New "Intensity Cubes"

[bedub1]

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.

According to the founder of random.org you are wrong. I can't explain it to you. Go argue with him. I haven't asked him another question as I don't want to bug him too much. As you can see from the email he sent me he has asked if this answers my questions. If you can think of another question we'd like to ask him let me know. I'd be happy to ask it and forward the thread to anybody that cares to see valid proof.

IMO if you insist on using a PRNG then you might as well just junk random.org and use a PRNG to pick a number.

So you're saying that if we had 5 dice, and I rolled them all individually and wrote down those five numbers, and then rolled only 1 of them 5 times and wrote down those 5 numbers, that the second list is suddenly less random than the first list?

No. But if you can convince your friend to stop using 5 dice and instead start using a pen and paper and only 1 dice, then I'll bow to your obviously superior design as to how games should be played and designed.

[n00blet]

So you're saying that if we had 5 dice, and I rolled them all individually and wrote down those five numbers, and then rolled only 1 of them 5 times and wrote down those 5 numbers, that the second list is suddenly less random than the first list?

No. But if you can convince your friend to stop using 5 dice and instead start using a pen and paper and only 1 dice, then I'll bow to your obviously superior design as to how games should be played and designed.

Well, I would explain to this rational and thoughtful friend that if we did simply record 50,000 rolls from this 1 die, and then choose a random spot from that list to begin reading from using a 50,000 side die, then I'm quite certain they would agree to play.

[carlpgoodrich]

Ya, every friend that I have is smart enough to realize there is nothing wrong with that. And you still haven't answered my question.

Not to be rude, but there are clearly flaws in your basic understanding of random numbers. Since the guy at random.org seems to be the only person you trust, I suggest you email him again with a better explanation of your concerns. Try including Lacks three methods (as you did in an earlier post), and ask him if he has any problems with it's "true randomness."

[Night Strike]

IMO if you insist on using a PRNG then you might as well just junk random.org and use a PRNG to pick a number.

The PRNG does NOT pick the number.......it picks the point to read the numbers. If every list was always read from the beginning, would it be a TRN for you? Choosing a starting point has no effect on how the number in that position was chosen.

[bedub1]

Since the guy at random.org seems to be the only person you trust, I suggest you email him again with a better explanation of your concerns. Try including Lacks three methods (as you did in an earlier post), and ask him if he has any problems with it's "true randomness."

He is the only guy I trust as he's an expert and we aren't. But it's funny to hear you guys argue with him.

What question shall I ask?

"If I have a list of TRN's from random.org and I use a PRNG to pick a spot to read, have I read a PRN or a TRN?" If he responds PRN will you all agree with him? If he responds TRN I know I'll accept it as fact.

It appears to me he already answered this question but you guys refuse to acknowledge his statement.

[Metsfanmax]

Since the guy at random.org seems to be the only person you trust, I suggest you email him again with a better explanation of your concerns. Try including Lacks three methods (as you did in an earlier post), and ask him if he has any problems with it's "true randomness."

He is the only guy I trust as he's an expert and we aren't. But it's funny to hear you guys argue with him.

What question shall I ask?

"If I have a list of TRN's from random.org and I use a PRNG to pick a spot to read, have I read a PRN or a TRN?" If he responds PRN will you all agree with him? If he responds TRN I know I'll accept it as fact.

It appears to me he already answered this question but you guys refuse to acknowledge his statement.

He didn't say that such a method is pseudo-random, despite your claims to the contrary. I think you should ask him yourself if you do not believe it is truly random.

At any rate, I ask you - even if it is pseudo-random, what's the problem? As long as it's close enough to true random that no one could feasibly hack the system, then it's completely irrelevant whether it's "truly" random.

[Night Strike]

If I have a list of 50,000 TRN's from random.org and I use a PRNG to pick a spot to start reading, have I read a PRN or a TRN?

Made a couple small edits. I'm not sure if the final question-clause is the best, but I don't know how to change it.

