Quote:
alexti said:
To find a fault in most current pseudo-RNG (usually they have one fault or another) one needs to do quite a bit of research, which doesn't look possible by observing game's behaviour, because it would take too much time to collect meaningful statistics.
|
Oh I quite disagree; it doesn't take long to realize. Examples of incredibly poor games: Disciples II: The hit percentages never worked well. Most notably paralyziation; you would frequently hit 10 in a row, and then miss 10 in a row. Warlords IV: A low combat creature is fighting a high combat creature and the weaker hits, nearly every time the high combat creature would then miss his next attack. Odd behavior like that is hard to miss.
The use of the term pseudo-random is pointless; there is
no randomness in our universe.
None. It is similar to when people argue that everything humans do is also natural because we are natural; the term becomes meaningless by its own definition.
By 'poor' I simply mean they simulate statistical results with less accuracy than one would expect. Perhaps I should say: 'less accuracy than
I would expect', since you seem to be argumentative. Perhaps that was not meant as a flame against my intelligence, but it sure sounded like it.