Curse

Faith Angelis · Nov 27, 2007, 10:32 AM // 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

so explain the incident where one account has 4 mini gwen? "it just should be if the randomness is calibrated correctly" right?

Imagine a six sided dice.
Paint three sides of the dice white.
Paint two sides purple.
Paint one side green.

Now roll the dice four times. It's highly unlikely that you'll get a sequence of four green results.

Now get a million people to roll the dice four times each. With such a large sample size its reasonable to conclude that (order of results being irrelevant) every combination of results will be represented. Or simply; its highly unlikely someone won't get four green results.

---

I know I've oversimplified by the way, a fourteen sided dice would be more accurate and accounts can have more or less than four 'rolls of the dice' but the model still holds up. Given that the sample size in reality is considerably more than one million, I'd be surprised if it was just one account.

Also, it's worth noting that while a software RNG can only be psuedorandom, the results of psuedorandom generator are indistingushable from true random numbers (within a reasonable degree) unless you know the original state of the algorithm and while this method will create recognisable patterns and does not consititute the irreducable indeterminacy of a true random sequence, the degree to which this happens in a capable software PRNG should not significantly impact the viability of the output in any reasonable timeframe; i.e. the next million years or so. The only viable criticism of PRNGs is that if restarted with the same original state, the same sequence will be generated.

pumpkin pie · Nov 27, 2007, 10:39 AM // 10:39

I like the six sided dice explanation better... lol thanks for explaning, I am lazy to look up words at the moment, so i'll leave the psuedorandom and PRNG for later, looks like a file extention to me... lol, but I understand the explanation.

it means out of the million people rolling the dice, one of them is bound to have the luck of repeatedly rolled and get the dice to land with the green side on top. right?

tmakinen · Nov 27, 2007, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

you used to be able to tell if some bosses carried their greens by visually inspecting them also. Alas that is no longer the case - it was neat being able to do that from a RP perspective. In fact I wish *all* critters did this.

As an example, you can visually inspect skeletons in Fahranur for what they are wielding, and what they may also drop. A specific case is the Dead Sword that is always rare and thus exempt from loot scaling. If you see a skeleton with a Dead Sword, killing that skeleton will usually produce a Dead Sword. Furthermore, monsters are wielding actual weapons and not just skins with generic stats, as demonstrated by the occasional vampiric damage (monsters don't get the -1 degen, though).

lyra_song · Nov 27, 2007, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I would think that such an occurance would be sufficently enough to say there's something wrong with the random generator. There's such a thing as being too improbable. Logically speaking, yes there is a minute chance of something like that happening once, just like there's a chance that a bunch of chimps with computers will type out one of shakespear's plays, but I think if something like that happened, you'd really have to check it out.

At some point the odds of the random generator being broken are more likely than it to keep spitting out the same number. At that point you double check it.

BTW, since we are dealing with computers, it's only a psuedo-random number.

PS. The above quote is why I hate trying to talk to people on this subject, there are some that will blindly accept that what is happening is random more likely than the code being broken.

Until you can show me REPEATABLE, & TESTABLE proof to the contrary, i dont see the point in discussing it as if it was broken.

I'm not blindly accepting it as random, especially when its a computer based system. I'm also not blindly accepting that it is broken based on someone's personal supposition.

Whats the chance of getting a critical hit? (Non-Asssassins) You can swing 10,000 and find out how the actual % ends up being.

Make a chart, open up 10,000 gifts and lets talk statistics.

Quote:

PPS. Lyra if you were playing dice and betting 1 dollar per toss, how many snake eyes in a row would it take you to wonder if you were playing with loaded dice?

I dont bet on games of chance. I only bet on things with skill, or at least some semblance of skill.

Dice tossing, loaded or not, is not skill based.

Crom The Pale · Nov 27, 2007, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Until you can show me REPEATABLE, & TESTABLE proof to the contrary, i dont see the point in discussing it as if it was broken.

I'm not blindly accepting it as random, especially when its a computer based system. I'm also not blindly accepting that it is broken based on someone's personal supposition.

Whats the chance of getting a critical hit? (Non-Asssassins) You can swing 10,000 and find out how the actual % ends up being.

Make a chart, open up 10,000 gifts and lets talk statistics.

I dont bet on games of chance. I only bet on things with skill, or at least some semblance of skill.

Dice tossing, loaded or not, is not skill based.

Not that I dissagree with you on your other points, but, Dice tossing is a skill. Depending on the position of the dice in your hand you can predict the number of rolls upon hitting the table therby giving you a forknowlage of the outcome. This requires an incredible amount of skill to control the number of rolls the dice will make, but it is doable.

As far as the random pet problem, its working as intended.

My guess on the working of the system is more likely a pass fail roll vs each pet starting with the most comom ones.

Example: When you click on your present there is a 70/30 chance it will be a whiptail. If you pass that you get a 65/35 chance on a fungal wallow. This continues untill you reach the rarest of pets at which time you either get the pet or are sent back to the start once more. Just a guess but it does make sense.

Faith Angelis · Nov 27, 2007, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

My guess on the working of the system is more likely a pass fail roll vs each pet starting with the most comom ones.

Example: When you click on your present there is a 70/30 chance it will be a whiptail. If you pass that you get a 65/35 chance on a fungal wallow. This continues untill you reach the rarest of pets at which time you either get the pet or are sent back to the start once more. Just a guess but it does make sense.

Dunno, sound's a little over complex to me. The simplest way to determine would be for a software random number generator to generate a two digit number and compare the result to a table where, for example:

00 - 09 Aataxe
10 - 19 Imp
20 - 29 Harpy
30 - 39 Heket
40 - 49 Jugger
50 - 59 Thorn Wolf
60 - 69 Mandragor
70 - 79 Wind Rider
80 - 84 Elf
85 - 89 Koss
90 - 94 Palawa Joko
95 - 96 Lich
97 - 98 Djinn
99 Gwen

I'd imagine the odds aren't exactly as produced above, generating a 3 digit number is probably more accurate given the amount of Gwens you see compared to Wind Riders. I'm also assuming that all minipets of a given rarity have an equal chance to appear while this may not be the case.

Regardless, the model holds up

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I like the six sided dice explanation better... it means out of the million people rolling the dice, one of them is bound to have the luck of repeatedly rolled and get the dice to land with the green side on top. right?

Right