[bedub1]

If I have a list of 50,000 TRN's from random.org and I use a PRNG to pick a spot to start reading, have I read a PRN or a TRN?

Made a couple small edits. I'm not sure if the final question-clause is the best, but I don't know how to change it.

I think it makes sense as a question as written. Lets wait a second though....I think I finally figure out what you guys are saying.

At any rate, I ask you - even if it is pseudo-random, what's the problem? As long as it's close enough to true random that no one could feasibly hack the system, then it's completely irrelevant whether it's "truly" random.

Well if it's not "truly" random then why go to all the hassle and why not just run a PRNG locally? There has to be some open-source one that is considered "good enough" by the community.

[bedub1]

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?

[carlpgoodrich]

How about saying:

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

We need to generate random numbers, typically in sets of around 5. We want to read numbers form a list for computational reasons. The following is our method:
* We have a series of 50,000 true random numbers from random.org
* Each time the game engine needs a new set of random numbers, it selects a random spot in the series to read from using a pseudo-random computer function (this is to prevent a particular type of cheating).
* The series of 50,000 true random numbers from random.org is replaced every hour.

I am worried that using the pseudo-random number generator to pick the spot to read from is decreasing the "randomness" of the output, so we are in fact getting pseudo-random numbers as output instead of "true" random numbers. Do you agree with me?

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

And, you don't have to be an expert on random numbers to be able to follow simple logic:

* Let A be a set of integers between 1 and 6 (inclusive)
* Let P be the property that the value of every element (i.e. number) is independent of the value of any other element.
* Let B be a set containing the elements of A but rearranged according to some rule that is independent of any element in A (i.e. a pseudo random number generator).
* If A has property P, then B has property P by the definition of property P.

Think of gradually decreasing the "randomness" of the PRNG, so that it eventually becomes just the list 1,2,3,etc. so that B equals A. At what point does this go from being a list of PRNs to TRN? And you still have not answered my question.

[Night Strike]

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?

I believe that's correct. Your use of the List Randomizer threw me off since we're generating a new list, not randomizing an existing one, but I think you stated the point.

[carlpgoodrich]

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! 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).

[Metsfanmax]

At any rate, I ask you - even if it is pseudo-random, what's the problem? As long as it's close enough to true random that no one could feasibly hack the system, then it's completely irrelevant whether it's "truly" random.

Well if it's not "truly" random then why go to all the hassle and why not just run a PRNG locally? There has to be some open-source one that is considered "good enough" by the community.

I believe it is truly random; I'm just saying that there's no real use in even arguing that it's not, because the only people we need to deal with are the ones who actually think the dice are rigged in some way.

As for your list randomizer question: using a PRN to pick where to start on the list does not really change the nature of the problem. Doing so is equivalent to simply using the List Randomizer at a different time of the day, where you would get different results depending on which you called the program. As long as where you start on the list is consistent, then the result is still truly random, because it's completely arbitrary to say "pick the first number on the list, and discard the rest." The author could have also said "pick the 17th number on the list, and discard the rest." If the generated distribution is random, it doesn't matter where one starts on the list.

[wolfpack0530]

I believe i have noticed a negative difference in the way the dice are behaving now vs 3 months ago. I am noticing that the dice now are alot more streaky, and quite lopsided with small samples (ie a 1v1 game, or any game for that matter).

I noticed streaks before of course, but now they seem to be super exaggerated and much longer than I remember. I can now, almost predict before i start my turn, what my dice will be. It seems that if you start with poor dice in a game, you tend to have poor dice for the remainder of the game with a few even or small + turns sprinkled in. Consequently, your opponenet will be experiencing + dice throughout the game.

I am getting ridiculous bad dice in some games and super-inhuman good dice in others *of course the bad dice games outnumber good dice games. Lately, i have had some amazing dice in some das schloss games. winning 40-5 vs neutrals over 15 regions. I have never seen that much of a disparity before, but it seems more common now. Just set a personal record with losing the first 9 rolls 0-2 vs neutral on Poland map in round 2. ended up going 2-24 that turn.

