Dice Complaints and Various Suggestions to Fix Them

[AAFitz]

lol....youve played 20 games....ive thrown more than 150000 dice in here....i definitely win more than I lose but not over a 20 game stretch sometimes...

20 games is nothing...and your sharing dice with 1000 people at a time...the only time they could possibly not be random is on auto attack, and even that is pulling random numbers...but if your clicking one at a time...figure 20 people are too, so your randomly pulling from a random set of numbers...iven if the set wasnt perfectly random that youre pulling from...the fact that your pulling randomly from it would make it random...

but if you truly think they are not random...try to guess what your next roll will be, because if they arent random..you should be able to guess what they are

[lt_oddball]

all possible combinations of 3 dice is 6^3 = 216.
all possible combinations of 2 dice is 6^2 = 36.
all combinations of the two = 6^3 * 6^2 = 7776.

I placed the dices in conquerclub order (so 6-3-5 or 3-6-5 is immediately 6-5-3 and so is 6-6-6 or 6-6-6 is 6-6-6 ).

attacker lose 0 defender lose 2 = 2890 or about 37%.
attacker lose 1 defender lose 1 = 2611 or about 34%.
attacker lose 2 defender lose 0 = 2275 or about 29%.

Shows the same trend.



still, i'd like to see how random.org can claim they are more realistic (because I don't feel it that way) and why conquerclub was convinced to take their randomizer (weren't there other programmes available?..were they all tested ?).

[yeti_c]

lol....youve played 20 games....ive thrown more than 150000 dice in here....i definitely win more than I lose but not over a 20 game stretch sometimes...

20 games is nothing...and your sharing dice with 1000 people at a time...the only time they could possibly not be random is on auto attack, and even that is pulling random numbers...but if your clicking one at a time...figure 20 people are too, so your randomly pulling from a random set of numbers...iven if the set wasnt perfectly random that youre pulling from...the fact that your pulling randomly from it would make it random...

but if you truly think they are not random...try to guess what your next roll will be, because if they arent random..you should be able to guess what they are

Not to mention you are only seeing half (at best) of the dice thrown per game - unless you asked all of your opponents to tell you their dice too.

C.

[vtmarik]

Get the dice analyzer, and then take the time to let it gather data.

It's random.

Move on.

[lt_oddball]

With the board game Risk you fight with 3 against 3 dices of the defender..and I get better results there.

one other thing:
To the ones that feel the dices are "bad" and to the ones that believe that everyone suffers an equal share so that it won't matter "over all": why not put an adjuster in the dices that would make the attacker just a bit more beneficial.
This way the first group is pleased, and the second won't object.

The GOOD effect of this is that the attacking/aggressive player has the advantage and thus attacking is REWARDED more than people that bunker armies.

Haven't you noticed that the high scoring players all have characteristics such as "great player, was sitting quietly in the corner and then made his sudden moves and we couldnot resist it".
And that's just it: the final winner is always one that stayed out of most of the action, bunkered his armies, and then attacked when all were weak.

Then call this came "bunker" in stead of "conquer".


So already for the reason of improving gameplay something must be done about the dices.

[AndyDufresne]

I think the dice are grand and fine.


--Andy

[spiesr]

With the board game Risk you fight with 3 against 3 dices of the defender...

Really?

[john1099]

With the board game Risk you fight with 3 against 3 dices of the defender...

Read the rules, the red dice (3) are for the attacker, and the white dice (2) are for the defender.
You obviously need to get out the rule book and check, because you've been playing wrong for many years

Edited: quoted something wrong

[alex_white101]

I think the dice are grand and fine.


--Andy

[Rybal]

Of the 4500 dice that I have thrown to this point with the dice analyzer, these are my results for a 3:2:

273 wins (38.61%)
221 ties (31.26%)
213 losses (30.13%)

Seems pretty close to me

That's with 2121 dice thrown on my end.

[Abishai]

I do not know about random, but in one game 515119, I had an 11 on 3 and I lost all 10 to eliminate an opponet with 5 cards with a turn in value of 35. Then in that same game I attacked another opponent who had one man from two territories and I lost all 5 in the first attack and 4 in the other his man took out 9 men. I am amazed I won the game. My question is does this happen to others as well at least every other game I am losing 7 on 1's and 8 on ones. and the other thing that kills me is I am about 50% of the time losing my first roll when I am throwing 3 dice to the opponents 1 defense die.
Also I have been searching for the dice analyzer how do I get it?

