Random number generator - please make it more random

[BurningDownTheHouse]

Look at the combat log in the image below:



Does anything about the rolls there strike you as being less than random?

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the kind of number clustering you see in the image works both ways, and sometimes you get 3 vorpals in a row as well.

Having said that, this is ridiculous. The chances for 3 1's in a row on a d20 is 1 in 8000, it happens way more than that. I've had the same number rolled 10 times in a row on a d100 roll as well. The chance for this happening is lower than the chance of winning the grand prize in the lottery two consecutive times in a row!!!

I know that logical random number generators tend to cluster over short instances, but games like this is the exact place where this kind of clustering is detrimental.

There is a way to have a real random number generator used (the one using atmospheric readings comes to mind). The problem is, that it costs money.
I think that it would be a worthwhile investment none the less.

Your thoughts now.

[Neversignup]

OP... I'm not trying to knock you mate but it sounds like you are after system that offers different numbers everytime. Which ain't random. Which would be exploitable to the brilliant player base that makes up the Eberron community.

[Dendrix]

That is random. 1 in 8000 chances happen 1 in 8000 times. the no of dice rolls made in a 4 hour gaming session is tens of thousands

[BurningDownTheHouse]

OP... I'm not trying to knock you mate but it sounds like you are after system that offers different numbers everytime. Which ain't random. Which would be exploitable to the brilliant player base that makes up the Eberron community.

Umm, not sure what you mean...
I want the numbers not to cluster, what did you think I wanted?

[BurningDownTheHouse]

That is random. 1 in 8000 chances happen 1 in 8000 times. the no of dice rolls made in a 4 hour gaming session is tens of thousands

This was just an example.
Try attacking the ship dummy, and record the clustering.
You'll be surprised.

[TechNoFear]

You assume that each character, mob, chest, pool of lava, etc has their own random number generator, which I do not think is the case.

So your three '1's in a row are not consecutive values from the games/servers random number generator (ie there are lots of other numbers generated by the RNG inbetween each of your '1's so it is not 'clustering').

[BurningDownTheHouse]

You assume that each character, mob, chest, pool of lava, etc has their own random number generator, which I do not think is the case.

So your three '1's in a row are not consecutive values from the games/servers random number generator (ie there are lots of other numbers generated by the RNG inbetween each of your '1's so it is not 'clustering').

I don't think that only one instance of a random number generator will be able to support the games needs.
I would guess that there is one per character, mob, or any other relevant game object. Makes more sense to me.

[Daggaz]

The random generator has been tested extensively, and disregarding external code effects, has been shown to be consistently very random. In fact, random number generators in general are extremely well made these days and do NOT suffer the commonly held misconception of being "not random at all." Go ahead and wiki it...

Stop kicking this dead horse, especially with such an incredibly limited data set, especially when you admit to knowing that your data set is far too limited to be of use.

somebody want to link the appropriate threads.. I dont bother bookmarking that stuff.

[BurningDownTheHouse]

The random generator has been tested extensively, and disregarding external code effects, has been shown to be consistently very random. In fact, random number generators in general are extremely well made these days and do NOT suffer the commonly held misconception of being "not random at all." Go ahead and wiki it...

There are two principal methods used to generate random numbers. One measures some physical phenomenon that is expected to be random and then compensates for possible biases in the measurement process. The other uses computational algorithms that produce long sequences of apparently random results, which are in fact completely determined by a shorter initial value, known as a seed or key. The latter type are often called pseudorandom number generators.

A "random number generator" based solely on deterministic computation cannot be regarded as a "true" random number generator, since its output is inherently predictable. How to distinguish a "true" random number from the output of a pseudo-random number generator is a very difficult problem. However, carefully chosen pseudo-random number generators can be used instead of true random numbers in many applications. Rigorous statistical analysis of the output is often needed to have confidence in the algorithm.

And I did not say "not random at all" I said "tend to cluster over short instances".

Stop kicking this dead horse, especially with such an incredibly limited data set, especially when you admit to knowing that your data set is far too limited to be of use.

Shouldn't be dead if it is...
/cast raise dead

[MrLarone]

i believe the OP is looking for this:

http://gamesbyemail.com/News/DiceOMatic

[BurningDownTheHouse]

i believe the OP is looking for this:

http://gamesbyemail.com/News/DiceOMatic

Cool, just adapt it to the other D&D dice and we're golden.
+1

[Lord_WC]

1. Fight for a bit.
2. Check your last 3 attack rolls (let's say it was 13,16,8)
3. Those had 1 in 8000 chance as well.

[Backley]

Clusters aren't evidence of non-randomness.

