Conquer Club

Random.Org, CC's Assault Odds, I don't care, it's bullshit.

As one of the luckiest f*ckers on Conquer Club winning some of the most ridiculous rolls ever recorded (including the 12v83 with 7 left over roll).

Now however I have also experienced some of the worst rolls 25v2 for example.

After 4,500 games you may say, well thats 2 examples, but these ridiculously stupid results happen on a gamely basis.

I often experience ridiculous dice such as 6v10 with no losses and just now after losing a 5v1 and a 4v1 I won a 4v11. Thats all in the same game (check out my recent games 1v1 Australia. I lost btw.)

The dice may be truly random (debatable) but bear that in mind when you play me, you're either going to get someone thats going to make your armies disappear with very few of his or someone thats going to lose every army assaulting your 1's

It seems to me my luck comes in a rows, I throw a certain amount of dice nearly perfectly and the bad dice come and hit me. You would have thought after 4,500 games the dice would have become more even. Not on CC

Btw I don't know anyone else apart from me that wins 2v1 more often then he does 3v1 lol

LFAW

and there was me thinking you were going to admit you were attracted to men.... o well there allways 5K to admit that

plus i have to disagree random is random you just get very random random

So... those sick kind of rolls shouldnt happen?

It's random, everything can happen.. its that easy.

Random.org sucks i think.
Its not random.
CC has to change this provider.

White Moose wrote:So... those sick kind of rolls shouldnt happen?

It's random, everything can happen.. its that easy.

These sick rolls should happen, not every game.

It's random. When the dice are streaky it's irritating, sure, but they're still random. I imagine that in freestyle games the streakiness is more noticeable since you're ramming big stacks here and there all the time. In team games we are mostly tapping down smaller stacks so I might roll an 0-4 but never really an 0-10.

prismsaber wrote:It's random. When the dice are streaky it's irritating, sure, but they're still random. I imagine that in freestyle games the streakiness is more noticeable since you're ramming big stacks here and there all the time. In team games we are mostly tapping down smaller stacks so I might roll an 0-4 but never really an 0-10.

As we say in fs speed.. getting the auto off is key. 99/100 times you can win with sick numbers left over... 38 vs 54 even works. All in all the dice (if you know how to use them) can be a killer tool for you.

prismsaber wrote:It's random. When the dice are streaky it's irritating, sure, but they're still random. I imagine that in freestyle games the streakiness is more noticeable since you're ramming big stacks here and there all the time. In team games we are mostly tapping down smaller stacks so I might roll an 0-4 but never really an 0-10.

So despite the fact the streaks have lasted 4,500 games you still claim they are truly 'random'.
Unlike most people who make dice threads I am not saying that the dice machine is ridiculously unlucky. What I am saying is I see ridiculous dice every game, in many games I am outrageously lucky, so much so I often apologise for it. In others the dice takes a reverse and in most games I see both. I very rarely see a roll that goes as it is predicted. For example I very rarely roll a 3v1 win but yet I win I would say almost 75% of my 2v1 rolls, when I should be winning less then 40%.

I agree with Tsiou, random.org needs to go.

As we say in fs speed.. getting the auto off is key. 99/100 times you can win with sick numbers left over... 38 vs 54 even works. All in all the dice (if you know how to use them) can be a killer tool for you.

I also agree with Bruce, if we were to sit on a table rolling the dice they would never come out like that a 38v54 would probably result (if you're lucky) in maximum of a 48 army loss for the opponent while you're armies are wiped out. What we see regularly in freestyle games is not only winning but winning with 15+ left over. If that doesn't prove a streak I don't know what does....

LFAW

Wait a minute. You are claiming that the rolls suck and they are not random? Yet part of your complaint is also when unpredictable and rare events happen you. Isn't that part of being random?

So what is the solution?

Random.org sucks i think.
Its not random.
CC has to change this provider.

We change to a provider that is more predictable and reduces the chances of huge luck streaks? In order words, we go for a less random source?

I doesn't make sense to me that when people complain about the rolls they claim that the dice aren’t random. CC rolls (probably) millions of dice a week. Sooner or later phenomenon events will happen to you!

gimil wrote:Wait a minute. You are claiming that the rolls suck and they are not random? Yet part of your complaint is also when unpredictable and rare events happen you. Isn't that part of being random?

So what is the solution?

Random.org sucks i think.
Its not random.
CC has to change this provider.

We change to a provider that is more predictable and reduces the chances of huge luck streaks? In order words, we go for a less random source?

I doesn't make sense to me that when people complain about the rolls they claim that the dice aren’t random. CC rolls (probably) millions of dice a week. Sooner or later phenomenon events will happen to you!

