Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?

[PvK]

On the other hand, if you _don't_ know the formula a pseudo-random number genrator is using, and it has the desired distribution, and there is no easy way to deduce the formula, then the result may be indistinguishable from a true random number.

Arguing that a distribution isn't predictable by any practical means is sufficient and entirely different from philisophical or even mathematically provable arguments that it's hypothetically possible to predict a distribution.

Certainly it is quite possible to make a pseudo-random number genrator that is impossible to predict or be considered broken from a game-player's perspective. If the distribution is right, the sequence of play itself adds a shuffling that is too complex to predict.

Which is not to say that some games don't have random number problems, or more often, algorithm bugs, which are capable of detection during play.

PvK

[BigDaddy]

PvK said:
On the other hand, if you _don't_ know the formula a pseudo-random number genrator is using, and it has the desired distribution, and there is no easy way to deduce the formula, then the result may be indistinguishable from a true random number.

Arguing that a distribution isn't predictable by any practical means is sufficient and entirely different from philisophical or even mathematically provable arguments that it's hypothetically possible to predict a distribution.

Certainly it is quite possible to make a pseudo-random number genrator that is impossible to predict or be considered broken from a game-player's perspective. If the distribution is right, the sequence of play itself adds a shuffling that is too complex to predict.

PvK

Yes, for all practical purposes, the system likely works as ordered. I have long sustained my opinion that it is random enough to be indistinguishable from the real thing. That's also why ANSI regulated it .

VIA's method seems good enough to be considered theoretically random. Sensor's generally perform randomly (anything P<100% is random by definition).

[Arralen]

So, folks, lets stir up the discussion again:

Ongoing game, Jotunheim, 3 turns.

1st turn - building a Vaetti Hag: Blood-1
2nd turn - doing the same ..... result the same ..
3rd turn - same again .. and the same again...

Likelyhood for this happening: 1,56%

As far as my experience goes, if I keep on building Vaetti Hags, I'll get 1 more Blood-1, then it will switch to some other path. If I build commanders in newly conquered provinces, I'll get some other path this turn. If someone else does I-don't-know-what, I'll get another path.

But after some time, the effect will reoccur. But it will get less likely, as more and more things are happening each turn, what seemingly influences the random number generation.

And it's eactly this effect that I have seen way to often to dismiss it as "statistical". If you do big test buying some hundred units, things will equal out o.c. . Obviously, short term randomization is bugged. But the error occures randomly

[bone_daddy]

Agitator

[alexti]

Arralen said:
1st turn - building a Vaetti Hag: Blood-1
2nd turn - doing the same ..... result the same ..
3rd turn - same again .. and the same again...

Likelyhood for this happening: 1,56%

Yeah, but for each other possibility of 3 hags, the probability is approx. 0.2%. That's just people don't usually notice when they get nature hag, then blood hag and then death hag.

[FrankTrollman]

Indeed, since you only start counting the strangeness when the second one comes up the same as the first one, your chances of seeing the totally perplexing 3 in a row would be 1 in 4 for a character with a random sorcery pick. Really, 25%

Here's how it works: you build a bunch of leaders with random Sorcery picks, and they give you various stuff. Blood, Astral, whatever. Sooner or later, two in a row are going to give the same thing. When that happens, you say "that's odd". Here's where The Gambler's Fallacy. kicks in: You've already noticed that things are weird, because you got two bloods in a row. Or two Deaths, or whatever. At this point, you are looking at the next character, who is an independent event. So when she comes up, she has a brand new chance of having the same type of magic that the other two got - and if she does you'll flip out.

So as soon as you start counting, you have a 25% chance of getting a "strange coincidence". Now, if you go back in time to the beginning, your chances are .25^3 - 1.6%. But you didn't, you started counting after the second hag had already come up a double.

-Frank

[alexti]

Very good explanation. And interestingly enough, a lot of people will not notice anything suspicious if blood-astral pair is *always* followed by nature

[Arralen]

Ongoing game, Jotunheim, 6 turns.

1st turn - building a Vaetti Hag: Blood-1
2nd turn - doing the same ..... Blood-1
3rd turn - same again .. Blood-1
4th turn - Gyjgya : Blood-1, Nature-1
5th turn - Vaetti : Nature-1
6th turn - Skratti Blood-1

So with 7 random sorcery pics, I got 5x Blood and 2x Nature...

[Bummer_Duck]

Arralen said:
So with 7 random sorcery pics, I got 5x Blood and 2x Nature...

I'm sure you will get the same sort of answer I recieved... I have to say that back in the board game days, these sorts of results would end in the offending dice getting banned. Apparently, though, once games moved to the computer, results are no longer questioned as closely. :-)

[FrankTrollman]

That's completely statistically meaningless. And I mean completely meaningless. Not "vaguely meaningful", but total devoid of information of any worth whatsoever.

You built three Vaetti Hags in a row that had 2 repeats, and the chances of that happening are only 1 in 16. But honestly, that means that if everyone on the thread performed this test, several of us would expect to get a similar result.

But then you went on and built other stuff and didn't get the same stuff, but different stuff instead. Woot. What does that mean? Nothing.

You got no Astral or Death in 7 picks. That's a 1 in 128 chance. But the thing is, it would be just as "notable" if you got no Blood or Nature in 7 picks. And it would likewise be just as notable if you missed out on Blood and Death, or Blood and Astral, or Astral and Nature, or Nature and Death. From the standpoint of you coming to us and pointing out how weird it was, it would in fact be the same exact event.

So really, that's a simple 3/64 chance to get some 6 turn run that is functionally like that in terms of you pointing out how non-random it looks. In fact, in any particular 7 pick block, the chances of it not producing any discernable pattern are very low - it's only 13% just to not have any consecutive repeats. The chances of actually having at least one of each magic type in 4 picks is only 9%.

By showing us a block of seven consecutive picks (not even really in order, because one of the sets is "choose two", so you can't tell which order it came in) with a discernable pattern, you haven't showed us a damned thing.

When I posted up 63 picks under controlled circumstances, that was small time. 7 picks is a joke.

-Frank

-Frank