Ridiculous droppings
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Ridiculous droppings |
|---|---|
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, December 11 2006 06:49
Profile
Homepage
I decided to try a new run as an Infiltrator. (The tipping factor was getting annoyed at having to change my sphere of sight every time I attack an enemy. Now I remember why melee was always deprecated in Geneforge.) Anyway, the first Thahd I killed dropped a Thahdskin Tunic. The second Thahd I killed dropped a Thahdskin Tunic. And the third Thahd I killed also dropped a Thahdskin Tunic. And I didn't pump Luck above 2. Further Thahds have not, so the game isn't broken, but geez. What are the odds? If only I have this luck when collecting Glaahk Eyes. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Monday, December 11 2006 09:11
Profile
Hm. The odds are probably on the order of 1 in 1,000,000, given the 1% drop chance. If your luck adds a 1% factor, then between that and 1 in 30,000. Either way, pretty dang lucky. I've not received one yet. -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, December 11 2006 12:25
Profile
I have long been suspicious of the Geneforge random number generator. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Monday, December 11 2006 18:41
Profile
I got thahdskin tunics the first 2 times I played and haven't got one since until I reach West Illya Road. I must have tried over 12 times with no luck in Shardfield. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 04:45
Profile
Homepage
Incidentally, has anyone ever gotten a random item drop, then reloaded and not gotten it? Or vice versa. I keep forgetting to try this and see if it works -- as I have never heard of anyone getting a random drop by repeated save and reload. I wonder if they are set when the creatures are spawned on zone loading? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 07:36
Profile
quote:Given that it already happened, the probability is 1. This is not just nitpicking — you didn't set out in advance to try and get three of these things in a row. If you started a game and thought, gee, I wonder if I'll get three thahdskin tunics off the next thahds I see, that would be a little more impressive when it actually happened. As it is, though, it seems to be unlikely only because it was unexpected. The question you should really be asking is, "what is the probability that the random number generator should bring about an event that would bring my level of surprise past the threshold required for me to post something on Spiderweb about it?" I'd guess the probability for that would be greater than that for causing three thahdskin tunic drops. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 08:26
Profile
Homepage
Well, no. He is right to point out that this event was unusual, and it is not statistically immoral to calculate the odds of it happening again, which ought to be negligible if Spiderweb games actually used legitimate random number generation. And if something happens that ought to have an almost zero chance of happening again, it is reasonable to call that event unlikely. Still, if you find that thahd droppings are ridiculous, you might want to check what they ate. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 08:28: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 08:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:I hope that what you meant was: "you didn't set up a controlled experiment and test for thahd drops." How is intention relevant to this kind of test? And if it is relevant, how they HECK is it desirable to have that potential bias? You're right that I was only recounting an anecdote, but did I ever present it as anything else? Single random data points are not statistically significant, but they are not meaningless, and they are certainly not any less significant than single deliberately chosen data points with an equal lack of context. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 09:04
Profile
Kelandon: Agreed. Slarty: Intention is relevant, because although the probability of getting three thahdskin tunics in a row is very small, there are many events which could be considered "unlikely," the occurrence of any of which might prompt one to post a new topic about it. For instance, we could just as easily be reading a new topic about getting four consecutive vlish tentacle drops or doing 66 damage with an ice crystal three turns in a row. I guess what I'm saying is that 1) although the probability of three thahdskin tunics is small, the amount of surprise derived therefrom may be unwarranted, and 2) the random number generator need not necessarily have any bias, since the odds of any surprising event happening are probably not too low. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 09:08
Profile
The chance of this happening on any given triple Thahd kill is supposed to be one in a million. In a game you get maybe a few triple Thahd kills, people who could be expected to post a report of a triple-drop here have probably played ten to twenty games of one Geneforge or other, and there are probably 50 to a 100 such people. So the number of triple Thahd kills that these boards have effectively sampled is probably within a factor of 10 of 10,000. So the fact that we have now had such a report is indeed somewhat surprising, but at a probability on the order of 0.1 to 10%, it is not utterly incredible. Take it as a more grounds for suspicion of the RNG, but not quite as a smoking gun. EDIT: Taking into account wz. As's good point that the RNG has lots more opportunities to generate surprising co-incidences, and we have only heard of these Thahd tunics, and not of similar events with Vlish tentacles and what-not ... the conclusion would seem to be that the RNG beats the rap, at least for now. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 09:11: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 09:13
Profile
Homepage
We do know from experience that the random number generator does not, in fact, generate random numbers, though, unless Spidweb has changed it since the last few games. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 09:13: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 09:17
