The secrets/mysteries of RNG cloud and Why you should not ever stop playing after a godly drop. Ep3

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Carbon dating would be impossible unless there was a real patttern, yet Schrödinger's Cat tells us the patttern of decay is completely random.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If the Gambler's Fallacy was completely untrue, all the casinos in Vegas would have gone bankrupt.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Randomness applies more often to small scale details and at large scales becomes a recognizable patttern.

"

Boruko wrote:

The Schrödinger's Cat doesn't tell us anything. It's meant as a thought experiment to critique a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics.

"

Boruko wrote:

And you are confusing the ideas of 'random' with 'uniform distribution' I think.

"

Boruko wrote:

Random meaning(loosly) that the future state is not determined by the current state.

"

Boruko wrote:

This does not mean that the probabilities of various outcomes are unknown.


Carbon dating relies on this. For a single c14 atom, there is a ~50% chance that it will decay during the time period of its half-life. If you were looking at just one atom, sure, it would be random. But you have billions and billions in your sample, and they approach that 50% pretty closely as a result.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If the Gambler's Fallacy was completely untrue, all the casinos in Vegas would have gone bankrupt.

"

Boruko wrote:

Except the gamblers' reliance on that fallacy makes the casinos far more money. "my luck's been bad all night, it's got to get better soon!"

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Randomness applies more often to small scale details and at large scales becomes a recognizable patttern.

"

Boruko wrote:

This you have right. Your problem is that you take that statistical accuracy you built up because of the larger scale, and you try to apply it at the smaller scale.

"

Boruko wrote:

I think there probably are patterns that occur, certain random seeds that are better than others. I don't think it will be possible to influence it or even notice it. I also highly doubt that whatever seed is controlling your drops even sticks with you as much as from one area to the next, let alone a full session.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Interesting concept, thanks for pointing it out :-)

I think the idea of apophenia itself is somewhat flawed and apophenic in that it is seeing a pattern of delusion in various random behaviors and attributing it to flawed thinking.

Pattern recognition may very well be what separates us from most of the other animals on our planet.

According to Ray Kurzweil, the typical human brain can process 300 million pattterns simultaneously and this massive patttern recgonition is what enabled us to make such a tremendous leap in capabilities from the other species.

Predictive modeling based on patttern recognition is our normal way of thinking. Science - as ballyhooed as it is, is simply redudant testing of various predictive models.

IOW - RNG theories could be set forth with expectations of what should happen if they were true, and then they could be tested. With enough accurate data, RNG could be reverse engineered from the results.

Apophenia is thus an oxymoron. Carbon dating would be impossible unless there was a real patttern, yet Schrödinger's Cat tells us the patttern of decay is completely random. If the Gambler's Fallacy was completely untrue, all the casinos in Vegas would have gone bankrupt. Even completely random things may have logical and predictable underpinnings. What we see as chaos is a natural progression from higher to lower energy states based on far more factors than we can account for. Randomness applies more often to small scale details and at large scales becomes a recognizable patttern.

There is always a patttern to the data, the problem is how much random data do you need to see the pattern? There are formulas that determine the maxium bounds of how much information is needed (and which any computer chip can be programmed to calculate results from) but the lower rate is not achievable by any single formula.

An expert chess player watching two masters playing might recognize certain pattterns, while an amateur observer declared the expert was experiencing apophonia.

A computer might need 30 seconds to recognize a song while a particular listener will recognize it in 3 notes.

One could say that the song isn't a random patttern, it's a song! In reality, it is a random patttern of pressure waves produced as a chaos by product of the big bang. The number of repetitions of certain frequencies may seem striking, but in a truly random universe they are not only possible, but to be expected. Anything else would invoke some sort of anthropomorphism.

That true randomness itself can and must create complex pattterns (self organization) is de rigeur nowadays, whether it is true or not. The current modus operandi seems to be "Once you eliminate the impossible, the unacceptable and the unimaginable, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth, providing it is financially and politically expedient."

All of this isn't to say people aren't jumping to conclusions because of emotional attachment or limited personal experience as "apophenia" would suggest. We probably are. In some aspects it's because it's fun, in other aspects it's because we really don't have a lot of info to work on. We don't know if game start time or anything else affects the random seed, or how much the seed affects the drops considering other factors.

We do know they have races that are "fixed" and we know that Map quality, character level vs area level, and magic find modifiers such as increased rarity and quantity affect drops. So there is some level of control in the programming. We just don't know what else might affect it.

It is to say that such jumping to conclusions is a normal healthy part of the human intelligence. Sticking to incorrect assumptions when they have been proven wrong or are obviously logically flawed is a problem.

As to whether GGG have some hidden balancing or gifting routines for the RNG, I can't say. I don't recall if Chris ever explicitly included RNG in the various aspects of the game that GGG kept track of and would take a look at to make sure everything balances out.

On that note, it's back to running docks and various other water adjacent areas in search of a fishing rod!

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I recall that when Cyclone first came out, I tried finding it with three different characters. The first two had no luck, but the third one found five cyclone gems within a short period of time. I attributed it to GGG wanting some cyclones to drop so that people could try it out and that not enough were dropping or being used so they upped the rates.

No idea why it really happened, just my thoughts on it.

"

JuggaloScruffy wrote:

With my last character ive gotten multiple double drops , 2 lionseyes, 2 abyssus, 2 BoR, all times they were shortly after each other ( different days, musta been rainG that MONTH .... LOL PLAY ON WORDS)

with 0iiq and 12 iir should i add...

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Interesting concept, thanks for pointing it out :-)

I think the idea of apophenia itself is somewhat flawed and apophenic

"

Boruko wrote:

I think there probably are patterns that occur, certain random seeds that are better than others. I don't think it will be possible to influence it or even notice it. I also highly doubt that whatever seed is controlling your drops even sticks with you as much as from one area to the next, let alone a full session.