BREAKING NEWS : Auto Assault Intensity Levels Aren't Sticky.

[Sir. Ricco]

Great news.

[ComradeHarmony]

AA is mostly good on freestyle, it makes for a good blitzkrieg.

But just because the dice aren't sticky doesn't mean they're not random. Now, I personally believe they are random, but this really doesn't prove that they're not.

[Timminz]

AA is mostly good on freestyle, it makes for a good blitzkrieg.

But just because the dice aren't sticky doesn't mean they're not random. Now, I personally believe they are random, but this really doesn't prove that they're not.

I think you misunderstood the point of this thread. I don't believe that either of the people involved in this experiment were trying to prove, or even believe, that the dice are not random.

[zimmah]

Cool. I use AA almost exclusively and works fine for me. People who are anti-AA are like those old fogies who are anti-computer/technology... they just fear it because they don't know how to use it.

i often don't use it (except for really large numbers of armies) because if i have like 11 armies against 5, there is a chance i'll end up losing like maybe 8 armies and only killing 2 or so (ending up 3 vs 3) while if i attack roll after roll myself, i will know after 2 or 3 defeats, i'll have to stop becasue otherwise i'll weaken myself to much. the auto-attack doesn't automaticly know when to stop attacking (well it does when i'ts too late already IMHO) so i'm not against auto-attacking in general, and i don't really think the dice gotten fro mthe auto-attack are any better or worse then the dice you'll get from doing it yourself. still i prefer doing it myself most of the time, because i know when too stop and the CPU does not. i suggest altering the auto-attack button so you can make it stop at a given criteria, like:

stop when i got less then or equal to "enter amount of armie here" (maybe a dropdown menu like with deploying or fortifying) armies. [autoattack] the system will now attack and stop either if you hit like say 6 armies instead of the build-in 3. if you leave it blank, it just works like it does now, but if you select say 10, it will stop either at 10 or 9 (it might stop at 9 because you might lose 2 armies at once, you could also make it stop on 10 or 11 if you like, so it will prevent people complaining i lost 1 army more then i selected, the stupid generator doesn't work, blabla bla bla..)

now i think that would be much more usefull then the current auto-attack, since now the auto-attack doesn't suicide you if you are on a losing streak (which can happen sometimes, no matter if you use auto-attack or normal attack, a losing streak can happen every now and then) however with the current auto-attack, a losing streak will cost you much more, because the auto-attack just goes on untill you lost all your armies (except 3 (or 2 in some cases)), while i stop when i think it becomes too risky!

[zimmah]

that isn't why i don't use auto-attack. i don't use auto-attack for strategic reasons. if i lose too many after a few attacks, i find it better to have a larger number to start off of on my next turn, than to be left with a 3 facing a 7 on a strategic border or a bonus. has nothing to do with think auto is the boogeyman or evil, i think it is just bad in certain situations, it is that simple. unless the game is decided i have absolutely no use for auto-attack. is that so difficult to understand?-0

Owen, if someone were to make a script that was an auto attack, but you could put in a set number of losses for that attack or minimum army size for that attack would you use it?

FWIW -> this is possible in the CM script.

C.

what's the CM script and where do i find it?

[yeti_c]

what's the CM script and where do i find it?

Clickable Maps...

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=33227

C.

[hatterson]

Heh, thanks for dispelling one of the few dice things that actually could have had some merit.

Now we just need to work on the people who say "auto-attack is for noobs because if you auto-attack for 10 rolls then you're guaranteed to get some losses in there cause you're grabbing 10 in a row. If you just hit attack 10 times then you could skip over those losses." Yes, I've heard that. I think I had an aneurysm

[gdeangel]

one more stat for today cause i have to go to work:

yeti killed a total of 11500 of my armies and in this process he:

1. made 23 auto attacks vs a stack of 500 of my defenders
2. lost a total of 9782
3. on average he lost 425,3
4. at most he lost 498 taking out 500
5. best result was when he lost just 340 to kill 500

Guys, this is really good stuff. I must have missed in all the jabber about rankings, etc. the past few days. I only wonder, of course, what the median and the mode is of the 23 results. Having a mean of 500 kills / 425 losses is a kill rate of 1.17. The predicted kill rate is, by a pretty close approximation, around 1.15 (ignoring the last few rolls had <2 defenders). With 23 data points, someone should be able to figure out whether the .02 difference is within the confidence interval. (Sorry, that textbook is long gone guys)... but given that is a very small number of samples, it seems it should be good.

