|
Looks like we're back to status quo. Hope more of you lurkers unburrow and talk with us. :3 If you have any issues or comments about the new design, feel free to PM Neo. |
I refuse to call Trynd because in my language Trynd sound like a cute word of "penis"
|
On June 06 2013 04:49 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 03:24 thenexusp wrote:On June 06 2013 02:51 101toss wrote:On June 06 2013 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Crits aren't really RNG; look up markov chains. the crit algorithm is pretty counterintuitive not sure why it isn't uniformly random (or pseudo-random if you want to get really technical) as opposed to the increased chance after not critting system Most people don't like actual uniformly random variables; markov chains basically reduce the variance of the result without changing the expected value. For example, which of the following sequences would you rather prefer happen in a game (say the 6's are critical hits) [5, 3, 3, 4, 1, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4, 1] [2, 6, 1, 4, 2, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 6, 3, 1, 4, 5] Most people prefer the second sequence to the first, even though the first sequence is actually the one that's truly random. The first sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die 20 times (in python). The second sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die, but rerolling the ones that matched either the previous throw or the previous previous throw. In both cases the expected number of 6's is the same (20/6), but the first sequence is prone to having long runs with 6's and long runs without 6's, while the 6's in the second sequence are more evenly distributed throughout. Both of your sequences are exactly equally likely to be the result of rolling a 6-sided die 20 times. It doesn't make sense to provide a specific sequence of numbers and claim that either one is "truly random".
It absolutely does make sense to say one sequence is more random than another. There exist tests of randomness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests) and I'd wager that the second sequence would fail some of them (it definitely would if extended to many more samples)
"I flipped this coin 1000 times and it came up heads each time. What is the probability that it comes up heads on my next flip?"
"50%?"
"No, closer to 99.99%. It's almost certain that I'm using a trick double-headed coin"
|
Pootie too good!4331 Posts
On June 06 2013 05:48 AsmodeusXI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:47 JonGalt wrote:
WTB "Naut", "Cassi", "Trynda", "Vladi", and "Ulti" vs "Nauti", "Cass", "Trynd", "Vlad", and "Ult" poll.
Stupid Blackberry won't let me. Ask and ye shall receive. Poll: Which is Better?"Naut", "Cass", "Trynd", "Vlad", and "Ult" (36) 82% "Nauti", "Cassi", "Trynda", "Vladi", and "Ulti" (8) 18% 44 total votes Your vote: Which is Better? (Vote): "Nauti", "Cassi", "Trynda", "Vladi", and "Ulti"
(Vote): "Naut", "Cass", "Trynd", "Vlad", and "Ult"
Always got my back Asmo. Respect.
|
I don't get this discussion. Why does there have to be any consistency.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
Trynd is unacceptable, it's either Tryn or Trynda, Trynd is a 5 letter syllable which is just hideous. Even Trynda is better than Trynd, but Tryn is preffered.
|
i had a friend who would never use champion names. he would just refer to them through description.
what a cool guy
|
Pootie too good!4331 Posts
On June 06 2013 06:01 Numy wrote:
I don't get this discussion. Why does there have to be any consistency.
You don't have to "get" the discussion. It's TL LoL.
#VoteOrDie
|
dog, cow, fish, wolf, robot... way cooler
|
i think i have RP addiction. i want to purchase more and more.
i have to something about it cuz im running out of money -_-
|
On June 06 2013 06:05 RouaF wrote:
dog, cow, fish, wolf, robot... way cooler
Someone give this guy a PhD in linguistics nao
|
On June 06 2013 06:05 RouaF wrote:
dog, cow, fish, wolf, robot... way cooler
Where dah snake?
|
United States15536 Posts
On June 06 2013 06:01 Numy wrote:
I don't get this discussion. Why does there have to be any consistency.
Good point.
