New "Intensity Cubes"

Archival storage for Announcements. Peruse old Announcements here!

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators, Media Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby carlpgoodrich on Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:16 am

AAFitz wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
AAFitz wrote:Ive defended the dice as much as anyone...however, since the change, I have found that I lose to 1's far more and with far more armies than I ever remember before. I also see much larger stacks losing to small piles on a regular basis, where I really hardly saw it before.

No doubt this could be perception, but I never minded the dice all that much before, and now I simply cant believe how impossible they feel. Again, its perception and perhaps cant be trusted, but I have some experienced, and am pretty sure Im not imagining it.


Use the Dice Streaks script in the Tools forum and see if you come up with strange results.


You mean like losing 26 to 6 twice in two days. I dont need a script for that thanks. And Im not slowing down my freestyle games to keep track of something I dont need to keep track of.


You might be able to believe what you're saying without the script, but if you want anyone else to believe you then you do need the script. Its really amusing that for all the complaining, not one person has downloaded these scripts and still complained. Seems like its all in your head.

Also, there is a very easy way to settle this, though I'm not sure if Lack would be willing to do it. Since we get a new list of 50,000 numbers from random.org every hour, it would be nice if Lack would post some of the "old" lists so we can analyze them.
Captain carlpgoodrich
 
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:12 pm
Medals: 16
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:41 pm

carlpgoodrich wrote:Also, there is a very easy way to settle this, though I'm not sure if Lack would be willing to do it. Since we get a new list of 50,000 numbers from random.org every hour, it would be nice if Lack would post some of the "old" lists so we can analyze them.


This is true. All we would have to do is write a simple script to analyze all possible consecutive sets of five numbers, and see if that would result in abnormal 3v2 results (i.e., 3v2 wouldn't win 37% of the time).

I'm going to submit an eTicket with this request.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (5)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby carlpgoodrich on Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:10 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
carlpgoodrich wrote:Also, there is a very easy way to settle this, though I'm not sure if Lack would be willing to do it. Since we get a new list of 50,000 numbers from random.org every hour, it would be nice if Lack would post some of the "old" lists so we can analyze them.


This is true. All we would have to do is write a simple script to analyze all possible consecutive sets of five numbers, and see if that would result in abnormal 3v2 results (i.e., 3v2 wouldn't win 37% of the time).

I'm going to submit an eTicket with this request.


Cool. If he agrees, I would be more than willing to write some analysis scripts.
Captain carlpgoodrich
 
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:12 pm
Medals: 16
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby AAFitz on Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:30 pm

carlpgoodrich wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
AAFitz wrote:Ive defended the dice as much as anyone...however, since the change, I have found that I lose to 1's far more and with far more armies than I ever remember before. I also see much larger stacks losing to small piles on a regular basis, where I really hardly saw it before.

No doubt this could be perception, but I never minded the dice all that much before, and now I simply cant believe how impossible they feel. Again, its perception and perhaps cant be trusted, but I have some experienced, and am pretty sure Im not imagining it.


Use the Dice Streaks script in the Tools forum and see if you come up with strange results.


You mean like losing 26 to 6 twice in two days. I dont need a script for that thanks. And Im not slowing down my freestyle games to keep track of something I dont need to keep track of.


You might be able to believe what you're saying without the script, but if you want anyone else to believe you then you do need the script. Its really amusing that for all the complaining, not one person has downloaded these scripts and still complained. Seems like its all in your head.

Also, there is a very easy way to settle this, though I'm not sure if Lack would be willing to do it. Since we get a new list of 50,000 numbers from random.org every hour, it would be nice if Lack would post some of the "old" lists so we can analyze them.


Whats amusing is your inability to read and comprehend. IM not trying to make anyone believe. Im also not complaining, or suggesting any action based on what I said. I am only, and obviously just pointing out my perception of the new dice, and my experience with them since installation. As far as it being in my head, its possible, but after 10000 games, I do have some experience with them, and am perfectly able to remember to 26 vs 6 losses, inside of 24 hours. I also have probably attacked 6 vs 1, 10000 times. I know the odds, and when I lose 6v1, every day with the few games I play, I know as much as one can know that the odds have changed.