On the other hand, I'm a little bothered by the fact that you would be seeing an outlier with kill ratio of 1.47 on the high side, and 1.00 on the low side. For one thing, its looking very skewed. For another thing, the 1.47 would seem to be very far from the expected value, far enough, I'd venture to say, to possibly be outside the confidence interval, but, again, it's just 23 trials, so an outlier is possible.

So while I think you've answered your question about whether there is a scratch in the record, you've raised a potential problem in that the dice are a little too "kill happy"... maybe I'm thinking about the wrong type of random variable here, so someone who does this every day please correct me if what I said is off.

[tzor]

Cool. I use AA almost exclusively and works fine for me. People who are anti-AA are like those old fogies who are anti-computer/technology... they just fear it because they don't know how to use it.

I use AA but that doesn't mean I always like it. Because it stops at 3 armies it is possible to AA and be left with 2 armies (having 4 and loosing 2 = 2 left). I hate it when I wind up with 2 armies on a territory after an AA. It's sort of like going to Superman, firing all the bullets from your revolver and then throwing the gun at his chest in frustration.

[gdeangel]

Cool. I use AA almost exclusively and works fine for me. People who are anti-AA are like those old fogies who are anti-computer/technology... they just fear it because they don't know how to use it.

I use AA but that doesn't mean I always like it. Because it stops at 3 armies it is possible to AA and be left with 2 armies (having 4 and loosing 2 = 2 left). I hate it when I wind up with 2 armies on a territory after an AA. It's sort of like going to Superman, firing all the bullets from your revolver and then throwing the gun at his chest in frustration.

This is true. However guys with degrees in astrophysics are supposed to know what the confidence interval is for a sample of 23... uh, good god, to tell you how long it's been, I'm not even sure how many degrees of freedom this model has! Seems like I've taken the quotient of the sums of 23 pairs of random variables... I think that means three degrees of freedom??? Akk, I hang my head

Also, you could get clickable maps - as mentioned above... it lets you decide when to stop attacking +/- 1, so you could set it at four and hold onto your gun if three is your magic number

[MOBAJOBG]

Well, the secret actually lies in the combination usage of attack & auto-attack to control the dice rolls.

[Kemmler]

Well, the secret actually lies in the combination usage of attack & auto-attack to control the dice rolls.

I agree with you for once, you can use them both to advantage I realise

[RADAGA]

one more stat for today cause i have to go to work:

yeti killed a total of 11500 of my armies and in this process he:

1. made 23 auto attacks vs a stack of 500 of my defenders
2. lost a total of 9782
3. on average he lost 425,3
4. at most he lost 498 taking out 500
5. best result was when he lost just 340 to kill 500

So you say you never, on those 23 attacks, failed to get the territory?

So, why we see every day, at least one of our attacks get horribly ponded by defence, making a 14 x 2 end up as a 1 x 2 in the end (happened to me, 8 days ago, in a game where I lost 40 to 18 previously)

So, we can deduce that either:

1) Dice are flawed, somehow, since on certain games you seem to get bad luck, no matter what you do, while in others they behave properly. (and I am NOT talking about loosing an even ammount of armies, but I mean by bad luck that it is loosing 5 to 10 times more armies than defence when one should have the edge)

OR

2) We lie, when we report those horrible dice rolls.

I let you choose.

[Frop]

2) We lie, when we report those horrible dice rolls.

You're not lying, you're just special.

[Neoteny]

one more stat for today cause i have to go to work:

yeti killed a total of 11500 of my armies and in this process he:

1. made 23 auto attacks vs a stack of 500 of my defenders
2. lost a total of 9782
3. on average he lost 425,3
4. at most he lost 498 taking out 500
5. best result was when he lost just 340 to kill 500

So you say you never, on those 23 attacks, failed to get the territory?

So, why we see every day, at least one of our attacks get horribly ponded by defence, making a 14 x 2 end up as a 1 x 2 in the end (happened to me, 8 days ago, in a game where I lost 40 to 18 previously)

So, we can deduce that either:

1) Dice are flawed, somehow, since on certain games you seem to get bad luck, no matter what you do, while in others they behave properly. (and I am NOT talking about loosing an even ammount of armies, but I mean by bad luck that it is loosing 5 to 10 times more armies than defence when one should have the edge)

OR

2) We lie, when we report those horrible dice rolls.

