Question about dice...

[Timminz]

Very odd.

The odds are incalculable.

[MrMoody]

Mrmoody's ignorance

Well as we can see all he can do is insault me now.

[KLOBBER]

Mrmoody's ignorance

Well as we can see all he can do is insault me now.

I have never "insaulted" you.

[MrMoody]

I'll start with a correction to a spelling error made in my rush this morning.
insult*
Now stop fondling yourself Klobber.

Dude,

I will now refer to you as Lebowski

It doesn't matter how nice you think you are when you order people to modify what they write -- nobody is required to conform to your prima donna preferences.

sparky
cupcake
mental state of ignorance
Your ignorance
ignorance
You may choose to be ignorant

please do not use these terms to try and troll me.

This was a request. You are not required to conform.
As for any further discussion on this topic I concede Lebowski has proven to be the better Troll. His scientific facts do not disprove my theory.

[KLOBBER]

I thought you were referring to insulation. Please forgive me.

[LordThor]

I think wether the dice are predictable or not is not an issue....
Do they have to be predictable to be flawed in there design.... i think not...
Simply not being able to predict the numbers on the dice does not make the dice a success.
Is anyone saying hypatheticly you can win 1000 battles in a row, but because you couldnt predict the correct numbers on the dice its ok?
So predicting the exact numbers does not mean the dice are doing as they should,it simply means you can not predict the next lot of numbers... not that you are getting randomness or anything like it.
Im not saying the dice are flawed or that they are good.. just pointing out there has been some right rubbish talked in this thread about if you cant predict the numbers the dice are fine..clearly rubbish.

[KLOBBER]

Okay, so hypothetically (correct spelling), if a gaming site has dice that are perfectly unpredictable, what possible problem could there be with such dice?

[LordThor]

Okay, so hypothetically (correct spelling), if a gaming site has dice that are perfectly unpredictable, what possible problem could there be with such dice?

Klobber while it is clear you have an ego the size everest that requires constant massaging i and many others would appreciate it if you could attempt to be constructive in your reply's, if i wish you to correct my spelling or my grammer i will PM you.

Unpredictable dice are not neccesarily good enough or what was intended, you could have a dice with only three numbers on it yet still not predict the next roll correctly, unpredictable but not what was intended or needed.

In this instance i believe its more complicated than simply unpedictability thats required or intended, you have two sides your dice and the opponants or servers dice if you prefer, known as battle outcomes.
Battle outcomes are the juicy bits on this site and this has to be taken into account as the results affect your gaming experience/enjoyment directly.
Having read a lot on the forums i decided to give BOB a try and then the Dice Analyzer... i accept more rolls are really required but anyway heres the findings direct from the dice analyzer on my PC.

Battle Outcomes:

3v2 dice wins 1365 draws 1198 losses 1066
A greater number of dice so a greater number of wins than losses expected.

3v1 dice wins 1860 losses 924
A ratio of 3:1 dice i would expect slightly higher wins than approximatly 2:1 as recieved.

2v2 dice wins 76 draws 122 losses 150
To me this one is way out i would expect a ratio of approximatly 1:1:1 not what has been recieved.

2v1 dice wins 234 losses 198
Results favour the expected results with a 2:1 dice ratio in my favour, although again the results are not in the ratio i expected, the wins should be nearer 400, to make it a 2:1 ratio.

1v2 dice wins 28 losses 110
Again with half the dice you would expect to loose more than you win, but again i would have expected nearer a 1:2 ratio in the results.

1v1 dice wins 124 losses 188
An even number of dice, 1:1 ratio of wins to losses expected seems a bit low on the wins.

I accept to get a more accurate reading more dice need to be thrown, but even so i think looking at these results if i am interpreting the readings correctly and if they are typical of other players results, there may well be a problem.

In particular the 1v1 and 2v2 highlights far more losses than you would expect, then you have the 1v2 and 2v1 results unless i am mistaken they should read similar but in reversal, as it is they both show results highly in favour of the server dice.
If i have interpreted the dice analyzer readings correctly it started me thinking about the number of dice in the example im using and questioning if it is right to say it will even out in time..
The amount of new members that join CC and leave after a few games never to return cursing the server dice as they go..raises the question again if these results are typical in new members then doesnt this highlight at least the question are the dice ok??

[Timminz]

In particular the 1v1 and 2v2 highlights far more losses than you would expect, then you have the 1v2 and 2v1 results unless i am mistaken they should read similar but in reversal, as it is they both show results highly in favour of the server dice.