Everyone comes out with the same arguments... read this:
I have these so called "rare phenomenons" every game I am in

Do not reply with the millions of dice a week argument, because CC alone has rolled thousands upon thousands of dice for me, I have noticed severe streaks in nearly every game I have been in.

The dice cannot be random when these occurences happen every game for me. I am not alone in this, try playing games where you will notice it.

I aswell as most of CC would like dice that act like dice, as if we were rolling them would be lovely. Random.org does not supply completely random dice we need to switch for this reason.

I think you can sympathize with this guy...
even though he is using REAL dice....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2svVYJ32bKk

Robinette wrote:I think you can sympathize with this guy...
even though he is using REAL dice....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2svVYJ32bKk

Lol that is hilarious

I thought this very issue was tested with very large sample sizes via a statistician here on conquer club. IIRC, the results proved no difference between auto attack and regular attack. It also proved the randomness of the dice. If this is true then there's really no point in talking smack about random.org because it's like trying to argue 1+1 = 3.

prismsaber wrote:I thought this very issue was tested with very large sample sizes via a statistician here on conquer club. IIRC, the results proved no difference between auto attack and regular attack. It also proved the randomness of the dice. If this is true then there's really no point in talking smack about random.org because it's like trying to argue 1+1 = 3.

Not true... one night in a locked up 8 man fs speed game we had some fun testing the dice... We took stacks of 100 men vs 100 men.. Every single time we would auto we won with about 20-25 left over .. the stacks we single attacked with.. Not a single stack won. We tried about 8 of each if I remember correctly. If someone wants I will setup a game with them to test the dice again. We can take screen shots of the rolls and post them. Auto attack owns single attack all day long when then numbers get over 20.

LFAW wrote: Everyone comes out with the same arguments... read this:
I have these so called "rare phenomenons" every game I am in{/quote[

There is absolutly no way that I will believe that all 4500+ games of yours had phenomenons and if they did I find it hard to believe you would remeber having them in every single game.

Do not reply with the millions of dice a week argument, because CC alone has rolled thousands upon thousands of dice for me, I have noticed severe streaks in nearly every game I have been in.

The fact hat you have rolled thousands of dice proves that you are more likely to roll these phenomenons.

I aswell as most of CC would like dice that act like dice, as if we were rolling them would be lovely. Random.org does not supply completely random dice we need to switch for this reason.

And what would you suggest we change to? You can't justify that the rolls arn't random because you get these phenomenons, which I still stand by and say that they couldn't of happened in all 4500+ games of urs.

I believe that you are going through a bad streak and you are generally remebering the bad experience over the good. Once you start hitting good luck with good rolls you are less likely to notice that if you get bad rolls.

Definition of random: having no pattern

Now why don't you try to find a pattern huh?

I don't give an iota of care if you think that dice are bs, but don't start saying crap with no logic behind it. If you are going to say something is not random, prove it. You examples of winning a 12v83 only prove the dice to be random. There is no pattern (that you can find) so they are random. Here are a few tips
1. Get the dice analyzer plug in and see what happens
2. Think for half a second. Do you really expect to win one roll, lose one, win one, lose one, win one, lose one.... ?

Sure, that would be probable, but what type of randomness is that?! If you win a 12v83 then lose an 83v12, you get the same as winning one, losing one, winning one, losing one... etc. The only difference is that the one we have now is random and the one where you win one, lose on is not.

Personally, I do not like how random the dice are. In my opinion, they should be random to a 5% deviation from the theoretical probability.

gimil wrote:
And what would you suggest we change to? You can't justify that the rolls arn't random because you get these phenomenons, which I still stand by and say that they couldn't of happened in all 4500+ games of urs.

I believe that you are going through a bad streak and you are generally remebering the bad experience over the good. Once you start hitting good luck with good rolls you are less likely to notice that if you get bad rolls.

Actually what he is saying is too many odd things occur that should only happen once in a blue moon. They happen every other game, for better or worse. I cannot tell you how many times this week I seen 12 vs 6 win losing 0 or 5 vs 1 lose all. Surely those things happen, but every other game is a bit much. Also tell me how 66 vs 119 wins with 15 left. In real life it never happens like that.

Bruceswar wrote: Actually what he is saying is too many odd things occur that should only happen once in a blue moon. They happen every other game, for better or worse. I cannot tell you how many times this week I seen 12 vs 6 win losing 0 or 5 vs 1 lose all. Surely those things happen, but every other game is a bit much. Also tell me how 66 vs 119 wins with 15 left. In real life it never happens like that.

How often in real life do you roll 66v119 compared to on CC? Those sorts of odd things are more likely to happem on CC because they happen more often than in real life.

Bruceswar wrote:

prismsaber wrote:I thought this very issue was tested with very large sample sizes via a statistician here on conquer club. IIRC, the results proved no difference between auto attack and regular attack. It also proved the randomness of the dice. If this is true then there's really no point in talking smack about random.org because it's like trying to argue 1+1 = 3.