Poll: Which is REALLY Better?"Jolteon", "Vaporeon", "Flareon", "Espeon", and "Umbreon" (22) 50% "Plumber", "Snake Lady", "Cloud Strife", "Edward Cullen", and "R" (9) 20% Your naming skills are inferior. (6) 14% "Leonardo", "Donatello", "Raphael", "Michelangelo", and "Splinter" (3) 7% "Earth", "Fire", "Wind", "Water", and "Heart" (2) 5% "Nauti", "Cassi", "Trynda", "Vladi", and "Ulti" (1) 2% "Naut", "Cass", "Trynd", "Vlad", and "Ult" (1) 2% 44 total votes Your vote: Which is REALLY Better? (Vote): "Nauti", "Cassi", "Trynda", "Vladi", and "Ulti"
(Vote): "Naut", "Cass", "Trynd", "Vlad", and "Ult"
(Vote): "Plumber", "Snake Lady", "Cloud Strife", "Edward Cullen", and "R"
(Vote): "Jolteon", "Vaporeon", "Flareon", "Espeon", and "Umbreon"
(Vote): "Earth", "Fire", "Wind", "Water", and "Heart"
(Vote): "Leonardo", "Donatello", "Raphael", "Michelangelo", and "Splinter"
(Vote): Your naming skills are inferior.
Much more reasonable.
|
|
|
Do you make Captain Planet if you all move to the same spot or something
|
My friend calls TF the gangnam dude and Syndra the hoot girl.
|
WTB ninja turtle skin theme pack
|
On June 06 2013 06:01 Numy wrote:
I don't get this discussion. Why does there have to be any consistency.
THIS
IS
TL GD~
Also a friend calls champs by nicknames too. Been wanting to buy "Lady Oscar" for awhile now but he doesn't play often enough to get the IP.
|
On June 06 2013 05:58 thenexusp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 04:49 bmn wrote:On June 06 2013 03:24 thenexusp wrote:On June 06 2013 02:51 101toss wrote:On June 06 2013 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Crits aren't really RNG; look up markov chains. the crit algorithm is pretty counterintuitive not sure why it isn't uniformly random (or pseudo-random if you want to get really technical) as opposed to the increased chance after not critting system Most people don't like actual uniformly random variables; markov chains basically reduce the variance of the result without changing the expected value. For example, which of the following sequences would you rather prefer happen in a game (say the 6's are critical hits) [5, 3, 3, 4, 1, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4, 1] [2, 6, 1, 4, 2, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 6, 3, 1, 4, 5] Most people prefer the second sequence to the first, even though the first sequence is actually the one that's truly random. The first sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die 20 times (in python). The second sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die, but rerolling the ones that matched either the previous throw or the previous previous throw. In both cases the expected number of 6's is the same (20/6), but the first sequence is prone to having long runs with 6's and long runs without 6's, while the 6's in the second sequence are more evenly distributed throughout. Both of your sequences are exactly equally likely to be the result of rolling a 6-sided die 20 times. It doesn't make sense to provide a specific sequence of numbers and claim that either one is "truly random". It absolutely does make sense to say one sequence is more random than another. There exist tests of randomness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests) and I'd wager that the second sequence would fail some of them (it definitely would if extended to many more samples) "I flipped this coin 1000 times and it came up heads each time. What is the probability that it comes up heads on my next flip?" "50%?" "No, closer to 99.99%. It's almost certain that I'm using a trick double-headed coin"
I'm confused what you mean by "truly random".
A coin flip that has a 99% chance of yielding head and 1% chance of yielding tail is still "truly random". Uniform distributions maximize entropy, but that doesn't make non-uniform distributions "not random".
If you have a 1% chance of critical strike on every hit that's just as much a "truly random" event as when you have 50% or 99% critical strike chance. 0% and 100% are degenerate cases, sure.
If we use your algorithm and assume that a 6 means 'critical strike' I can now easily exploit the behavior to achieve far more critical strikes (as a fraction of attacks) than I previously could: always 'waste' the two hits after a critical strike on a minion, and all other attacks have a 1/4 chance of being a critical strike.
It'll just encourage people to time attacks the way they do with caitlyn to maximize harass; some champs are a lot more amenable to that as others. (It's easier if you're ranged and can disengage at will, it's harder if you have to go for a hard engage and exchange attacks in bursts.)