You are mistaken, but not necessarily for the reasons that KLOBBER will say. You seem to be discounting the fact that ties go to the defender. When you consider that, you'll see that you can not expect similar numbers in the win/loss columns, while using 2v2, or 1v1.

[LordThor]

In particular the 1v1 and 2v2 highlights far more losses than you would expect, then you have the 1v2 and 2v1 results unless i am mistaken they should read similar but in reversal, as it is they both show results highly in favour of the server dice.

You are mistaken, but not necessarily for the reasons that KLOBBER will say. You seem to be discounting the fact that ties go to the defender. When you consider that, you'll see that you can not expect similar numbers in the win/loss columns, while using 2v2, or 1v1.

Thankyou for the reply Timminz,
I think i understand what you are saying about the 1 v1 but in the 2 v 2 the draws are shown 122 or am i not understanding this correctly?

[KLOBBER]

Okay, so hypothetically (correct spelling), if a gaming site has dice that are perfectly unpredictable, what possible problem could there be with such dice?

Klobber while it is clear you have an ego the size everest that requires constant massaging i and many others would appreciate it if you could attempt to be constructive in your reply's, if i wish you to correct my spelling or my grammer i will PM you.

...and you think your reply is constructive? You started with an insult -- what a hypocrite you are. I don't correct the spelling and grammar of the illiterate because they wish it -- I do it because it's fun. (I is capitalized, the plural of reply is replies, not reply's, any yes, grammar has no "e."

Unpredictable dice are not neccesarily good enough or what was intended, you could have a dice with only three numbers on it yet still not predict the next roll correctly, unpredictable but not what was intended or needed.

Oh, that's brilliant! Of course, most normal people assume that dice don't have three sides, as such a thing is not possible in the real world. Apparently, such a thing is possible in the imaginary world in your head, so you failed to apprehend that fact that "six-sided" is implied by the word "dice" on the CC website. (It's spelled "necessarily," and the singular of dice is die, not dice -- get yourself a spell checker, for God's sake!)

...i accept more rolls are really required but anyway....

...anyway, get back to us when you get to whatever number of rolls is "really required."

...approximatly....

Nice spellin', Jethro, and nice cipherin'!

...In particular the 1v1 and 2v2 highlights far more losses than you would expect....

Incorrect. The dice are unpredictable, so I would not "expect" more or less than that. You may "expect" a certain outcome, but you would be wrong.

The CC dice are unpredictable, and, just for Thor, just this once, I'll also mention here that they are SIX-SIDED, since he seems to need to be reminded that they're not three-sided, and so they are perfect as they are.

[LordThor]

Once again Klobber you have not dissapointed, a complete waste of a reply....
re-read what was said 3 numbers on the dice, not three sides.. but that is imaterial to anyone with a moderate amount of common sence, therefore i would urge others with lesser need to massage their egos, not to get side tracked with your pointless drivel and to completely ignore your pointless post, but respond to my original post in the same usefull way such as Timinzz, and MrMoody...

[Timminz]

Being "useful" is not a quality trolls generally possess.

[AAFitz]

Oh, that's brilliant! Of course, most normal people assume that dice don't have three sides, as such a thing is not possible in the real world. Apparently, such a thing is possible in the imaginary world in your head,so you failed to apprehend that fact that "six-sided" is implied by the word "dice" on the CC website. (It's spelled "necessarily," and the singular of dice is die, not dice -- get yourself a spell checker, for God's sake!)

Nice spellin', Jethro, and nice cipherin'!

Hate to bring up spelling in a dice conversation, but since this entire post is one....Where do they put the apprehended facts?

[KLOBBER]

...3 numbers on the dice, not three sides....

Okay, so I suppose I should let you know here that there are six numbers on the six-sided CC dice, not three. Are you up to speed now?

[KLOBBER]

Oh, that's brilliant! Of course, most normal people assume that dice don't have three sides, as such a thing is not possible in the real world. Apparently, such a thing is possible in the imaginary world in your head,so you failed to apprehend that fact that "six-sided" is implied by the word "dice" on the CC website. (It's spelled "necessarily," and the singular of dice is die, not dice -- get yourself a spell checker, for God's sake!)

Nice spellin', Jethro, and nice cipherin'!

Hate to bring up spelling in a dice conversation, but since this entire post is one....Where do they put the apprehended facts?

Where does who put the apprehended facts? You're demonstrating, of course, that you don't know the definition of the word apprehend. The following may help you:

Click here if you don't know the meaning of the word "apprehend."

