| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
   |
Posted - 2007.08.30 03:39:00 -
[1]
I am writing this because I have enough data to conclude that chance based events (like mission types and invention) are considerably bugged.
I have made tens of thousands of missions and about a thousand or two invention jobs at this point, between accounts. The data I gathered and the conclusions follow bellow:
1) In a large number of events (a few hundred or more) average tends to the base chance as expected. Invention jobs have a consistent amount of around 50% for items (with skills alone at 5/4/4) and 25% for ships. Missions have the correct percentages of types for the correct kind of agents.
2) Locally for a set of samples the results are highly distorted. The average success ratio of the large samples above should tend to individual chance of success in a single attempt.
That can be easilly proven mathematically, but it is quite intuitive. If you have 50% of chance of succeeding in something, if you try enough times you will succeed in almost exactly half of them. In a similar way if for a big enough sample you succeded half of the time the base chance for a single attempt is 50%.
With that in mind the chances for having the same result repeated n times in a row is:
p^n
Where p is the probablity of that event happening. That comes of the binomial distribution that rules sets of discreet independent events like these.
So for a binary example like ours (success/failure) the chance of failure of 8 attempts in a row, supposing success ratio is 50% is (0.5)^8 = 0.39%, which albeit possible is very unlikely. The chances 16 attempts failing is: 0.0015%
The chances of a marketing agent (95% courier / 5% kill) to offer you 10 kill missions in a row is in the order of 10^-13.
I experienced all of these events more than once each.
Conclusions:
We can conclude with a reasonable amount of certainty that the random number generation algorithm is not random. By the effect of a bug or even possibily by design (although I really don't like the idea and cannot say what porpuse it would serve to).
I prefer to consider it as a bug. As in always using the same random seed or a non random sequence that although produces a distribution that averages to the base chances is not random at all.
That is troublesome to missions as you have often to wait hours to refuse combat or courier missions in sequence depending on your taste or capabilities. This should happen very occasionally if you chose the correct kind of agents, but it does not.
It is even more troublesome for inventor. As it adds huge local costs to the inventors. Given in average they will have the correct success percentage, but locally they may have to deal with abnormally huge failure streaks that may be economically crippling.
And last but not least, chance based modules like ECM. I am not sure if they use the same flawed algorithms to calculate success, but if they do it is worse than everything else. As these circumstances are highly local and the most affected by flawed random sequences. If you chances are random you will have reasonable reliable results inside a certain range, if they are not, nothing prevents you from having a rook unable to ECM anything for a minute. Which should be very very very unlikely. As I have no data about ECM I don't have a clue if they indeed use the same method to calculate the chance, so it may be of no consequence here.
The random events in this game are not random, that is a mathematical fact. Basically that is it. And it must be looked into and fixed.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 04:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 30/08/2007 04:56:31
There are lies, damn lies, and probability and statistics.
 Quote:
The random events in this game are not random, that is a mathematical fact. Basically that is it. And it must be looked into and fixed.
Computer random-number algorithms are never random. That's a fact. They're built up from a semi-random seed (arguably semi-random which delves into a discussion on physics,, not relevant here).
Improve Market Competition!
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 05:04:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 30/08/2007 05:10:00
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 30/08/2007 04:56:31
There are lies, damn lies, and probability and statistics.
Quote:
The random events in this game are not random, that is a mathematical fact. Basically that is it. And it must be looked into and fixed.
Computer random-number algorithms are never random. That's a fact. They're built up from a semi-random seed (arguably semi-random which delves into a discussion on physics,, not relevant here).
Nothing is perfectly random. But computer generated algorithms are reasonably random, in the sense that what I reported here does not happen if you correctly implement them. :)
And the Mark Twain Quote is nice and all, but it means statistics can be used to justify wrog assumptions if distorted. Here that is not the case.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
linkeleo
Mercenaries of Andosia
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 10:43:00 -
[4]
i agree - i have had many times when results are not random but extreme success or failure...
its quite probable that while were told these things are random, the success rates are actually adaptive to the market stats...
ccp really should fix this... its not statistically realistic we would get these results if it were a random process...
