what is 50% in real life

[waterzx]

How can one say that 2000 samples are too small in number ?

It's not big enough to eliminate all possible errors but it is big enough not to have more than 10% deviation from the "true" value (50%)

Anyway, everything is possible in statistics....

[Belligerence]

The 50% is a statistical number, not a concrete number. Each attack has a 50% chance of missing. When you compile all the data together, you would assume that the final numbers would be +/- 5% of the suggested 50%. But because each attack has a 50% chance of missing, you can come up with a much different result than what you expect. This does not mean that the original 50% suggested is wrong, it simply shows that our data table is either small, incorrect, or deviant. This is known simply as "luck" or "chance", and is why, while your data sample suggests otherwise, the 50% suggested on Dusk Mantle is in fact 50%. (Also note that if you ever take a statistics class, saying "I'm due to get a <heads/tail/whatever variable you're using> during the probability portion will likely dock you a few points. Probability doesn't care if you're "due" something, it doesn't care at all.)

[kev]

The chance is  ~ 99,73 % , that      number blocked creatures / number of creatures    is in the intervall  [0,5 - 0, 01117 , 0,5+ 0, 01117]

We have 1288 / 2002 ~ 0,643 > 0,51117 !

+rep to Teffy and oblowsky

Not everyone is getting what was said above.  Flipping a coin twice and getting two heads is luck.  Flipping a coin 2002 times and getting 1288 heads isn't luck, it's something that happens in less than 0.135% of simulations, as Teffy showed above.  Assuming oblowsky can count and Teffy's stats hold (and I suspect both are good), it looks highly likely there's a problem with the code and zanz needs to look into it.

Maybe the best way to catch zanz's attention is to move this to Bugs forum?

[Xenocidius]

Using the game simulator (http://xenocidius.allalla.com/simulator/), I got, in a quick sample of 399 attacks, 202 misses and 197 hits. While this is a small sample size, this is a large enough sample to suggest that nothing is broken (I will repeat this again later). You should expect variance when flipping a coin. 2000 times is not a strong enough sample to prove unfairness either way.

Note that the Game Simulator is a very bad way of measuring things like this; it is not written in Actionscript, for one thing, and does not reflect the actual game code in some respects.

I'm a bit confused, to be honest. I have no idea why Dusk Mantle shouldn't reflect its 50% chance, which leads me to believe that either Actionscript's random function leaves a lot to be desired, or that either the measurements or above stats are incorrect. And yeah, this should probably be in the Bugs forum.

[waterzx]

The chance is  ~ 99,73 % , that      number blocked creatures / number of creatures    is in the intervall  [0,5 - 0, 01117 , 0,5+ 0, 01117]

We have 1288 / 2002 ~ 0,643 > 0,51117 !

+rep to Teffy and oblowsky

Not everyone is getting what was said above.  Flipping a coin twice and getting two heads is luck.  Flipping a coin 2002 times and getting 1288 heads isn't luck, it's something that happens in less than 0.135% of simulations, as Teffy showed above.  Assuming oblowsky can count and Teffy's stats hold (and I suspect both are good), it looks highly likely there's a problem with the code and zanz needs to look into it.

Maybe the best way to catch zanz's attention is to move this to Bugs forum?

I appreciate that you are the first one who mentioned the game-code.

Aside from  the "luck factor" which is very unlikely to cause such big deviation but mentioned by a lot of people, a corrupted game-code is another possible reason.

Now we have statistics for "luck factor" , then we should look into the game-code to find out the real reason


Edit : If we are gonna dig through the problem , shouldn't we test fog shield as well ?

[teffy]

Found that I missed a "3".  Edited my first post.
Also tested the 2002 - coin toss experiment using a statistic software (R). I did the 2002 coin toss experiment 100.000 times. In none of these experiments I got more than ~56 % head.

[bogtro]

Using the game simulator (http://xenocidius.allalla.com/simulator/), I got, in a quick sample of 399 attacks, 202 misses and 197 hits. While this is a small sample size, this is a large enough sample to suggest that nothing is broken (I will repeat this again later). You should expect variance when flipping a coin. 2000 times is not a strong enough sample to prove unfairness either way.

Note that the Game Simulator is a very bad way of measuring things like this; it is not written in Actionscript, for one thing, and does not reflect the actual game code in some respects.

I'm a bit confused, to be honest. I have no idea why Dusk Mantle shouldn't reflect its 50% chance, which leads me to believe that either Actionscript's random function leaves a lot to be desired, or that either the measurements or above stats are incorrect. And yeah, this should probably be in the Bugs forum.

Yeah, I figured :/

If these results are actually accurate, then it's quite possible that something is up with it. There is a mound of empirical and anecdotal evidence (there is a reason that DM is called "haxx" ) that suggests this, so it's not unthinkable that this actually occurs. However, knowing no programming, I highly doubt that there's any sophisticated coding for zanz in DM, so it's probably a problem with the script used (if at all).

[Shantu]

I've always said the RNG was screwed in Elements. Anyone telling you otherwise is either blind or have not played enough.

I might try a test like this on my own; another 2000 (or more) hits against Dusk.

[Shantu]

Sorry for the double post. I am done with my own test:

2338 attacks
1158 hits (vs 1180 misses)
This means ~49,5% hit.

This was done in trainer.

As you can see, quite different than the result of the topic starter.

For those interested, here's the test sheet (a bunch of numbers) attached:

[zanzarino]

The funny thing is that sometimes in my code I use:

If (Math.random()>.5){
   do something
}
 
Sometimes I use:
If (Math.random()<.5){
   do something
}

In both cases I get complaints about the RNG being biased, which means that not only it is biased, it can read your mind 
It decreases the returned number when you would prefer a big number and increases it when you want a small number!

I am going to insta-send this to Stephen Hawking because last time I checked there was no software capable of reading the human mind: I smell a Nobel prize coming my way  8)

http://www.elementsthegame.com/dusk.html (http://www.elementsthegame.com/dusk.html)

P.S. : If you are thinking that I should consider the case of the random number being ==.50000000000000000000000000000000 well, lol: I'll let you figure out why it does not matter.

[bogtro]

<3 zanz

More seriously, confirms what I thought. Statistical variance (although a large one) is not a large enough sample to claim bias. Also quite possible that these statistics are not quite valid, as suggested by statistics.

[EmeraldTiger]

see this