"Sorry dude but one thing I got on my side is results. I got two schems so far. When I find another 6/8 I will have three. When I have another 3/8 and 6/8 I will have four. Whether its superstition or truth I am obviously doing something right."
Yes what you are doing right, is REing tons of stuff, simple enough.
"Second cryptography? Even a 128 bit encryption can be broken. By guess what? Patterns. Wow. Isnt that amazing."
Well start cracking you can make millions if its so easy and based on such a faulty randomly generated number. No one is doing it yet, but hey you make it sound easy.
"Fourth how do you think statistics are formed? They take a group of something and test it. "
Your "tests" thus far lack the size needed to demonstrate anything, and are your recollections of events, not a recorded process.
"If you flip a coin 10 times and get heads 8 times then you got heads 80% of the time. Real simple to understand. Deny it all you want but its fact."
Thank you for proving your lack of probability for me. Yes, you GOT heads 80% of the time, but the probability of getting heads or tails is still 50% and with enough flips, will even itself out. Flipping a coin 10 times, does not give a large enough sample size to avoid extraneous results. Very simple to understand? Yeah, gotcha.
What you describe here is a PERFECT example of using too small an amount of data to produce invalid results.
"And until you actually come in here with cold hard numbers, dont begin to tell me any facts."
Right after you show me YOUR cold hard numbers.
It should look something like this:
Empty Inventory
Initial RE (level breakdown of recieved firespray schematics)
RE1: 257 parts 1 firespray RE2: 581 parts 0 firespray RE3: 312 parts 1 firespray
Firespray schematic percentages: (breakdown of firespray schematics based on what the names of the parts REd are) Kuat parts: 1 firespray Sienar parts: 1 firespray
Firespray schematic totals: (1-8 how many of each one)
Schem 1: 4 Schem 2: 2 Then it should repeat, with your observations in place (inventory full of REd parts, full of schematics)
When you do this for about 10,000 parts for each group, THEN you have numbers that may be worth looking at. THATS what hard data on this would look like.
"At least I am trying to form theories on this based on the results I get. If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem."
No, you are spreading superstition that turns into fact through gossip and rumor. You are a part of the problem.
"If any of these theories are wrong what does it hurt? Does it really matter if someone keeps their RE'd loot in their inventory until they are full then start dumping/destroying it? No it doesnt."
No, it doesnt matter. What does matter are all the rumors posts like this can start. Nothing will disprove anything you say of course, even if someone were to come out with concrete numbers. Even if the devs said you were wrong, you would ignore them - it is after all their program.
The problem here is that coincidence coupled with flawed human perception and a total lack of data, lead to horribly erroneous results.
Also, lets assume that you are correct and they cant even make a PNG that is "random enough" for this purpose in a game, you still have yet to prove WHY the devs would tie the process in to what you have in your inventory, what purpose would it serve.
It would just overcomplicate the process and make it harder to debug, for no good reason.
Marzuk147 wrote: Also, lets assume that you are correct and they cant even make a PNG that is "random enough" for this purpose in a game, you still have yet to prove WHY the devs would tie the process in to what you have in your inventory, what purpose would it serve.
It would just overcomplicate the process and make it harder to debug, for no good reason.
Unlike you I am at least trying to find out a few things. You havent RE'd even one little piece of loot so you cant even begin to sit there and tell me what you think. Maybe after you have RE'd 10k pieces of loot then you can begin to even have a slight clue as to what is happening. As for me I have RE'd over 10k parts and can tell you it doesnt feel random. When you can actually start to predict finding disks your not lucky, the system isnt random. So you want to talk about the disks and how to find them? Put your money where your mouth is. Until then dont even begin to discuss this with me as you have 0 (I repeat zero) experiance in regards to getting disks. I have RE'd over 10k parts. More along the lines of 12-15k now. I am seeing a pattern. I just need to figure out what it is. And yes that takes time. All I am giving is my preliminary views on this.
And if I wanted your insults I would have rattled your cage. You have insulted me from the very beginning without even knowing me. In fact your insults and flames have finally made me decide your not even worth the intelligence it takes to even acknowledge your existence. You want to have a nice conversation about randomness then go ahead. I am all for good discussions. But if your going to talk down to me and call me a moron and such then dont bother replying as I wont reply to you anymore.
As for the devs tieing it into your inventory that just might be the entropy their rand generator uses. You must create entropy to make a generator pseudo random. And though alot of games use system clocks to create the effect, people are starting to figure that pattern out.
Lastly and this will be the final reply from me to you if you keeping talking to me like a child. All science begins with fantasy and ideas. You dont just snap your fingers and have 10 million results to make a response on. This takes time. If you cant handle someone making opinions based on what they have done so far then I suggest you stay indoors alot and dont talk to alot of people. Maybe you do that already.