Link
----------------------------------------------
you can lead a wh*re to culture but you cant make her think.....
|
Sphynx Stormlord
Gallente
Anqara Tech
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 13:03:00 -
[5]
If you list all the improbable things that have happened to you, it is unreasonable to use that as an example of the random number generator being broken unless you list all of the improbable things that have not happened to you, too.
|
Chloey Rans
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 13:57:00 -
[6]
/signed
as i posted already on another thread:
I think that CCP has used the lousiest random generator ever! i don't believe that this thing gives a even distribution of random numbers cause everything in touch with randomness (invention, exploration, which mission you get...) gives sometimes total strange results. 20 failed invention jobs in a row, 35 scans for a 0.09 signature, always the same two missions from one agent.... similar results the other way round, only that they are not whined about. I seriously belive that the random generator CCP uses is total crap!
in other words: i believe the PDF the random generator produces is not even
|
Jonas Vinthyn
Cassandra's Light
Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:07:00 -
[7]
/signed
Getting worlds collide 6 times in a row from the same agent and 5 kill missions in a row from my marketing agent is very unlikely to be "random".
Join BOINC team "EVE-Online" |
Tunak
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 15:02:00 -
[8]
Assuming a perfect random number generator would the results your are seeing be possible or impossible?
For example: If the random number generator were perfectly random would it be possible or impossible to receive x kill missions in a row from a 95% courier 5% kill agent?
|
pandymen
Caldari
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:00:00 -
[9]
Invention is supposed to be chance based and random, so I see your issue there. However, your findings in no way show that the missions you receive are bugged. They are not necessarily supposed to be random, and furthermore, those percentages that you see given (i.e. 50/50 combat and courier for administration) were found by a player survey done a while back. So even if those numbers don't hold, it isn't a bug either. It's just the way missions are, and I kinda prefer it to a perfectly random system tbh.
--------------------------------------------->
Red Dwarf is currently recruiting missioners, miners, and 0.0 ratters. Please contact me in-game for details or join channel Red Dwarf Recruitment. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:12:00 -
[10]
Interesting point, pandymen. But lets think a little. The average is correct. So whatever sequence is used to determine missions it tends to the averages surveyed. What purpose would it serve to intentionally make them not random? If I was programing the mission offering algorithm I would try to make it random. Even because any other criteria would be subject to complainments by the players.
If you add that the same phenomen is happening to invention, which is stated to be random, in the exact same way, I must deduce that although intended to be random, mission selection is broken as well.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
|
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:23:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tunak
Assuming a perfect random number generator would the results your are seeing be possible or impossible?
For example: If the random number generator were perfectly random would it be possible or impossible to receive x kill missions in a row from a 95% courier 5% kill agent?
Well, it is the same of wining the lottery (the real one) several times in a row. The chances are so small that you can suppose that the person cheated with certainty.
If the random generator was reasonable, not even perfect, the chances of having the same event repeated more than 4 or 5 times in a row, for a probability of 50% or less is very slim. And it gets so small that you can suppose it won't happen if you go far enough (20 repetitions for example).
What I experienced are several occurrences of these unlikely phenomens. Which definitely shouldn't happen.
It is like throwing dice. Get 4 dice (normal 6 sided ones). Throw them 100 times and check how many times, if any, ALL the 4 will have results lower than 4 (3 or less). You will get around 6. Then try again with 8. You won't get a single one, most likely. I can bet real money with you on this game if you don't believe me. ;)
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Tunak
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Tunak
Assuming a perfect random number generator would the results your are seeing be possible or impossible?
For example: If the random number generator were perfectly random would it be possible or impossible to receive x kill missions in a row from a 95% courier 5% kill agent?
Well, it is the same of wining the lottery (the real one) several times in a row. The chances are so small that you can suppose that the person cheated with certainty.
If the random generator was reasonable, not even perfect, the chances of having the same event repeated more than 4 or 5 times in a row, for a probability of 50% or less is very slim. And it gets so small that you can suppose it won't happen if you go far enough (20 repetitions for example).
What I experienced are several occurrences of these unlikely phenomens. Which definitely shouldn't happen.
It is like throwing dice. Get 4 dice (normal 6 sided ones). Throw them 100 times and check how many times, if any, ALL the 4 will have results lower than 4 (3 or less). You will get around 6. Then try again with 8. You won't get a single one, most likely. I can bet real money with you on this game if you don't believe me. ;)
That's a nice speech but you didn't answer the question.
Is it possible or impossible to receive x kill missions in a row from a 95% courier 5% kill agent?
|
Lab Technician071548
Astro-Support Services
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:35:00 -
[13]
There's a meta issue here. There are various definitions of "random", depending on your philosophy (and even which branch of philosophy you draw your ideals from).
