[X] My Assistant

I think there's a bug in IW. I get Penetrator1,2, then spellweaver1. twice. Economizer1,2, then whatever other potency, at least 5times. Those numbers don't add up to 75% chance to increase the existing potency. It feels like the odds are switched; ie. 25% chance to get the existing, and 75% chance to get a new potency.

Why make it so hard to get potencies you want? It makes me want to play less, not more.

Just spend ~70 shard on my cotton glove but still fail to get Juggernaut lv4+ (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/anime_cry.gif)

Just spend ~70 shard on my cotton glove but still fail to get Juggernaut lv4+ (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/anime_cry.gif)

It happened again. Econo1,2, then Penetrator1. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

edit... eerrrr wait. maybe it's not a bug, it's intentional. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif)

This post has been edited by treesloth: Aug 26 2014, 09:13

I think there's a bug in IW. I get Penetrator1,2, then spellweaver1. twice. Economizer1,2, then whatever other potency, at least 5times. Those numbers don't add up to 75% chance to increase the existing potency. It feels like the odds are switched; ie. 25% chance to get the existing, and 75% chance to get a new potency.

Why make it so hard to get potencies you want? It makes me want to play less, not more.

I read it to be independent of levels, so if you have Penetrator 2, you should have a 50% of getting a new one.

I think there's a bug in IW. I get Penetrator1,2, then spellweaver1. twice. Economizer1,2, then whatever other potency, at least 5times. Those numbers don't add up to 75% chance to increase the existing potency. It feels like the odds are switched; ie. 25% chance to get the existing, and 75% chance to get a new potency.

Why make it so hard to get potencies you want? It makes me want to play less, not more.

Probably the terrible RNG should be blamed.
it is not doubt HV can't really have a reliable RNG because of heavy load.

You should try IW at different time instead of at one time.

At least I got 5+4 staff in 700 shards and many 5 jug or 5 Eco(though I reforged them...).

I think there's a bug in IW. I get Penetrator1,2, then spellweaver1. twice. Economizer1,2, then whatever other potency, at least 5times. Those numbers don't add up to 75% chance to increase the existing potency. It feels like the odds are switched; ie. 25% chance to get the existing, and 75% chance to get a new potency.

You only made 2 IW, it's just RNG

one potency => 50% of getting the same one
two potencies => 75% of getting one of those two
three potencies => 100% of getting those 3, 1/3 for each

I read it to be independent of levels, so if you have Penetrator 2, you should have a 50% of getting a new one.

I usually end up on the wrong side of the coin flip. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/anime_cry.gif)

At least I got 5+4 staff in 700 shards and many 5 jug or 5 Eco(though I reforged them...).

it's just RNG

Ended up with 5+3+1 on my elemental staff. Ehh, not perfect, but the best I've seen so I'll keep it.

Probably the terrible RNG should be blamed.
it is not doubt HV can't really have a reliable RNG because of heavy load.

[en.wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister

[en.wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister

So we are using timestamp or sth? A 64bits LFSR?

If so the server is quite powerful~ (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Or maybe hv doesn't need so many RN, different objects can be linked?

A lot of questions... (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)

How about just make a bierf illustration about the RNG parameters?
That will shut down all the query about HV's randomness~ (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Thank you for answer anyway! Good job for your recent work for gallery! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

One of my armor pieces took over 400 shards to get to 5/5 jug & cap... Another took 100, the rest took 20-50 XD. I think I was lucky!

One of my armor pieces took over 400 shards to get to 5/5 jug & cap... Another took 100, the rest took 20-50 XD. I think I was lucky!

I feel so lucky that mages do not really need capacitor (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[en.wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister

It can take a long time to start generating output that passes randomness tests, if the initial state is highly non-random—particularly if the initial state has many zeros. A consequence of this is that two instances of the generator, started with initial states that are almost the same, will usually output nearly the same sequence for many iterations, before eventually diverging. The 2002 update to the MT algorithm has improved initialization, so that reaching such a state is very unlikely.[24]

How do you pick seed, do you use timestamp, eid, uid, or any combination of them? Do you parse it through a faster PRNG?

Might explain why we tend to get the same potency in succession. The overall odds is still the same, but it's more predictable that way (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by holy_demon: Aug 26 2014, 23:48

How do you pick seed, do you use timestamp, eid, uid, or any combination of them? Do you parse it through a faster PRNG?

Tenb simply throw out a little information to raise more questions. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Knowing the algorithm is mtrand helps only a little in understanding.
There are still a lot factors affecting a random number sequence. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Are you distrusting Snowflake over mere feelings? Heretics!

Seriously, [cocosci.berkeley.edu] humans have a very bad sense of randomness. If you doubt the RNG, come back with actual numbers next time.

Is it me, or has the font gotten smaller in the gallery comments and forum replies?

Just you.

Is it me, or has the font gotten smaller in the gallery comments and forum replies?

Have you hit Ctrl + - or Ctrl + mouse scroll by accident, maybe?

come back with actual numbers next time.

I think ST-Ru has made a record of 10k trophy then he rose the question.
You should PM him for the data~

But actually, I am more insteaded in theory thing about HV RNG not its output. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Because I never believe I can drop a Peerless or sth nice. So I have no feelings for HV RNG.

[cocosci.berkeley.edu] humans have a very bad sense of randomness.

Quite interesting. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I am wondering will the people Judgment accuracy be different between nested case and symmetric cases if the error is small enough? It's a little like ST-RU's case. maybe~ (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by gc00018: Aug 27 2014, 18:54

mt_srand() in PHP (which is called automatically the first time mt_rand() is used) seeds with the timestamp the process was started, the process PID, and a value produced by the internal [en.wikipedia.org] LCG. And seeing as the processes can live for thousands of requests and you never know which process happens to serve your request, it's not possible to predict even the timestamp. It is as random as it gets, and anyone claiming otherwise is suffering from confirmation bias.

mt_srand() in PHP (which is called automatically the first time mt_rand() is used) seeds with the timestamp the process was started, the process PID, and a value produced by the internal [en.wikipedia.org] LCG. And seeing as the processes can live for thousands of requests and you never know which process happens to serve your request, it's not possible to predict even the timestamp. It is as random as it gets, and anyone claiming otherwise is suffering from confirmation bias.

Just the first sentence already gave us a lot information.

Thanks for your generosity! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by gc00018: Aug 27 2014, 21:13

Have you hit Ctrl + - or Ctrl + mouse scroll by accident, maybe?

Nope, on 100% zoom, I'ma guessing Google Chrome just displays smaller text today, for some odd reason (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

It appears to okie dokie on Opera (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)