Conquer Club

hulmey wrote:Guys, you will never find your answer. We can go on on and on but there are so many variables! When im playing 1 vs 1 i like to spread my deplpoyment so i attack 4 vs 3....I find that more often than not i lose 2 straight rolls when doing this. Could it be that the dice favour higher stacks when rolling? Its just a question to show you how many variables there actually are

I swear I'll sue your ass for crimes against humanity if you ever dare to procreate.

Frop wrote:

hulmey wrote:Guys, you will never find your answer. We can go on on and on but there are so many variables! When im playing 1 vs 1 i like to spread my deplpoyment so i attack 4 vs 3....I find that more often than not i lose 2 straight rolls when doing this. Could it be that the dice favour higher stacks when rolling? Its just a question to show you how many variables there actually are

I swear I'll sue your ass for crimes against humanity if you ever dare to procreate.

coming hrom holland i wouldnt expect anything less from you!

Frop wrote:

e_i_pi wrote:Updated stats are up, now with added laymans graph!

Thanks! I'm just a bit disappointed we've got a zillion people bitching about the dice, but hardly anyone has bothered to contribute.

*shrug* The bitchers can bitch all they want... if they dare to show their dice stats, I'll assimilate them muhaha

Stats updated as of 22nd Sept

another thing this thread cant possibly show and that is the dice are sticky. A very respected high ranker told me this week, are you crazy, you should never never use auto attack

hulmey wrote:another thing this thread cant possibly show and that is the dice are sticky. A very respected high ranker told me this week, are you crazy, you should never never use auto attack

Considering you used the word "sticky", I have a strong feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about. You shouldn't use auto-attack because you can't change your mind about the attack part way through. Not because it makes the dice different.

hulmey wrote:another thing this thread cant possibly show and that is the dice are sticky. A very respected high ranker told me this week, are you crazy, you should never never use auto attack

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52968

C.

Deleted

Fruitcake wrote:

Attack dice distribution - Defender dice distribution
1s 7014 / 40009 (17.53%) - 3259 / 19967 (16.32%)
2s 6726 / 40009 (16.81%) - 3273 / 19967 (16.39%)
3s 6770 / 40009 (16.92%) - 3356 / 19967 (16.81%)
4s 6585 / 40009 (16.46%) - 3332 / 19967 (16.69%)
5s 6517 / 40009 (16.29%) - 3325 / 19967 (16.65%)
6s 6397 / 40009 (15.99%) - 3422 / 19967 (17.14%)

you throw the most 1's lol

Just popping in to say gr0tz. The statistics look beautiful.

This analysis is a piece of impressive work. Nice job!

hulmey wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

Attack dice distribution - Defender dice distribution
1s 7014 / 40009 (17.53%) - 3259 / 19967 (16.32%)
2s 6726 / 40009 (16.81%) - 3273 / 19967 (16.39%)
3s 6770 / 40009 (16.92%) - 3356 / 19967 (16.81%)
4s 6585 / 40009 (16.46%) - 3332 / 19967 (16.69%)
5s 6517 / 40009 (16.29%) - 3325 / 19967 (16.65%)
6s 6397 / 40009 (15.99%) - 3422 / 19967 (17.14%)

you throw the most 1's lol

yep, and yet I manage to stay nearly 1000 points ahead of you hulmley, with not that many more games.

The dice blow fucking ass. I'm really getting fucking sick of losing 8v1, 14 vs 2+2, 12v3, etc. All these statistics prove is that the dice are random, and that understanding is as usual, low to couldn't care less.

I could of course be wrong, but when people complain about the dice, say the dice suck, and whine about losing lots of troops to vastly inferior numbers, they aren't screaming foul. They are complaining about the crummy system that causes them to get fucked over, where luck has much more importance than skill. I don't know if CC uses the same system as the original Risk, but if it does, first, or original, most certainly doesn't equate to best. If it is the same dice system, then perhaps now, with the current Hasbro muscle flexing climate, would be a good time to further distance from the mothership, the original seed, with a new dice system. A system where random is still involved, but isn't the be-all and end-all. Surely a system that leans more towards skill than luck would be a more competitive, better system. Where crummy dice doesn't come in spades and completely end your chances of winning in a ton of games.