One definition of random is merely that whatever comes next is not predictable. What predictable means, of course, is another problem altogether, but the point is that if the definition of random used is not known, then it's hard to decipher what's wrong with it. Computer random numbers typically rely on unpredictability far more than they rely on statistically sound distribution. Some functions (from which the random numbers are generated) tend to be more symmetrically distributed and centrally tended than others.
Anecdotally, from my own experience, I think this is something that would not suffer being examined by CCP's brand new economist. If he knows )(*^-all about Monte Carlo, then he should know enough to determine if there is an actual problem and a good way to deal with it.
----
signature replaced (max size 24000 bytes) - should be ok now. OK? |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:12:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tunak
That's a nice speech but you didn't answer the question.
Is it possible or impossible to receive x kill missions in a row from a 95% courier 5% kill agent?
Everything is possible. If the random functions are at least reasonable the chances of these event you described happening are of 0.00003125%. Which are considerably lower than the chances of you getting shot the next time you walk to the street. Or about the same of a person being stroke by a lightning. For it to happen several times to the same person well, how many cases you know of a person striken by multiple lightnings...
Quote:
There's a meta issue here. There are various definitions of "random", depending on your philosophy (and even which branch of philosophy you draw your ideals from).
One definition of random is merely that whatever comes next is not predictable. What predictable means, of course, is another problem altogether, but the point is that if the definition of random used is not known, then it's hard to decipher what's wrong with it. Computer random numbers typically rely on unpredictability far more than they rely on statistically sound distribution. Some functions (from which the random numbers are generated) tend to be more symmetrically distributed and centrally tended than others.
Anecdotally, from my own experience, I think this is something that would not suffer being examined by CCP's brand new economist. If he knows )(*^-all about Monte Carlo, then he should know enough to determine if there is an actual problem and a good way to deal with it.
There is a clear mathematical definition of random. Random is "Without any pattern or preference". A Random event guarantees a serie of important mathematical properties. Many related with fairness in a game.
In this case there are huge problems as I stated in the opening post. And absolutelly no advantage is replacing a random sequence for an arbitrary one:
- patterned sequences can be broken and exploited.
- they can and do imply in big local disruptions.
- there is nothing that guarantee that the average will always converge to the proper value if the random sequence is broken. There may be highly abnormal cases which would justify some of the complainments about invention in this forum.
Simply put, there is no motive at all to make anything chance based NOT random. I highly doubt it is intentional. It is clearly a bug, and should be fixed. It has been bringing a fair amount of frustration to the community for a long time. And if it extends to modules it can make things that should have a reasonable reliability in a fair amount of attempts completely unreliable.
Bottom line, 10 repetitions of the same result for a 50% chance event should be an extremelly rare event. It is better for everybody this way and it is automatically guaranteed by implementing correctly the random generator. Five repetitions for a 5% chance event should be even more rare...
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:44:00 -
[15]
I would like to premise this discussion with the fact that I agree with your statistics completely.
That said, your premise for mission distribution is based on data that has never been confirmed by CCP since before RMR. All these Administration: 50/50 missions, etc you see were drawn up based on interpretations of mission distribution years ago. There has never been a database export, to my knowledge, that has a factor for mission types.
If I'm incorrect, let me know, because I've looked and looked.
_______________
Pwett
CEO and Founder
[QTC]QUANT Corp.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Pwett
I would like to premise this discussion with the fact that I agree with your statistics completely.
That said, your premise for mission distribution is based on data that has never been confirmed by CCP since before RMR. All these Administration: 50/50 missions, etc you see were drawn up based on interpretations of mission distribution years ago. There has never been a database export, to my knowledge, that has a factor for mission types.
If I'm incorrect, let me know, because I've looked and looked.
There is no database export abot these chances as far as I know. But I have collected enough data from my own missions along this last year to tell you that the averages match. For random events the percentual average of a huge sample can be considered as the individual base chance.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
pandymen
Caldari
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:58:00 -
[17]
Edited by: pandymen on 30/08/2007 21:00:55
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
What purpose would it serve to intentionally make them not random? If I was programing the mission offering algorithm I would try to make it random. Even because any other criteria would be subject to complainments by the players.
I don't know if you tested this, but first off, once you get very high standing with an agent, you seem to get offered certain missions more than others. With my main agent, where I have very high standings, I get offered a certain grouping of missions very often. And with another agent for the same corp 4 jumps away, I get offered less profitable missions that I hadn't gotten at the "main" agent for quite some time.
