Pythium revelers

[JimMorrison]

PvK said:
Well within standard deviation, no?

Indeed. The smaller samples show larger swings of course, and the larger the sample, the more homogenized the picks begin to look.


As far as the RNG goes, I'm not totally sure I agree that there is some fundamental flaw beyond it being an RNG. I mean, there are only 5 different types of Tarts, right? And you got 6 of one type in a string, which is relatively unlikely. But have you ever played Yahtzee? Ever been dealt a straight flush or 4 of a kind in poker? If you saw that sort of blatant streaks very commonly, I am sure that it would be indicative of a problem.

Really though, random is different from chaos. It would be interesting if there was a chaos generator rather than a random generator, and it looked at what you had gotten, and increased the probabilities on a geometrically curved bias skewed towards what has been lacking. Unfortunately, doing so would render ultra high prot/MR/def to be even more powerful than it already is, because rather than having a 16% chance to roll another 6 after your first one, the probability would artificially drop. Bear in mind, your odds of rolling a second 6 are NOT 2.8%, they are in fact still 16%. This is why the general rule of thumb will always be - short term streaks, long term statistical averages.