Alone in classic on an infinite timeline

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're massively misunderstanding randomness if you think that's true. By definition any RNG that can't (when given an infinite amount of time) generate lopsided results is a terrible RNG. A truly random RNG should generate a healthy series of "1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ..."-style sequences, but it absolutely should also generate "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..." from time to time, or else it's not truly random. And technically all computer-generated random numbers aren't actually random ... but the pseudo-random numbers that are generated are still far more random than that.

Also, to be clear every random number you will ever see in any computer game ever is timer based. That's just how computers generate random numbers, since they can't roll dice: they check the time, do some math on that time, and generate a (pseudo-)random number.

But, that in no way guarantees that "eventually you'll get hit because eventually you'll hit the right time". It's not like anything the computer is doing is based on time in that way: it's more like the computer looks at the last digit of the current millisecond (although it's not that simple), and obviously every time it checks that last digit could keep being 7 or whatever number it needs to be to fail.

Depending on how the EQ Emulator code works it's possible that their specific implementation ensures Trak never misses more than X number of times in a row, but there's nothing inherent in RNGs that would guarantee that, and unless someone did an experiment on their own private EQ Emu server to test it out I'd tend to believe the software really does have (pseudo-)random numbers.

Loramin, you always immediately want to argue with me, not sure why, but you are actually agreeing with some of my points as far as I can tell.

Nearly all software absolutely does use pseudo random numbers. These numbers are generated by a deterministic algorithm. They do not have an infinite range. They are indeed tested and designed to have a 'normal' distribution, meaning no huge lopsided runs as far as possible. As far as seeds, most are timer based but not all. Linux has it's own entropy source that is built up out of a bunch of different things, because just relying on an always increasing timer is actually *not* a very good source of randomness.

If you take all possible seeds, say a 32 or 64 bit integer range, and you feed them all one by one to a RNG, and you iterate each one fully across its range, you will get every possible number they can generate. That collection is not infinite. If you then do the exact same thing again, you'll get the same collection in the same order. Your point above about a 'truly random RNG' is the heart of the problem...P99 does not have, and there does not exist, a truly random algorithmic RNG. It is not possible. That's really my point - no computer generated series of RNG numbers is actually random. Can there be long sequences of 0's ? Sure, but if there are too many then that's not a very good RNG, the whole point is to have a normal distribution. I would expect there is no seed you can feed to a modern RNG that would wind up generating nothing but 0's across the whole range.

So whatever, put too much effort into this already. Rebut away.

[cornisthebest]

less talk about weird computer stuff, more talk about EQ

[loramin]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Loramin, you always immediately want to argue with me, not sure why, but you are actually agreeing with some of my points as far as I can tell.

Honest to god I didn't even notice/care whose name as on the left, and I have nothing whatsoever for or against you; you're just another poster to me and I was responding to what you wrote, not to you. TLDR; Don't flatter yourself [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The software absolutely does use pseudo random numbers. These numbers are generated by a deterministic algorithm. They do not have an infinite range. They are indeed tested and designed to have a 'normal' distribution, meaning no huge lopsided runs as far as possible. As far as seeds, most are timer based but not all. Linux has it's own entropy source that is built up out of a bunch of different things, because just relying on an always increasing timer is actually *not* a very good source of randomness.

If you take all possible seeds, say a 32 or 64 bit integer range, and you feed them all one by one to a RNG, and you iterate each one fully across its range, you will get every possible number they can generate. That collection is not infinite. If you then do the exact same thing again, you'll get the same collection in the same order. Your point above about a 'truly random RNG' is the heart of the problem...P99 does not have, and there does not exist, a truly random algorithmic RNG. It is not possible. That's really my point - no computer generated series of RNG numbers is actually random. Can there be long sequences of 0's ? Sure, but if there are too many then that's not a very good RNG, the whole point is to have a normal distribution. I would expect there is no seed you can feed to an RNG that would wind up generating nothing but 0's across the whole range.

So whatever, put too much effort into this already. Rebut away.

So, my post was not a treatise on how RNGs in computers work, it was just an explanation of some basics. But you seem to be stuck in the weeds of the argument, and it's making your miss the forest from the trees (to mix metaphors).

Yes, computer RNGs are only pseudo-random. No that does not mean you can't get a "series of 0's". Despite there being limits to how actually random a computer-generated random number can be, those limits in no way prevent a series of zeroes. They are not random in a mathematical sense, and there's ways you can prove as much, but for practical purposes in a computer game they are more than random enough.

And yes, the people that make the algorithms to generate RNGs do expect their RNGs to generate a certain distribution of numbers ... but that distribution includes extreme cases on both ends (long series of zeroes and long series of ones). If you don't see those happening (very rarely) you've made a terrible RNG.

So look, we don't need to get all computer science theory about this: the intricate details of how RNGs work simply aren't relevant. All anyone needs to know is that computer RNGs generate non-random, but close enough to random to be good enough for our purposes, random numbers. And those random numbers can and will (in an infinite timeline) result in a long series of misses for Trakanon at some point unless the EQ Emulator software says itself says otherwise.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Loramin, you always immediately want to argue with me, not sure why, but you are actually agreeing with some of my points as far as I can tell..

It's the "Let's see how convincingly I can RP this sock, while buffaloing good-faith actors" game. Used to confuse the heck outta me too. I just play along now.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's the "Let's see how convincingly I can RP this sock, while buffaloing good-faith actors" game. Used to confuse the heck outta me too. I just play along now.

"Buffaloing good-faith actors" ... fuck Melon, how can I take offense at anything you say when you use words like buffalo in the verb form!

As a side note, did you know that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is actually a valid English sentence? But I digress.

For what it's worth, there's no sock RPing here; the real Loramin is just the genuinely strange person you see in the forums.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Buffaloing good-faith actors" ... fuck Melon, how can I take offense at anything you say when you use words like buffalo in the verb form!

creative liberty

But for what it's worth, there's no sock RPing here; the real Loramin is just the strange person you see in the forums.

oh man, I don't think you're strange at all, you're a pretty cool dude. lotta admiration for your talents.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As a side note, did you know that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is actually a valid English sentence? But I digress.

i did not and had just accepted that the usage in my poast may have been abusive. I'd think the you'd need to throw in some conjugating variation for the buffalo sentence to be valid though. super cool if not.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd think the you'd need to throw in some conjugating variation for the buffalo sentence to be valid though. super cool if not.

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically correct sentence in American English ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffal...uffalo_buffalo

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffal...uffalo_buffalo

too cool

[Muggens]

Do the buffalo stance!