Moderator: Community Team
sailorseal wrote:Maybe I am just crazy
sailorseal wrote: but I would like to hear what other people think...
Timminz wrote:sailorseal wrote:Maybe I am just crazy
Humans are very good at recognizing patterns. Sometimes when there aren't even any to recognize.
sailorseal wrote:Timminz wrote:sailorseal wrote:Maybe I am just crazy
Humans are very good at recognizing patterns. Sometimes when there aren't even any to recognize.
Just wondering do you have any data to back that up or did you make that up?
anomalystream wrote:I dont care what anyone says...
anomalystream wrote:I dont care what anyone says, the rolls are not right. Invest in a real randomizer. Attacker is supposed to win 6 to 5, not lose 3 to 1.
I know there must have been a thousand complaints about this. Maybe Im just whining because I lost 17 men to 2.
stahrgazer wrote:anomalystream wrote:I dont care what anyone says, the rolls are not right. Invest in a real randomizer. Attacker is supposed to win 6 to 5, not lose 3 to 1.
I know there must have been a thousand complaints about this. Maybe Im just whining because I lost 17 men to 2.
Well, your computations disregard that the defender wins ties. You have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6, but so does the defender. While the attacker gets 3 dice vs. the defender's 2, that simply gives you a 3 in 18 (or 1 in 6) chance of rolling a 6, while the defender gets a 2 in 12 chance (or again, 1 in 6 chance) of rolling a 6. When attacker's 1 in 6 meets defender's 1 in 6, attacker loses, and then it doesn't matter that you got a third chance to roll a 6; 3 6's is still defeated by 2 6's. So, really, the winner only wins by a 3 in 18 (1:6) chance vs the defender's 2 in 12 (1:6) chance. When six's are considered, it's even odds of winning.
The defender's odds get better if we consider that the attacker could roll a 5. Then, the defender could roll a 5 OR a 6 and win (4 chances in 12 or 1:3) chance vs. the attacker's (3 in 18 or 1:6) chance.
RADAGA wrote:stahrgazer wrote:anomalystream wrote:I dont care what anyone says, the rolls are not right. Invest in a real randomizer. Attacker is supposed to win 6 to 5, not lose 3 to 1.
I know there must have been a thousand complaints about this. Maybe Im just whining because I lost 17 men to 2.
Well, your computations disregard that the defender wins ties. You have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6, but so does the defender. While the attacker gets 3 dice vs. the defender's 2, that simply gives you a 3 in 18 (or 1 in 6) chance of rolling a 6, while the defender gets a 2 in 12 chance (or again, 1 in 6 chance) of rolling a 6. When attacker's 1 in 6 meets defender's 1 in 6, attacker loses, and then it doesn't matter that you got a third chance to roll a 6; 3 6's is still defeated by 2 6's. So, really, the winner only wins by a 3 in 18 (1:6) chance vs the defender's 2 in 12 (1:6) chance. When six's are considered, it's even odds of winning.
The defender's odds get better if we consider that the attacker could roll a 5. Then, the defender could roll a 5 OR a 6 and win (4 chances in 12 or 1:3) chance vs. the attacker's (3 in 18 or 1:6) chance.
Wrong. it is not 3 on 18 chances to roll a 6. it is 1/6, PLUS 1/6, PLUS 1/6 = 3 in 6, or 50% chance of rolling ones six in 3 dice.
defence would have 2 in six, or 33,3333%
Hope that helps.
e_i_pi wrote:RADAGA wrote:stahrgazer wrote:anomalystream wrote:I dont care what anyone says, the rolls are not right. Invest in a real randomizer. Attacker is supposed to win 6 to 5, not lose 3 to 1.
I know there must have been a thousand complaints about this. Maybe Im just whining because I lost 17 men to 2.
Well, your computations disregard that the defender wins ties. You have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6, but so does the defender. While the attacker gets 3 dice vs. the defender's 2, that simply gives you a 3 in 18 (or 1 in 6) chance of rolling a 6, while the defender gets a 2 in 12 chance (or again, 1 in 6 chance) of rolling a 6. When attacker's 1 in 6 meets defender's 1 in 6, attacker loses, and then it doesn't matter that you got a third chance to roll a 6; 3 6's is still defeated by 2 6's. So, really, the winner only wins by a 3 in 18 (1:6) chance vs the defender's 2 in 12 (1:6) chance. When six's are considered, it's even odds of winning.
The defender's odds get better if we consider that the attacker could roll a 5. Then, the defender could roll a 5 OR a 6 and win (4 chances in 12 or 1:3) chance vs. the attacker's (3 in 18 or 1:6) chance.
Wrong. it is not 3 on 18 chances to roll a 6. it is 1/6, PLUS 1/6, PLUS 1/6 = 3 in 6, or 50% chance of rolling ones six in 3 dice.
defence would have 2 in six, or 33,3333%
Hope that helps.
What is this, the fucking idiot brigade? You're both goddam wrong...
Chance of rolling a 6 on any of 3 dice = 1 - (5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6) = 42%
Chance of rolling a 6 on any of 2 dice = 1 - (5/6 * 5/6) = 31%
That bullshit logic above what I just wrote should be a bannable friggin offence
RADAGA wrote:Am I FUCKING right, or not?
lancehoch wrote:Hey guys. Tone it down.
Dave67 wrote:Okay, for everyone who is dragging out statistics to try and prove their side of the argument,....
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users