These are just that. Opinions. Based on what I have done so far. Based on the experiance I have gained. And based on the results from REing over 10k parts. I am giving my opinion on what brings me better chances to get disks. This is a forum and that means its to exchange ideas.
Tyranus
Yoda: "When I die, the last of the Jedi, you will be!" Luke: "Really? what about those 50,000 Jedi Masters outside comparing Saber Size?" Yoda: "Sorry I am, My Bad it is"
LOL whatever. All I can say is I am confident that I am correct, and thats good enough for me.
PS. I wouldnt tie the seed for the random number generator into anything the player can effect, its just stupid. That means inventory, location, time, money, ect.
PS. I wouldnt tie the seed for the random number generator into anything the player can effect, its just stupid. That means inventory, location, time, money, ect.
No but it could be tied to the interval the user takes inbetween clicking his mouse or whatever. Now that is simple.....and totally random (unless you have computers that can read peoples mind AND predict the future).
D'Vad [X-Wing] Chimaera What was God doing before he said "Let there be light"... Religion is the easy way out........
PS. I wouldnt tie the seed for the random number generator into anything the player can effect, its just stupid. That means inventory, location, time, money, ect.
No but it could be tied to the interval the user takes inbetween clicking his mouse or whatever. Now that is simple.....and totally random (unless you have computers that can read peoples mind AND predict the future).
Yeah. you could tie it to the time interval between mouse clicks. but then it wouldn't be random anymore. using something like that would give you a gaussian distribution rather than a random one. and would be far, far less random than even the most simplistic of pseudo-random number generators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
No but it could be tied to the interval the user takes inbetween clicking his mouse or whatever. Now that is simple.....and totally random (unless you have computers that can read peoples mind AND predict the future).
Yeah. you could tie it to the time interval between mouse clicks. but then it wouldn't be random anymore. using something like that would give you a gaussian distribution rather than a random one. and would be far, far less random than even the most simplistic of pseudo-random number generators.
No.
You seem to be missing the point here.
The random number generator can be used on the base of the time interval....
i.e 1 second *rand()/whatever to get the number required
with 1 second being the random user input (maybe closer to like 1.2343847464637363363 of a second?)
This then has 2 random numbers.
Try and predict that.
D'Vad [X-Wing] Chimaera What was God doing before he said "Let there be light"... Religion is the easy way out........
Marzuk has every right to have an opinion on this subject. constantly flaunting the fact that you've RE'd things and he hasn't is basically nothing more than baseless taunts and insults that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Yet whenever he makes a good point that you don't know how to refute.... that's what you start doing: flaunting the number of things you've RE'd, as though this fact is somehow your secret trump card that allows you to win every argument. Constantly bringing that up is not the way to form an argument.
You then accuse him of needing to invest more skill points in logic! Until you stop flaunting the number of things you've RE'd as a way of invalidating the words of people who disagree with you, you've got no place to be talking about who should and should not be working on their logic skills.
I have some food for thought on my anecdotal experience with REing. Two night ago I was grinding through some RE components when my cat jumped on my desk and swatted my mouse with her paw. Guess what happenned? The next thing I RE'd yielded a schematic piece! I didn't get another piece for a long while even though I RE'd a few hundred more components. then my cat came into the room and started bugging me. Sure enough, my next RE attempt yielded another schematic piece!
What does that tell us?
Doesn't mean squat if you ask me. But in all honesty, none of your "tips" are any different than my experience with my cat. The only thing that is different is that it's obvious to even the untrained, that my cat couldn't be affecting the RE result. But in truth the statistical correlations between my cat and my RE attempts are just as strong as the correlations you think you've observed when moving things around in your inventory while REing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
The random number generator can be used on the base of the time interval....
i.e 1 second *rand()/whatever to get the number required
with 1 second being the random user input (maybe closer to like 1.2343847464637363363 of a second?)
This then has 2 random numbers.
Try and predict that.
Now I no longer know what you are talking about. The discusion was about how to seed the random number generator. you said in response to that discussion "it could be tied to the interval the user takes inbetween clicking his mouse...". now you are saying that you weren't talking about the seed, but instead are talking about multiplying the random result by this time interval. why? that serves no purpose. the results of rand() are fairly random. the time interval between consecutive mouse clicks isn't, at least not in the way that the computer can measure. the fact that I can't predict it doesn't make it random. but to tell you the truth, computers are not really very good at measuring time at which an event from a mouse arrives any more accurately than a millisecond or so. they tend to round off any attempt to measure intervals of time from an input device to the nearest millisecond (roughly speaking). You may think in your head that the time interval you speak of is 1.2343847464637363363, and it may be so. but when the computer attempts to calculate that time interval, because of round off error at the input device, it is going to be something like: 1.2344. A human being is actually capable of clicking with enough precision that the interval you want to calculate will come out exactly the same 100 times in only a few hundred mouse clicks because of that round off error on the input.