Not true... one night in a locked up 8 man fs speed game we had some fun testing the dice... We took stacks of 100 men vs 100 men.. Every single time we would auto we won with about 20-25 left over .. the stacks we single attacked with.. Not a single stack won. We tried about 8 of each if I remember correctly. If someone wants I will setup a game with them to test the dice again. We can take screen shots of the rolls and post them. Auto attack owns single attack all day long when then numbers get over 20.

Unless your study involves hundreds or better yet, thousands of 100v100 attempts and those results are repeated by others not much can be gleaned from it. There is a 36% chance to have 20 men left over after a 100v100 attack so it's not far-fetched. The fact that your single attacks ended in losses is not surprising either and actually probably averaged out your total dice during your study.

Here is a decent dice sample...


1s █████████████████████████ 21800 / 132156 (16.5%) █████████████████████████ 12226 / 72671 (16.82%)
2s █████████████████████████ 22091 / 132156 (16.72%) █████████████████████████ 12110 / 72671 (16.66%)
3s █████████████████████████ 22064 / 132156 (16.7%) █████████████████████████ 12046 / 72671 (16.58%)
4s █████████████████████████ 21887 / 132156 (16.56%) █████████████████████████ 12256 / 72671 (16.87%)
5s █████████████████████████ 22335 / 132156 (16.9%) █████████████████████████ 12070 / 72671 (16.61%)
6s █████████████████████████ 21979 / 132156 (16.63%) █████████████████████████ 11963 / 72671 (16.46%)

Battle Outcomes Actual Stats Ideal Stats
3v2 █████████████████████████ 9488 / 8360 / 7544 (37.37% / 32.92% / 29.71%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)
3v1 █████████████████████████ 10898 / 5522 (66.37% / 33.63%) (65.97% / 34.03%)
2v2 █████████████████████████ 221 / 302 / 349 (25.34% / 34.63% / 40.02%) (22.76% / 32.41% / 44.83%)
2v1 █████████████████████████ 985 / 720 (57.77% / 42.23%) (57.87% / 42.13%)
1v2 █████████████████████████ 119 / 333 (26.33% / 73.67%) (25.46% / 74.54%)
1v1 █████████████████████████ 469 / 645 (42.1% / 57.9%) (41.67% / 58.33%)

Overall stats
Attacker threw 132156 dice.
Defender threw 72671 dice.
Wins / Ties / Loses █████████████████████████ 22180 / 8662 / 15113
█████ Attacker wins
█████ Attacker wins 1, defender wins 1
█████ Defender wins



2 Things to note:

1) I have about 7000 more wins than loses.
2) Defense dice are terrible by the numbers. Lowest is a 6 ... and you will likely see a 1.


So what does this sample tell you? - If you attack more often than not you will win. I do auto attack a good bit, partly because I am too lazy to click single attack over and over.

gimil wrote:

Bruceswar wrote: Actually what he is saying is too many odd things occur that should only happen once in a blue moon. They happen every other game, for better or worse. I cannot tell you how many times this week I seen 12 vs 6 win losing 0 or 5 vs 1 lose all. Surely those things happen, but every other game is a bit much. Also tell me how 66 vs 119 wins with 15 left. In real life it never happens like that.

How often in real life do you roll 66v119 compared to on CC? Those sorts of odd things are more likely to happem on CC because they happen more often than in real life.

In real life the numbers rarely get that big, but for the same token, even a 15 vs 30 attack in real life never wins. And don't tell me you rolled double sixes 16 times in a row to wipe it out. 99% of the time you will lose 15 vs 30. All LFAW is saying it is happens to often on CC, and thus not a true real life random.

prismsaber wrote: Unless your study involves hundreds or better yet, thousands of 100v100 attempts and those results are repeated by others not much can be gleaned from it. There is a 36% chance to have 20 men left over after a 100v100 attack so it's not far-fetched. The fact that your single attacks ended in losses is not surprising either and actually probably averaged out your total dice during your study.

Another point worth remebering is that auto attack takes a string of attached random numbers from the database while single attack takes numbers as you click attack. So while everyone on CC is taking turns, single attack is grabbing what it needs as you ask for it along with everyone else on CC.

So I would say auto attack gives a better idea of how random.org numbers perform that single attack because with auto attack you get a single string of random.org numbers while with single attack you don't.

Bruceswar wrote:Here is a decent dice sample...


