MOBAFire's second Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! 🏆
GrandmasterD wrote:
MT19937, which is an incredibly fast algorithm that barely takes up any memory at all, and the SIMD version; SFMT, which is twice as fast, are very suitable for gaming applications. Don't come with bs arguments about time because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Using randomness instead of calculating real things such as distance travelled, temperature or height is actually a way to speed things up.
[fugmd]fine, randomize the kinetics and quantum states of a room full (36 cubic meters is fine) of air at normal temperature and pressure, in a phisically coherent manner, with a wall being cooled and the other one being heated. since it probably takes less than a second... btw, your result will hardly be random. even if the theory states randomness in a particle's behavior.[/fugmd]
your "fast" is as good as what is usually called "random", especially in such algorithms, as you have said it yourself, bearing a known and quantified seed. faster doesn't mean "better randomness". its fine, i don't have your insight on programming but you can simply generate a number or make it run so that its result not only looks random, but also fair, regarding its range and frequency.
Pheyniex wrote:
[fugmd]fine, randomize the kinetics and quantum states of a room full (36 cubic meters is fine) of air at normal temperature and pressure, in a phisically coherent manner, with a wall being cooled and the other one being heated. since it probably takes less than a second... btw, your result will hardly be random. even if the theory states randomness in a particle's behavior.[/fugmd]
your "fast" is as good as what is usually called "random", especially in such algorithms, as you have said it yourself, bearing a known and quantified seed. faster doesn't mean "better randomness". its fine, i don't have your insight on programming but you can simply generate a number or make it run so that its result not only looks random, but also fair, regarding its range and frequency.
Not going to be random, you can easily simulate this using the Navier Stokes Equations and the Heat Equation. Even if you include Quantum Physics and Einstein's Theory of Relativity we can still simulate it as long as we have a large collection of particles.
That's why it is called a pseudorandom number generator and not a true random number generator. Also I'd like to inform you of the fact that the period of the Mersenne Twister is 219937-1 (hence its name MT19937). If you know the seed and the iteration you can determine the following number but how can a player determine this? They can't. For comparison, this would be a true random number but it's fairly predictable isn't it?
Cool Random Number Generator
GrandmasterD wrote:
Not going to be random, you can easily simulate this using the Navier Stokes Equations and the Heat Equation. Even if you include Quantum Physics and Einstein's Theory of Relativity we can still simulate it as long as we have a large collection of particles.
That's why it is called a pseudorandom number generator and not a true random number generator. Also I'd like to inform you of the fact that the period of the Mersenne Twister is 219937-1 (hence its name MT19937). If you know the seed and the iteration you can determine the following number but how can a player determine this? They can't. For comparison, this would be a true random number but it's fairly predictable isn't it?
Cool Random Number Generatoryou can't simulate particles, namely quantum particles, with Navier-Stokes and the Heat Equation. besides, you will always get the same result with those.
i did mention if the randomness felt fair. how precise can you be at respecting a chance that you grant? Does it match the annouced chance and the actual result of the algorithm?
Pheyniex wrote:
A gaussian scale doesn't fit the "program" he's using. Because he just counts the difference to the mean he will obviously get double the probability of all the numbers but the mean. So 1 has roughly double the chance of appearing compared to 0, because 1 can be both +1 and -1.
Sittin' on chimneys, putting fire up my ***.
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
Pheyniex wrote:
you can't simulate particles, namely quantum particles, with Navier-Stokes and the Heat Equation. besides, you will always get the same result with those.
i did mention if the randomness felt fair. how precise can you be at respecting a chance that you grant? Does it match the annouced chance and the actual result of the algorithm?
Ofc you can simulate them, there's always a game of chance once you consider the decay of particles but then you apply a Poisson Distribution to them. When it comes to quantum mechanics, you can apply other laws and distributions to simulate them; it's actually not that complicated.
PotatisFarfar wrote:
Never played Xonotic. So how could i know >;(. Still point stands, hugely different games.
Parts of it does. But even I am getting confused by some of your incoherency, so I doubt it would be fruitful to discuss that any further.
Quoted:
League maybe is better. But that is like saying a cow **** smells abit less than donkey ****. Since only learning to play League (on an acceptable level mind you) only by solo play and trial and error, is incredible hard.
Actually, it's more like comparing cow **** to pig ****.
You're really bad at these comparisons :P
Quoted:
I was pointing out how you are comdeming a game mechanic as bad in all situations, even though you are in no position to make that call other than personal prefrence.
We're discussing something and I'm not allowed to argue that something is objectively wrong? (or has more cons than pros, as was my point)
That makes no sense.
And it is and has always been obvious that it's my personal OPINION, as your original (pointless, because of the obvious nature) question queried.
