I Have Mathematical Proof That The Random Number Generator Is RIGGED

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by mkorin


It boggles my mind to think that someone would know how idiotic he sounds and continue to do so. Or, in fact do it purposely.

Mike

You know about court jesters, right?

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by snoopy369


You know about court jesters, right?

Hah. That would be a great new unit.
0 Movement
0 Strength
0 Defense
+1
+1

[mkorin]

Originally posted by snoopy369


You know about court jesters, right?

The theory being that the buffoon court jester was actually highly intelligent and the king's advisor is a hollywood myth. It may have been the case once or twice in history, but there is certainly no historical proof of that. I personally think the court jester was a simpleton that the court could humiliate and make sport with him. Look at any large group setting today (schools for example) and you'll find the same thing happening today. But then, I have a negative view of humanity so I could be wrong.

Mike

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dale
Can't people just accept that "**** happens"? Or are you complaining because out of your 100 winning battles you had a single loss? I think the later is more the case with the OP.

Some battles go your way, some don't. Just accept it.

I've wasted 5 units on 1, and I've seen the AI waste 5 units on 1. So it's fair.

Fair, maybe. Irritating beyond belief, definitely. Accept it, never! It's my biggest, maybe my only, beef with BtS.

[Wiglaf]

Wodan, thanks for being civil. Mike, you've got problems with paranoia and should get that looked at, I fear. Court jesters were brilliant and this is well documented, though this is 2008 and not 1850 so they are not really around anymore.

I will say in BTS the RNG looks not random because the attacker and defender are not nescecarily the ones that were used in the estimate when you hovered over the upcoming battle.

This makes no sense. Why wouldn't the RNG look at the odds between the current attacker and the likely defender? It isn't like the defender is a surprise.

Also, Algebra II deals with elementary probability, permutations and such. If there is a 5% chance of winning a lottery with one ticket and I buy 5 tickets, I have 5*5 = 25% chance of winning. This is called a permutation, which is a fancy word for multiplying, and I took a class on this in high school by Mr Stephen Wright who would be happy to sign up and respond to your insults personally.

Interesting discussion on first strikes that I still don't understand however Are they taken into account accurately by the odds calculator?

[SpencerH]

As for wiggie, you have to know him to appreciate him.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Wiglaf ... I took a class on this in high school by Mr Stephen Wright who would be happy to sign up and respond to your insults personally...

Speaking of smart Court Jesters, are you sure you don't mean The comedian Steven Wright?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If there is a 5% chance of winning a lottery with one ticket and I buy 5 tickets, I have 5*5 = 25% chance of winning.

This is incorrect (regardless of source).

If there is a 5% chance of winning a lottery with one ticket and I buy
1 ticket: chance to win is 5%, chance to LOSE is 95%
2 tickets: chance to LOSE is 0.95 SQUARED, chance to win is 1.0 - 0.95 SQUARED (= 1.0 - 0.9, so it's 0.1)
3 tickets: chance to LOSE is 0.95 CUBED (or to the third power), chance to win is 1.0 - 0.95 cubed (what others have indicated as 0.95^3, my calculator displays as pow(0.95, 3)); = 1.0 - 0.86 = 0.14

You can carry it on from here.

[rah]

Hmmm so you're saying that if there are 10 tickets sold for a drawing where If I buy 1 ticket (10% chance of winning) that if I buy 4 tickets my chances of winning aren't 40%, (10X4)

[snoopy369]

Yeah, Jaybe, Wiggie is wrong in his initial reasoning but his lottery example is dead on, if they are dependent probabilities (ie, there is a 5% chance of winning because there are 20 tickets, and he buys 5 tickets in the same lottery.)

However, in cIV you are not playing the same lottery but a new one each time. In that case, with independent probabilities, the additive probability example is incorrect.

[Jaybe]

No rah, while it looks like I'm saying that, I SHOULD NOT have ... and thanks
(I'll clear up my thinking in a bit).

And thanks to you also, snoop. Perhaps I'll leave my post as is so people can take your post to illuminate.

[EPW]

If you put back the lottery ticket each time you draw it then I think Jaybe's reasoning is correct.

[rah]

Just wanted it to be clear.

The example must match the actual methodology.

[snoopy369]

Something i always tell people I teach stats to:

"A great way to realize you made a mistake is if you find yourself with a number greater than 1. There is never a probability greater than one of something happening, so if you find your result is greater than one, you ****ed up somewhere."

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Wodan, thanks for being civil.

No sweat.

Interesting discussion on first strikes that I still don't understand however Are they taken into account accurately by the odds calculator?

Didn't used to be but I believe BtS fixed that.

Wodan