Coin Flip option

[Robinette]

i have an idea that i put forth on a different thread. what if instead of the single die vs single die method, we did a sum of dice vs a sum of dice. For example, an army of 6 vs an army of 3: the 6 rolls 1,3,2,1,4,6 (17 total) and the 3 rolls 6,6,6 (18 total), then the 3 would win. the attacker would be penalized however many armies were put up (in this case 6). this would still include the element of risk, but would lessen the so called "streakiness"

Couldn't find it... different site perhaps?

Anyway, i don't want to distract from the coin flip dialogue, but since i couldn't find the thread, I'll post the most obvious problem with the description above...

In your example the attacker had bad dice and the defender had exceptional dice...
From your formula, this attack would end with the attacker losing 9 (3 because the defender beat him, plus the 6 "put-up"), and the defender would lose 0.
In a more probable scenario, the 6 attacking dice would total more than the 3 defending dice, so the attack would end with the attacker losing 6 (the put-up) to the defenders 3...

And in summary, those are the ONLY two possibilities...
Attacker loses 9
OR
Attacker loses 6 and defender loses 3

YIKES... Imagine doing THAT 3 times in a row... i'll take possible streaks over THAT everytime! lol

 

[Robinette]

I fucking came up with this idea months ago and no one gave it it's proper consideration! lol

you really should consider NOT claiming ownership of ideas that could prove embarrassing to you, lol

 

[Robinette]

Among other things, this system would make it impossible to lose a 7vs1, or a 13vs2. That contribution to streakiness would be therefore eliminated. And streakiness in general would be greatly reduced (must do some math to see of how much).
One thought though: would this system basically make every attack a blitz? With the current system I can stop my attack at any time, but with the "sum" system I couldn't. Even if there was that option, it would never make sense to attack with less troops than I have available.

omigosh... am I the ONLY person that has math skills here,,, lol

sorry giuppi, and sorry to everybody else too...
i'm not normally a bitch, but i am just flabbergasted

Flabbergasted that an obvious bad idea would appear to be a good idea right off the bat,
and yet i have been bending over backwards with a mathematically good idea that is being instinctively rejected by so many...

Flabbergasted I say,,,
FLABBERGASTED! lol...

 

[zspBANNED]

Robinette, you absolutely SLAY me on the fact that you consider yourself the alpha-mathematician and that your word is law. You're making yourself look more and more ridiculous with every post.

What humors me even more was the quick transformation from:

i understand now why your name is mapguy, and not mathguy, lol

to

lets start with mapguy as i do believe there is merit in what he is trying to say and it is clear y'all are missing it...

But anyway...to address the situation at hand, I really don't care for the switch from the dice to the coin. Each will have streaks. To address something mapguy said earlier, streaks are not "HHHHHH" or "TTTTTT," streaks are "WWWWW" or "LLLLLL" as in wins or losses. You can have an alternating "streak" of heads and tails (HTHTHT)..in the end, the steak is the results from what the coin has produced.

Regardless of the means being used (coin or dice), THERE. WILL. BE. STREAKS. We can all agree with that. People choose to forget the time when they took 25 armies and lost 2. The dice both love and shaft us. It's rare to see the dice punch us in the face with complete ridiculousness. Solution: don't blitz. You will get to see your troops winning or losing, and if things are going well, keep attacking. If it appears the dice aren't agreeing with you at the moment, stop attacking.

In my defense, what I proposed was a bit different than Jewmo's, but the idea is the same: add up the dice. One could go in countless directions with this: the attacker still rolls 3 dice, the defender rolls 2 - you win if your dice are at least 3/2 or greater than the sum of your opponent's dice. Or....each could roll 2 dice, the victor is the player who had a greater sum. Or....or....or....

I like the dice the way they are now. The attacker is favored. It's what I'm used to, it's how the game is supposed to be played. It's a time-tested system, which I'm sure ACTUAL mathematicians analyzed and have made arguments and counterarguments for the dice..in the end, the dice seem to be the popular...the ONLY way Risk is played.

