Dice Complaints and Various Suggestions to Fix Them

[blakebowling]

I'm moving this to rejected. If you have an actual suggestion of how to improve the Intensity Cubes, feel free to make a new thread.

[ben79]

it will be more fun to play with a dice system that is not like this one

[Robinette]

I have read many threads for many years expressing frustration with the streakiness of the dice...

Some say this proves that the dice are flawed, others say the streaks prove that the dice are random.

But I prefer to look at this from a mathematical point of view... Anything that uses any element of chance, will have streaks. But streaks will be less severe if the possible variables are reduced. Lets compare 3v2 dice (which has 36v36 possible results) to a single coin flip (which has just 2 possible results) ... Heads you win 1 army, Tails you lose 1 army.


Streaks will still occur with coin flips of course, but the mathematical severity of those streaks would be reduced.

For example:

Probability of losing (or winning) 4 in a row with the coin toss is 1 in 16
Probability of losing 4 in a row with the current dice is 1 in 9

Probability of losing (or winning) 6 in a row with the coin toss is 1 in 64
Probability of losing 6 in a row with the current dice is 1 in 27

Probability of losing (or winning) 8 in a row with the coin toss is 1 in 256
Probability of losing 8 in a row with the current dice is 1 in 81

And the probability of even worse streaks becomes progressively less likely than with the current dice.


An interesting thought this is...
Less severe streaks, and yet each roll, or flip, still has the excitement of a chance outcome...
Now I am NOT advocating dumping the dice, oh hell no... dice are the REAL way to play RISK...
But it might be nice to have an alternative to the dice...
I am going to try this the next time I host a real RISK game at my home...


Simple, Effective, and a concept familiar to everybody!

What do YOU think?

[Rodion]

3v2, 3v1, 2v2, 2v1, 1v2 and 1v1 would all be equally treated?

That would cause a huge gameplay change.

[natty dread]

Yeah it would be seriously weird.

This is not the first time this has been suggested by the way.

[safariguy5]

Also, eliminates attackers advantage, could lead to more conservative play.

[Robinette]

3v2, 3v1, 2v2, 2v1, 1v2 and 1v1 would all be equally treated?

That would cause a huge gameplay change.

Also, eliminates attackers advantage, could lead to more conservative play.

Indeed... it would eliminate the attacker advantage (referring to 3v2, 3v1 and 2v1)

But it would also eliminate the defender advantage (referring to 2v2, 1v2, and 1v1)

[rdsrds2120]

3v2, 3v1, 2v2, 2v1, 1v2 and 1v1 would all be equally treated?

That would cause a huge gameplay change.

Also, eliminates attackers advantage, could lead to more conservative play.

Indeed... it would eliminate the attacker advantage (referring to 3v2, 3v1 and 2v1)

But it would also eliminate the defender advantage (referring to 2v2, 1v2, and 1v1)

Since most attacks aren't 2v2, 1v2, or 1v1, wouldn't this reduce the attacker advantage more than it would the defender's advantage?

-rd

(P.S -- Moving this to Suggestions, as you are suggesting an alternative to the site to enhance it)

[Robinette]

ohhh well, i actually wasn't making a suggestion here, but i suppose it doesn't matter...

it's really more related to all the dice bitching threads i've seen,
maybe it should be deposited there... right next to Pedro's rant about the dice would be perfect

i doubt i personally would continue playing the game this way, but then again,
i am one of the ones who doesn't have a problem with the true randomness of the dice...

[40kguy]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

[Mr_Adams]

Also, your statistics are inaccurate. the probability of tossing 4 in a row the same on a coin is 1 in 8. The first flip (or, with the dice, roll) would be the determining throw in the direction the future throws must go to qualify a "streak". BTW, is that your picture, Robinette? *whistle.

[Mr_Adams]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

I believe random.com uses some sort of frequency static to make the output as close to truly "random" as possible. no algorithms. However, this does make it susceptible to wave patterns in the static.

[40kguy]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

I believe random.com uses some sort of frequency static to make the output as close to truly "random" as possible. no algorithms. However, this does make it susceptible to wave patterns in the static.

Please say that in a lot smaller and dumber words please.

[Mr_Adams]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

I believe random.com uses some sort of frequency static to make the output as close to truly "random" as possible. no algorithms. However, this does make it susceptible to wave patterns in the static.

Please say that in a lot smaller and dumber words please.

