Moderator: Community Team
dwilhelmi wrote:Well dangit-drat-dagnabbit
Tennisie wrote:The most extreme example I know of occurred to me when I lost 87 to 0 during a single auto-attack. The chances of that happening involve 20 digits of unlikelihood, BUT IT HAPPENED.
natty_dread wrote:It's a game. A game that involves luck. Get over it or play chess. Yawn.
jaimito101 wrote:also part of the charm is getting to see which dice are thrown. How would your plan present the result and keep the sexiness the visible 3vs 2 die bring along with it?
Metsfanmax wrote:If we accept that the current system is truly random, or indistinguishable from it, then your system wouldn't change the likelihood of streaks.
Tennisie wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:If we accept that the current system is truly random, or indistinguishable from it, then your system wouldn't change the likelihood of streaks.
Yes it would, because your luck evens out the more you roll. Sometimes it can take many rolls to even out, but eventually it regresses to the average. Its just a matter of finding a large enough value for X but one that doesn't overburden the conquerclub server. This is similar to the techniques used to "smooth" the data from a true random number generator: combine enough samples together so that a localized streak is swamped by the probabilities.
Tennisie wrote:the site could automatically roll X times and the most frequent winner would win the single attack attempt
Bones2484 wrote:
Think of it this way. If you rolled a 3v2 one hundred times in order to see who the "most frequent winner was" to determine who wins the roll, you would expect the results to be close to the 37%-34%-29% pattern nearly every time. Meaning the result of a 3v2 roll in your suggestion would be a 2-0 victory... nearly every time.
Tennisie wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:If we accept that the current system is truly random, or indistinguishable from it, then your system wouldn't change the likelihood of streaks.
Yes it would, because your luck evens out the more you roll. Sometimes it can take many rolls to even out, but eventually it regresses to the average. Its just a matter of finding a large enough value for X but one that doesn't overburden the conquerclub server. This is similar to the techniques used to "smooth" the data from a true random number generator: combine enough samples together so that a localized streak is swamped by the probabilities.
Bones2484 wrote:Tennisie wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:If we accept that the current system is truly random, or indistinguishable from it, then your system wouldn't change the likelihood of streaks.
Yes it would, because your luck evens out the more you roll. Sometimes it can take many rolls to even out, but eventually it regresses to the average. Its just a matter of finding a large enough value for X but one that doesn't overburden the conquerclub server. This is similar to the techniques used to "smooth" the data from a true random number generator: combine enough samples together so that a localized streak is swamped by the probabilities.
No. No. No.
Doing this would just give a huge advantage to the attacker. If the dice were "averaged" out, the rolls would get closer and closer to the expected results of 3 beating a 2 every time.
Take your statement here:Tennisie wrote:the site could automatically roll X times and the most frequent winner would win the single attack attempt
Given enough rolls in your averaging, the "most frequent winner" would be the attacker as it carries the largest odds of occurrence (37% for 2-0, 34% for 1-1, and 29% for 0-2). The results would not follow the 37%-34%-29% pattern anymore. Instead, you'd see a huge rise in the 37% and a dramatic fall in the 29%.
Think of it this way. If you rolled a 3v2 one hundred times in order to see who the "most frequent winner was" to determine who wins the roll, you would expect the results to be close to the 37%-34%-29% pattern nearly every time. Meaning the result of a 3v2 roll in your suggestion would be a 2-0 victory... nearly every time.
Tennisie wrote:Bones2484 wrote:Tennisie wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:If we accept that the current system is truly random, or indistinguishable from it, then your system wouldn't change the likelihood of streaks.
Yes it would, because your luck evens out the more you roll. Sometimes it can take many rolls to even out, but eventually it regresses to the average. Its just a matter of finding a large enough value for X but one that doesn't overburden the conquerclub server. This is similar to the techniques used to "smooth" the data from a true random number generator: combine enough samples together so that a localized streak is swamped by the probabilities.
No. No. No.
Doing this would just give a huge advantage to the attacker. If the dice were "averaged" out, the rolls would get closer and closer to the expected results of 3 beating a 2 every time.
Take your statement here:Tennisie wrote:the site could automatically roll X times and the most frequent winner would win the single attack attempt
Given enough rolls in your averaging, the "most frequent winner" would be the attacker as it carries the largest odds of occurrence (37% for 2-0, 34% for 1-1, and 29% for 0-2). The results would not follow the 37%-34%-29% pattern anymore. Instead, you'd see a huge rise in the 37% and a dramatic fall in the 29%.
Think of it this way. If you rolled a 3v2 one hundred times in order to see who the "most frequent winner was" to determine who wins the roll, you would expect the results to be close to the 37%-34%-29% pattern nearly every time. Meaning the result of a 3v2 roll in your suggestion would be a 2-0 victory... nearly every time.
Very perceptive, Bones, you are exactly right. Which is why we'd need an algorithm. The example I gave was a simple illustration using 1 on 1, but that is never the actual case. I don't know what the algorithm should be to ensure the results hew to the standard pattern, so I'm soliciting ideas.
Tennisie wrote:The most extreme example I know of occurred to me when I lost 87 to 0 during a single auto-attack.
Metsfanmax wrote:
What you're asking for is inherently illogical. You either want 3v2 to win 2-0 37% of the time, or you don't. If you generate an algorithm that rolls the die 10 times in a row but still somehow manages to adhere to the current distribution pattern, you've done nothing to change the likelihood of streaks.
Tennisie wrote:I just realized what the problem is: the algorithm would need to remember the previous attack result to ensure the current result hews to the standard distribution, so it may be practical only for an auto-assault, not a single assault.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
Robinette wrote:If all you really want to do is tighten up the results, then just drop 1 number from the dice.
So it would be 1-5...
although... this would give a slightly greater advantage to the attacker than we have now
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users