But as Seuss pointed out that's a property of your algorithm, and the sequence itself is far too short to yield useful analysis like that.
|
On June 06 2013 06:45 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 05:58 thenexusp wrote:On June 06 2013 04:49 bmn wrote:On June 06 2013 03:24 thenexusp wrote:On June 06 2013 02:51 101toss wrote:On June 06 2013 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Crits aren't really RNG; look up markov chains. the crit algorithm is pretty counterintuitive not sure why it isn't uniformly random (or pseudo-random if you want to get really technical) as opposed to the increased chance after not critting system Most people don't like actual uniformly random variables; markov chains basically reduce the variance of the result without changing the expected value. For example, which of the following sequences would you rather prefer happen in a game (say the 6's are critical hits) [5, 3, 3, 4, 1, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4, 1] [2, 6, 1, 4, 2, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 6, 3, 1, 4, 5] Most people prefer the second sequence to the first, even though the first sequence is actually the one that's truly random. The first sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die 20 times (in python). The second sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die, but rerolling the ones that matched either the previous throw or the previous previous throw. In both cases the expected number of 6's is the same (20/6), but the first sequence is prone to having long runs with 6's and long runs without 6's, while the 6's in the second sequence are more evenly distributed throughout. Both of your sequences are exactly equally likely to be the result of rolling a 6-sided die 20 times. It doesn't make sense to provide a specific sequence of numbers and claim that either one is "truly random". It absolutely does make sense to say one sequence is more random than another. There exist tests of randomness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests) and I'd wager that the second sequence would fail some of them (it definitely would if extended to many more samples) "I flipped this coin 1000 times and it came up heads each time. What is the probability that it comes up heads on my next flip?" "50%?" "No, closer to 99.99%. It's almost certain that I'm using a trick double-headed coin" I'm confused what you mean by "truly random".
I don't know about nexusp, but for most of us it means the daily lot here in TL LoL GD.
|
United States35160 Posts
On June 06 2013 06:46 Alaric wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 06:45 bmn wrote:On June 06 2013 05:58 thenexusp wrote:On June 06 2013 04:49 bmn wrote:On June 06 2013 03:24 thenexusp wrote:On June 06 2013 02:51 101toss wrote:On June 06 2013 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Crits aren't really RNG; look up markov chains. the crit algorithm is pretty counterintuitive not sure why it isn't uniformly random (or pseudo-random if you want to get really technical) as opposed to the increased chance after not critting system Most people don't like actual uniformly random variables; markov chains basically reduce the variance of the result without changing the expected value. For example, which of the following sequences would you rather prefer happen in a game (say the 6's are critical hits) [5, 3, 3, 4, 1, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4, 1] [2, 6, 1, 4, 2, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 6, 3, 1, 4, 5] Most people prefer the second sequence to the first, even though the first sequence is actually the one that's truly random. The first sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die 20 times (in python). The second sequence was generated by rolling a 6 sided die, but rerolling the ones that matched either the previous throw or the previous previous throw. In both cases the expected number of 6's is the same (20/6), but the first sequence is prone to having long runs with 6's and long runs without 6's, while the 6's in the second sequence are more evenly distributed throughout. Both of your sequences are exactly equally likely to be the result of rolling a 6-sided die 20 times. It doesn't make sense to provide a specific sequence of numbers and claim that either one is "truly random". It absolutely does make sense to say one sequence is more random than another. There exist tests of randomness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests) and I'd wager that the second sequence would fail some of them (it definitely would if extended to many more samples) "I flipped this coin 1000 times and it came up heads each time. What is the probability that it comes up heads on my next flip?" "50%?" "No, closer to 99.99%. It's almost certain that I'm using a trick double-headed coin" I'm confused what you mean by "truly random". I don't know about nexusp, but for most of us it means the daily lot here in TL LoL GD.
I don't know, Neo is kinda Markov chainy. Makes us break our valued discussions on a true and proper game. Patches come out every other year or so, often time with 100+ champi- excuse me, I mean characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
