Moderator: Community Team

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.MNDuke wrote:That would be true if I randomly had good luck.
Rolling perfect 1000 times is consistent not random. You tell me which definition rolling perfect 1000 times falls under?Metsfanmax wrote: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.MNDuke wrote:That would be true if I randomly had good luck.
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.MNDuke wrote:Rolling perfect 1000 times is consistent not random. You tell me which definition rolling perfect 1000 times falls under?Metsfanmax wrote: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.MNDuke wrote:That would be true if I randomly had good luck.
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.
My contention is that the dice never used to be this way.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.

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

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.
Eh... clearly you don't understand even though you claim to.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?
Depends on the sample size.How does losing 90% of every 5v2 battle fit into your probability?
Random.org numbers have been proven to be random.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.
Maybe I'm just the unluckiest man in the world.

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

natty_dread wrote:
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.
Use the Dice Streaks script in the Tools forum and see if you come up with strange results.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.
Random numbers used by CC are not computer-generated.Computer can't generate randomness

natty_dread wrote:Random numbers used by CC are not computer-generated.Computer can't generate randomness