In the six man madness tourney: singles 6 player esc (and previously mapblasters 8 player esc) I witnessed and participated in many kill runs. Rarely would bad dice terribly effect these wins. In map blasters i think it happened to me like 2 or 3 times with over 30 successful runs. Same rate was happening with 6 player madness until recently. It now seems that almost every player is gettign stopped during the run with way worse than average dice. Kill runs are not even happeneing anymore. It is hte 4th player cleaningup the last guy after 3 unsuccessful kill runs. no offensive dice advantage whatsoever, infact quite the opposite.

I have 60-70 active games, and i normally would see 25v9 turn into 3 v 6 only a couple times during the entire course of those games. now i am not only seeing it, but seeing in the game chat that it is happening a couple times a day, not a couple times every 3 months.

If you took the time to read these ramblings, thank you. No i have no proof, screenshots, nor do i even want to take the time to look anything up. I just want to let those in charge, and in the community know that I personally , NOW think the dice effing suck compared to how they were before they were switched.

I dont use clicky maps, so i see the dice every turn. I have played 3800+ games and have logged into CC everyday for the past 20 months. Yes, everyday. I am saying I have noticed a difference, and i dont think they are random anymore. Are they still fair? maybe, but i am leaning towards yes in thelong run, but very unfair, or very overly fair in the short term.

It is getting much less fun knowing that I am going to have 1 or two great turns and 8 or 12 turns in a row where i lose 8-1, or my opponenet has beaten me 6-0 for the 5th round in a row, or that i know for a fact that my opponent has a 3 card rainbow in flat rate because of the 8 previous sets turned in that game (100%), all of them were 3 card rainbows!!!!

If this continues, I will not be renewing my premium for a 3rd year.

thanks for your time and consideration,
wolfpack0530

[Metsfanmax]

I believe i have noticed a negative difference in the way the dice are behaving now vs 3 months ago. I am noticing that the dice now are alot more streaky, and quite lopsided with small samples (ie a 1v1 game, or any game for that matter).

I noticed streaks before of course, but now they seem to be super exaggerated and much longer than I remember. I can now, almost predict before i start my turn, what my dice will be. It seems that if you start with poor dice in a game, you tend to have poor dice for the remainder of the game with a few even or small + turns sprinkled in. Consequently, your opponenet will be experiencing + dice throughout the game.

I am getting ridiculous bad dice in some games and super-inhuman good dice in others *of course the bad dice games outnumber good dice games. Lately, i have had some amazing dice in some das schloss games. winning 40-5 vs neutrals over 15 regions. I have never seen that much of a disparity before, but it seems more common now. Just set a personal record with losing the first 9 rolls 0-2 vs neutral on Poland map in round 2. ended up going 2-24 that turn.

In the six man madness tourney: singles 6 player esc (and previously mapblasters 8 player esc) I witnessed and participated in many kill runs. Rarely would bad dice terribly effect these wins. In map blasters i think it happened to me like 2 or 3 times with over 30 successful runs. Same rate was happening with 6 player madness until recently. It now seems that almost every player is gettign stopped during the run with way worse than average dice. Kill runs are not even happeneing anymore. It is hte 4th player cleaningup the last guy after 3 unsuccessful kill runs. no offensive dice advantage whatsoever, infact quite the opposite.

I have 60-70 active games, and i normally would see 25v9 turn into 3 v 6 only a couple times during the entire course of those games. now i am not only seeing it, but seeing in the game chat that it is happening a couple times a day, not a couple times every 3 months.

If you took the time to read these ramblings, thank you. No i have no proof, screenshots, nor do i even want to take the time to look anything up. I just want to let those in charge, and in the community know that I personally , NOW think the dice effing suck compared to how they were before they were switched.

