weekends dice from the analyser
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
weekends dice from the analyser
Well after getting horrible dice last thursday I decided to download tha analyser to see if it was my imagination... what do you guys think of these stats?
-
Risktaker17
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:09 am
-
peanutsdad
- Posts: 718
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 9:16 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: behind you
Attacker threw 305254 dice.The1exile wrote:Overall statsbob3603 wrote:I think you need to let the dice analyzer run for a little longer
Attacker threw 36763 dice.
Defender threw 19139 dice.
And I'm still considerably under the odds in 3vs2 and 3vs1
Defender threw 162854 dice.
im within tenths of a percentage point in almost every area
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Too much. I know.
If you aren't sure what the real stats should look like, google is your friend 
As always, if anyone has any thoughts on how to make the dice APPEAR more random (whilst still being random...which they are across the board) then please do let us know (in the suggestion forum please) because we'd be happy to work on it
As always, if anyone has any thoughts on how to make the dice APPEAR more random (whilst still being random...which they are across the board) then please do let us know (in the suggestion forum please) because we'd be happy to work on it
-
rebelman
- Posts: 2968
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:24 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: People's Republic of Cork
- Contact:
random.org was founded and run from Ireland and as we are the most honest people on the planet random.org is totally reliable 
Don't now why people on here don't like being cooks, remember under siege: A former SEAL, now cook, is the only person who can stop a gang of terrorists when they sieze control of a US Navy battleship.
-
insomniacdude
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:14 am
My Dice Analyzer really made me rethink my ideas on the dice here.
For 3v2, 2v2, 2v1, and 1v2, I am well above the predicted rate of winning (+2.09%, 8.17%, 5.06%, and 4.09% above normal, respectively).
Attacker dice distribution Defender dice distribution
1s 3867 / 23155 (16.7%) 1937 / 11606 (16.69%)
2s 3733 / 23155 (16.12%) 2010 / 11606 (17.32%)
3s 3805 / 23155 (16.43%) 1874 / 11606 (16.15%)
4s 3935 / 23155 (16.99%) 1921 / 11606 (16.55%)
5s 3887 / 23155 (16.79%) 1948 / 11606 (16.78%)
6s 3928 / 23155 (16.96%) 1916 / 11606 (16.51%)
Something like 8,000 attacks.
For 3v2, 2v2, 2v1, and 1v2, I am well above the predicted rate of winning (+2.09%, 8.17%, 5.06%, and 4.09% above normal, respectively).
Attacker dice distribution Defender dice distribution
1s 3867 / 23155 (16.7%) 1937 / 11606 (16.69%)
2s 3733 / 23155 (16.12%) 2010 / 11606 (17.32%)
3s 3805 / 23155 (16.43%) 1874 / 11606 (16.15%)
4s 3935 / 23155 (16.99%) 1921 / 11606 (16.55%)
5s 3887 / 23155 (16.79%) 1948 / 11606 (16.78%)
6s 3928 / 23155 (16.96%) 1916 / 11606 (16.51%)
Something like 8,000 attacks.
it might costs mega bucks for CC though Twill
Software random generators (PRNG): Software RNGs use mathematical algorithms to generate random numbers, initializing the algorithm with a "seed" value derived from some repetitive operation in the computer, such as keystrokes, running processes, the computer's clock, or mouse movements. However, it is extremely difficult to come up with a completely random seed value, since most such operations only provide seeds with a small range of values. The challenge of software RNGs is that the sequence of numbers based on the seed value is completely deterministic, since their creation is accomplished with a software algorithm. So even if the seed value is truly random, the numbers the RNG creates are predictable if someone can figure out the algorithm used to produce them. Thus the numbers generated by software RNGs are not considered truly random, but pseudo-random, and the software RNGs that generate them are known as Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs).
Hardware random generators (TRNG): Hardware RNGs do not require seeds because hardware random numbers are not computed values; they are not derived through a repeatable algorithm. Rather, hardware-generated random numbers are digitized snapshots of naturally occurring noise. Because there is no algorithm and no repeating sequences of numbers, even if a hacker could determine one number, he would not be able to use it to predict any future numbers. For this reason, hardware RNGs are known as Truly Random Number Generators, or TRNGs.
Software random generators (PRNG): Software RNGs use mathematical algorithms to generate random numbers, initializing the algorithm with a "seed" value derived from some repetitive operation in the computer, such as keystrokes, running processes, the computer's clock, or mouse movements. However, it is extremely difficult to come up with a completely random seed value, since most such operations only provide seeds with a small range of values. The challenge of software RNGs is that the sequence of numbers based on the seed value is completely deterministic, since their creation is accomplished with a software algorithm. So even if the seed value is truly random, the numbers the RNG creates are predictable if someone can figure out the algorithm used to produce them. Thus the numbers generated by software RNGs are not considered truly random, but pseudo-random, and the software RNGs that generate them are known as Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs).
