## New "Intensity Cubes"

Archival storage for Announcements. Peruse old Announcements here!

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

If the dice aren't fucking wrong I don't know what is. Here is a whole series from a tourney I'm in and the dice are horribly one sided. In one game, we are 4 rounds in, and I've managed to take a card once. In the sydney metro game, one of my teammates wasn't able to card in 4 rounds. Maybe I'm just a poor sport, but its hard to have sportmanship when you are being picked apart by so called random dice. What a joke. Someone needs to fix this shit soon or my money will be staying in my pocket and this opinion will be shared and expressed to anyone who will listen. I'm fucking fed up and tired of it. Is it so much to ask for a little fucking balance and fairness? I can understand one game where I may get bad dice or my teammates will as well, but it should not happen to this magnitude.

Game 7477808 - bullshit
Game 7477796 - bullshit
Game 7477801 - bullshit
Game 7477810 - bullshit

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Random is random. Random is not fair, except in the sense that it is random to everyone.

Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

That would be true if I randomly had good luck. Losing a series like that is bull no matter how you slice it. My last 3 turns in the series I went 0-14. Last I checked that was the definition of random according to Websters. Oh wait, it's not! Your denial that there is anything wrong with the dice system is anything if not hilarious. Get real! Carding, now, 1 time in 5 rounds is random? My teammate not carding in 4 rounds is random? Having a 19v18 and it ending 2v5 is random? Going 0-6, 0-4, 0-4 on your last 3 turns is random? I don't know, that's starting to sound vaguely consistent if you ask me. Jesus Christ open you eyes already. The dice system is fucked up and needs to be changed. There is no reason for nonsense like this. Note this only one series. I'm not even crying about my other games yet. If you'd like I can give you the details of those. Would you like hear about going on a 9 game losing streak? Losing over 400 pts in a week? Dropping percentage pts on my winning pct? I can get into it if you'd like. Because this shit is pissing me off. I'm tired of getting randomly unlucky as you would call it. I strongly suggest you go open a dictionary and check the definitions of random and consistent and then get back to me before you start feeding me some more bullshit CC talking points. For Fucks Sake!

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

MNDuke wrote:That would be true if I randomly had good luck.

Actually, that is completely false. If you have no understanding of the mathematical idea of randomness, then you really should not claim to be more knowledgeable than others on the subject. If a process is random, it is utterly meaningless to say that you expect certain results at any given time. That would imply some sort of determinism - and not randomness. You could roll a perfect die 1000 times and get a 1 every time - the results have no bearing on the randomness of the process.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Metsfanmax wrote:
MNDuke wrote:That would be true if I randomly had good luck.

Actually, that is completely false. If you have no understanding of the mathematical idea of randomness, then you really should not claim to be more knowledgeable than others on the subject. If a process is random, it is utterly meaningless to say that you expect certain results at any given time. That would imply some sort of determinism - and not randomness. You could roll a perfect die 1000 times and get a 1 every time - the results have no bearing on the randomness of the process.

Rolling perfect 1000 times is consistent not random. You tell me which definition rolling perfect 1000 times falls under?

Consistent - constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.
Random - proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern

My point is that I agree with wolf when he says the new system has created far streakier dice than before. If you'd like to say the dice are now randomly consistent, I can agree to that. But, if one is constantly getting good or bad dice, that defies the whole logic of random. If a pattern can be observed that is not random. That's what I am saying.

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

MNDuke wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
MNDuke wrote:That would be true if I randomly had good luck.

Actually, that is completely false. If you have no understanding of the mathematical idea of randomness, then you really should not claim to be more knowledgeable than others on the subject. If a process is random, it is utterly meaningless to say that you expect certain results at any given time. That would imply some sort of determinism - and not randomness. You could roll a perfect die 1000 times and get a 1 every time - the results have no bearing on the randomness of the process.

Rolling perfect 1000 times is consistent not random. You tell me which definition rolling perfect 1000 times falls under?

Consistent - constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.
Random - proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern

My point is that I agree with wolf when he says the new system has created far streakier dice than before. If you'd like to say the dice are now randomly consistent, I can agree to that. But, if one is constantly getting good or bad dice, that defies the whole logic of random. If a pattern can be observed that is not random. That's what I am saying.