[pel6412]

i'm so sick of people complaining about the dice.
a lot of mathematicians have worked on the problem of generating random numbers and random.org has one of the best algorithms out there.

420 give the attacker 2 wins,
378 give the attacker 1 win and
378 give the attacker 0 win.

your calculations are way of as was shown by CliffyQS.

I placed the dices in conquerclub order (so 6-3-5 or 3-6-5 is immediately 6-5-3 and so is 6-6-6 or 6-6-6 is 6-6-6 Wink ).

6-3-5- and 3-6-5 should be counted as to deferent throws!

and even if your calculations wore correct, 20 games is not a big enough test bed.

if your going to Q.E.D sum thing plz write a proper mathematical proof or at least read about the random.org algorithm.

I do not know about random, but in one game 515119, I had an 11 on 3 and I lost all 10 to eliminate an opponet with 5 cards with a turn in value of 35.

what you describe here is statistically vary probable about one out of 300 with more then 125,000 battles a day it should happen to about 375 players every day.

you can get the dice analyzer here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5655

[Skittles!]

Seriously, just get over the damn dice. It's Random, so that means any number can be pulled out for the dice. Have you got that?

If you are seriously sick of the dice, just go somewhere else then, 'cause a lot of n00bs like you are starting to piss me off.

The dice are the dice, and they are random, just let it be and stop complaining about them. You win some and you lose some, just get over it.

[WidowMakers]

From RANDOM.ORG
http://www.random.org/analysis/

Statistical Analysis

RANDOM.ORG is a true random number service that generates randomness via atmospheric noise. This page describes the two statistical analyses that have been conducted of the service.
Are the Numbers Really Random?

This question is surprisingly hard to answer. Before we try, let's define what exactly we mean by a random number.

When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable. In statistics, this is called a uniform distribution, because the distribution of probabilities for each number is uniform (i.e., the same) across the range of possible values. For example, a good (unloaded) die has the probability 1/6 of rolling a one, 1/6 of rolling a two and so on. Hence, the probability of each of the six numbers coming up is exactly the same, so we say any roll of our die has a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others. This means that drawing one value doesn't make that value less likely to occur again. This is exactly the case with our unloaded die: If you roll a six, that doesn't mean the chance of rolling another six changes.

So, why is it hard to test whether a given sequence of numbers is random? The reason is that if your random number generator (or your die) is good, each possible sequence of values (or die rolls) is equally likely to appear. This means that a good random number generators will also produce sequences that look nonrandom to the human eye (e.g., a series of ten rolls of six on our die) and which also fail any statistical tests that we might expose it to. If you flip enough coins, you will get sequences of coin flips that seen in isolation from the rest of the sequence don't look random at all. Scott Adams has drawn this as a Dilbert strip, which is funny exactly because it is true:

The problem with randomness: You can never be sure

What Dilbert is told is correct: It is impossible to prove definitively whether a given sequence of numbers (and the generator that produced it) is random. It could happen that the creature in the comic strip has been generating perfectly random numbers for many years and that Dilbert simply happens to walk in at the moment when there's six nines in a row. It's not very likely, but if the creature sits there for long enough, it will eventually happen.

So, if it is impossible to definitively prove randomness, what can we do instead? The pragmatic approach is to take many sequences of random numbers from a given generator and subject them to a battery of statistical tests. As the sequences pass more of the tests, the confidence in the randomness of the numbers increases and so does the confidence in the generator. However, because we expect some sequences to appear nonrandom (like the ten rolls of six on our die), we should expect some of the sequences to fail at least some of the tests. However, if many sequences fail the tests, we should be suspicious. This is also way you would intuitively test a die to see if it is loaded: Roll it many times, and if you see too many sequences of the same value coming up, you should be suspicious.

If you look at the online statistics for RANDOM.ORG, you will sometimes see blocks of numbers that failed some of the tests. This does not mean that the numbers are not random. In fact, if all the blocks passed all the tests, we should be suspicious, because it would mean the generator would not be producing those sequences that don't look (but still would be) random.

[Abishai]

Don't think I was complaining. The dice may have been against me, but the computer gave me a set on 3 cards and I won the game, besides I might have a a problemm if I had caused me to lose game upon game upon game, but as it is if you look at my record I win 50% of my games. The dice can't be too bad, I was just wondering if anyone else experienced the same things?
Thanks for the dice analyzer link I have it loaded on and I see it as an option under my Personal menu. Thanks.