It also seems as though when you decline a mission, you tend to get the "other" kind of mission. For instance, courier missions often come in streaks for surveillance agents. When I decline one, I never seem to get another courier mission. Yet, when I complete one, I tend to get another, if not 3 more courier missions.
That is why I do not think it is random. I believe the game may take into account your agent standing before giving you a mission and gives you more profitable ones. I also hold to the superstition that declining a courier mission with a 95% combat agent makes it less likely to receive further courier missions. Hence, I don't think it's totally random.
Edit: However, I definitely agree with you regarding invention randomness. I have finally begun messing around on the test server. While I understand that improbable events do happen (and have to happen), it does not mean they HAVE to happen with frighteningly high frequency.
--------------------------------------------->
Red Dwarf is currently recruiting missioners, miners, and 0.0 ratters. Please contact me in-game for details or join channel Red Dwarf Recruitment. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:19:00 -
[18]
I don't know about individual missions and unfortunately I didn't store the data in a way that enables me to analyze this aspect. But the averages of courier/exploration/trade/kill do not change with standings or level. That much I am sure about. If the averages don't chance it is reasonable to conclude that they are supposed to be random at least regarding mission type (again I am not discussion specific missions inside a certain type), and the measured streaks of a ceertain type are anomalous.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Kittamaru
Gallente
TARDZ
Gods of Night and Day
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 23:55:00 -
[19]
It is possible to make a truely "random" number using the CPU clock's milisecond timer and an algorythm to randomly generate a percentage based on that.
At least, in C and C++ you can... so I assume more advanced programming languages would let you
|
Ittey
Rayden Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 06:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
For it to happen several times to the same person well, how many cases you know of a person striken by multiple lightnings...
This man was hit 7 times.
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Bottom line, 10 repetitions of the same result for a 50% chance event should be an extremelly rare event. It is better for everybody this way and it is automatically guaranteed by implementing correctly the random generator. Five repetitions for a 5% chance event should be even more rare...
But the probabilaty still isn't zero, meaning given enough time it will happen. If anything you are proving that Eve IS using a good random number generator.
----------------------------------------------
My invention guide: here |
|
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 06:20:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 31/08/2007 06:24:00
Originally by: Ittey
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
For it to happen several times to the same person well, how many cases you know of a person striken by multiple lightnings...
This man was hit 7 times.
Lol. Yes it happens. But I asked if you knew someone, not if you can find an extremelly rare case in the internet which encopasses the whole world population (about 6 Billion people)
Quote:
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Bottom line, 10 repetitions of the same result for a 50% chance event should be an extremelly rare event. It is better for everybody this way and it is automatically guaranteed by implementing correctly the random generator. Five repetitions for a 5% chance event should be even more rare...
But the probabilaty still isn't zero, meaning given enough time it will happen. If anything you are proving that Eve IS using a good random number generator.
No, my friend, I am not. And if you can't understand after the explanations given I am sorry for you.
There is a non zero chance that, at this exact moment all the elementary particles that compose your body will fade from existence. Should we expect this to happen? Can you find on the internet someone that has suffered total existence failure? No, you can't. Because the chances are ridiculously low. The fact that something may happen does not mean at all that we should expect it to happen.
Nobody can EVER be certain of anything., but you can look at what I said this way: By the examples alone I presented here, in my assumption that eve is not using a reasonable random number generator, I have a 99.9875% chance of being right. I can be wrong, but do you want to bet? 
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 06:31:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 31/08/2007 06:33:47
Originally by: Kittamaru
It is possible to make a truely "random" number using the CPU clock's milisecond timer and an algorythm to randomly generate a percentage based on that.
At least, in C and C++ you can... so I assume more advanced programming languages would let you
It is possible to make a reasonably good approach to a true random sequence by using the CPU clock and one of several algorithms. And that is what CCP must be using, albeit with some critical bug in the implementation. Most programming languages have those algorithms built in. It may be a failure of stackless python, or even of Blue, I can't tell.
As of today, a true random sequence can only be generated through analogic physical processes, like breaking the reverse tension of an avalanche effect diode. Some CPUs do have Random Generation subsystens that make use of these random properties of semiconductors to generate sequences much more random than a seeded algorithm. But that is not available in all computers, and I really can't say if Eve servers do have this feature.