I let you choose.

It's really surprising how much a mandatory basic statistics class would reduce these complaints. I'd like to point out that there are many more possibilities than your dichotomy. Aliens controlling your dice is a fairly likely candidate if we are just picking random possibilities.

[yeti_c]

So you say you never, on those 23 attacks, failed to get the territory?

Correct - each attack always won the territory - but I always attacked with vastly superior numbers (at least an order of magnitude greater.)

C.

[Dancing Mustard]

I am, for some inexplicable reason, reminded of H.P. Lovecraft's masterful collection of tales titled "The Reanimator".



In other news: Why didn't you just let it die?

[RADAGA]

I am, for some inexplicable reason, reminded of H.P. Lovecraft's masterful collection of tales titled "The Reanimator".



In other news: Why didn't you just let it die?

BUT you stated that you never lost over 500 armies to kill the 500 defenders. So it is pointless if you had 100.000 or 1.000.000 armies, it matters that you made 23 attacks and never saw defense beat your kills.

Actually, attack 3x2 have a gross 9% edge so, technically, then you should win 6... perhaps 7 of each 10 attacks (or, rather, have more than 500 armies killed to kill 500 defenders)

okay, random is random, so it is not granted that you will win only 15 of your 23 attacks. But we are not talking about luck or bad luck, that would cause you to win more or less than the 15 estimate. We are talking about a flawless serie of 23 attacks.

[hulmey]

your little test doesnt prove that the dice arent sticky lol. Also randomness cannot be proved by throwing a few thousand dice!

The dice are sticky! Today, i cant stop winning 3vs2 and attacker wins every roll. Its been like that all day. other days its the opposite.

[Elijah S]

Regular dice aren't sticky either... nope...not a bit.
The fact that just now the defender, with one army, rolled SIX consecutive sixes is just my imagination...
I kept attacking just to see how many they would roll.

Anyone know what the odds of REAL dice rolling six straight sixes is?

[lancehoch]

Regular dice aren't sticky either... nope...not a bit.
The fact that just now the defender, with one army, rolled SIX consecutive sixes is just my imagination...
I kept attacking just to see how many they would roll.

Anyone know what the odds of REAL dice rolling six straight sixes is?

Yes, it is 1/(6^6). And guess at how many times the dice have been rolled since the site started over two years ago...

[RADAGA]

Game 3297802

Attacker : 7 armies.. defenders 11 ...

End results: attacker: 7 armies.. defenders . none.

3x2 .. attacker got two
3x2 .. attacker got two
3x2 .. attacker got two
3x2 .. attacker got two
3x2 .. attacker got two
3x1 .. attacker got one

not streaky at all I´d say.

[RADAGA]

Regular dice aren't sticky either... nope...not a bit.
The fact that just now the defender, with one army, rolled SIX consecutive sixes is just my imagination...
I kept attacking just to see how many they would roll.

Anyone know what the odds of REAL dice rolling six straight sixes is?

Yes, it is 1/(6^6). And guess at how many times the dice have been rolled since the site started over two years ago...

And funny how many times this "once in a million" show up.....

Wonder why people here dont win the lottery weekly, since we are the "tails" gang, always getting the distribuition tails, no matter what.

[niMic]

Regular dice aren't sticky either... nope...not a bit.
The fact that just now the defender, with one army, rolled SIX consecutive sixes is just my imagination...
I kept attacking just to see how many they would roll.

Anyone know what the odds of REAL dice rolling six straight sixes is?

Yes, it is 1/(6^6). And guess at how many times the dice have been rolled since the site started over two years ago...

And funny how many times this "once in a million" show up.....

Wonder why people here dont win the lottery weekly, since we are the "tails" gang, always getting the distribuition tails, no matter what.

Want to take a guess at how many dice are thrown on CC every day? We're not talking "once in a million" players here, we're talking "once in a million" dice rolls. Unless you country has more lotteries than I think, your argument is pointless.

[Suzy1]

As usual, nothing is done to make any changes for the better. The moderators never say "we can look into a possible better dice program". The thing that is pointless is saying anything at all about it!!!