PS - TheProwler would be proud of your excessive amount of useless pictures. Keep up the good work.

 

[Shepherd]

So as it would apply here, [streakiness] would be any sequence of consecutive wins or losses while attacking.
But since nobody complains about win streaks, lets just say that it would be any sequence of consecutive LOSSES while attacking

Alright, so what we're talking about here is eliminating the possibility of an attacker's losing streak. The only way to guarantee this would be to say that after the attacker has lost X number of troops in an attack, the attacker automatically wins the next Y number of troops. Let's say you lose four straight armies: you know you're going to get a set of sixes and your opponent a pair of 1s on the next attack. Streak over... and why play?

Anyway, I prefer to define streakiness as an individual's propensity to run around naked in public. As such, I say we should take steps to increase streakiness, especially among females, age 21-30.

 

[Jewmowrestler]

Couldn't find it... different site perhaps?

personally, i've always hated the way the dice work out. maybe we could use dice but to eliminate some of the riskiness by doing a sum of the rolls. I.e., if its 3v1, a die is rolled 3 times for the first, and once for the second, and the higher sum wins.

right in this very thread actually (post #53). perhaps you might need to review the arguments that others have posted here since clearly you haven't bothered to read them all; i would hate to be arguing with a self-described "math genius" over something that another person had already proved wrong. also, i fail to see how the attacker would lose 9 if all he put up is 3. and as you admitted yourself "a more probable scenario" would be that the greater number of troops win, thereby eliminating the "streakiness." i do love how you have already decided what the only two possibilities in a formula that i developed are, since obviously it would be impossible for the attacker to win and the defender to lose all of his troops.

 

[Robinette]

Robinette, you absolutely SLAY me on the fact that you consider yourself the alpha-mathematician and that your word is law. You're making yourself look more and more ridiculous with every post.

Well, at least you didn't call me a bitch for it, hahahaa...

Seriously though, I should NOT be the alpha mathematician here,
but there certainly have been some posts in this thread completely ignoring math...


And while i did jab mapguy for a bad math post, I fail to see the problem for later trying to help him out by pointing out something good he said. Do you really think that my opinion should be the same towards a person regardless of what they are saying? I think not.


Okay, enough of the petty stuff...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, as you said, "THERE. WILL. BE. STREAKS". I agree.

I like the dice the way they are now. The attacker is favored.

I agree on both points... but just a side note, the attacker advantage with 3:2 dice is VERY small. A lot less than most people think.

.... your excessive amount of useless pictures....

I really do put a lot of thought into those pics. I do it to help articulate what I am trying to communicate. I am sorry (and a bit upset) that you don't appreciate them... *must resisit the strong urge to post a pouting face*

 

[Robinette]

Alright, so what we're talking about here is eliminating the possibility of an attacker's losing streak.

No... no no no no...
Not ELIMINATING... i am talking about REDUCING the probability...

Anyway, I prefer to define streakiness as an individual's propensity to run around naked in public. As such, I say we should take steps to increase streakiness, especially among females, age 21-30.

Hahahahaa.... very good...
I just happen to have some GREAT pics of me streaking with some friends that i'll go ahead and post right no--- oh wait,,, zsp doesn't like my pics so i really shouldn't be posting them... tsk tsk heheheee

 

[Robinette]

right in this very thread actually (post #53). perhaps you might need to review the arguments that others have posted here since clearly you haven't bothered to read them all; i would hate to be arguing with a self-described "math genius" over something that another person had already proved wrong. also, i fail to see how the attacker would lose 9 if all he put up is 3. and as you admitted yourself "a more probable scenario" would be that the greater number of troops win, thereby eliminating the "streakiness." i do love how you have already decided what the only two possibilities in a formula that i developed are, since obviously it would be impossible for the attacker to win and the defender to lose all of his troops.

omigosh, like total deja vous, but it's not quite the same suggestion...
however, zsp was there a few posts later to say he's already suggested it, lol...