Now, if you dont believe me, I dont care. I dont even care if anyone does. Its simply my perception of what Ive seen with the new dice, and after defending the dice for three years, and not seeing anything to make me think they were not random...I now do, and to an alarming degree. As I said, it may just be my perception, but I saw it before I even knew the dice were changed.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"
User avatar
Major AAFitz
 
Posts: 7216
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 84
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby wolfpack0530 on Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:08 am

quote="Metsfanmax"
There's nothing "wrong" with the random we have now. If you want the dice to be rigged so that you win with both armies in a 3v2 exactly 37.17% of the time, then just go ahead and actually say it, but you're not going to find many supporters for that argument
.


You assume waaay too much sir. First you assume that i care alot about winning and losing, and you keep using the word rigged , which implies certain connotations of cheating and deception. Both are quite inaccurate, and unwarranted.
I dont need any dice to be rigged so that 3v2 wins 37.17% of the time. I KNOW that they WILL win 37.17% of the time with a very large sample size approaching infinity. Quit talking semantics and wasting our time citing things we both already know

The results from random.org have been shown to be quite fair to a high degree of accuracy. As a result, there's nothing wrong with the dice they've given us.


I dont doubt that the numbers themselves are perfectly random, or that random.org is unfair. I started this by just posting my personal observations. Perhaps random.org's numbers, and tests were performed on large sample sizes. I am assuming that the more rolls one takes, the more "even" the dice become. After 20,000,000 rolls you see pretty clearly that you have pretty much rolled each number 16.67% of the time, and so has the defender.

But what about the short term? a sample size of 30 rolls, or 15, or even 100. perhaps, random.org's or whatever manipulation CC uses, doesnt stack up so "fairly" over such small sample sizes as the previous manipulation did.

Perhaps, changing the dice was a huge mistake?


The only thing wrong here, is the unreasonable expectation from people that if an event has a probability of 99% of occurring, that it should basically never happen.


How could you be so obtuse as to assume that?? I cant speak for others, but i expect an event with a 1% chance of occurring, to occur 1% (plus or minus the standard deviation) of the time. Of course this would be over a larger sample size. Over the course of 10,000 rolls, I expect to see between 80-120 "unlikely events" defined by me as events likely to occur less than 1% of the time. Now if I see 50 "unlikely events" in 700 rolls, then i start to think that is very odd. then i see another 50 unlikely events in the next 1300 rolls, my doubts start to become confirmed in my mind. I have just seen 100 rare occurrances in 2000 rolls, this is far exceeding the 1% of the time probablility i was expecting. I doubt that true randomness is occuring, and i highly doubt that i will see only 0-20 rare occurances in the next 8000 rolls.

Of course i just made these numbers up to prove a point. The point being that we all expect crappy strings of dice, and to lose 15-1 from time to time, but it should not be happening daily, UNLESS THE DICE ARE MESSED UP OR[size=150] RIGGED[/size] as you so eloquantly put it.
Captain wolfpack0530
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Shady Thickets, where it is warm and moist
Medals: 71
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (12) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (18)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby bedub1 on Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:56 am

wolfpack0530 wrote:quote="Metsfanmax"
There's nothing "wrong" with the random we have now. If you want the dice to be rigged so that you win with both armies in a 3v2 exactly 37.17% of the time, then just go ahead and actually say it, but you're not going to find many supporters for that argument
.


You assume waaay too much sir. First you assume that i care alot about winning and losing, and you keep using the word rigged , which implies certain connotations of cheating and deception. Both are quite inaccurate, and unwarranted.
I dont need any dice to be rigged so that 3v2 wins 37.17% of the time. I KNOW that they WILL win 37.17% of the time with a very large sample size approaching infinity. Quit talking semantics and wasting our time citing things we both already know

The results from random.org have been shown to be quite fair to a high degree of accuracy. As a result, there's nothing wrong with the dice they've given us.


I dont doubt that the numbers themselves are perfectly random, or that random.org is unfair. I started this by just posting my personal observations. Perhaps random.org's numbers, and tests were performed on large sample sizes. I am assuming that the more rolls one takes, the more "even" the dice become. After 20,000,000 rolls you see pretty clearly that you have pretty much rolled each number 16.67% of the time, and so has the defender.