What you're saying is completely nonsensical when it comes to the mathematical study of randomness. A set of results cannot be random or non-random. You cannot look at the sequence "124525231" and say "that result is non-random," and you cannot say "that result is random." It's just a completely meaningless thing to say. The fact that most of the numbers are on the lower end of the 1 to 6 scale is irrelevant. The results of any relatively small (less than tens of thousands of rolls) sample cannot be used as even weak evidence that the process is non-random. So you are quite incorrect in saying that it "defies the whole logic of random" to get constantly good or bad dice. The problem with your statement is that there simply is no "logic of random." The fact that you can roll a perfect die 1000 times and get a 1 every roll should be enough to convince you that a random process can indeed cause an uneven distribution of results.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

You once again have overlooked my point and failed to address my concerns and instead get hung up on semantics. Please review:

My point is that I agree with wolf when he says the new system has created far streakier dice than before. If you'd like to say the dice are now randomly consistent, I can agree to that. But, if one is constantly getting good or bad dice, that defies the whole logic of random. If a pattern can be observed that is not random. That's what I am saying.

My contention is that the dice never used to be this way.

Now the probability of rolling 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...is astronomical.

I'm not sure why so steadfastly defend this system. If you honestly believe it so fucking great, I urge you to log in as me for a week and then try to hold the same tune. I understand your point, but you are wrong. The system is fucked, skewed and unbalanced. To say otherwise is just plain old foolish.

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

From random.org "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise." Atmospheric noise and variation is used to generate high quality random numbers. Thus it cannot be guaranteed that the numbers are truly random as you are trying to claim. In the grand scheme of things, cc is relying on nothing more than an equation to come up with their dice rolls. Call me a skeptic and a cynic, but nature is full of patterns and consistency so why should one believe that atmospheric noise is any different? Granted it's better than any computer program that's out there, but not much.

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Question: if the dice are rigged against you specifically how is it possible for you to maintain a rank of captain? Shouldn't you be a cook by now?

Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

MNDuke wrote:From random.org "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise." Atmospheric noise and variation is used to generate high quality random numbers. Thus it cannot be guaranteed that the numbers are truly random as you are trying to claim. In the grand scheme of things, cc is relying on nothing more than an equation to come up with their dice rolls. Call me a skeptic and a cynic, but nature is full of patterns and consistency so why should one believe that atmospheric noise is any different? Granted it's better than any computer program that's out there, but not much.

Clearly you talk of a subject you have little understanding of.

Atmospheric noise is noise. Do you know what noise is? Let us start from defining what a signal is. A signal has frequency, amplitude and waveform. Frequency defines how many times a given waveform occurs in a given time. Amplitude defines the intensity of the waveform, ie. the difference between the high and low peaks of the waveform. Waveform is the shape of the wave function: it can be a sine curve, square, triangle, saw wave, or any combination of those. A noise signal is an irregular shape of waveform: within it only the frequency stays static, and the amplitude of any given sample is random. Ie. the signal has no definite shape, it keeps changing amplitude at random. The noise waveform is the most concrete example of random you can find in nature.

This noise signal is received and ran through an ADC which converts the signal into binary form. This gives a very reliable source of random numbers.

Random is unpredictable. You can apply probability to an random event but only when taken out of context of the previous random events, because the previous random events do not affect the outcome of the next random event. Thus the probability for a random event to get a certain result only applies before the event happens.

Lastly, it's a game. It involves luck. It's not the end of the world if you lose so get over it.

Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Noise can be duplicated, replicated and recreated. Also noise can be made in intervals. I understand noise and wave lengths. It is possible for noise to be very steady. Especially in music. So how then is it that noise can be completely random? Ever look at the structure of waves of music. It's amazing how one recording can nearly fit another perfectly. Even from a live performance with background noise in it. So, how can noise be completely random. I agree random is unpredictable, but it should not be suspect to patterns. Patterns are what takes away from randomness thus creating a certain amount of consistency. You can argue it all you want, but you will not convince me that this system is perfect. It is far from it. I'm not saying the dice are rigged, but I do believe there is a certain amount of bullshit that goes along with them.

So in conclusion, I just must be the unluckiest f*ck ever. It won't be long before I am a cook. I was a major last night, a col 4 weeks ago and by tomorrow I will be a lt. In the past 2 days i have suffered a 9 game losing streak and today I have lost 7 games and won 1. Not to mention I have 8 that I have been eliminated in. All I'm saying is that I must be fucked then. Because these dice don't seem all that random. They seem to follow more of a pattern of consistency. You can argue that they are random but till I see a legitimate change I have my doubts. You can provide all the stats and evidence you want, but I have experienced the shit first hand. How does losing 90% of every 5v2 battle fit into your probability? Stats aren't everything.

lastly, who's to say that random.org is being honest about where they get their numbers from. Can you prove without a doubt that they aren't running a computer program to generate these numbers and claiming something different? Because I just don't buy it.