1s █████████████████████████ 21800 / 132156 (16.5%) █████████████████████████ 12226 / 72671 (16.82%)
2s █████████████████████████ 22091 / 132156 (16.72%) █████████████████████████ 12110 / 72671 (16.66%)
3s █████████████████████████ 22064 / 132156 (16.7%) █████████████████████████ 12046 / 72671 (16.58%)
4s █████████████████████████ 21887 / 132156 (16.56%) █████████████████████████ 12256 / 72671 (16.87%)
5s █████████████████████████ 22335 / 132156 (16.9%) █████████████████████████ 12070 / 72671 (16.61%)
6s █████████████████████████ 21979 / 132156 (16.63%) █████████████████████████ 11963 / 72671 (16.46%)

Battle Outcomes Actual Stats Ideal Stats
3v2 █████████████████████████ 9488 / 8360 / 7544 (37.37% / 32.92% / 29.71%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)
3v1 █████████████████████████ 10898 / 5522 (66.37% / 33.63%) (65.97% / 34.03%)
2v2 █████████████████████████ 221 / 302 / 349 (25.34% / 34.63% / 40.02%) (22.76% / 32.41% / 44.83%)
2v1 █████████████████████████ 985 / 720 (57.77% / 42.23%) (57.87% / 42.13%)
1v2 █████████████████████████ 119 / 333 (26.33% / 73.67%) (25.46% / 74.54%)
1v1 █████████████████████████ 469 / 645 (42.1% / 57.9%) (41.67% / 58.33%)

Overall stats
Attacker threw 132156 dice.
Defender threw 72671 dice.
Wins / Ties / Loses █████████████████████████ 22180 / 8662 / 15113
█████ Attacker wins
█████ Attacker wins 1, defender wins 1
█████ Defender wins



2 Things to note:

1) I have about 7000 more wins than loses.
2) Defense dice are terrible by the numbers. Lowest is a 6 ... and you will likely see a 1.


So what does this sample tell you? - If you attack more often than not you will win. I do auto attack a good bit, partly because I am too lazy to click single attack over and over.

1. Ever heard of attacker's advantage?
2. CC uses a string of 500000 dice. I would not be surprised to find that it does not split evenly among all dice since it is randomly generated. Perhaps we should get a new dice string?

prismsaber wrote: Unless your study involves hundreds or better yet, thousands of 100v100 attempts and those results are repeated by others not much can be gleaned from it. There is a 36% chance to have 20 men left over after a 100v100 attack so it's not far-fetched. The fact that your single attacks ended in losses is not surprising either and actually probably averaged out your total dice during your study.

Point is why did not one of the single attacks work at all? 0 for 8, yet every single auto attack worked? Should they both not be the same in a sense?

Bruceswar wrote:Here is a decent dice sample...


1s █████████████████████████ 21800 / 132156 (16.5%) █████████████████████████ 12226 / 72671 (16.82%)
2s █████████████████████████ 22091 / 132156 (16.72%) █████████████████████████ 12110 / 72671 (16.66%)
3s █████████████████████████ 22064 / 132156 (16.7%) █████████████████████████ 12046 / 72671 (16.58%)
4s █████████████████████████ 21887 / 132156 (16.56%) █████████████████████████ 12256 / 72671 (16.87%)
5s █████████████████████████ 22335 / 132156 (16.9%) █████████████████████████ 12070 / 72671 (16.61%)
6s █████████████████████████ 21979 / 132156 (16.63%) █████████████████████████ 11963 / 72671 (16.46%)

Battle Outcomes Actual Stats Ideal Stats
3v2 █████████████████████████ 9488 / 8360 / 7544 (37.37% / 32.92% / 29.71%) (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)
3v1 █████████████████████████ 10898 / 5522 (66.37% / 33.63%) (65.97% / 34.03%)
2v2 █████████████████████████ 221 / 302 / 349 (25.34% / 34.63% / 40.02%) (22.76% / 32.41% / 44.83%)
2v1 █████████████████████████ 985 / 720 (57.77% / 42.23%) (57.87% / 42.13%)
1v2 █████████████████████████ 119 / 333 (26.33% / 73.67%) (25.46% / 74.54%)
1v1 █████████████████████████ 469 / 645 (42.1% / 57.9%) (41.67% / 58.33%)

Overall stats
Attacker threw 132156 dice.
Defender threw 72671 dice.
Wins / Ties / Loses █████████████████████████ 22180 / 8662 / 15113
█████ Attacker wins
█████ Attacker wins 1, defender wins 1
█████ Defender wins



2 Things to note:

1) I have about 7000 more wins than loses.
2) Defense dice are terrible by the numbers. Lowest is a 6 ... and you will likely see a 1.


So what does this sample tell you? - If you attack more often than not you will win. I do auto attack a good bit, partly because I am too lazy to click single attack over and over.

The 7000 more wins than loses is a misleading statistic. By just looking at the percentages your stats are very slightly above the ideal rolls but certainly not preposterously so.