I dont use clicky maps, so i see the dice every turn. I have played 3800+ games and have logged into CC everyday for the past 20 months. Yes, everyday. I am saying I have noticed a difference, and i dont think they are random anymore. Are they still fair? maybe, but i am leaning towards yes in thelong run, but very unfair, or very overly fair in the short term.

It is getting much less fun knowing that I am going to have 1 or two great turns and 8 or 12 turns in a row where i lose 8-1, or my opponenet has beaten me 6-0 for the 5th round in a row, or that i know for a fact that my opponent has a 3 card rainbow in flat rate because of the 8 previous sets turned in that game (100%), all of them were 3 card rainbows!!!!

If this continues, I will not be renewing my premium for a 3rd year.

thanks for your time and consideration,
wolfpack0530

Would you like the dice to be fixed so you get positive streaks only?

[wolfpack0530]

n,
wolfpack0530

Would you like the dice to be fixed so you get positive streaks only?[/quote]


What good would that do? a positive streak for someone is a negative for the opponent. I am just pointing out an observation that I have made in only MY games, because i am not charting other players' games.

In a nutshell, I am saying that before the dice change, i would see crazy streaks that would amount to something like 3000:1 odds to pull off. But i would see those happen quite infrequently, like it was actually happening once every 3000 or so events. It seems like I or my opponents are pulling off 10,000:1 odds or 2000:1 odds moves almost daily.

It is frustrating, and i dont like it. Lets say you attack with an 8v2. odds calculator says your should win that 97% of the time. So to lose that attack is an rare event (only 3 times per 100 attempts roughly). So an even rarer event by a huge factor is losing 8v2 attacks in 4, 5, or 6 consecutive games. This event should only be witnessed bimonthly due to the fact that it just should not happen very often. But to see something this rare happening daily, makes me think something is out of balance with the dice.

Maybe i am wrong, and my brain only remembers theses events and selectively ignores everything else. So be it, it is just my observation, lack can do with it what he wishes. i think he has an awesome thing going here, but the RANDOMNESS needs to be paramount. that is one thing that cannot come into question. and for me, it is!!

Thanks for not being a smartass Metsfanmax.

[MNDuke]

I hear and whole heartedly agree with Mr. Wolfenstein and have shared the exact same sentiments elsewhere. Perhaps this is the proper "forum" (pun totally intended) to air my fucking grievances.

How about the powers that be take my $25 and invest it in a worthwhile "random cube generator." The one they got is BS and I'm getting pretty tired of having to put up with its so called randomness. Seeing a guy lose 2 guys (I kid you not) in an entire game doesn't cry random to me, while I can't make the elimination on a 5v1 of his teammate to leverage the unbalance of the "cubes." Or starting off my first 4 turns of the day and going 3-19. Thank God I'm not a freemium or that would have been a waste of a day.

Is it really so much to ask for an investment be made into a dice generator that everyone can stand behind, or do I have to watch my "donation" go to making more cc shirts and merchandise. If this is the case, I might as well invest that $25 into jacking off. It's much worthwhile and gratifying than getting fucked in the ass repeatedly by cc. At the very least they could use my cash and stock up on some lube to ease the pain of this nasty penetration.

And I fucking dare you to get smart lipped with me. Just try it.

[carlpgoodrich]

Can I suggest both of you download Dice Analyzer and Dice Streaks? If you are right, then this is something that needs to be taken very seriously, but no one can believe you unless you have numbers to back it up.

[MNDuke]

Already have dice streaks and it sucks looking at. My dice are literally so bad and improbable, that it crashes the add-on.

[wolfpack0530]

Can I suggest both of you download Dice Analyzer and Dice Streaks? If you are right, then this is something that needs to be taken very seriously, but no one can believe you unless you have numbers to back it up.