I understand ITS JUST A GAME, but losing all the time because you aren't lucky or the atmospheric noise wasn't in your benefit isn't exactly fun. All I'm saying is somethings got to change man, because this is bullshit.
Last edited by MNDuke on Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Hahahaha. I haven't read the last two comments yet... I just can't get over the idea that the gods have conspired to specifically alter the microscopic vibrations in atmospheric noise so that MNDuke loses at CC! I needed a good laugh. Now on to the last two comments.
carlpgoodrich

Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:12 pm
Medals: 16

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

You can argue you this shit till you are blue in the face, but I'm not buying it till I see/experience a change. Going 0-14 in three games and then rolling nearly perfect in my next 3 is maddness. There is no middle ground or at least rarely ever. All I have been trying to say is that the dice are far streakier now than they ever were before. They are much more extreme than they used to be. Going madly in one direction then the next and to me, that hardly seems very random. Say what you will but arguing with me will get you no where. Spout off all the stats and figures you'd like, it still doesn't change the fact that what I am seeing and experiencing is bullshit. A friend and I once experimented with this. He logged in as me and when he rolled the dice followed suit of the stats and probs you would expect from the dice. Then when I logged in, it was back to the same old crap that I usually get. He watched my games as I rolled and can vouch for this. Doubt all you want, but something is fucked up. Maybe there is a conspiracy against me. I dont' fucking know. Maybe I'm just the unluckiest man in the world. Either way it's bullshit and kind of loses all fun when are CONSISTENTLY getting screwed and not randomly lucky. The dice are broken and the new fix sucks. I like the old way better. Back when the dice weren't bipolar, manic depressive, and schizophrenic.

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

MNDuke wrote:Noise can be duplicated, replicated and recreated. Also noise can be made in intervals. I understand noise and wave lengths. It is possible for noise to be very steady. Especially in music. So how then is it that noise can be completely random? Every look at the structure of waves of music. It's amazing how one recording can nearly fit another perfectly. Even from a live performance with background noise in it. So, how can noise be completely random. I agree random is unpredictable, but it should not be suspect to patterns. Patterns are what takes away from randomness thus creating a certain amount of consistency. You can argue it all you want, but you will not convince me that this system is perfect. It is far from it. I'm not saying the dice are rigged, but I do believe there is a certain amount of bullshit that goes along with them.

So in conclusion, I just must be the unluckiest f*ck ever. It won't be long before I am a cook. I was a major last night, a col 4 weeks ago and by tomorrow I will be a lt. In the past 2 days i have suffered a 9 game losing streak and today I have lost 7 games and won 1. Not to mention I have 8 that I have been eliminated in. All I'm saying is that I must be fucked then. Because these dice don't seem all that random. They seem to follow more of a pattern of consistency. You can argue that they are random but till I see a legitimate change I have my doubts. You can provide all the stats and evidence you want, but I have experienced the shit first hand. How does losing 90% of every 5v2 battle fit into your probability? Stats aren't everything.

lastly, who's to say that random.org is being honest about where they get their numbers from. Can you prove without a doubt that they aren't running a computer program to generate these numbers and claiming something different? Because I just don't buy it.

I understand ITS JUST A GAME, but losing all the time because you aren't lucky or the atmospheric noise wasn't in your benefit isn't exactly fun. All I'm saying is somethings got to change man, because this is bullshit.

Hahahaha, another good laugh! It must be my lucky day "It is possible for noise to be very steady. Especially in music. So how then is it that noise can be completely random?" So do the conspiring gods listen to the Beetles or are they more into MJ? My vote is for Bach, but thats just me. Now if only we could get them some heavy metal, that would definitely make the dice more random.
carlpgoodrich

Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:12 pm
Medals: 16

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Noise can be duplicated, replicated and recreated. Also noise can be made in intervals. I understand noise and wave lengths. It is possible for noise to be very steady. Especially in music. So how then is it that noise can be completely random?

Eh... clearly you don't understand even though you claim to.

Atmospheric noise is not sound. It is electromagnetic radiation. Ie. radio waves. So you certainly cannot compare it with sound waves created by humans.

But even so, if we compare the signals of noise from a noise generator, the background noise from a concert, and atmospheric noise, they are not the same thing. Only atmospheric noise is random, because of its origins. Noise from a noise generator - which is used to synthesize snare drums for example - is not truely random, it is produced with a pseudo-random algorithm. The background noise in a concert is not noise at all, it is a phenomenom of multiple sound sources of different waveforms getting mixed up and producing the perception of noise.

Atmospheric noise is white noise, ie. it has a steady distribution of intensity at a set wavespectrum. Thus it can be sampled at any frequency within this spectrum and the random distribution will be retained.

