GraysGhost wrote:
Didn't someone say not to believe wiki?
You have to start somewhere. Wikipedia articles are pretty well referenced, so you can follow the references.
I understand that every programmer's script is the best and has nothing wrong with it. I was in that game for too long.
I haven't written the BM scripts, so I am not defending a script I have written, but a script written by someone else. Someone I have never even met in person. I consider myself a well-informed neutral party in this matter.
I believe that there is a problem with the random number generator
Here we do not deal with beliefs but with facts 
If you can provide an unbiased statistical analysis showing that the random number generator is flawed, it will be considered carefully. I have specified the conditions:
1) the statisical sample must be declared before it is generated, not after it is generated.
2) what are the things to be analysed should also be specified beforehand. For example, "KSnake's rolls vs. GraysGhost's rolls. Who got the better average". Or "who gets more six's".
If many outliers are found in many statistical samples, more frequently than what would be indicated for example by a z-test, the matter will be taken very seriously.
and as ksnake has said it may be something to do with when a player logs in and it is seeded. Perhaps it sets a pattern
No it doesn't, because the random number generator is not seeded (only) at log in.
who knows if no-one looks at it.
Why do you say no-one looks at it? As I told you, anyone is welcome to provide unbiased statistical analyses. |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