Game 7430561

Dice analyze this goddamn abortion of a game. I cashed for 4, dropped like 11, and proceeded to kill almost 70 troups. i wish i had taken a screen shot. I started with 31 armies and dropped 11 with the 4 cash plus my bonus. I then killed:

-13 yellows over 4 regions
-8 blues in 1 region
-8 pink in 2 regions
-3 neutrals 1 region
-17 teals in 6 regions
-13 greens in 2 regions (i did this with a 6 stack 3 leftover)

I have 29 armies leftover and a middle set for 6. so i had 48 troups all day, and only lost 19. and the last 5 i lost were because i was desperately tryng to get an elimination and attacking 1v1, 2v1. So before those rolls, i was ahead 62 to 14 or something very close to that


This just happened today. This is what i mentioned in my earlier posts. I will get one of these games a day, and the rest will all be POOP!! SHIT!! CRAP!! whatever you want to call it (i must add however, that the team games I am involved in (about half of my games ) seem to be more even, unpredictable, and random)

But when you analyse my dice, I bet they turn out to be pretty even. Why, because i lose 7-1 in 10 straight games, and CC "makes it up to me" with a nice 70-10 win down the road. Or in a game when i am down 200 troups to 10, i auto attack that 200 with my 10 stack and knock like 65 off, which means nothing and is a total waste lol.

like i said earier, no proof, just messed up observations. and way too much 20/20 hindsight. still, something is not right!!!

[wolfpack0530]

Just to show that this has been an ongoing problem for me (and not just me from what i gather) this is something i dug up in a game chat 10 days ago.

Game 7344695

2010-08-05 23:25:26 - wolfpack0530 [team]: same here. matching my 6s
2010-08-07 01:18:10 - wolfpack0530: nice job guys, but from our end, this dice bullshit is getting really old!! Pander and I were beating the best dubs teams on the site in the foxy & Bruce tourney,
2010-08-07 01:19:04 - wolfpack0530: then when lack changed the random dice algorithm, I have been seeing some really wierd shit. dice are staying hot or cold throughout an entire game
2010-08-07 01:19:35 - wolfpack0530: and not just turn to turn like before.
2010-08-07 01:20:14 - wolfpack0530: i cant count how many games lately pander and i have had game chats that are nothing but each other saying: 0-4
2010-08-07 01:20:52 - wolfpack0530: 0-6, 1-4, 0-4 0-5 all against a single
2010-08-07 01:22:22 - wolfpack0530: then i get my das scholss game up next and win 65 - 11 or something ungodly like that.
2010-08-07 01:23:09 - wolfpack0530 [team]: before i even took my turn i knew there was no way in hell i would win that 5v2. of course i did not
2010-08-07 08:28:11 - safariguy5: oh well, that's the breaks i guess
2010-08-07 12:00:52 - Pander88uk: the dice certainly seem stranger lately... i won 18-0 in a pelo game yesterday! I'm losing count of the amount of times 1v1 games end with "sorry about my dice" from either side haha
2010-08-07 12:01:29 - Pander88uk: but gg guys!
2010-08-08 15:04:24 - wolfpack0530: pander for wolf
2010-08-10 00:45:29 - wolfpack0530: back unfortunateluy

[carlpgoodrich]

wolfpack, what you are describing is a property of random dice... long losing streaks and long winning streaks happen on a regular basis. Unless you show statistics demonstrating that they happen more frequently than they statistically should, no one is going to take you seriously. (The dice streaks ad-on remembers streaks, not just total outcomes, so you're complaint should show up.) It seems to me like you want the outcomes of the game to be more dependent on skill and less dependent on luck (even if the luck is determined "correctly"). I suggest playing games like City Mogul where luck is less of a factor.

[wolfpack0530]

wolfpack, what you are describing is a property of random dice... long losing streaks and long winning streaks happen on a regular basis. Unless you show statistics demonstrating that they happen more frequently than they statistically should, no one is going to take you seriously. (The dice streaks ad-on remembers streaks, not just total outcomes, so you're complaint should show up.) It seems to me like you want the outcomes of the game to be more dependent on skill and less dependent on luck (even if the luck is determined "correctly"). I suggest playing games like City Mogul where luck is less of a factor.

