Moderator: Community Team
zndow wrote:Hi everyone!
Players are talking about streaks of bad dice rolls and I totally agree with them.
Players are talking about statistically correct randomness and I do not agree at 100%. Here why.
It is a fact that the dice are random without any doubt. But there is something missing in this randomness and it is the control over time of this actual randomness.
Let me clarify.
If you test CC randomness engine you will find out after a long series of throws that the randomness is absolutely correct on the long run (Statistically speaking).
Exactly on the long run, that is the problem, LONG RUN.
If there is no controls installed for short terms, then the dice are simply out of statics. You then see very often a player losing an almost winning position over a short term bad streak of dice rolls even with odds over 90% chance of winning a fight.
Example: losing 15 against 2, when you should often lose maybe 3-5 units. Do not get me wrong here but losing 5 units against 2 it is call bad streak in my book and it is what i expect when it is not going my way. Not losing 15 units. That is the kind of bad situation I think about when I prepare my tactics and strategies.
That is the short term problem of computing randomness.
Why do we see the highest rank players playing freestyle games only? Because they do not have to worry about the flaw in this dice randomness.
Why we do not see any very good strategists or tacticians on the top rank. Because there strategies or tactics often get kill by the flaw of the dice randomness.
Why those best tacticians always get a tremendous stack of units before doing a fight? Because they know if they want the best chance to win the fight they need to be able to do a lot of rolls in a single fight to truly hit there odds.
Right now I say the randomness is not good for the type of game CC offer. Until this flaw is fixed, only freestyle players will hit the top ranks because it is impossible to control your position correctly when the dice decide of your faith and not your better strategies or tactics.
Very good player understand they cannot win every fights easily and they prepare themselves for that. But when you cannot even control that then guess what!
"noooooooooo not again i had a winning position"
" Ah come on, I just lost 7 against 1, that's BS, now I am dead for sure when I worked so hard to get out of this bad position"
" blah blah blah blah....."
Have a nice day everyone,

zndow wrote:I played chess for several years actually.
What i am saying is if odds tell me that with 5 units against 1 units i should win the fight 95% of the time then i expect exactly that. And right now it is not the case because of this flaw in the randomness. I need like 40 units against 8 (x8) to start hitting those odds.
zndow wrote:no robinette i belive you are mistaking.
If i have 6 fronts with 90% of winning them each then there is 53% chance that 1 of them will be lost and not losing half of the time.

Robinette wrote:zndow wrote:no robinette i belive you are mistaking.
If i have 6 fronts with 90% of winning them each then there is 53% chance that 1 of them will be lost and not losing half of the time.
Let me clarify...
If you are going for the kill, then you will lose nearly Half the time, despite the 90% odds...
I can see no other reason to attack someone so hard, but then again, i've never played 1v1

zndow wrote:I played chess for several years actually.
What i am saying is if odds tell me that with 5 units against 1 units i should win the fight 95% of the time then i expect exactly that. And right now it is not the case because of this flaw in the randomness. I need like 40 units against 8 (x8) to start hitting those odds.
hwhrhett wrote:Robinette wrote:zndow wrote:no robinette i belive you are mistaking.
If i have 6 fronts with 90% of winning them each then there is 53% chance that 1 of them will be lost and not losing half of the time.
Let me clarify...
If you are going for the kill, then you will lose nearly Half the time, despite the 90% odds...
I can see no other reason to attack someone so hard, but then again, i've never played 1v1
never?

Georgerx7di wrote:zndow wrote:I played chess for several years actually.
What i am saying is if odds tell me that with 5 units against 1 units i should win the fight 95% of the time then i expect exactly that. And right now it is not the case because of this flaw in the randomness. I need like 40 units against 8 (x8) to start hitting those odds.
Btw, just so everyone know, 5v1 is way less than 95%. 6v1 is only about 90%.

Timminz wrote:6v1 = 99.03171%
5v1 = 97.15441%
the.killing.44 wrote:Timminz wrote:6v1 = 99.03171%
5v1 = 97.15441%
Which in (CC) reality is total bullshit; no way I've won 5v1 97% of the time.
Timminz wrote:the.killing.44 wrote:Timminz wrote:6v1 = 99.03171%
5v1 = 97.15441%
Which in (CC) reality is total bullshit; no way I've won 5v1 97% of the time.
Proof? Or are you just making things up?
the.killing.44 wrote:Timminz wrote:the.killing.44 wrote:Timminz wrote:6v1 = 99.03171%
5v1 = 97.15441%
Which in (CC) reality is total bullshit; no way I've won 5v1 97% of the time.
Proof? Or are you just making things up?
I would love to find proof for that.
xelabale wrote:So the OP is saying that randomness is only true over a large sample, but inaccurate for a small sample? He's saying that's why good players adopt strategies to deal with that? He's saying that sometimes the dice aren't dead on their predicted outcome, but that they even out?
Well I never, I'm gonna have to rethink this whole concept of randomness...


Robinette wrote:xelabale wrote:So the OP is saying that randomness is only true over a large sample, but inaccurate for a small sample? He's saying that's why good players adopt strategies to deal with that? He's saying that sometimes the dice aren't dead on their predicted outcome, but that they even out?
Well I never, I'm gonna have to rethink this whole concept of randomness...
wait---- What?......
sooooo, does this mean we should actually adjust our strategy to anticipate that we will LOSE men when rolling...
i think i get it now...
With 3 rolls, in the LONG RUN the stats say i'll win... win 2, win 1, win 0
But if we look at this the other way --- the rolls actually look like this.... lose 2, lose 1, and lose 0
So with 6 v 2 you lose the 1st roll (lose 2), now it's 4 v2...
2nd roll at 4 v 2 and i'll anticipate that i lose 1, now it's 3 v 1
uh oh... 2 dice vs 1... i'm screwed... MAYBE if i go down to 1 i'll likely get it, but ouch...
So the above 6 v 2 odds are supposed to be 89%, and if i take the pain of going down to 1 it will likely happen just like that...
I really think what we are missing here, is that with an 89% chance of victory, we expect to win handily...
but look again at that 3v1 position after the 2nd roll... which is precisely within the odds... yet very disheartening!
It's like yesterday...
i caught every RED light...
some days it's all GREEN...
but usually it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other... lol...
so try this little exercise...
it only takes 2 rolls to completely win, or lose... and yet................
zndow wrote:I played chess for several years actually.
What i am saying is if odds tell me that with 5 units against 1 units i should win the fight 95% of the time then i expect exactly that. And right now it is not the case because of this flaw in the randomness. I need like 40 units against 8 (x8) to start hitting those odds.
Crazyirishman wrote:
Wouldn't it take 4? Since you can only go one space at a time.