I prefer to use the word apprehend in certain cases where people with a lesser vocabulary (like you) would simply use comprehend, since the meanings of these two words are slightly different, and there are contexts in which apprehend is slightly more specific in regards to the depths of ignorance of those who fail to either apprehend or comprehend, or both.

Generally speaking, those who fail to apprehend are even stupider than those who fail to comprehend. It is possible to apprehend without comprehending, but it is impossible to comprehend without apprehending. For example, the atheist fails to apprehend God's factual existence, what to speak of comprehending it, but the theists at least apprehend His factual existence.

Of course, I don't expect you to apprehend a word of this.

Now let's get back to the subject of this thread, which is dice.

[xelabale]

...3 numbers on the dice, not three sides....

Okay, so I suppose I should let you know here that there are six numbers on the six-sided CC dice, not three.

This is 100% incorrect. There are no dice, only numbers generated by a computer.

You can in fact have a dice with 3 sides. Dice are not limited to having only 6 sides.

Even if there were 6 numbers on the non-existent cc dice, this does not rule out 2 or more of them being the same number.

If you wish to argue semantically to avoid facts (don't make me quote the question you still haven't answered again, it's getting embarrassing), please be accurate, or how else can we take you seriou.... never mind.

[KLOBBER]

Yes, it is embarrassing for you.

Are you arguing for or against the use of semantic arguments, BTW?

"Dice," as I have explained earlier in this thread, is a commonly used term on CC for the computer-generated static list of numbers used for assaults. As I explained earlier, they are officially called "intensity levels," but most people who are ***normal*** just call them "dice." Please note that the subject of this thread is "dice," not "computer generated list of numbers."

I'm sorry you were unaware of these facts, but I hope you somehow manage to understand now.

[xelabale]

Neither, just urging you to be accurate or the irony of your entire constructed argument will implode in on itself to an infinitely small point, sucking all other meaningless dice arguments with it and forever condemning the words unpredictable and random to be used interchangeably whilst legions of etymologists struggle to tame them using nothing but a toothpick and an awful lot of patience.

[KLOBBER]

I am accurate.

Now, back to the subject of this thread, which is "dice."

[xelabale]

I am accurate.

No you're not.

[Thezzaruz]

I think i understand what you are saying about the 1 v1 but in the 2 v 2 the draws are shown 122 or am i not understanding this correctly?

Well you seem to have very little understanding of what the expected odds are and how they work. Mainly you forgot the basic rule that the defender wins a tie as Timminz pointed out. But I was a bit bored so I did the math on your numbers. Here goes.

"Your %" is calculated from the numbers you posted.
"Expected %" is the long run odds for a truly random dice.
"Deviation" is the difference between the two, note that it is written as the difference in percentage points.


Here we see that you are winning and losing just a bit more than expected but draw to few. All in all you probably come out ahead.



Here you win almost a full percentage point more than expected. Good for you.



Way too many draws but in the end you come out on top it seems.





On these you get pummelled though. Attacking with less than 3 is rarely a good idea and for you that seems to really be the case.


In summary, all the categories have way to few rolls to make any real conclusions (only just above 20k dice in total) but it seems like the categories with 1k+ rolls all are quite close to what the expected odds of a random dice should be.

The amount of new members that join CC and leave after a few games never to return cursing the server dice as they go..raises the question again if these results are typical in new members then doesnt this highlight at least the question are the dice ok??

There is nothing in your numbers (or anyone's DA stats I have ever seen) to indicate a problem with the CC dice.

[KLOBBER]

Thez and I come to the same conclusion by vastly different chains of thought:

There is no problem whatsoever with the CC dice . They are perfect as they are.

[LordThor]

Thankyou Thezzaruz, for taking the time to do the numbers, it is appreciated, and im sure once i have had the time to read and digest it, in order to understand your points, i will agree with you.
But at a very hurried glance i need to grasp where the draw stat goes or the principle, as Timminzz and yourself have already pointed out, also i agree with the too few dice rolled obviously the more dice rolled the more accurate the results.

But to Klobber be quiet adults are talking.

[LordThor]

Thezzaruz.... Eureka! the penny drops, the odds are not as i had believed, and the draws are not as i had been interpreting, (draws on a single roll) thus the expected probabilities all change and your calculations now make sence to me, and i agree with your statement on overall stats, they do seem to be more or less as you would expect all bar the results from the low number of dice thrown in the lower catagories which i suspect will with higher numbers of dice thrown fall into line.

Thezzaruz have you or anyone else looked into the calls of the dice being "streaky", not sure how to monitor that claim to prove it one way or another ?