Thanks carlp, I do understand exactly what you are saying, and trust me, i have been telling the exact same thing to other people for the last 18 months. In fact, when all my buddies used to complain about the streaks, I was one of the few that maintained that the dice WERE RANDOM, and these streaks inevitably happen at some point, to someone, and some time.

I cant run a dice analyzer because my comp. is already running super slow thanks to BOB, i even play half my turns without greasemonkey enabled because it is so unbareably slow on my home computer.

I am less interested in the specific outcomes. What i really want to see is the outliers, the improbables, the infintescimally small probablilities, to occur at their natural rate.

If an event (a dice streak) has, lets say, a .005% chance of happening, then i should not be seeing that event in back to back days, or hours , or games. I should see roughly 20,000 probable events happen before i see something like that again. Sure there are times when they will happen every 5000 events or 10,000, but there should also then be times when you dont see a streak in 30,000 or 50,000 events.

That is how it seemed before, now every firecracker that goes off on july 3rd is a grand finally.

Sometimes you go to safeway, and the cashier gives you back the wrong change and gives you too much money back. What if that happened every week to you, or every day, or 3 times in one day. you would think that is pretty freakin wierd. That is what my CC experience is like lately, and honestly, it seems like a joke now.

I dont really care if this gets investigated or changed, or i get taken 'seriously or not' . My purpose is not to threaten or cajoule. I am just taking time to communicate what I have noticed, and if it is deemed unimportant by the powers that be, so-be it. I do not expect them to change the whole site on account of me 'not finding this new system fun anymore'

I just want them to know that one of their loyal 2 year, 100% turn taken premiums, will be quitting the site because they have screwed up dice now imho. I think it is kindof a respectful thing to do, to let CC know the reasons i am leaving, and that i would have stayed had they not messed with something that seemingly worked well.

As far as the City Mogul thing goes?? That is a bit insulting, to suggest to someone who has played almost 4,000 games, basically every map, setting and style combination possible, to pigeon hole myself into such a narrow niche. I would rather slam my dick in a bible that just play one map, even though i love mogul.

[Metsfanmax]

I am less interested in the specific outcomes. What i really want to see is the outliers, the improbables, the infintescimally small probablilities, to occur at their natural rate.

This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the randomness of dice. If you accept the near-perfect randomness of any individual roll, then you can't say that the total result is in some way flawed, no matter what the outcome is. For all intents and purposes, every time you roll, an actual perfect die is being rolled. Therefore, to say that you want the outliers to "occur" at their natural rate is hopelessly meaningless, because you cannot control the outcome of a random process. One possible result of a random process is those streaks you mention. The system isn't flawed just because those happen sometimes. The only way you can say the system is flawed is if you believe that the dice aren't actually random. But it seems like you have mistaken "probability" with "certainty" when you say things like, something with a certain chance should only happen every so often. That's just not how it works. Let's say I flipped a coin 50 times in a row, and I got 45 heads and 5 tails. If I repeated the experiment 5 minutes later, your argument is akin to saying that in the new experiment, it should not be possible that I again get 45 heads. The flaw is that the results of the previous experiment have no bearing on the results of the current experiment.

It wouldn't matter if in every single game, you got sixes every single roll. If the process is random, the results are random, no matter what the results are. It's irrational to be upset simply because they worked for you, or against you.

[Dako]

5v1 doesn't give you a fixed rate of 97% winning. This is a calculation. In a real word you know that each roll is random and is not being affected by previous rolls. So this 97% is made only for humans to understand the odds. It is not the rule for the random cubes to be followed. This is why trying to calculate an odd of failing to kill 5v1 as 1:3000 is an erroneous method. It is not 1:3000, it is random. Means you can kill it or you can loose. But more often you win it. But sometimes you loose. But not in 97% of the time you do win.