Forum Message
| City: | Kansas City  | | Personal Data: | Male, | | HomePage or other cool site: | http://www.wwi-models.org/ | | Membership | 21years 115days ago. | | Last Login | 3years 364days ago. | | Last Move | 16years 20days ago. | Impailer is currently  | |
| | Message text This generality is false. Older computer languages had very rudimentary random number generators that lacked the sophistication to avoid coming up with the same calculation over and over and over. Some of these still exist today! (Case in point, the 'random play feature' in the iPod is not very good.) They did not distribute the numbers evenly over a given number of calculations, as I have recently found out, as applied to a single die. I don't know much about the modern versions of random number generators, nor the one used for Blue Max. It may or may not be based on older algorithms. It's amazing how much of the old stuff is 'good enough' and carried forward because it's hardly used. This may be the case. I suspect it is, and still believe there is not an equal distribution of numbers over a large number of rolls using this function in the game.
I would still like to see empirical evidence to the contrary.
Impailer |
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