Simple test:
Teacher asks class to write down their guesses for the results of 100 coin flips.
Teacher flips a coin 100 times and records the actual results.

The class's guesses are always less clustered (streaks of all Heads or all Tails) than the actual results.

Humans just aren't wired to think random.

[MrLarone]

Humans just aren't wired to think random.

banana philharmonic garden tyres!

[MrLarone]

Humans just aren't wired to think random.

banana philharmonic garden tyres!

***edit***

just to note that it was a bit of a struggle to think up 4 words without an immediate cognitive association (e.g. after banana my first instinct was to type monkey) so i guess you're right Backley =)

[Keybreaker]

Clusters aren't evidence of non-randomness.

Yes, clustering is actually an indication of randomness. (Indication, not proof... Conversely, no clustering with a very large sample size is good evidence of non-randomness.) As Backley is saying, truly random sequences contain many clusters.

Humans tend to confuse scattered, with random. Another example is random dots on a page. Ask a human to randomly place 20 dots on a piece of paper... the usual result is scattered, well spaced-out dots. However, a truly random pattern would more than likely have 2 dots very close to each other, ie cluster.

Another popular example is the apparent birthday paradox. How many people do you need in a classroom to assure a better than 50% chance that two people have the same birthday? (Hint: It's fewer than you think.)

Anyhoo, the point is... OP does not understand randomness.

[Dendrix]

This was just an example.
Try attacking the ship dummy, and record the clustering.
You'll be surprised.

No I won't because I understand mathematics and randomness. Frequent clustering is to be expected in any random distribution.

Here's are two example of randomness
1) How many people do you need in any random grouping to have a 50% chance that two of them share the same birthday?
2) How many people do you need in any random grouping to have a 99% chance that two of them share the same birthday?

Answers below
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23 and 57

[BurningDownTheHouse]

1. Fight for a bit.
2. Check your last 3 attack rolls (let's say it was 13,16,8)
3. Those had 1 in 8000 chance as well.

Clusters aren't evidence of non-randomness.

Simple test:
Teacher asks class to write down their guesses for the results of 100 coin flips.
Teacher flips a coin 100 times and records the actual results.

The class's guesses are always less clustered (streaks of all Heads or all Tails) than the actual results.

Humans just aren't wired to think random.

Yes, clustering is actually an indication of randomness. (Indication, not proof... Conversely, no clustering with a very large sample size is good evidence of non-randomness.) As Backley is saying, truly random sequences contain many clusters.

Humans tend to confuse scattered, with random. Another example is random dots on a page. Ask a human to randomly place 20 dots on a piece of paper... the usual result is scattered, well spaced-out dots. However, a truly random pattern would more than likely have 2 dots very close to each other, ie cluster.

Another popular example is the apparent birthday paradox. How many people do you need in a classroom to assure a better than 50% chance that two people have the same birthday? (Hint: It's fewer than you think.)

Anyhoo, the point is... OP does not understand randomness.

Alright, I admit that I am not a mathematician and definitely not a statistician.
But...
I was just beating on the dummy till its death, 213 hits, and the results are:
No clusters of 13,16,8
2 clusters of 3 2's
1 cluster of 3 5's
2 clusters of 3 13's
1 cluster of 3 20's
and...
1 cluster of 4 3's

OK, so no large clusters of 1's this time (there were 2 in a row, but I didn't record those)...

Now tell me, is this just stupid old me, or does look just a tad weird?

[BurningDownTheHouse]

No I won't because I understand mathematics and randomness. Frequent clustering is to be expected in any random distribution.

Look above and tell me that those results make statistical sense.

[MrLarone]

23 and 57

how'd you work those out?

sincere curiosity since it's been a while since i played with statistics.

to my mind it's both questions are answered by the number of people minus one dived by the number of days in the (normal) year. or:

(N-1)/365

which i believe is right as you can only be 100% certain to have two people with the same birthday once you have 366 or more (as then you would have one person to match every day and then one left over to guarantee the duplicate day).

in which case you have a 50% chance at around 182 and a 99% chance around 361 (spreadsheet floating point accuracy not withstanding)

correct me if i'm wrong =)