But what about the short term? a sample size of 30 rolls, or 15, or even 100. perhaps, random.org's or whatever manipulation CC uses, doesnt stack up so "fairly" over such small sample sizes as the previous manipulation did.

Perhaps, changing the dice was a huge mistake?


The only thing wrong here, is the unreasonable expectation from people that if an event has a probability of 99% of occurring, that it should basically never happen.


How could you be so obtuse as to assume that?? I cant speak for others, but i expect an event with a 1% chance of occurring, to occur 1% (plus or minus the standard deviation) of the time. Of course this would be over a larger sample size. Over the course of 10,000 rolls, I expect to see between 80-120 "unlikely events" defined by me as events likely to occur less than 1% of the time. Now if I see 50 "unlikely events" in 700 rolls, then i start to think that is very odd. then i see another 50 unlikely events in the next 1300 rolls, my doubts start to become confirmed in my mind. I have just seen 100 rare occurrances in 2000 rolls, this is far exceeding the 1% of the time probablility i was expecting. I doubt that true randomness is occuring, and i highly doubt that i will see only 0-20 rare occurances in the next 8000 rolls.

Of course i just made these numbers up to prove a point. The point being that we all expect crappy strings of dice, and to lose 15-1 from time to time, but it should not be happening daily, UNLESS THE DICE ARE MESSED UP OR[size=150] RIGGED[/size] as you so eloquantly put it.

Keep in mind the daily sample size is something along the lines of 2 million dice rolls a day....So things that are 1 in a million happen several times a day..
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby bedub1 on Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:05 am

carlpgoodrich wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
carlpgoodrich wrote:I agree that using a PRNG pick a number between 1 and 6 gives PRNs, but that is not what we are doing, not at all. If you use a TRNG to generate a list of TRNs, and you want to read from this list, starting at the beginning is just as arbitrary as starting anywhere else. Hence using a PRNG to pick where we start does nothing to remove the "true" randomness of the list of TRNs.


I got it. So if you had a list of peoples names, and you used random.org in this fashion to get a persons name:

Q3.6: How do I pick one or more items from a list at random?

The easiest way to do this is to use the List Randomizer as follows:

1. Enter all your list items on separate lines in the List Randomizer and submit the form. This will produce a randomized list.
2. The item picked will be the first that appears on the randomized list. If you need to pick two items, use the first two from the randomized list, and so forth.
3. Discard the remaining items.

Then you get a truly random persons name.

But if you use a PRNG to pick a persons name, then you get a PR name. But you guys are saying it's still a name. But instead of us picking from a list of names, we pick from a list of TRUE random numbers. So even though we picked it Pseudo Randomly, it's still a persons name, or true random number?



YES! =D> Thats a really good example, I wish I had though of that... But yes, to my understanding that is correct. And since they are true random numbers, it doesn't matter if we read them sequentially or in some arbitrary fashion (like a PRNG).

I would argue that you have a person, and you have a number, or a pseudo random person and a pseudo random number. Just as you have a Pseudoly picked person, you have a Pseudoly picked number. It doesn't matter that it's a "truly random" number or a "truly random" person or a "pseudoly random" person or just 6 numbers on the side of a die. Order of operations is what applies.

Order of operations
Truly Truly random = Truly
Truly Pseudo random = Truly
Pseudo Truly = Pseudo
Pseudo Pseudo = Pseudo

Does this make sense?
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:15 am

wolfpack0530 wrote:You assume waaay too much sir. First you assume that i care alot about winning and losing, and you keep using the word rigged , which implies certain connotations of cheating and deception. Both are quite inaccurate, and unwarranted.


I said nothing regarding cheating or deception. My point was quite straightforward - if you object to streaks, the only logical alternative is to "fix" the dice so that they don't happen.

I dont need any dice to be rigged so that 3v2 wins 37.17% of the time. I KNOW that they WILL win 37.17% of the time with a very large sample size approaching infinity. Quit talking semantics and wasting our time citing things we both already know
I dont doubt that the numbers themselves are perfectly random, or that random.org is unfair. I started this by just posting my personal observations. Perhaps random.org's numbers, and tests were performed on large sample sizes. I am assuming that the more rolls one takes, the more "even" the dice become. After 20,000,000 rolls you see pretty clearly that you have pretty much rolled each number 16.67% of the time, and so has the defender.