[vtmarik]

The thing is, for those who think the dice are broken somehow, is that the odds are individual. Just because you roll one good roll or a bad roll, that doesn't change the fact that the odds are the same for every individual dice roll.

That's the essence of randomness.

[hatterson]

What most people want when they say random dice are uniform dice. They don't want to have them be truly random and take the risk of losing 50v1 because the other guy rolled 50 6s in a row (which is possible, although highly highly unlikely, with random dice) they want to have 10 defeat 3 all the time because that's fair.

I've had the same discussion over and over about loot in various MMOs and it always ends the same.

[alster]

I put all the combinations of the attacker's 3 dices (56) against the defenders 2 dices (21).

and not to my surprise I find that of the 1176 (56x21) possibilities
420 give the attacker 2 wins,
378 give the attacker 1 win and
378 give the attacker 0 win.

So at any lenghty attack series (1 attack run..or all your attack runs combined ! ) the attacker SHOULD kill more than he 'd loose !!!
But that is NOT the case here at conquer.com
I collected data and at best you might be 50-50 , but in my case the balance is shifted HEAVILY in favor of the defender . And that is crap.

Dude,

look at your numbers.

Defender loose 2: 35,7%
Attacker and defender loose 1 each: 32,1%
Attacker loose 2: 32,1%


Statistically, this is the probability:

Defender loose 2: 37,17%
Attacker and defender loose 1 each: 33,58%
Attacker loose 2: 29,26%


Despite your rather small sample, you're pretty close.

[paulk]

"Everyone" complains about the dice. Personally I don't really see it as a problem. You get lucky or unlucky, thats it.

But I still have a suggestion.

Lets say CC creates their own dice lists.
It could easily be done with an exact representation of all possible dice rolls in this way:

Create a database table for 5 dice: Each one of the 7776 rows is one of 6*6*6*6*6 combinations.
Create a database table for 4 dice: Each one of the 1296 rows is one of 6*6*6*6 combinations.
Create a database table for 3 dice: Each one of the 216 rows is one of 6*6*6 combinations.
Create a database table for 2 dice: Each one of the 36 rows is one of 6*6 combinations.

Then you use and check off each one of a random chosen row until all are checked and then start over and over and over....

This way the dice are an exact representation of the possible rolls and since so many players are using the lists in the same time it will be impossible for one player to "calculate" next roll.

[Jehan]

so your method means that each roll is no longer independant of each other? i dont like it, sorry, i just have a problem with rolls being checked off after they are used.

[paulk]

To make it more "true" you could make the checking off a counter, all the way up to a thousand. So every time a dice combo is checked off the number increases 1 step.

When all dice combos have increased at least one step they are all subtracted one step. Very much like in Tetris.

This could also be an interesting way to see how true randomness is. Maybe even make it public?

[Maugrim]

Thank you.

[AtomicSlug]

a computer cannot make it actually random, just have a long enough sequence that it seems random. And the dice arent saying, "Oh, its you, we'll give you crappy roles." Everbody gets good roles, everybody gets bad roles.

I was playing risk in real life, i know it sounds crazy) and lost with 30 guys to 10, so it happens in real life too.

Not really true. Very good RNG's can use things like where like the scan position on your monitor is at the time and other such truly random stuff. Difficult and complex, but I believe some RNG's actually use this and other techniques. Someday, someone will incorporate a quantum uncertainty principle or something into an RNG. I can think of a million other ways to do this, but it would bore all y'all more than I'm already boring you.

[Metaphore]

The dice are based on high quality random numbers from Random.org. The numbers are read from a large file containing columns of numbers from 1 to 6, in the format A1 A2 A3 D1 D2. When the dice are rolled, the game engine reads a line from the file and discards it. The appropriate numbers are used and the others are ignored. The file contains 500,000 lines of dice rolls and is re-loaded when all the lines are used up. As of November 2006 we consume 125,000 lines of dice rolls per day.

Sounds pretty random to me.

Actually, it doesn't... The original random number might be random, but the latter playing with it, especially preventing lines from repeating and reducing the sample set in the process is highly suspect.

A long time ago in a distant laboratory I coded what's known as a Chi-squared test for randomness and distribution. All I remember from those days is if you f*ck with a random number it ceases to be random in most cases.

The right thing to do would be to get 5 random numbers. Generating 5 random numbers using an algorithm would be better and surely much faster than getting 1 from random.org plus file i/o anyway.

[Kaplowitz]

I always thought that the dice were pulled out of a hat!