Hardware random generators (TRNG): Hardware RNGs do not require seeds because hardware random numbers are not computed values; they are not derived through a repeatable algorithm. Rather, hardware-generated random numbers are digitized snapshots of naturally occurring noise. Because there is no algorithm and no repeating sequences of numbers, even if a hacker could determine one number, he would not be able to use it to predict any future numbers. For this reason, hardware RNGs are known as Truly Random Number Generators, or TRNGs.
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
-
BaldAdonis
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:57 am
- Location: Trapped in Pleasantville with Toby McGuire
stuff
People often confuse random with probable. There is no mechanism you can use for dice that will stop people from feeling that any result that doesn't look 'probable' isn't random.
In the real world however, random results often look improbable, in fact, if it didn't, there would be something wrong.
Here's an example, if you are at the cash register, and yout total comes out a round number, say, exactly $10.00, a lot of people think this is amazing!
It doesn't take much effort to realize however that $10.00 has exactly the same chance of coming up as $9.87 or $14.62. The fact that we lump not-round numbers together in our head is irrelevant to the probability.
Another example includes the Lotto. A person TRYING to pick random numbers will almost always spread them out evenly across the potenial numbers. Real random number selection will rarely (VERY rarely) match the human gut-instinct of what random should be.
Learn well, young Jedi's, gut-instincts are always questionable... this will serve you well.
Now, the final, and most important problem with peoples perception of Conquer Club Dice Unfairness, is that WHAT YOU ROLL THIS TIME HAS NO IMPACT ON THE NEXT ROLL. By which I mean, if you lose two armies this turn, you canot demand that the laws of randomness give you a double victory with the next. And if you have lost TEN TIMES IN A ROW, the next roll has exactly the same chance of costing two more armies as any other.
Probability is NOT a causal force in the universe, it is the resultant data of observation; no matter HOW slim the chance of something happening is, is can still happen, and not violate the concept. In fact, if it never happened, that would be an issue.
In the real world however, random results often look improbable, in fact, if it didn't, there would be something wrong.
Here's an example, if you are at the cash register, and yout total comes out a round number, say, exactly $10.00, a lot of people think this is amazing!
It doesn't take much effort to realize however that $10.00 has exactly the same chance of coming up as $9.87 or $14.62. The fact that we lump not-round numbers together in our head is irrelevant to the probability.
Another example includes the Lotto. A person TRYING to pick random numbers will almost always spread them out evenly across the potenial numbers. Real random number selection will rarely (VERY rarely) match the human gut-instinct of what random should be.
Learn well, young Jedi's, gut-instincts are always questionable... this will serve you well.
Now, the final, and most important problem with peoples perception of Conquer Club Dice Unfairness, is that WHAT YOU ROLL THIS TIME HAS NO IMPACT ON THE NEXT ROLL. By which I mean, if you lose two armies this turn, you canot demand that the laws of randomness give you a double victory with the next. And if you have lost TEN TIMES IN A ROW, the next roll has exactly the same chance of costing two more armies as any other.
Probability is NOT a causal force in the universe, it is the resultant data of observation; no matter HOW slim the chance of something happening is, is can still happen, and not violate the concept. In fact, if it never happened, that would be an issue.
dude, i work for an online Casino and poker company and do you know how many complaints we get from bad losers!?!?!
our software costs money and we aint talking a couple of dollars. There is no way that conquer club can stimulate a real life dice throw!
our software costs money and we aint talking a couple of dollars. There is no way that conquer club can stimulate a real life dice throw!
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
Agreed.
I am going through a horrendous dice period at present... I blame auto-attack, (as it groups numbers together and the same number can't arrive twice so it is less random) then i blame single attack because .. well because of the same silly answer for the auto.
I blame Lack .. well because he's a sneaky turtle after all!
But when I boil it down, I more acutely recall the bad dice than the good dice... more than that i damn well expect better than probable dice! so when they are not it irritates me!
The only thing which can keep you sane regarding the dice is to accept that they are the same for everyone.. and not rigged against you.
I am going through a horrendous dice period at present... I blame auto-attack, (as it groups numbers together and the same number can't arrive twice so it is less random
) then i blame single attack because .. well because of the same silly answer for the auto. I blame Lack .. well because he's a sneaky turtle after all!
But when I boil it down, I more acutely recall the bad dice than the good dice... more than that i damn well expect better than probable dice! so when they are not it irritates me!
The only thing which can keep you sane regarding the dice is to accept that they are the same for everyone.. and not rigged against you.
http://www.random.org/
C.random.org wrote:What's this fuss about true randomness?
Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are a generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls, roulette wheels and lottery draws.
RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use the numbers to run lotteries, draws and sweepstakes and for their games and gambling sites. Scientists use them for random sampling and as input to modelling and simulation applications. Artists use them to make art and music. The service has been operating since 1998 and was built and is being maintained by Mads Haahr who is a Lecturer in the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland.
Highest score : 2297