But what about the short term? a sample size of 30 rolls, or 15, or even 100. perhaps, random.org's or whatever manipulation CC uses, doesnt stack up so "fairly" over such small sample sizes as the previous manipulation did.

Perhaps, changing the dice was a huge mistake?


This is an illogical conclusion. We're using the same RNG that we used to (all numbers previously came, and still do come, from random.org). We've only changed the method we use to obtain the numbers from that site. Therefore, unless random.org has changed its algorithm around the same time we changed our method of obtaining the dice from them, then nothing has changed, and you can't say the dice have changed at all.

How could you be so obtuse as to assume that?? I cant speak for others, but i expect an event with a 1% chance of occurring, to occur 1% (plus or minus the standard deviation) of the time.


Well, I don't want to be rude, but I assume things like that because of incorrect statements like this. Probability only meaningfully deals with the proportions of events occurring over a large sample size, as you point out in the next line - it has nothing to do with how often an event occurs in time. If the only test for fairness is that the event occurs about 100 times in 10,000 rolls, then the test is still being upheld if all 100 times happen in the first 200 rolls of that sample. You're being disingenuous below when you say that this proves there's a problem with the dice - either you believe that probability is only meaningful over large sample sizes, or you don't. If you do, you can't point to a small sample (~1000 rolls) and use it to say the dice aren't random.

Of course this would be over a larger sample size. Over the course of 10,000 rolls, I expect to see between 80-120 "unlikely events" defined by me as events likely to occur less than 1% of the time. Now if I see 50 "unlikely events" in 700 rolls, then i start to think that is very odd. then i see another 50 unlikely events in the next 1300 rolls, my doubts start to become confirmed in my mind. I have just seen 100 rare occurrances in 2000 rolls, this is far exceeding the 1% of the time probablility i was expecting. I doubt that true randomness is occuring, and i highly doubt that i will see only 0-20 rare occurances in the next 8000 rolls.


Again, the only way that the dice could be non-random is if random.org has a flawed algorithm (which they don't). That being said, carl and I have also said that one way that streaks could occur is if the sequences of numbers we get are somehow skewed toward changing the probabilities of a given 3v2 roll, for example. If the numbers were purely random, then this would not be an issue, but I suppose it's conceivably within the realm of possibilities in the Universe that there's enough of a bias in the distribution such that these patterns could occur. This is why I've submitted an eTicket for some of the old dice lists to be released, and we'll do some analysis on those lists to see whether they substantially deviate from expected outcomes for large samples. I would hope that if we find that the results are suitably random, that you would admit that there really isn't a problem with the dice.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (5)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby Commander9 on Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:26 pm

Well, I guess I'll be just another one in a long line to say this, but these are sure as hell not random. More so, it's comes in certain dice series and then you usually have periods of "yay" and "F*** this." However, after I bought my premium, it pretty much has been almost always the "F*** this" mode, as I almost never get even "moderate" or "average" dice. It's rather funny how in 4 games of 5 I'll need at least 3 dice to take one, while my opponent will sweep through me without any restraints. Normally, I'm not the one to complain in public, but this is rather ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I know that having bad dice is a part of games, but not all the time. All I want is that my opponents wouldn't get extreme handicap almost every time they play with me.

I know my opinion doesn't matter, but while these dice are many things, random is definitely not one of them. I really love this game and the essence of this, but this just cost me too many nerves. After my premium expires, I'll probably will go back to being a premium with "happy" dice, as this is just not worth it.