Anyway, a good variable seed random algorithm is the least we should expect in a universe of players this big. To avoid the distortions I pointed.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Tunak
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 11:10:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Everything is possible. If the random functions are at least reasonable the chances of these event you described happening are of 0.00003125%. Which are considerably lower than the chances of you getting shot the next time you walk to the street. Or about the same of a person being stroke by a lightning. For it to happen several times to the same person well, how many cases you know of a person striken by multiple lightnings...
Straw Man. It's impossible for there to be a fixed chance of being shot or by being hit of lightning. Neither of these are random events. If I'm at home sitting in my chair reading I'm not going to be hit by lightning. If I'm out of the golf course holding a club while lightning is happening I would expect to be hit.
Quote:
There is a clear mathematical definition of random. Random is "Without any pattern or preference".
I'm confused. You give this definition but you started this thread because your observations didn't fit the pattern you expected. Which is it? Pattern or no pattern?
Quote:
Simply put, there is no motive at all to make anything chance based NOT random. I highly doubt it is intentional. It is clearly a bug, and should be fixed. It has been bringing a fair amount of frustration to the community for a long time. And if it extends to modules it can make things that should have a reasonable reliability in a fair amount of attempts completely unreliable.
Random is often frustrating because it doesn't fit a pattern.
Quote:
Bottom line, 10 repetitions of the same result for a 50% chance event should be an extremelly rare event. It is better for everybody this way and it is automatically guaranteed by implementing correctly the random generator. Five repetitions for a 5% chance event should be even more rare...
I agree. It should be a rare event. How do we know it's not a rare event? The rng doesn't operate on a per character event. It's quite literally impossible to evaluate the mission selection system, as an end user. The 50/50 example you give is across all missions given. If you're getting 5 kill in a row and some else gets 100 courier with no kill we may still be at 50/50.
How many missions are run in a day? I run out of a station that has 6 distro agents. If you use your cancel on long range missions or to help group the destination along one path of travel the volume of missions you can do is staggering. Given the volume of missions given by the server as a whole is getting 5 kill in a row a rare event?
There is absolutely nothing in mathematics that states _your_ distribution will approach the average. This is known as the gambler's fallacy.
I'd also like to point out that you admit everything you describe is possible.
Since people here are willing to discuss things intelligently I'd like to bring up a related topic. Why would they even be using a rng? A rng is a waste of CPU cycles. There are less intensive ways to go about it.
Say all your game mechanics operate on a 1-100 roll. You create a large array, fill it with an equal distribution of each value 1-100 and then shuffle it. Each time the server starts up fold the array some amount of times to redistribute the order of the numbers.
When an event happens simply grab the next number and increment the index. It's less CPU cycles than calculating the next number and it guarantees a given distribution of results. How ever it is not random.
This raises the question. Do you really want random or just a predictable distribution?
|
Tunak
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 11:14:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Tunak on 31/08/2007 11:19:31
Originally by: pandymen
It also seems as though when you decline a mission, you tend to get the "other" kind of mission.
This was in the patch notes a while back. When you decline a mission your next mission is not supposed to be the same mission you declined. However I'm not sure what their definition of 'same' is. I've received the same named mission but against a different type of NPC after canceling. Technically it is a different mission or is the mechanic broken?
EDIT: Fixed bad quote formatting.
|
Chloey Rans
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 11:46:00 -
[25]
Straw Man. It's impossible for there to be a fixed chance of being shot or by being hit of lightning. Neither of these are random events. If I'm at home sitting in my chair reading I'm not going to be hit by lightning. If I'm out of the golf course holding a club while lightning is happening I would expect to be hit.
Quote:
There is a clear mathematical definition of random. Random is "Without any pattern or preference".
I'm confused. You give this definition but you started this thread because your observations didn't fit the pattern you expected. Which is it? Pattern or no pattern?
Quote:
Simply put, there is no motive at all to make anything chance based NOT random. I highly doubt it is intentional. It is clearly a bug, and should be fixed. It has been bringing a fair amount of frustration to the community for a long time. And if it extends to modules it can make things that should have a reasonable reliability in a fair amount of attempts completely unreliable.
Random is often frustrating because it doesn't fit a pattern.
Quote:
Bottom line, 10 repetitions of the same result for a 50% chance event should be an extremelly rare event. It is better for everybody this way and it is automatically guaranteed by implementing correctly the random generator. Five repetitions for a 5% chance event should be even more rare...
