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

[Saber Cherry]

Verjigorm said:
Interesting... is this device a miniature Geiger-Muller tube with some sort of radioactive isotope in a sealed chamber (similar to the technology used to make smoke detectors)?

Hehe... no=) It's pretty simple - it uses some sort of temperature-monitoring circuitry, with random thermal fluctuations accumulating in a large buffer to be stored until a random number is needed. The chip also has a built-in hardware cryptography engine (using AES) and I think the random numbers are utilized by that, though they are also availible to software running on the computer.

Obviously, on the macro scale, temperature is not a purely random thing, or else chemistry would be a lost cause. However, if you measure temperature precisely enough, you start getting true randomness from microscopic sources, just like if you track a dust particle closely enough, you see random Brownian motion. Is Brownian motion random? Yes, because air molecules are small enough that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle and momentum changes from randomly emitted photons start to play a significant role.

If you want to learn more about it, try doing a search for Via's hardware encryption engine. Also, either Ace's Hardware or ViaArena did a big feature on it a year or so back.

[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

[BigDaddy]

If I hired 10,000 mages and 25 in a row were blood mages is that rigged? What if I hire 100,000 mages and 32 in a row were blood mages is that rigged?

If you play this game long enough you may even get 4 or FIVE of the same mage in a row, or even more.

Remeber the ANY particular set of 3 in a row, say Death, Nature, Blood has the same likelyhood as Blood, Blood, Blood. AGAIN, Each new mage's path is independent of the one before it.

[FrankTrollman]

Interesting note, I did some experiments with purchasing 9 of our scampy little hags in a row.

Here's the first five runs, played on Aran with only one opponent and random events low. The number after the trial run is the number of repeats there are. The expected value is 2:

BBBNANBBD - 3*
NAANANNAD - 2
ABNAAABNA - 2
BDAAADBDD - 3
DDDDAAABB - 6*

That's a little high. Not astoundingly high, but a little high. I thought I noticed something about the non-repeats and the correlation with things happening. Also, both of the starred ones were way in the low numbers with their starting province. So I tried a couple runs with 17 players, common events, and a big map (cradle). Here are the first couple of test runs:

BNNBDBDBN - 1
ANDNAADAA - 2

OK, that's average. Actually, it's below average, but within statistically expected norms for that sort of thing.

I suspect that if the game state doesn't change enough, that you might get recursion of random paths - but in a multiplayer game or a game with many players in it, you won't notice. I also have a little bit of evidence that maybe being in the provinces that the game checks early end up with the same random generator several times in a row - but there isn't enough statistical evidence to say that with any certainty at all.

I will go out on a limb and say that the 7 test runs I've done so far don't lead me to believe that the generation is particularly unfair. If it's true about the simple game/complex game difference, it may explain why some people are so convinced that the fix is in - different play styles would make that happen either always or never in the early game.

-Frank