[GO] No Dice Games

by **Catarah** on Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:23 am

plus, the dice we have are actually very good.

it has been tested over and over, with programs calculating the dices, how likely it is to have a winning/losing streak, etc.
and over and over, we have come to the conclusion that, yes, the dice are balanced.

so it is most likely that any imballance you see in the dice are the result of subjective thinking.
whenever the dice go well, its only natural, but when they suck enough to lose a game to it, you remember it.

believe me, i've had my share of bad dice too, but unless you can come with actual proof that the dice are not random enough(statistical proof, not one odd example

) then i'm afraid nothing will change with the dice.

by **sachni** on Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:45 pm

the dice are not 'natural' and do work in patterns of losing and winning, the problem here is that strategy and skill play a back seat to the programing priorities and these alone determine game outcomes. proof cannot be given by players but these patterns can be observed by any independent individual over periods of play which is why i won't maintain premium membership ... the dice issue is not mine as a player to fix and though i wish i could suggest an alternate program this is beyond me. i find your denial of the issue insulting more-over, fix the dice issue so that skill and strategy have a chance to impact on game outcomes and i would purchase premium membership immediately as i do really like these games.

by **mybad** on Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:33 pm

it's not math, it's odds. odds are, your 10 guys are going to beat my 4, but sometimes they don't - that's why it's fun. if you want math try this: http://www.websudoku.com/

by **sachni** on Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:34 pm

odds are called chance and data within the category of maths, odds are not a separate entity mybad ...

by **Darwins_Bane** on Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:49 am

sachni wrote:the dice are not 'natural' and do work in patterns of losing and winning, the problem here is that strategy and skill play a back seat to the programing priorities and these alone determine game outcomes. proof cannot be given by players but these patterns can be observed by any independent individual over periods of play which is why i won't maintain premium membership ... the dice issue is not mine as a player to fix and though i wish i could suggest an alternate program this is beyond me. i find your denial of the issue insulting more-over, fix the dice issue so that skill and strategy have a chance to impact on game outcomes and i would purchase premium membership immediately as i do really like these games.

The dice are completely random. If they were not, it would be very easy to prove with all the dice analyzers and just knowing how they are generated. The fact is that they are even more random than they were. Yes, is sucks to get a losing streak. Then again, it must be nice when you get a bunch of good dice in a row too.

by **sachni** on Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:47 pm

yes, it's good to get a winning streak and piss off when you hit a losing streak ... i acknowledge that and the fact that no-one is ultimately advantaged or disadvantaged by this process over a period of time. what i believe some other players and myself would like to see investigated is fewer patterns (streaks) determined by the generators so that skill and or strategy could play a greater role in our games.
after dragging this out over a week i'll leave it alone now and won't whinge again about this issue any more. thanks for responding and putting your case forward ...

by **Darwins_Bane** on Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:57 pm

The dice used to be governed to break up streaks like that if I'm not mistaken, but were changed to their current format because they weren't truly random before.

by **mviola** on Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:03 pm

What does regular math have to do with the op?

by **blakebowling** on Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:27 pm

I'm going to go ahead and move this over to the archives. I'll leave it open, but if you have an actual suggestion, feel free to make a new thread in Suggestions, please remember to use the form.

by **mybad** on Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:46 pm

sachni wrote:odds are called chance and data within the category of maths, odds are not a separate entity mybad ...

duh.

by **myfriendkyle** on Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:05 pm

I would never play this.

by **Fruitcake** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:30 pm

Goodness. I have just stumbled back over this thread.

I can assure those who wonder about these things, that no dice games do, in fact, have a balanced beginning (especially in multiplayer games) and require a great deal of strategic thought whilst the game is in progress.

The idea of putting it out there and testing the whole idea to get feedback does sound highly laudable to me.

( I still find it hard to believe that after 3 years this thread is still gaining attention)

by **Robinette** on Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:50 am

i tried playing yatzee without dice...

After 6 games we were all tied with perfect scores.

by **fumandomuerte** on Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:30 pm

Definitely a very well thought idea. I won't play it without cars though...

by **Mr_Adams** on Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:31 pm

play city mogula an/or support my new map, and the dice becomes a nearly non-issue

viewtopic.php?f=583&t=139799

by **Frogmanx82** on Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:22 pm

I really would like the no dice option. I played with a group of guys for years and we always played no dice. Its a straight one for one. So the attacker needs at least 2 more than the defender to cover the territories after the attack. This puts the emphasis on position and strategy instead of dumb luck. I can't believe the ignorant comments in this thread made by people who have never tried it. It will work on any map and I have to think the code for a straight up one for one troop reduction wouldn't be that hard. Trust me, try it and you'll like it.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:11 pm

Frogmanx82 wrote:I really would like the no dice option. I played with a group of guys for years and we always played no dice. Its a straight one for one. So the attacker needs at least 2 more than the defender to cover the territories after the attack. This puts the emphasis on position and strategy instead of dumb luck. I can't believe the ignorant comments in this thread made by people who have never tried it. It will work on any map and I have to think the code for a straight up one for one troop reduction wouldn't be that hard. Trust me, try it and you'll like it.

How many of your games included bombardments?

by **Frogmanx82** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:14 am

We used a regular Risk board and mixed the old wooden blocks which were armies with the new plastic pieces which were fighter jets and could attack 3 spaces but couldn't take a territory so I guess that's a bit like bombardment. The plastic 10 piece was a base which doubled the defense. We used the old wooden ten piece standing on end as a nuclear missle which could remove any piece on the board including a base but was 0 defense. The oceans could only attack before deployment.

We twisted the old rules up pretty well and played all kinds of variations like getting your deployment at the end of your turn. Most games were played no dice, cards were always flat rate. Believe me, I know my way around the old Risk board though I'm a newbie here. No dice is a strategy game, once you get used to it, the dice seem childish.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:23 am

Well, there are certain maps on this website where bombardment is the basis of the strategy, because it's the best way to get card. I'm curious how a no dice option would work, because you aren't defeating that space and advancing, you are just wiping it down to 1 neutral. Would you still lose 1 troop? or lose none?

by **Frogmanx82** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:48 pm

Any action like that would have to cost one army. Pretty simple. I do need to try a bombardment map. Any suggestions? I was looking at the d day map.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:54 pm

Frogmanx82 wrote:Any action like that would have to cost one army. Pretty simple. I do need to try a bombardment map. Any suggestions? I was looking at the d day map.

Feudal War and Waterloo

by **Frogmanx82** on Fri May 13, 2011 7:50 am

Bombardment wouldn't be any different than any other attack, its costs the attacker one army. Stalingrad is a great bombardment map, actually a great map all around. It seems the no dice option just won't get its chance. Too bad, if you played it you might be surprised how much more strategy comes into the game.