No. Real time user input is a horrible way to try and get a random number. For two reasons. 1) human beings are creatures of habit. and 2) the input devices humans use to communicate with the computer are only as accurate as they need to be to keep up with a human's reflexes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
All this thought over what works and what doesn't? The title of the thread says tips, he is offering up suggestions of what he has done to get the schematic parts. Wrong or not, logical or not, he has completed two schematics now so I am willing to try any advice. It has been suggested that some of the tips make no difference, so what is there to lose in trying?
Just my .02cents.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . : : VOLKET : : . . oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo CRIMSON CORSAIRS oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo "I don't like taking the Rebel bounties oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....but a hunt is a hunt" oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Now I no longer know what you are talking about. The discusion was about how to seed the random number generator. you said in response to that discussion "it could be tied to the interval the user takes inbetween clicking his mouse...". now you are saying that you weren't talking about the seed, but instead are talking about multiplying the random result by this time interval. why? that serves no purpose. the results of rand() are fairly random. the time interval between consecutive mouse clicks isn't, at least not in the way that the computer can measure. the fact that I can't predict it doesn't make it random. but to tell you the truth, computers are not really very good at measuring time at which an event from a mouse arrives any more accurately than a millisecond or so. they tend to round off any attempt to measure intervals of time from an input device to the nearest millisecond (roughly speaking). You may think in your head that the time interval you speak of is 1.2343847464637363363, and it may be so. but when the computer attempts to calculate that time interval, because of round off error at the input device, it is going to be something like: 1.2344. A human being is actually capable of clicking with enough precision that the interval you want to calculate will come out exactly the same 100 times in only a few hundred mouse clicks because of that round off error on the input.
No. Real time user input is a horrible way to try and get a random number. For two reasons. 1) human beings are creatures of habit. and 2) the input devices humans use to communicate with the computer are only as accurate as they need to be to keep up with a human's reflexes.
This is what i am talking about. In computing terms rand() is not random, as was stated above (by the guys from MIT(sic))
Why do you say "fairly" random....lol
Come out exactly the same 100 times in only a few hundred mouse clicks------yes BUT it is then * by the rand number generated.
The point of where i came into this argument was that there was no way of getting a truly random number generated. I cant remember now when/which computer it was but when you switched it on and ran a certain program on it to generate a random number it always gave you the same one, as this is how computers work.
IF you can get truly random number then there is no way people can utilise threads like this one...lol
D'Vad [X-Wing] Chimaera What was God doing before he said "Let there be light"... Religion is the easy way out........
Marzuk has every right to have an opinion on this subject. constantly flaunting the fact that you've RE'd things and he hasn't is basically nothing more than baseless taunts and insults that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Yet whenever he makes a good point that you don't know how to refute.... that's what you start doing: flaunting the number of things you've RE'd, as though this fact is somehow your secret trump card that allows you to win every argument. Constantly bringing that up is not the way to form an argument.
You then accuse him of needing to invest more skill points in logic! Until you stop flaunting the number of things you've RE'd as a way of invalidating the words of people who disagree with you, you've got no place to be talking about who should and should not be working on their logic skills.
I have some food for thought on my anecdotal experience with REing. Two night ago I was grinding through some RE components when my cat jumped on my desk and swatted my mouse with her paw. Guess what happenned? The next thing I RE'd yielded a schematic piece! I didn't get another piece for a long while even though I RE'd a few hundred more components. then my cat came into the room and started bugging me. Sure enough, my next RE attempt yielded another schematic piece!
What does that tell us?
Doesn't mean squat if you ask me. But in all honesty, none of your "tips" are any different than my experience with my cat. The only thing that is different is that it's obvious to even the untrained, that my cat couldn't be affecting the RE result. But in truth the statistical correlations between my cat and my RE attempts are just as strong as the correlations you think you've observed when moving things around in your inventory while REing.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have never once said I was right or correct. Yet he does. And he presents his "I am the computer god so burn in hell Petabyte, you moron" additude badly.
As I said if he wants to discuss this then fine. I am open to discussion. But when someone calls me a moron or talks down to me with each post then guess what? Its not a discussion anymore. Its one man who thinks he is so correct it gives him the right to treat others against his arguement like dogs.
I think it was him who suggested I go play Diablo 2. This is about what I expect from one of the script kiddies over there. He should go play Counterstrike. He would love that community.
So I no longer care for his opinion. I will no longer acknowledge any of his posts ever. As far as I am concerned he doesnt exist. When he can offer intelligent thought filled banter without nasty verbal slashes then we can have discussions. Until then if I want something like what he offers I will go talk to my 13 year old nephew. They both sound the same.