How does losing 90% of every 5v2 battle fit into your probability?

Depends on the sample size.

lastly, who's to say that random.org is being honest about where they get their numbers from. Can you prove without a doubt that they aren't running a computer program to generate these numbers and claiming something different? Because I just don't buy it.

Random.org numbers have been proven to be random.

Maybe I'm just the unluckiest man in the world.

Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Then explain why the dice are so streaky?

MNDuke

Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Mom's Basement
Medals: 69

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

MNDuke wrote:Then explain why the dice are so streaky?

There's no reason to believe that the dice are streaky. Streaks obviously can happen in random processes, but to even begin to believe that there's a problem, a sizable number of the player base would also need to be showing signs of having lots of streaks. Anecdotal evidence from two players does not make it there.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

I have found the dice less streaky since the change.

Before, you could use the tactic of "roll and wait", to try to hit the good streaks. If you get +2:s, keep rolling, when you get a -2 stop for a while and resume after a pause.

Now this tactic doesn't work anymore, there doesn't seem to be recognizable streaks to take advantage of. The dice are less predictable.

I for one think this is a good thing. It levels the playing field - everyone gets the same random dice, no one can "boost" their chances at better rolls anymore.

Of course some people might be pissed because they had been relying on the roll & wait strategy and now they perceive to get worse dice because their rolling strategy doesn't work anymore. TOUGH SHIT. Adjust your strategies and quit complaining.

Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Of course some people might be pissed because they had been relying on the roll & wait strategy and now they perceive to get worse dice because their rolling strategy doesn't work anymore. TOUGH SHIT. Adjust your strategies and quit complaining.

CHEW HARDER
danfrank

Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:19 am
Medals: 46

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

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.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
AAFitz

Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 86

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

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.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

I guess some people don't want random dice they want fair dice. I feel that is the reason for complaints about losing 10v2 and so on and so forth. Also, I am sure they would be just as pissed in real life if they'd lost it. Computer can't generate randomness even in Vegas they are programed so that machines win at a certain %. So thanks lack and everyone else who is involved regarding the dice. I am sure they get shitty dice too

Nola_Lifer

Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: 雪山
Medals: 61

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Computer can't generate randomness

Random numbers used by CC are not computer-generated.

Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

I am seeing the same argument over and over now. One side is concerned only with the mathematics and its truthfulness. (his opinion is accurate)

the other side is saying, yes i understand that, but look at these results. When you look at these unbeleivable strings of 'unlikely' events happening over and over and within close proximity of each other, it seems very odd, and strange. it also seems to be counterproductive to the point, or (i cant believe i am using this word) 'spirit' of the decision to make the dice random in the first place. it is all about trying to create a fair and level situation for all players.

Mets, we understand the laws of randomness and random numbers moreso than you think. We just realize that his is not a cryptology club, or advanced math theory chat room. This is a game site, that is striving for fairness.

WHO GIVES A f*ck THAT 1000 CONSECUTIVE 1'S IS RANDOM??? If that ever happened to anyone here, the powers that be would probably at least have the notion that the system might be broken, and that THIS random they chose, was far INFERIOR to the previous random that worked decently for years.

This is my thinking in a nutshell.

Lets say you have a situation where you have a 15 v 3. and you fail. That is a rare occurence!!! you just witnessed something that only happens .22 % of the time. And you would not be considered crazy to expect to win in that situation 99% of the time. Then you lose in that situation, once a day (at least). somedays 3 turns in a row. And you witness something with that low of a probability happens on your turns every day. The odds of that should be pretty low. Why it is the new norm, I dont know, but that is not what it SHOULD be.

What are you to think? You know that the dice are random, and you know that over 200 million turns, that you are likely to run into almost every 'impossible' scenario at least once just by chance, but you still cant help but think that.....................................
these games are just low probability occurance after low prob occ. It is the 'normal' dice that are becoming rare.

Soon we will be having players going, "holy shit 8 v 10 turned into 2 v 4. I should take a screenshot of this. the fellas wont believe it!!"

That is the issue at hand. Lets drop the semantics about the definition of random, and address the issue of getting a BETTER RANDOM , because the random they chose is a fucking dud!!!!
wolfpack0530

Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Shady Thickets, where it is warm and moist
Medals: 71

### Re: New "Intensity Cubes"

Computer can't generate randomness

Random numbers used by CC are not computer-generated.

They are a list right. a list of random numbers, not related to each other, shuffled up in a random way, then listed in sequence, and chosen at a random place on the sequence.

Is that correct?
wolfpack0530

Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Shady Thickets, where it is warm and moist
Medals: 71

PreviousNext