Conquer Club

So i was wondering... if we created some fake dice that wouldn t allow too much randomness and would stick to reasonable odds all the time... would this still be fun.... less fun, or much more fun?

betiko wrote:So i was wondering... if we created some fake dice that wouldn t allow too much randomness and would stick to reasonable odds all the time... would this still be fun.... less fun, or much more fun?

Y'know it's less about the dice and more about how many times you roll 'em:

Well that graph is bullshit for starters.
At least on CC it is

How stupid is your answer tt?
You're showing a model of how it should be in an ideal world... ergo the fake dice i'm talking about.

if u dont like risk then why don't u stop plane dice and go buy some government bonds

would be a lot more mathematical and calculated... then I guess it depends on what kind of person you are

Fake thread.

jleonnn wrote:would be a lot more mathematical and calculated... then I guess it depends on what kind of person you are

Yay! Actually a person that isn't a troll and telling something interesting.
So basically what do you think? I think that risk, first being a board game, was intended to be played mostly with diplomacy rather than strategy (unless you play real noobs). Dice were just the most common and best way to give an outcome to an event in a game.

CC is mostly about strategy. The dice need to stick as close as possible to a model of "normal odds" with very little place to "unlikely" dice. I don't know... being able to turn around a game by winning for example a 10v20 is cool too, but so annoying if you re on the defense side.

A lower rate of randomness or a higher rate of predictability could hold some weight to your enjoyability of the game, but not always as much as you think. Imagine we expressed randomness according to percentage points, ranging from 0% absence of randomness to 100% randomness. Then let us assume the following cases:

• randomness increased from 0% to 5%
• randomness increased from 50% to 55%
• randomness increased from 95% to 100%

Increases in all three cases are by a margin of 5%, which makes them equal in terms of utility. In other words, they should rationally be considered changes of equal value. However if you're anything like most people, the three cases won't feel the same. The changes from 0% to 5% and from 95% to 100% will feel a lot more significant than does the 50-55% alteration. That's because you intuitively asign weights to each. Changes to the extremes hold more weight than those in the middle.

Coming back to CC, the effect of any change in the randomness of the dice will not hold as much sway as you think it will, unless you're reverting them to (almost) complete predictability or to at least a 'sense' of perfectly random dice.

you know, that's kind of like in any game, you need to put the cursor somewhere to make a good game become a great game. It's pretty clear to me that 95% predictability in dice would remove the essence of this game... it is part of the fun. Strategy needs to play a murch larger part than luck though, I guess we would all agree on this. Therefore, the best model has to be more predictable than random... but to what extent? I guess not all of the players would see it alike.

I think it could be interesting on the beta site to have 2 dice generator configurations... one more random the other more predictable. And check the feedback.

betiko wrote:How stupid is your answer tt?
You're showing a model of how it should be in an ideal world... ergo the fake dice i'm talking about.

betiko, don't call me stupid, you're the one that seems unable to grasp the concept of a probability distribution.

vegetable lasagne wrote:betiko, don't call me stupid

why?

llamsagna wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:betiko, don't call me stupid

why?

Thorthoth wrote:...you're the one [Betiko] that seems unable to grasp the concept of a probability distribution.

reading comprehension is one of llamo's many 'non-strong' points.

Thorthoth wrote:

betiko wrote:How stupid is your answer tt?
You're showing a model of how it should be in an ideal world... ergo the fake dice i'm talking about.

betiko, don't call me stupid, you're the one that seems unable to grasp the concept of a probability distribution.

This is not about probability distribution... this is about twisting real probability distribution with dice that would be less random. Maybe the one with reading comprehension is yourself since the start? I m well aware of odds change the more troops are involved thank you for this groundbreaking discovery.

betiko wrote:this is about twisting real probability distribution with dice that would be less random.

This doesn't even make any sense...
...but if you do somehow manage to pull it off, I'll non-randomly take all the 6s, thank you very much.

Thorthoth wrote:

betiko wrote:this is about twisting real probability distribution with dice that would be less random.

This doesn't even make any sense...
...but if you do somehow manage to pull it off, I'll non-randomly take all the 6s, thank you very much.

Well, it would be less about the number you pull, more about the battle outcome. The number you get is and has always been irrelevant. Get a better battle outcome distribution and it removespart of the game s randomness.

betiko wrote:The number you get is and has always been irrelevant. Get a better battle outcome distribution and it removes part of the games randomness.

This is still silly... but now it seems a bit socialist and affirmative-action-damaged as well.