Tyranus
Yoda: "When I die, the last of the Jedi, you will be!" Luke: "Really? what about those 50,000 Jedi Masters outside comparing Saber Size?" Yoda: "Sorry I am, My Bad it is"
the probability of a random event in a series of random events doesnt relate to its successors or predecessors as you have to see every event on its own. So getting 8 2/8 components in a row is exactly as probable as getting one of each component.
speaking of seed values, real time clock and user input you have to consider that the random number generator is running on the server. so for one it very likely doesnt have access to a delay in mouse clicks. furthermore you dont seed a random number generator every time you use it but just the first time. I wouldnt be surprised if they utilized some kind of central rnd routine that serves numbers to all kinds of functions. Even if it starts anew every use you cant easily hack a rtc seed since its using the servers clock.
You dont use values as inventory count, present items in seeding the rng but in calculating the success out of the random number.
finally observations as the ones tyranus makes are something we need. You shouldnt flame him but log into the game and try to approve or disapprove his assumptions. creating theories and proving/disapproving them is the only way to find a system. apart from that many people are just glad to find anything that could help.
Anirul Kynes Imperial Colonel, DSD Shipwright Vendor near Theed at -5340, 3313
finally observations as the ones tyranus makes are something we need. You shouldnt flame him but log into the game and try to approve or disapprove his assumptions. creating theories and proving/disapproving them is the only way to find a system. apart from that many people are just glad to find anything that could help.
I am not sure if this is aimed at me but if it is.
I did not flame anyone, I was just trying to sort a way out to make it random.
the probability of a random event in a series of random events doesnt relate to its successors or predecessors as you have to see every event on its own. So getting 8 2/8 components in a row is exactly as probable as getting one of each component.
yes thats right but much more likely to get some mixture
speaking of seed values, real time clock and user input you have to consider that the random number generator is running on the server. so for one it very likely doesnt have access to a delay in mouse clicks. furthermore you dont seed a random number generator every time you use it but just the first time. I wouldnt be surprised if they utilized some kind of central rnd routine that serves numbers to all kinds of functions. Even if it starts anew every use you cant easily hack a rtc seed since its using the servers clock.
Yes I am wrong here. I was getting mixed up with running a prog from new everytime.
So tbh it should really be random.....as in no way can anyone try to make a pattern out of it if the generator has been up and running for a while.
D'Vad [X-Wing] Chimaera What was God doing before he said "Let there be light"... Religion is the easy way out........
Yes I am wrong here. I was getting mixed up with running a prog from new everytime.
So tbh it should really be random.....as in no way can anyone try to make a pattern out of it if the generator has been up and running for a while.
I think here is the general problem. I can feel a pattern. I dont know what but I can feel it. I think the situation is that most people RE loot randomly so they see randomness. But when you spend 3+ hours straight REing loot everyday. Well thats another matter. Its almost like a pulse. I can start to feel its peak.
But the biggest problem of all is that there is so much. So many different variables that can and I believe do play a part in getting a disk or not. Whether or not you log, if you keep your disks in your inventory, company the loot comes from, and so on. And this may well be what the DEVs are counting on for their randomness. Keep the system tied up in all sorts of variables so that no one can stick even one part of the system to a table.
I am not saying that they arent using a random number generator. I have never said that. I am saying there might be variables that affect the outcome of each RE. A simple number gen that could be tracked except having 50 variables added in would give a look of randomness just as having a complex multi tier number generator. It would look random until you figured out the variables. If there is 50 variables, what are the odds someone will figure it out? Not very likely.
The more I RE the closer I feel to nailing something down in this system. Look at the original FS path. Before anyone knew what it was. People had theories. I remember a few people had the theory it was based on professions. No one had any real evidence. But these guys strongly felt mastering professions was the key. But they got flamed by everyone else because the DEVs had said the system was random and certain checks had been put in place. But we all found out those few were completely right.
My biggest point in the arguement for whether or not this is truely random, is the prize itself. The firespray. I honestly feel the devs are starting to learn from past mistakes, IE holocrons. Holocrons were a completely random loot item and with in a month of them dropping, people that wanted them had literally 5 or more of them. They were so prevelant you could go to coronet and see 10 or more players shouting to sell them. If the firespray disk system is completely random as some think then it wont be long before we see the samething with firesprays. With the amount of loot out there its inevitable. If firesprays get that common then it defeats the purpose and will hurt the economy once again. An economy, I might add, that cant take too many more hits like holos, crystals, and pearls did. This is one reason I feel the disks are truly 100% random. There has to be something in there that the DEVs can control to make sure things dont get out of hand.
Tyranus
Yoda: "When I die, the last of the Jedi, you will be!" Luke: "Really? what about those 50,000 Jedi Masters outside comparing Saber Size?" Yoda: "Sorry I am, My Bad it is"