Best regards,
Tom.
But... It was so artistically done.
Lieutenant Commander9
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:51 am
Location: In between Lithuania/USA.
Medals: 68
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (2)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:51 pm

Commander9 wrote:Well, I guess I'll be just another one in a long line to say this, but these are sure as hell not random.


http://www.random.org/statistics/
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (5)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby natty dread on Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:52 am

while these dice are many things, random is definitely not one of them


on what do you base your opinion that the dice are not random?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: fucked off
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby MNDuke on Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:39 pm

Talking points, talking points, talking points. That's all YOU defenders of the dice seem to be able to do and come up with. You quote the same talking points/stats over and over but never actually address anyone's concerns with any practicality. For once, ignore your talking points and statistics. I have not heard one word of sincerity or open mindedness, "that hey, there could be something very very wrong here." Is it so hard to let go of your stubborness and actually consider what people are saying. Please take our concerns seriously or I fear cc will become the new myspace; another wasted domain decomposing on the vast plane of the information super highway. I am another in this long line that will not be renewing unless I see a visible change. For the last 5 weeks I have had to take in this bogusness and I sir will no longer stand for it. But if CC doesn't give a shit about my concerns, why should I give a shit about CC? Address that.
User avatar
Sergeant MNDuke
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 65
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (7) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (14)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby MNDuke on Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:00 pm

I would also like to add, that pure randomness doesn't equate to fun. Once you take all the fun out of this, all you have left is stats and probability. If I was interested in that, I would enroll in the local junior college and take some math courses. I could have just as much fun sitting at home dropping books on my balls. Why would anyone pay $25 for an experience they are no longer enjoying? Why do you think no one is lining up at that dentist's office? Semantics yes, but I hope you see my point. I feel this is what everyone's contention with the new system is. It's no longer fun. The party has been sucked out of the room. It's like someone has taken all the booze and music and left us with talk radio and punch. All I can say is, f*ck that shit.
User avatar
Sergeant MNDuke
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 65
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (7) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (14)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby natty dread on Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:31 pm

Ok, let's put the random/non-random arguments to the side for a while.

If you don't find CC fun anymore, you shouldn't play. It's as simple as that.

The fact is, nobody can magically make the dice good for everyone. People will always complain about the dice, no matter how the algorithm is made. We can't make the dice please everyone, because the dice must be the same for everyone, and that means there will always be people who don't like how the dice act.

What is CC to do? If CC would listen to dice complainers, CC would have no time left for anything except tweaking the dice. In case you haven't noticed, there has been at least one dice complaint every week since CC started (well, since I've been here at least, but according to my research it was the same before as well.)

So you want the dice changed because you feel they are not being "fair" to you. Well have you considered that they are the same for others? How about adjusting your strategies and taking the way dice act (ie. unpredictably) in account? If you feel that certain events occur more often than they should, then plan for it. Change your playing style.

Because there's nothing CC can do to change your perception about the dice. CC could change the dice algorithms, but then someone else would be complaining. And so on.

So either play with the hand you are dealt, or don't play at all. There's really no other choice.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: fucked off
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Postby MNDuke on Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:44 pm

natty_dread wrote:Ok, let's put the random/non-random arguments to the side for a while.

If you don't find CC fun anymore, you shouldn't play. It's as simple as that.

The fact is, nobody can magically make the dice good for everyone. People will always complain about the dice, no matter how the algorithm is made. We can't make the dice please everyone, because the dice must be the same for everyone, and that means there will always be people who don't like how the dice act.

What is CC to do? If CC would listen to dice complainers, CC would have no time left for anything except tweaking the dice. In case you haven't noticed, there has been at least one dice complaint every week since CC started (well, since I've been here at least, but according to my research it was the same before as well.)

So you want the dice changed because you feel they are not being "fair" to you. Well have you considered that they are the same for others? How about adjusting your strategies and taking the way dice act (ie. unpredictably) in account? If you feel that certain events occur more often than they should, then plan for it. Change your playing style.

Because there's nothing CC can do to change your perception about the dice. CC could change the dice algorithms, but then someone else would be complaining. And so on.

So either play with the hand you are dealt, or don't play at all. There's really no other choice.


Wow. If that is CC's stance, that sure makes my decision a whole lot easier. I see words like empathy and compassion have yet to be added to your vocabulary. Do you not get that we aren't complaining about the dice as much as we are complaining that the new system sucks? If it's not broke, why fix it? Ignoring the consensus is not wise. Ye gods, I've never seen anyone so blinded with the ignorance, denial and the desire to be right. That's ok. That's how the mighty always fall in the end.
User avatar
Sergeant MNDuke
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 65
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (7) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (14)

PreviousNext

Return to Announcement Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login