Post #53

personally, i've always hated the way the dice work out. maybe we could use dice but to eliminate some of the riskiness by doing a sum of the rolls. I.e., if its 3v1, a die is rolled 3 times for the first, and once for the second, and the higher sum wins.

Post #93

i have an idea that i put forth on a different thread. what if instead of the single die vs single die method, we did a sum of dice vs a sum of dice. For example, an army of 6 vs an army of 3: the 6 rolls 1,3,2,1,4,6 (17 total) and the 3 rolls 6,6,6 (18 total), then the 3 would win. the attacker would be penalized however many armies were put up (in this case 6). this would still include the element of risk, but would lessen the so called "streakiness"

okay, this is what you said in the recent post...

an army of 6 (lets call them the Attacker) vs an army of 3 (lets call them the Defender):
the Attacker rolls 1,3,2,1,4,6 (17 total)
and the Defender rolls 6,6,6 (18 total), then the Defender would win.
So since the Defender wins, i assume this means the Attacker loses 3

"the Attacker would be penalized however many armies were put up (in this case 6)"

So the Attacker loses 3+6 = 9


If the attack had gone the other way, then
the Defender would have lost, and i assume therefore, that this means the Attacker would have won 3
"the Attacker would be penalized however many armies were put up (in this case 6)"

So the Attacker loses 6, and the Defender loses 3.

So like I said before,
The Attacker Loses 9
OR
the Attacker Loses 6, and the Defender loses 3...


I understand that you hate the way the dice work out,
but I just do not agree that this would be a better idea.

 

[Jewmowrestler]

it's obviously the same idea. the second time i added an example for those of us who are mathematical genii but are quite dense. i do apologize for not making it clearer that you would only lose the troops you would put up instead of all of your troops.

 

[giuppi]

The way I had interpreted Jewmowrestler's idea was that in the example above (6vs3), if the attacker wins, she keeps her 6 troops and has to move at least one of those in the territory just conquered. The defender would lose her 3 troops.
If the defender wins, she gets to keep her 3 troops, whereas the attacker would lose all her attacking troops minus one, which stays in the territory where the attack originated from.

Hence my question: could this system contemplate a non-blitz option?

 

[Jewmowrestler]

you could "wager" a certain amount of troops in an attack. if you had say 10 troops, you would put up the 6 (like in the example) against the defending 3 (what i'm thinking is that you can wager up to the number you have minus one so there's a territory holder if the attacker loses). if the attacker wins, all the defending troops are destroyed and you can advance however many you want. if the attacker loses, all the wagered troops are lost.

 

[WidowMakers]

wagering troops does nothing to lower streakiness. If anythign it would produce a wider issues in percention of outcomes.

 

[zspBANNED]

Yeah, I don't like the wagering troops idea. You could attack and blitz the exact same way they are done now. The sum of the dice for just one roll would be used for each individual attack..and if you want to blitz, well, it would attack automatically until either the region is conquered or the attacker has 3 troops left.

 

[Jewmowrestler]

no when i was talking about wagering troops, it was in reference to the idea i put forth earlier about the sum of the dice determining the winner

 

[zspBANNED]

no when i was talking about wagering troops, it was in reference to the idea i put forth earlier about the sum of the dice determining the winner

Yeah, I know exactly what you meant. I don't like the wagering idea.

 

[Jewmowrestler]

ok. i wonder what happened to our favorite mathematical genius?

 

[Robinette]

ok. i wonder what happened to our favorite mathematical genius?

Did'ja miss me?

ahhhh...How sweeet...

now,

heheeheee

 

[Jewmowrestler]

I hate math and it hates me. I've literally never gotten an A ever in math but it's my highest scoring subject on standardized tests. I figured I'd play it safe my senior year and stick with double sciences and no calc. Best idea ever.

 

[mapguy]

Did'ja miss me?

ahhhh...How sweeet...

now,

heheeheee

I thought you could use a mini-makeover.

This one will not get stretched out of shape.