Quoted:
I am squirming around the subject? you are the one hanging up one little un relevant detail, when i have said clearly what i mean.
You're twisting my words. I called BS on that one part and explained why and then I ALSO responded to your main point. What you're saying is blatantly false, with proof in this very thread.
Quoted:
And last time i checked it actually took time to turn around in a fps.
You're not entirely sure of what you're actually saying, are you?
Läs igen och läs rätt =.=
(det var så dumt att det behövdes svenska)
Quoted:
Me throwin ****? I am not the one throwing insults to avoid discussing stuff ;)
It seems like you don't understand the meaning of some of the things I have said. Ask someone what they mean or ignore them, because this response makes no sense.
Quoted:
You would have a point, but it falls flat on its face when you see that yes, it actually have an effect on gameplay and the way the game is played. Predicting were to aim spells, see when an enemie is about to turn on you and spell / item interaction is all exampels how turn animation affect the game in a major way.
Whether it affected how the game played was never a part of any of my points, because it's blatantly obvious that it does affect gameplay. (i.e: you're seeing imaginary points, you might wanna check in with the doctor ;) )
Also, 'major' is quite the statement to make after calling RNG CC minor, lol.
Quoted:
And still i ask you, how is it Non-transperent? The only thing i have heard from your side is: It have no purpose (false), it WAS used to mask calculating done (Irrelevant) and that i like to grab my *** alot.
Seeing as this is your first time asking, your use of 'still' is incorrect.
Ah, you're right, I did make a statement that "They no longer serve any purpose". What I meant to say is that their main purpose is now gone. (and that there are more cons than pros with the mechanic, but I did say that, just reiterating it :P)
As for what transparent means, it's clear that you don't understand.
Transparent in this context means roughly 'självklar', rather than 'genomskinlig', which is the normal meaning of the word.
Quoted:
You are not much a a Poker player then are you? There is a huge difference of Predicting and being able to change chance, to just dumb random luck.
Okay, let's make this simple.
Psuedo-random is random. (it's even in the name)
Random is bad.
That allows the conclusion that "psuedo-random" is bad, even though it's a lesser of two evils. (or less smelly of two *****, if that's what you prefer :P)
Also, as has been mentioned by others, there is no real "true random", the way a computer draws a random number is in fact psuedo-random.
Quoted:
So you only need to think about 1 thing in a game now? Because last time i checked you could have multiple mechanics to keep in mind, you know. Add more depth?
It's clear that you're not understanding what I'm writing here. Are you even trying?
Because what you wrote in response to me has literally nothing to do with what I wrote..
Quoted:
Icing on the cake? ಠ_ಠ
YOP
Quoted:
you are saying my point about your point being irrelevant is irrelevant? Who knew?
Let me clarify what was said so that you might understand it better.
You said that not being able to prepare 100% for something was a good thing and that it added depth.
I said that this element of being unable to prepare 100% for something was present in the game regardless of RNG.
You said that it's obviously impossible to prepare 100% for something, but that you could prepare for 'an awful lot'.
I stated that that's irrelevant to the point I made.
And now you state that your point was about my point being irrelevant. (which it's blatantly not)
You really don't know what you're doing, do you?..
Quoted:
And yeah i am saying League is way worse in the sure Quantity of RNG it have.
So can we conclude that League is way worse in quantity of the problem, while DotA is way worse in the "quality" of the problems?
Because the latter is a point I've been trying to make and I never disagreed with the former.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
atoms, space in between molecules, etc. doesn't really fit the concept of continuum...
i did ask for the states of the particles, so if you want to apply any d/dx, d/dy, d/dz quantity on it you will discover you really can't, since the derivative implies a continuous domain and, in fact particles don't make up such.
i did ask for the states of the particles, so if you want to apply any d/dx, d/dy, d/dz quantity on it you will discover you really can't, since the derivative implies a continuous domain and, in fact particles don't make up such.
You need to log in before commenting.
I remember FFXI had 4 or 5 lists of numbers and used them sequentially to trigger "random" events like opening chests. However, the list came out and getting 5 crits in a row or obtaining all rare items became really easy.
i really do not enjoy randomization in somewhat already volatile games, since it risks temendously taking the skill from it. Also, randomization is usually very limited in in computing aplications like gaming, where you really can't spend too much time iterating numbers to achieve a "random" number from a seed.
MT19937, which is an incredibly fast algorithm that barely takes up any memory at all, and the SIMD version; SFMT, which is twice as fast, are very suitable for gaming applications. Don't come with bs arguments about time because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Using randomness instead of calculating real things such as distance travelled, temperature or height is actually a way to speed things up.