Aradhus wrote:The dice blow fucking ass. I'm really getting fucking sick of losing 8v1, 14 vs 2+2, 12v3, etc. All these statistics prove is that the dice are random, and that understanding is as usual, low to couldn't care less.

I could of course be wrong, but when people complain about the dice, say the dice suck, and whine about losing lots of troops to vastly inferior numbers, they aren't screaming foul. They are complaining about the crummy system that causes them to get fucked over, where luck has much more importance than skill. I don't know if CC uses the same system as the original Risk, but if it does, first, or original, most certainly doesn't equate to best. If it is the same dice system, then perhaps now, with the current Hasbro muscle flexing climate, would be a good time to further distance from the mothership, the original seed, with a new dice system. A system where random is still involved, but isn't the be-all and end-all. Surely a system that leans more towards skill than luck would be a more competitive, better system. Where crummy dice doesn't come in spades and completely end your chances of winning in a ton of games.

The skill lies in knowing how to measure the luck. Any random system is going to have luck. You have to ask yourself - if you go 12 v 2 and lose 2 on the first two rolls... do you keep going? Is it worth it? Most people who complain about the dice blindly fight to the last man. I certainly don't do that, I play the numbers and the stats, and have a good rank as a result of it.

e_i_pi wrote:The skill lies in knowing how to measure the luck. Any random system is going to have luck. You have to ask yourself - if you go 12 v 2 and lose 2 on the first two rolls... do you keep going? Is it worth it? Most people who complain about the dice blindly fight to the last man. I certainly don't do that, I play the numbers and the stats, and have a good rank as a result of it.

ei_pi_oh... don't try to make sense or talk sense to these people... i agree with you 100% and have just given up trying to tell people not to auto-attack and to reconsider having a larger starting force the next time around vs. taking one extra territory that isn't going to gain them much of anything... sigh...-0

e_i_pi wrote:The skill lies in knowing how to measure the luck. Any random system is going to have luck. You have to ask yourself - if you go 12 v 2 and lose 2 on the first two rolls... do you keep going? Is it worth it? Most people who complain about the dice blindly fight to the last man. I certainly don't do that, I play the numbers and the stats, and have a good rank as a result of it.

The first time I read this I thought you had nothing intelligent to say, and were just trying to insult me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's not the case. The reality is, obviously any decent player knows when its important to attack and when its not. In an escalating game, or terminator, or just flatrate for a persons cards, in the right moment its important to attack. Even with overwhelming numbers its the dice that decide your fate. Skills, tactics, whatever, just don't matter when you have to roll, you have to roll. I just lost 8v1 trying to eliminate someone in flatrate to get their 4 cards, should I not have rolled?

The reality is, the dice are everything.

Aradhus wrote:

e_i_pi wrote:The skill lies in knowing how to measure the luck. Any random system is going to have luck. You have to ask yourself - if you go 12 v 2 and lose 2 on the first two rolls... do you keep going? Is it worth it? Most people who complain about the dice blindly fight to the last man. I certainly don't do that, I play the numbers and the stats, and have a good rank as a result of it.

The first time I read this I thought you had nothing intelligent to say, and were just trying to insult me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's not the case. The reality is, obviously any decent player knows when its important to attack and when its not. In an escalating game, or terminator, or just flatrate for a persons cards, in the right moment its important to attack. Even with overwhelming numbers its the dice that decide your fate. Skills, tactics, whatever, just don't matter when you have to roll, you have to roll. I just lost 8v1 trying to eliminate someone in flatrate to get their 4 cards, should I not have rolled?

The reality is, the dice are everything.

8v1 for 4 cards yes.... 1v1 for 4 cards yes. If the dice didn't favour you, well, sometimes it happens. RADAGA would argue that it happens all the time, but he is wrong. You have to measure when it's good and when it isn't.

