Board Game Arena

SluggerBaloney wrote: ↑10 August 2020, 03:38

Een wrote: ↑06 August 2020, 09:23

SluggerBaloney wrote: ↑06 August 2020, 04:25I got the answer and am fine not playing an obviously broken game.

This claim is demonstrably false. Your game history is visible and you are playing the game. You are even Elite status

That isn't me. Other's use this PC. I haven't play in ages, why would I?

Did you or did this other person create this account?

Deleted

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑31 July 2020, 19:31 1) Be wary of shifting to an ad hominem argument.

Clicking on a poster's name in the forums to bring up their account page, which lists games played, is hardly stalking.

Also, I notice that you offer no explanation of how your statements are not demonstrably false.

SluggerBaloney wrote: ↑11 August 2020, 14:51 Because stalking my brollere you are rolle you accou a whelp. Because peoplay a boare you a where trying trying to now you need a where people website yount. On defen are trying my are roken a brolle trying to die website to die rokend her. Because you now you accou now you ard here stalking my are plere peoplay boare peoplay boare stalking trying my broken are trying my boare whelp. Yount. Because rokend her. On account. Because stalking to defend her. Because roken die stalking my a board a broll

Wow, first time I see someone going back to obfuscate their posts on this forum. Really special

Een wrote: ↑08 November 2020, 20:46

SluggerBaloney wrote: ↑11 August 2020, 14:51 Because stalking my brollere you are rolle you accou a whelp. Because peoplay a boare you a where trying trying to now you need a where people website yount. On defen are trying my are roken a brolle trying to die website to die rokend her. Because you now you accou now you ard here stalking my are plere peoplay boare peoplay boare stalking trying my broken are trying my boare whelp. Yount. Because rokend her. On account. Because stalking to defend her. Because roken die stalking my a board a broll

Wow, first time I see someone going back to obfuscate their posts on this forum. Really special

Should there be a time limit for non-mods to edit a post? Say fifteen minutes or so? I know most sites tend to lock it down quite quickly.

Really disappointed with the discussion in general - I've seen a few references to a skew or bias in the data, but I've not seen any measure of significance, or if that pattern repeats across multiple data sets. Random variation often produces patterns if you go looking for them, but they may not mean what people think they mean. A great example of this is the birthday paradox - for any group of 23 people, there is a 50% chance that 2 of them share a birthday. It's a much smaller group than many people would think since there are 365 days in the year
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... y-paradox/

It's the kind of result that people will assume is wrong as it intuitively seems unlikely, which is why you need to understand things like p-values to really talk about this. If I had the time, I'd love to dig in to this more, but I presume that there are already provisions in place where the RNG is being examined for skews. Could always just buy a few lava lamps...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUUfMeOijg

ViolentSilence wrote: ↑10 November 2020, 17:23 [ I've seen a few references to a skew or bias in the data, but I've not seen any measure of significance,

This is actually the recurring theme in these forums. Account A, "This doesn't seem right, there's definitely something wrong." Rest of community, "Please provide verifiable statistical analysis." Account A, "Hand-picked small sample size, hand-picked small sample, excuse, excuse. Yeah, something definitely wrong, it needs to be fixed."

ViolentSilence wrote: ↑10 November 2020, 17:23 It's the kind of result that people will assume is wrong as it intuitively seems unlikely, which is why you need to understand things like p-values to really talk about this.

Part of the recurrence. This doesn't seem right. Humans are very bad at intuitively understanding probability.

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑10 November 2020, 17:57Part of the recurrence. This doesn't seem right. Humans are very bad at intuitively understanding probability.

To be fair, some of it isn't intuitive! I was looking at a game on Kickstarter, and was doing some spreadsheets to work out the likelihood of certain rolls, or achieving a certain number of dice above a threshold. One of the results was about 4% likely (so approximately 1 in 25), BUT if you looked at the cumulative probability, it was likely to happen within any group of 19 roles. Add in the tendency to remember results that you feel are exceptional, and the chances are you're going to feel a bit aggrieved because you can't quite put it in context.

I was working on a push your luck golf dice game and was using D12s because I wanted to limit the amount of times a bad result came up. It felt like quite a good system for the fairways, just didn't have a solid idea how to put courses together for it, or how to handle the putting greens, but that balance between feel and probability is a fascinating area for any design