Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

I just really desperately needed a one-in-eight random magic path pick on a new mage... and I got it.

So, obviously the real explanation is ... I stole your luck! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

PvK

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

I don't claim the perfect knowledge of English, it's not even my native language, but I don't see any other possible meaning of your over half of all PC games have poor random number generators, but to think that you have either found somewhere a research that studied in details RNG in more than a half of PC games or you've conducted such a study yourself. Considering amount of time and effort required to perform such a task I find it hard to believe that your statement was based on facts and not on a wrong expectations from RNG. Another doubt comes, because RNG for uniformly distributed numbers is included in CRT and most games are likely to use it. Those RNG are not perfect, but you won't find their faults without collecting massive amounts of data.

Now, am I missing something? Sages have complete random, right? So the probability of never getting one particular path in sequence of 32 sages is (7/8)^32=0.014 and the probability of never getting unspecified path in sequence of 32 sages is 0.11 - 11%. (That is 10.8% rounded to 11, not 0.014*8, because possibility of 2 missing paths needs to be taken into account). I assume that you would have made a similar observation if your 32 sages were missing some other path. So the probability of making your observation is any particular game is 11% (it's close to the probability of getting 3 tails in a row).

That again goes back to my question of your usage of "poor". What do you expect as "reasonable results"? Any particular result that you'll get has quite low probability of happening. However, when you play the game, some result *has* to happened. There isn't any "highly probable" result. RNG would start looking suspicious if you were repeatedly getting the same lowly probable results. (For example, missing astral in 32 sages in every game you've played).

I don't doubt your counting and I don't suspect your data, I just questioning the conclusion you make from those observations...

This is well intended effort, but you need to understand what you're looking for. Let's say you look into some saved game and do the count. You can find some "unique feature" there (like 32 sages without astral). By itself, that doesn't indicate anything (because some result had to happen). However, if you can find the same "unique feature" in many other games, that will start to look suspicious. So I suggest you to list "unique features" you want to consider, then I will look for the same features in my games (I have few dozen of saved games I can check).


No... I'm disputing your ability to know every aspect of the universe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif To my knowledge deterministic/stochastic nature [of nearly anything] have not been established by the science and I haven't heard about anybody getting anywhere closer to understanding of those things. It is not even clear what kind of methods one can use to reliable establish deterministic/stochastic nature of something.

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

Here calculations are getting more complicated.
Probability of 14 smiths missing one of the paths is 80.8%.

It seems to be even more complicated to calculate (Probability that 10 or more smiths out of 14 will be concentrated in 3 paths). It seems to be around 40-45%, but I had to drop the tail of the sequence, so I'm not sure about accuracy. I will try to calculate it precisely later.

You mean number of mages concentrated in 3 paths should approach 37.5% of total number of mages? - No it should not, what are you saying would effectively mean that the equal number of mages in each path, which is very unlikely event. On the large samples peak of probability will probably be somewhere in 45-60% range (that's very rough estimate, I will try to calculate it precisely some time later)

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

Indeed. I must have been smoking something, for I was basing my probabilities off of there being only 6 magic paths http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Yes, I have not been too terribly clear. What I am specifically looking for is: large numbers of random mages of the same type being recruited, and a particular path having been unrepresented. So to refute my hypthesis, simply find several games in which all paths of magic are represented. The reason I was thinking a test game, though, is that in normal games (or at least my games) don't tend to have enough mages of one particular type to really formulate any conclusion. What I was thinking is just playing several games and recruiting 100+ mages, perhaps Vanheim dwarves as in the origional situation, and observing if frequently only 7 paths will be represented in the set.

Which I do not deny are questionable, which is why I am making the attempt to gather somewhat more concrete data.

There is no reliable evidence, either way. In quantum machanics, effective observation is impossible. You cannot observe particle behavior without interfering with it. Also, simply because we do not have the means of predicting the exact behavior of such particles does not mean it is not possible to do so.

Yes, the general trend these days is to believe in Quantum Indeterminacy. This may have much to do with why I don't. I prefer to follow the less beaten paths. For example, I am currently working on an astrophysical project with the purpose of providing evidence to support Modified Newtonian Dynamics, an alternative theory to the widely supported Dark Matter Theory. Science requires disbelievers in order to continue its advancement. Where would we be if nobody ever questioned that the world was flat? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

About the same place we are now, since very few people ever believed that the world was flat.

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

You're right about the need to do it in testing game. I've started counting randoms in some finished game and noticed how few spectres have water. Then I've realized that I was using spectres with water as mini-SC for raiding, and obviously I've lost quite a few of them.

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

About the tests. I suggest to take Jotuns or C'tis or Ermor with death mage pretender, research to Well of Misery and then set couple of mages on summon spectres monthly. After 24 hosting 24 turns you'll get 96 random picks (I was choosing multiplication of 8, so that Bummer_Duck's number (may I call it duck number?), which is max percentage of picks concentrated in 3 paths, can reach its ideal value.
Move all non-spectres out and count results in F1 screen. It seems to be doable under 10 minutes (unlike buying mages which can not be queued). I've just run 2 test games:

Game 1.
F-13,A-12,W-13,E-13,S-11,D-11,N-11,B-12. Duck number is 41%.

Game 2.
F-12,A-12,W-9,E-15,S-9,D-14,N-14,B-11. Duck number is 45%.

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

Hmmmmmm, why shouldn't it approach 3/8 ?!?

Let us assume that the distribution behind the scenes is uniform. Then the observed frequencies will approach 1/8. Of cause getting a sequence that actually results in an observed frequency of exactly 1/8 for every path will be highly unlikely, but they WILL approach 1/8 as the sample grows. I mean: if you use a uniform distribution to generate some values, then the distributed values will look more and more uniform. And therefor adding the frequencies of the three highest represented paths will tend towards 3/8 (from above obviously). I concede that getting the result 3/8 in a test sample will "never" happen.

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

What you're missing here, assuming I've managed to follow the debate, is that they're talking about 3 most common random result. As there's selection based on how the randoms have turned out, the distribution is altered.

Gah, talking hard, let me give an example.

Two random numbers, x1 and x2, both with uniform distribution from zero to one. Each have an expected value of 0.5. But if you're asking what's the expected value of the _greater_ of two, that's 2/3!

Same thing told in the universal language of love (mathematics):
x1,x2 ~ U(0,1)
E(x1)=E(x2)=1/2
E(max(x1,x2))=2/3

My language or notation may be a bit off, but I hope the general idea is clear.

Of course, same applies to discrete case with magic randoms and so on, but is a bit harder to calculate.

Re: Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?
 

Do you talk about convergence? Like lim(percentage, N->inf)= 3/8?

not WILL, only likely. For example, for any sample size, you have positive probability of getting all picks in one path. For samples of large size the distribution function will be getting more or more condensed, which you may call "approach". But you can't provide N for some small value x such that percentage of picks concentrated in 3 paths will deviate from 3/8 by no more than x.

The resulting process (the percentage of picks concentrated in 3 paths) is also a random process. That means that for different samples of the same size will produce different results.

The chances of getting 3/8 are getting smaller as you increase the sample size. The root of the issue is that the more your sample size is, the more possible outcomes can happen. That makes every particular outcome less and less likely to happen.

This random process also has a certain distribution. Which will roughly look like:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
xxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3/8 1
</pre><hr />

If we pick the range [x1,x2] that covers 99% of possible outcomes, then we could show that lim (x1, N-&gt; inf) = lim (x2, N-&gt; inf) = 3/8 (well, I think we can show), which intuitively seems as "approach", but unlike convergence, this "approach" has a stochastic character, like the difference between *will* and *most probably will*