For instance, I never go 2v1 in no cards, unless bombarding in Waterloo, and then only if it reduces the opponent by an army next turn, or makes it harder for them to deploy. In cards, I will go 2v1 if I haven't gotten a card, as you have a 57% chance of winning, and a card is worth on average something like 2.7 armies. So I might lose 1 army, but I'm going for 0.5x2.7 = 1.35 armies. That's what I mean by measuring luck. You need to look at the stats, and what threats you come under, how much of a target you present if you have less armies, that sort of thing. It takes a long time to get the balance right

e_i_pi wrote:8v1 for 4 cards yes.... 1v1 for 4 cards yes.

For 4 cards in flat rate? I do not think I would lose more than three units trying to take those four cards (unless it was a terminator game). I know it is worth ~7 units, but it also depends a lot on where the other players are in relation to getting that kill.

e_i_pi wrote:... In cards, I will go 2v1 if I haven't gotten a card, as you have a 57% chance of winning, and a card is worth on average something like 2.7 armies. So I might lose 1 army, but I'm going for 0.5x2.7 = 1.35 armies....

lancehoch wrote:.... For 4 cards in flat rate? I do not think I would lose more than three units trying to take those four cards (unless it was a terminator game). I know it is worth ~7 units, but it also depends a lot on where the other players are in relation to getting that kill.

OOT : A stupid question from me. Where do those number come from?

Thanks

Geger wrote:

e_i_pi wrote:... In cards, I will go 2v1 if I haven't gotten a card, as you have a 57% chance of winning, and a card is worth on average something like 2.7 armies. So I might lose 1 army, but I'm going for 0.5x2.7 = 1.35 armies....

lancehoch wrote:.... For 4 cards in flat rate? I do not think I would lose more than three units trying to take those four cards (unless it was a terminator game). I know it is worth ~7 units, but it also depends a lot on where the other players are in relation to getting that kill.

OOT : A stupid question from me. Where do those number come from?

Thanks

4 ways to cash in, each with equal probability (I think) - 4 armies, 6, 8, 10... 4+6+8+10 = 28... 28/4 = 7... therefore a cash-in is worth (on average) 7 armies, and so each card is worth 7/3 = 2.33... armies

e_i_pi wrote:4 ways to cash in, each with equal probability (I think) - 4 armies, 6, 8, 10... 4+6+8+10 = 28... 28/4 = 7... therefore a cash-in is worth (on average) 7 armies, and so each card is worth 7/3 = 2.33... armies

The probabilities for each type of set are not the same, mixed is always more likely:
3 cards: mixed 6/27, blue 1/27, green 1/27, red 1/27
4 cards: mixed 36/81, blue 9/81, green 9/81, red 9/81
5 cards: mixed 150/243, blue 31/243, green 31/243, red 31/243

average value:
3 cards: 8.667 if a set is held, 2.889 overall for three cards
4 cards: 8.286 if a set is held, 6.444 overall for four cards
5 cards: 8.469 for five cards

I do wonder who has the worst percentage on offense on this site ?
Who has the worst percentage on defense on this site?
Let's say with a minimum of 1000 games played...
Personally, with just about 5,000 games played, I am a solid 1% short of the means when attacking 3 vs 2
On the other hand, I am a solid 1 % on the plus side when defending 2 vs 3
You would say they even each other out, but not really...since I am an aggressive player.

One thing the studies should show is that the improbable ihappened, complaints of an improbable result are based on a hindsight rather than prospective view i.g. if there is a million to one chance that a certain action will lead to a certain result, and there are 40 million examples of that action being taken,and the anticipated result never happened, there is a problem. there should be at least one time and almost certainly close to 40 times that particular result ensued. Which means there should be at least one person and almost certainly close to 40 people that can claim the improbable, almost impossible, million to one, happened to them.If we didn;t hvae people on CC claiming the improbable happned to them, the numbers are off.