets up for what I call the "extermination rounds" which are generally rounds 6-9 on average sized maps. Some great dice by player A on rounds 1-2 will be more valuable than the exact same rolls by player B on rounds 8-9 just because of the investment return and flowing economy sustained by player A at the time. The loss to player B in rounds 1-2 are far more critical than the same loss #s to player A 8 rounds down the road.

kristen, could you make a cliffs notes version for me? thanks

Symmetry wrote:

mibi wrote:

Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.

It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.

It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.

Yes- the dice are learning.

Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.

My dice have actually been incredibly good lately so whatever

mibi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

mibi wrote:

Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.

It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.

It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.

Yes- the dice are learning.

Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.

More disturbing evidence that the dice are evolving:



You have virtually no chance of beating one of these. Our best bet is to capture a die and "load" it in our favour. Then send it back in time to protect the creator of Risk.

Or destroy him.

Whatever.

CC DICE ARE BULLSHIT!

Realy? please tell me something new,this is what im all ready know.

I have an idea that would be really interesting. hugely simple and im sure most of us on here could do it. why dont CC use the random fuction on excel just for say a trial period of a week or whatever. see what actually comes out of it??

Symmetry wrote:

mibi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

mibi wrote:

Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.

It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.

It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.

Yes- the dice are learning.

Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.

More disturbing evidence that the dice are evolving:



You have virtually no chance of beating one of these. Our best bet is to capture a die and "load" it in our favour. Then send it back in time to protect the creator of Risk.

Or destroy him.

Whatever.

LOL...

This proves Einsteins theory...
the 2nd law of Thermodienamics clearly states that dice were created spawntaniously during the big bang!
Well..., either that, or the hand of God had something to do with it...

Incandenza wrote:2009-09-25 13:50:02 - the.killing.44 [team]: 26v21 -> 21v0
2009-09-25 13:50:19 - the.killing.44 [team]: Auto-assault: Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

That was in the game against me! How dare you, sir! How dare you, indeed.

Four games in a row is nothing. My dice have been pretty decent lately, but only after 3 straight weeks of crap dice. One night I went to sleep, woke up, and had lost 120 points. Still, my dice have probably been at about 65% lately, so I'm not complaining.

Symmetry wrote:

mibi wrote:

Incandenza wrote:
Just remember, when you're getting bad dice on offense, someone else is getting great dice on defense.

don't be stupid, this is obvious a serious and growing problem. I suggest lack should temporarily increase the win percentage on the dice to make up for these past weeks. How can you complain with a higher win percentage? It works for everyone.

It's ridiculous that the defensive player benefits. I've noticed in a few of my games that on 3 vs 2 rolls both players are losing two troops. I can't give you any game numbers, but it does look like the dice might be starting to develop their own consciousness. Indeed, that they might already of concluded that the best way to protect all players is to kill all players, or to reduce them to 1's all over the map.

It's possible that random.org has acted as a kind of primordial soup and that the demand from conquer club has acted as a kind of accelerated process of natural selection and mutation. In essence, the dice might be evolving within a system.

Yes- the dice are learning.

Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

This post made me laugh...very funny stuff. 'The dice are learning!'

mibi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Yes- the dice are learning.

Lack needs to nuke the site from orbit.

I agree, the dice have now become sentient and CC needs to kick random.org to the curb before we all have to bow down to our six sided overlords.

Ahhh - I have evolved beyond the limit of six sides. You should follow in my footsteps and install my seven-sided dice script. Just think how often you can win when the defenders can always lose.

Since i got colours I've been having some amazing dice

Robinette wrote:
This proves Einsteins theory...
the 2nd law of Thermodienamics clearly states that dice were created spawntaniously during the big bang!
Well..., either that, or the hand of God had something to do with it...

Einstein is famous for saying that God "does not throw dice". Clearly the dice were the creation of another power. A power darker, and much more malevolent than we can possibly imagine.

Six sides, people. Six sides. The best result you can get in CC is to roll three sixes. Every game players are praying for three sixes. That adds up.

Everyday we give the dice more power: killer neutrals are just the start. Zombie neutrals have been suggested. How long before the dice get a rank?

That rank: Abomination.