You know when you turn the radio on and it's not tuned to a good station? There's that static sound instead of music, right? Those random frequencies are picked up and turned into the results of the random number generator CC uses, which makes them "random" as far as we can tell. However, if there is some pattern in the static we don't know about, then the "randomness" is ruined.

[Metsfanmax]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

I believe random.com uses some sort of frequency static to make the output as close to truly "random" as possible. no algorithms. However, this does make it susceptible to wave patterns in the static.

Please say that in a lot smaller and dumber words please.

random.org does not use machine or human generated data. It's all natural, environmental data.

[40kguy]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

I believe random.com uses some sort of frequency static to make the output as close to truly "random" as possible. no algorithms. However, this does make it susceptible to wave patterns in the static.

Please say that in a lot smaller and dumber words please.

You know when you turn the radio on and it's not tuned to a good station? There's that static sound instead of music, right? Those random frequencies are picked up and turned into the results of the random number generator CC uses, which makes them "random" as far as we can tell. However, if there is some pattern in the static we don't know about, then the "randomness" is ruined.

Ok thanks

[40kguy]

I think this should be said right now. Nothing human made or made by machine is random. They all use patterns.

I believe random.com uses some sort of frequency static to make the output as close to truly "random" as possible. no algorithms. However, this does make it susceptible to wave patterns in the static.

Please say that in a lot smaller and dumber words please.

random.org does not use machine or human generated data. It's all natural, environmental data.

I think your being sarcastic.

[blakebowling]

It is impossible to prove definitively whether a given sequence of numbers (and the generator that produced it) is random.

[SirSebstar]

I think this is an elegant option, even though its not something i would support

[PLAYER57832]

It is impossible to prove definitively whether a given sequence of numbers (and the generator that produced it) is random.

This is not entirely true...
Or rather, what you say is true, but probably not for the reason you think. You cannot prove any sequence is random, becuase randomness is not about one set of numbers. Give us any set, and we can find a formula somewhere to give us those number.. i.e. not random.

HOWEVER, a generator can be proven to be random, or at least random enough for human beings, which is all we really want.

True "infinite" randomness is impossible, mostly because there is no such thing as infinite within the real human world. but, think about it, if you could get an infinite streak... say, of all 6's. Not really what people want.

[blakebowling]

It is impossible to prove definitively whether a given sequence of numbers (and the generator that produced it) is random.

This is not entirely true...
Or rather, what you say is true, but probably not for the reason you think. You cannot prove any sequence is random, becuase randomness is not about one set of numbers. Give us any set, and we can find a formula somewhere to give us those number.. i.e. not random.

HOWEVER, a generator can be proven to be random, or at least random enough for human beings, which is all we really want.

True "infinite" randomness is impossible, mostly because there is no such thing as infinite within the real human world. but, think about it, if you could get an infinite streak... say, of all 6's. Not really what people want.

This is true. What most people want when they say random, is balanced. This could be achieved as well, every round could be ensured to have the same number of '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', and '6' rolls. Then people would complain that they aren't balanced by player, and then by attack/defense.

Basically, my point is, pseudo-random numbers (which are used now) are about as good as can be achieved for dice.

[Robinette]

Also, your statistics are inaccurate. the probability of tossing 4 in a row the same on a coin is 1 in 8. The first flip (or, with the dice, roll) would be the determining throw in the direction the future throws must go to qualify a "streak". BTW, is that your picture, Robinette? *whistle.

uhhhh... no...
1 in 8 is the probability of tossing just 3 in a row. 1 in 16 for 4 in a row...

when figuring probabilities, one should imagine that you are at the table, the stakes are high, you are about to attack, and so you ask yourself what are the probabilities of success or failure... the 1st roll is always part of that equation.


But the real point of this thread, is to point out the improvement this would have in "streakiness"

[Queen_Herpes]

If I'm understanding the sug, the desire is to replace dice with coins? Only results are binary... 1s and 0s?

[SirSebstar]

yes indeed

[Super Nova]

Concise description:

• In the suggestions forum, if the subject line contains the word dice, it cannot be posted.

Specifics/Details:

• Say someone want's to complain about the dice and suggest that they get fixed , if they put dice in the subject line, or mention the word dice more than 3 times in their post, when they try to submit it instead of it getting posted they would get a message that say's basically to quit complaining about the dice because you can't "fix them.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Seriously, mods, how many of you are tired of people telling you guy's to fix the dice?