Profile
Homepage
What does it do? I mean, does it generate reasonably pseudorandom numbers, or not? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 09:26
Profile
Homepage
I'm not totally sure. I think part of the problem that I've had with it is that I've been looking at to-hit percentages, which are just not accurate. Monsters that have %5 chances to hit me hit me a heck of a lot more often than one time in twenty. I don't know about drops, though. I should check that in BoA, where it's really easy to conduct a simple experiment: make a monster with a 5% chance to drop something, place about forty of them in a town, and then kill all of them and check how many actually dropped that item. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 10:25
Profile
5% is a tough chance to call, though. In a hundred attacks you should get hit about 5 times, but the odds of those five hits coming nicely in 20-attempt intervals are very low. You're likely to have a few of them come quite a bit closer together, then have some longer sequences of straight failure. One tends not to notice that one has been missed 40 times in a row, when one is expecting to be hit 'hardly ever'. But we do notice 'Hey, that's three times in ten rounds!' I still wonder, but it's a hard charge to make stick. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 10:35
Profile
quote:I received a fyoraskin cloak from a fyora in the forsaken lands, but reloaded since in the process I lost my creations. I did not get the cloak a second time, to my dismay. -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 10:42
Profile
Homepage
quote:Three times in ten rounds would not have raised my eyebrows, but ten times in ten rounds started to. When I was consistently getting hit more times than not, I started to wonder. I should point out that I'm not a fool. I am aware of the human element in observing probability. I took this into account when I realized that the displayed to-hit probabilities were not accurate. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:45: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 13:52
Profile
Homepage
I think if your hit chance is 90% and you can still miss 5 times in a row, then there is something wrong. Either Geneforge sometimes gets "stuck" when generating a random number, or there is some part of the engine that does not properly feed through to the percentages shown. Is it possible that the to-hit % is misleading for a similar reason to the armor %? -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 14:01
Profile
quote:That'll learn ya to not reload after scoring a Fyoraskin Cloak. -S- -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • NR Items • The Lonely Celt Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 14:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:Probably. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 14:44
Profile
quote:But when you have a 90% hit chance you hit much more often than you miss, right? Rare incidents like this are not indicative of whether the RNG is evenly distributed, that is, fair. I think the RNG is slightly biased because I am pretty sure Jeff opted for a quick, standard number generating algorithm, but it is not a big deal. If you are constantly being hit by 10% shots, then start being concerned. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 19:34
Profile
Homepage
I think the issue here is less likely to be the RNG than the display of fatuous numbers. Adequate pseudorandom number generators are not hard to come by. Seeing as Jeff once studied statistics in grad school and is clearly competent with simple algorithms, I doubt he would find them difficult to handle. We know from the Armor % display feature that not all displayed numbers are accurate representations of anything. I experimented with to-hit a lot in G3 when I tried to duplicate the A4 99% dodge build, and it failed because to-hit calculations do really weird things in Geneforge when they approach either extreme. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:34
Profile
The armor percentages are of course rubbish because none of the actual mathematics behind any of his armor systems involve a sum total of percentages. Different pieces of army provide different individual percentages of protection for damage, and the asymptotic behavior of the caps make everything even more skewed. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:53
Profile
I'm increasingly curious about this. Can someone explain to me how a random number generator would not in fact generate truly random numbers? Thanks, -S- -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • NR Items • The Lonely Celt Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:57
Profile
Homepage
Random.org has pretty much everything you could ever want to know on the subject and more. Plus t-shirts! [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 21:01: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, December 12 2006 21:09
Profile
quote:Random number generators use an algorithm and are given a starting "seed", usually an arbitrarily large number. This algorithm is recursive in that the input is the last entry and hence affects the output which is next entry. What defines "random" is that the sequence of numbers are evenly distributed between 0 and 1 (the unit bounds; to get a different number, you may simply manipulate the result) and exhibits no skip, pattern, or repetition. No sequence meets these requirements perfectly. Typically some seeds can lead to these subtle patterns. One often can get higher fidelity results by using lots of different seeds. As for lacking repetition, all of these algorithms repeat, but typically not until after 10^30 (or much, much more) numbers given an appropriate seed. To get a more "random" number, typically the CPU pulls from the clock. In some applications, such as games, this is desirable. In scientific applications where replication is vital, a known starting seed is desirable. So basically, a CPU is completely a deterministic thing when functioning properly. We humans need to coax it to give us a "random" number. [ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 21:10: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2