|
Theerkla | Sat 26-Jan-08 06:33 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
1055 posts
| |
|
#20456, "Yeah, this probably falls under noticing things that stand out"
|
and thinking they happen all the time, but I just have to vent. Why does it seem like I almost never lose concentration casting a spell just once? A spell at 75% probably works 8 times in a row without fail, but come that first failure, I can count on having to cast it two or three times more.
|
|
|
|
You don't notice moderate lag till you're getting tripp...,
Xenoroyal,
09-Feb-08 12:48 PM, #5
I have a hunch about this...,
Terwin05,
26-Jan-08 11:05 AM, #1
Another expalation:,
Rodriguez,
26-Jan-08 11:18 AM, #2
RE: I have a hunch about this...,
Eskelian,
26-Jan-08 10:02 PM, #3
RE: I have a hunch about this...,
Terwin05,
27-Jan-08 11:59 AM, #4
RE: I have a hunch about this...,
Valkenar,
09-Feb-08 01:44 PM, #6
| |
|
Xenoroyal | Sat 09-Feb-08 12:48 PM |
Member since 05th Jun 2003
93 posts
| |
|
#20522, "You don't notice moderate lag till you're getting tripp..."
In response to Reply #0
|
|
|
|
Terwin05 | Sat 26-Jan-08 11:05 AM |
Member since 22nd Dec 2005
124 posts
| |
|
#20457, "I have a hunch about this..."
In response to Reply #0
|
And that it's related to the reason why when you get one skill improve, you tend to get several in a bunch.
The RNG, if it works the way I'd expect it to, is based on some hash of the current timestamp. As a result, at times, things can happen in bunches due to the hashing algorithm.
I could be wrong, but I think that's reasonable speculation.
|
|
|
|
  |
Eskelian | Sat 26-Jan-08 10:02 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
2023 posts
| |
|
#20459, "RE: I have a hunch about this..."
In response to Reply #1
|
>And that it's related to the reason why when you get one >skill improve, you tend to get several in a bunch. > >The RNG, if it works the way I'd expect it to, is based on >some hash of the current timestamp. As a result, at times, >things can happen in bunches due to the hashing algorithm. > >I could be wrong, but I think that's reasonable speculation.
Its unlikely that that's how the RNG works. They're using a pretty "basic" RNG formula they've stated in the past, but even a basic one is probably only seeded once when the game first loads.
When a pulse hits, the RNG is used for every single roll in the game. Every attack getting made by every player and mob, every skill being cast at that moment, etc. Even if the RNG was "streaky", its spread out so much across all the different checks getting made that use the RNG that the likelihood of 3 of your casts being "next" to each other on the RNG is virtually nil unless you're the only person in the game online.
Consider an RNG to be more or less a list of numbers and the seed determines what spot on the list the generator starts at. Hence seeding it to a hash of the timestamp sets it to a random location since the timestamp is always forward moving and never changes. Its not literally random because of that limitation (technically if you know the seed its deterministic), so its considered "pseudo-random", but for all intents and purposes its random in practice as far as normal gameplay on CF is concerned.
|
|
|
|
    |
Valkenar | Sat 09-Feb-08 01:44 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
1203 posts
| |
|
#20523, "RE: I have a hunch about this..."
In response to Reply #3
|
>When a pulse hits, the RNG is used for every single roll in >the game. Every attack getting made by every player and mob, >every skill being cast at that moment, etc. Even if the RNG >was "streaky", its spread out so much across all the different >checks getting made that use the RNG that the likelihood of 3 >of your casts being "next" to each other on the RNG is >virtually nil unless you're the only person in the game >online.
Absolutely. I am pretty sure that even if the random number generator just went 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 over and over again, you would still get statistically random numbers if you took a sampling every second. The randomness generated by the chaotic behavior of the playerbase (credit goes to Outlander) is probably more than sufficient to cause any sample to be indistinguishable from "true" random.
|
|
|
|
|