Jump to content


------------------


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

Barba_Electrica #1 Posted 16 August 2017 - 10:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014

-----------------------------------------

 


Edited by Barba_Electrica, 12 March 2018 - 11:00 AM.


jabster #2 Posted 16 August 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,394
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBarba_Electrica, on 16 August 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

But all good things have to come to an end. Therefore I’ve drawn a picture (it took ten minutes to do) that offers a plausible explanation for the tinfoil crew (I’m one of them) and may broaden the mind of the fair play team (I sure as heck don’t belong in that group).

 

You seem to have jumped the gun somewhat. First you need to present some credible evidence that the 'tinfoil crew' are correct in what they think they observed and no the feels is not credible evidence.

Barba_Electrica #3 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:00 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014
.........

Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:39 PM.


Aikl #4 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I was going to write a wall of text discussing statistics, but then I remembered a very relevant Dilbert comic strip:

 

 

...on a serious note, before you postulate that RNG is based around a stochastic/sine function, you should really test that out. Most of the whining is based around old classic confirmation bias, not 'trends' in RNG. Besides, how do you suggest that this is applied in practice? Is it per battle? Per minute? How fast does it change? How does it explain getting arguably completely random results at times, while other times a whole game can be seemingly messed up by RNG?

 

If you flip a coin, there's arguably a chance=0,5x of getting X heads in a series. Combined with confirmation bias, you've got a good, solid platform for whining players. ;)


Edited by Aikl, 16 August 2017 - 11:06 AM.


jabster #5 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:03 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,394
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBarba_Electrica, on 16 August 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

 

No, no.

 

We both know that many players have that "gut feeling" that is a fact. The gut feeling does exist. My picture expresses a plausible explanation for the gut feeling. I'm not saying that us tinfoilers are correct - but at least we could be correct if my RNG + Sine curves were indeed in use.

 

Yes, yes. If you can't even supply credible evidence then you basically have nothing more than the feels. Oh and as for it being undetectable, you're having a laugh aren't you?

Barba_Electrica #6 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014
...........

Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:41 PM.


Aikl #7 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:09 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

While it's an interesting theory, and arguably can explain the RNG phenomena, there's no real basis for it, nor any proof.

 

The Dilbert comic might be more relevant than you'd think, though. I'm not an expert on RNG as such, but I believe e.g. Random.org uses athmospheric noise as basis for RNG, as opposed to a troll a dedicated hardware/software number generator.



Kozzy #8 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:11 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

How would this start to explain the difference in recorded performance (i.e. stats) of good and bad players, since good and bad players all share the same RNG (however you feel it is distributed).

 

What I feel is more plausible, and more likely the correct answer, to "why do streaks happen in WoT?" is that streaks happen in statistics pretty much everywhere they are collected where 'randomness' is a factor.



Barba_Electrica #9 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:13 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014
............

Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:42 PM.


Spurtung #10 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63685 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostBarba_Electrica, on 16 August 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

what is the amplitude and frequency of the underlying sine or in what phase it was.

Here you go again assuming what you can't prove.



Barba_Electrica #11 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:17 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014

............ 

 

 


Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:43 PM.


jabster #12 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:20 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,394
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBarba_Electrica, on 16 August 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

 

Yes and no.:hiding: Take a look of the resulting curves. Is my thinking really that badly off - couldn't those be used as a RNG?

 

You could use the modified version as an RNG in much the same way as you could use an RNG that counted from one to ten and then started again. Just look at the image you posted. Are you really saying you can't see the difference between them?

 

-

 

View PostAikl, on 16 August 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

While it's an interesting theory, and arguably can explain the RNG phenomena, there's no real basis for it, nor any proof.

 

The Dilbert comic might be more relevant than you'd think, though. I'm not an expert on RNG as such, but I believe e.g. Random.org uses athmospheric noise as basis for RNG, as opposed to a troll a dedicated hardware/software number generator.

 

What difference would it make, besides speed, if the WoT RNG was based purely on software which I very much presume is the case. 
 

Ankara_Aatu #13 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34516 battles
  • 615
  • [RIOD] RIOD
  • Member since:
    04-11-2015
I postulate that the random number generator used in WoT is actually a collection on magical pixies that produces exactly the results that everyone experiences or claims to experience. I'm not debating why they would resort to pixies, merely stating that they could and that would be undetectable.

jabster #14 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,394
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBarba_Electrica, on 16 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

 

That's all one can do - nobody has the real figures to examine. Only a theory of what could be done.

 

Well how about starting with collecting some figures first then. To be honest this thread is starting to come across as the rather underhand tactic of positioning opinions on the RNG as all equally valid.

Barba_Electrica #15 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:28 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014
............

Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:43 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #16 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:29 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 7725 battles
  • 4,122
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

The RNG is random.

There is no reason to even suggest it follows either of sine or stochastic like you suggest.

After all, it are a series of unique, unrelated events, while the above suggests it is in some way related.

Not to mention that you left out the entire bell curve tendency for RNG to get a result closer to the centre instead of equal distribution within the range allowed.



Aikl #17 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:29 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postjabster, on 16 August 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

 

What difference would it make, besides speed, if the WoT RNG was based purely on software which I very much presume is the case. 

 

Supposedly it's closer to a true random number generator, which is something a piece of hardware and software inherently can't manage to create. If I was an expert on the matter, I'd probably be able to explain why, but alas.

Barba_Electrica #18 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014

...........


Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:44 PM.


Ankara_Aatu #19 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34516 battles
  • 615
  • [RIOD] RIOD
  • Member since:
    04-11-2015
The thing is, your "theory" has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Barba_Electrica #20 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18540 battles
  • 615
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014
..........

Edited by Barba_Electrica, 21 February 2018 - 02:45 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users