I agree. It should be a rare event. How do we know it's not a rare event? The rng doesn't operate on a per character event. It's quite literally impossible to evaluate the mission selection system, as an end user. The 50/50 example you give is across all missions given. If you're getting 5 kill in a row and some else gets 100 courier with no kill we may still be at 50/50.
How many missions are run in a day? I run out of a station that has 6 distro agents. If you use your cancel on long range missions or to help group the destination along one path of travel the volume of missions you can do is staggering. Given the volume of missions given by the server as a whole is getting 5 kill in a row a rare event?
There is absolutely nothing in mathematics that states _your_ distribution will approach the average. This is known as the gambler's fallacy.
I'd also like to point out that you admit everything you describe is possible.
Since people here are willing to discuss things intelligently I'd like to bring up a related topic. Why would they even be using a rng? A rng is a waste of CPU cycles. There are less intensive ways to go about it.
Say all your game mechanics operate on a 1-100 roll. You create a large array, fill it with an equal distribution of each value 1-100 and then shuffle it. Each time the server starts up fold the array some amount of times to redistribute the order of the numbers.
When an event happens simply grab the next number and increment the index. It's less CPU cycles than calculating the next number and it guarantees a given distribution of results. How ever it is not random.
This raises the question. Do you really want random or just a predictable distribution?
shhh, i guess mathematics is not your favorite subject so .... don't go on
talking. however your example of the random generator is the thing we want to tell you: i can imagine that CCP did something like this and did it wrong so that the events are not statistical independent as they should be. Or in
other words the probabilty density function of the underlying random generator
does not generate an even distribution for the random variable but something like a beta PDF. This would result in the same mean values but different higher moments, e.g. two events would be more likely than others.....
|
Tunak
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 12:10:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Chloey Rans
Or in
other words the probabilty density function of the underlying random generator
does not generate an even distribution for the random variable but something like a beta PDF. This would result in the same mean values but different higher moments, e.g. two events would be more likely than others.....
What I describe is not a random number generator. It is a method of generating a perfect distribution. This is what the OP is asking for. The OP does't want random. They want predictability which as the OP has stated is the opposite of random.
|
Scordaf
Ganja Labs
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 12:37:00 -
[27]
Etho is right.
There's nothing random about Eve's random number generator.
|
Chloey Rans
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 12:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tunak
Originally by: Chloey Rans
Or in
other words the probabilty density function of the underlying random generator
does not generate an even distribution for the random variable but something like a beta PDF. This would result in the same mean values but different higher moments, e.g. two events would be more likely than others.....
What I describe is not a random number generator. It is a method of generating a perfect distribution. This is what the OP is asking for. The OP does't want random. They want predictability which as the OP has stated is the opposite of random.
slowly, slowly: a random generator is a method of generating a distribution of
a random event (say roll on d6: event = result of one dice roll). if the distribution is even, every event hase the same probalility (e.g 1/6) and voala, you have the perfect random generator for a even distribution (if thats what you wanted). And yes, you have than a 'predictability' in a statistical sense.
But if your random generator generates: 6 (event) = 2/6 (probability),
5 = 1/12, 4 = 1/12, 3=1/12, 2=1/12, 1 = 2/6 you have the same expectational
value of your dice-experiment (E=3.5) but an uneven distribution where it
is more likely that you roll a 1 or a 6, and thus, several (lets say 3) 6 in a row are more likely (=0.037037) compared to a even distribution (=0.0046296).
And thats what we are thinking about....
|
Heikki
Gallente
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 12:46:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
I have enough data to conclude that chance .. bugged .. that the random number generation algorithm is not random.
Following good (for reason) research principles, could you also post (a link to) the data so we can review it, estimate the quality of the data set, and hopefully reach the same conculusions? Might be easier to convince CCP that way as well.
Doing analysis from such data would be so much easier and convincing than 'i feel that'-type reports; humans aren't built for processing random events.
In those cases when I've run proper tests (i.e. before starting the process decided what I'm going to test, and for how long), the famous random generator have seemed to work as one would assume. Those tests been mostly about easily repeatable things, like ECM chance or gun damage/wrecking chance.
So, if the random generator (or one of the many generators) works ok in some occasions, instead of arguing 'random is bugged', shouldn't we rather argue for things like 'New discovery! Mission type chance depends on previous mission history'?
-Lasse
with random posts
|
Chloey Rans
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 12:56:00 -
[30]
you are right. until now everything is based on 'feeling'.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |