Talk:KDice

Non-notable game?

This game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game. This article itself provides proof via in-line citations.

It was a sentence and a picture when I flagged it. lemme look at the articles a sec. Cantras 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. one of your links doesn't work, and the game was only created 2 months ago. I'm leaving the flag up, and we'll see when someone gets to it.Cantras 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

edit- the date created has been changed to december first. could someone find/verify that?Cantras 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are blogs, not reliable sources. See verifiability, where blogs are also not allowed. ColourBurst 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kotaku is written by a well-known professional journalist, his work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. I've also added a review from Channel 4's website.--OriginalJunglist 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and Kotaku itself is under the Gawker banner, but one of the reasons that people object to blogs period is because they have no editorial supervision. See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#at_what_point_reliability.3F. ColourBurst 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Removel of the chances table

Why did I remove it? Factually and helpfulness is not a criterium of encylcopedic content. Its game cruft, in the sense as somebody not playing this game is not interested in it. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, giving good and compact information to "outsiders". Not a general purpose webhost. Dont get me wrong, I like playing kdice, but I like wikipedia also, and got at least some feeling in the years which content is unaproperiate and I tell you the chances table is. --Jestix 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned the page up further, altough I know, by the kdice lovers unpopular. But remember, the wikipage should be a page that just describes compact to someguy, who asks himself "what the heck is kdice". It is

• not a place to do "advertismental" text
• not a place to give playing hints
• not a place to give the latest news about kdice.

--Jestix 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we haven't reached agreement on this, I am putting the information back for now. We can discuss it, of course:

You're being extremely dogmatic about what constitutes encyclopedic. People who look up kdice are interested in information about it. That includes a lot of the stuff that you've removed. The role of an encyclopedia is to give information to those who are interested in finding it. I don't know where "outsiders" came from, but the people who are interested in kdice are interested in the information about probabilities, etc. It's not like the article is so long that we need to look for ways to cut it down.24.199.119.162 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)(JudahH 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Well reverting without reaching an end of discussion is definitely not a nice move. First of all I would point you do Wikipedia:Fancruft to read about the judgement of deletion of the table --Jestix 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's extremely disingenous, Jestix. It was you who began to delete things before starting a discussion. My reversion merely restores the status quo. Further, several people disagree with you on the subject so far (the original writer, the first person to revert it, and myself, not to mention the other editors who implicitly endorsed it by retaining it), and only you think it should be deleted. Further, all you gain by deleting it, is adhering to your questionable ideal of what an encyclopedia should be, whereas by retaining it, it provides useful information to people in the meanwhile.JudahH 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I began to remove selected stuff, while you simple reverted. I see a huge difference in that. --Jestix 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To the topic, the chances table is game cruft. Im quite a while now on wikipedia, how long are you now here to rely on your judgment? Take for example the weapons list of counterstrike, that also keeps reappearing by some cs-extremists. But there is a good consensus that this weaponslist is game cruft and no good content for an encylcopedia, since no non-gamer could ever be interested in it. A good point of judgement is if the content is interesting to a majority of people or only a small number of it, and the chances table is only interesting to players of kdice. I don't know how to solve this, maybe you should start reading Meta-Wikipedia articles, start for example here: Wikipedia:Your_first_article. I don't see how we else could agree on this. Maybe if you keep reverting, we can make a deletion request of the whole article with the chances table for the article to be game cruft and therefore to be deleted? However I don't think you would like this. So what would you suggest? --Jestix 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There has already been an AfD nomination, for your information. I looked at the Your first article link, and didn't see what you referred to. Maybe you could quote the lines in question. In the meantime, my argument is based on logic. The people who look a subject up are the people who are interested in it. You have admitted that you yourself are one of these people. The people who aren't interested in a subject don't look it up. The probabilities are useful related information. As a compromise, would putting the dice probabilities article on a separate page, and linking to it work for you?JudahH 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Compromise sounds very good to me, I think maybe about creating a kdice wiki at [1] there we can cruft out every detail on kdice we want. Not to worry about violating wikipedias guidelines whats encyclopedic aproperiate or not. --17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, it sounds like a separate page would work for all of us. I don't have time to create it now, but you can do that if you want, or I'll create it when I get a chance.JudahH 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Im working at it right now [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jestix (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Really what I had in mind was a page on Wikipedia, but as long as the information is accessible from the kdice entry, I don't suppose it matters much where it is hosted.JudahH 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can theortetically move things like this to wikipedia userspace, however its generally at least much frowned upon to link wikipedia userspace from normal wikipedia space. I think this solution is very optimal, since this way, kdice information on wikispaces can go in much, much, MUCH more detail, then whatever would be acceptable for an encylcopedic entry. --Jestix 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a kdice player, but the the non ELO ranking system and associated probabilities would seem encyclopedic as they have uses outside of Kdice as part of the wider strategic games view.Wakelamp (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Flags allow players to surrender to their stronger opponents with the hope of obtaining a better position than 7th place (last place). Flags can be either "Hard flags" or "Verbal flags". Hard flags are programed into the game and once they are selected they cannot be retracted. Verbal flags or V-flags are done simply by stating the surrender to a player in the chat box. Verbal flags are based upon trust, and for this reason surrendered players may opt to honor their flag or backstabb their opponent.

Talk about Flags...

Dominance

Dominance meters are included on 500 tables and above. More points are rewarded to players that conquer and retain land. Dominance encourages players to attack more, but it has also caused territory greed and it gives incentive to not respect the flagging system.

Talk about Dominance...

Expand Strategy Section

In addition to luck and psychology, territory control based on map layout can important to some players.

I don't know "independent sources" for this, but it seems like this might make a good addition. I know I build my strategies around map layout and territory (which may be why I'm not so good at the game :-). --Seth Munter [email protected] 67.101.212.246 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem, that there cannot be "independent sources" for strategy, and it is always to some degree POV. At least until several people write books about kdice like they did for chess :-). This is one reason the (external) kdice wiki [3] exists, it does not have to apply to encyclopedic criterias! You'll find a strategy write up here: [4], you are also invited to add things that match there. --Jestix 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no independent sources, as Jestix has pointed out. Is there a way to remove the citations needed stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.96.154 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

The kdice sandbox(es) is an very internal thing into kdice that is certantly not mentionworthy on wikipedia.

"Shouldn't a game list the requirements and specifications? In this case the specifications for probabilities are important and territory strategies are important.

The forum is not important to the game. That which makes the game unique is important to the game. Probabilities and territory strategies qualify. The Sandbox does not qualify because it is the test area."

Removed some stuff

I've removed the probability chart as indiscriminate information / statistics(WP:NOT#INFO). I've removed the strategy section as original research (WP:OR) and "not a manual or guidebook" (WP:NOT#GUIDE). Note that there are several gaming wikis (see the bottom of WP:VG) that would be happy to print that material instead.

I undid this revision: I disagree with your rationale for removing the probability table. The relevant piece of WP:NOT#INFO says, Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. None of this applies to the table you removed: it was not "long and sprawling" and it was readily understandable.

You have more of a point re the Strategy section. Personally, I think a very basic strategy overview (something smaller than what the strategy section had become) is useful information, and not really "research", if the information is basic enough. (e.g. "taking many small chances adds up to taking a big chance, if you need to win them all". That's a statistical truism.) However, I won't fight you on removing this section. JudahH 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article still needs independent references. There appears to be a review at Channel4.com [5], but the site is down for maintainance at the moment. Marasmusine 08:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look far back in the history of this page, you'll see beeing not only a kdice player but a long standing wikipedia fan, I agree with Marasmusine. The indeth probabilty table e.g. is not really good to be placed at wikipeia which should give an overview over stuff not indepth analysis. I delteted it then, but soon got reverted by a fellow kdice player soon after. As result of this inner conflict, since I wanted the data to keep alive, while I want to uphold the wikipedia principles, I created the kdice wiki. You'll see it in the external links. After that I hardly edited the wikipedia anymore, because then someone could rightfully call me biased. Especially if hed' say I delete wikipedia only to promote "my" gaming wiki. So now an independant wikipedian copyeditor agrees with that, I hope this issue is settled. --Jestix 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've put back the "Strategy and playing styles" and "Dice Roll Probabilities" sections. Anyhoo, the Channel4 site is back up. The review] isn't particularly in-depth but will certainly help. Marasmusine 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three paragraphs up, I wrote why I disagree about the "Dice Roll Probabilities" section being a problem as "statistics". If you want to take out "Strategy and Playing Styles", I won't revert your edit.JudahH 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really opposed to the removal of the table, but per WP:NOT#INFO, I won't revert your edit. However, could I please have the table on the talk page? -- penubag  08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also really against removing the table. It's one of the only sources i know of for this table.216.120.145.194 (talk)

Another source is the KDice wiki; site here just scroll down, it's on the main page. -- penubag  01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Longtime ago when I contributed to this article I realised already, that there is many stuff on it that didn't fit in the wikipedia guidelines. So I founded the kdice wiki. However quite some players were against it..."mah we don't need this, you have it all relevant on wikipedia, go away with this". so the sounds... I didn't delete the content any further from wikipedia, since I could be interpreted as POV, wanting to support just the kdice wiki by removing stuff from wikipedia... Well it took only some months until some other wikipedia contributeres agreed with my original realisation for example the table is not encyclopedical. Aside from that, the talk page only talks about stuff about the article, it is NOT there to hold information not suitable for the article, but wanted for some people. Therefore IMHO it should be removed here as well, sorry about that. If you want a more beatuiful version on the kdice wiki just help me create one. --Jestix (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Probability of a successful attack		Attacker
		two dice	three dice	four dice	five dice	six dice	seven dice	eight dice
Defender	one die	83.8%	97.3%	99.7%	*100%	*100%	100%	100%
	two dice	44.4%	77.9%	93.9%	98.8%	99.8%	*100%	*100%
	three dice	15.2%	45.4%	74.3%	90.9%	97.5%	99.5%	99.9%
	four dice	3.6%	19.2%	46.0%	71.8%	88.4%	96.2%	99.0%
	five dice	0.6%	6.1%	22.0%	46.4%	70.0%	86.2%	94.8%
	six dice	0.1%	1.5%	8.3%	24.2%	46.7%	68.6%	84.4%
	seven dice	*0.0%	0.3%	2.6%	10.4%	26.0%	46.9%	67.3%
	eight dice	*0.0%	*0.0%	0.6%	3.7%	12.2%	27.4%	47.1%

If people would like to contribute to this article, this is the kind of content we need for an encyclopedic entry: Development history, opinions from game critics, other "out-of-game" references and citations from independent, reliable coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Luck

"Att:Def is not about luck. It's just a ratio of your attacks to defends throughout the game. So if you had 570 attack and 430 defends your ration would be 57:43. It means you were more aggressive than defensive. Luck however is the sum how you did on each attack and defend throughout the game based on the attacks dice probability table (7v4 is more unlucky to loose than 7v6). So if you won a bunch 8v2s you would be very mildly lucky but if you won a 2v8 you're luck would jump drastically, in proportion to the probability of winning. " -- penubag  (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

8 versus 3

Can we confirm that the probability is correct ? Each of the other columns shows a decreasing percentage , this shows a decrease then an increase. It also differs from here http://kdice.wikispaces.com/How+the+probability+table+is+calculated Wakelamp (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Templates

The numerous templates in the main article and talk page are distracting and make the page uninviting. Please consider carefully before adding new ones, and review existing ones and if warranted, remove them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.79 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Kdicedice.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kdicedice.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KDice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915190232/http://kdice.wikispaces.com/ to http://kdice.wikispaces.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)