|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2023-8-10. : 11:02 pm] Zoan -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: I think RISK is a bit TOO luck based. Like, you can make every mathematically correct decision and still lose. That shouldn't happen in a game imo Ya[2023-8-09. : 9:52 pm] sraw531 -- Both monopoly and risk games suffer from people losing at different points in the game which means people sit around doing nothing, however I would say that risk is a better game, skill to luck is fine, but the game is moderately simple (not every game needs to be complicated though). Monopoly I think is a bad game in practice because most people play it wrong in order to avoid the staggered loss and drag it out, in which case I think the cure is worse than the poison.[2023-8-09. : 2:19 pm]  Ultraviolet -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: I think RISK is a bit TOO luck based. Like, you can make every mathematically correct decision and still lose. That shouldn't happen in a game imo I played an electronic version of Risk fairly frequently for a couple years. My experience was that even though luck was a bit of a factor, I could win 90-95% of the time once I got my strategy sealed down. I always tried to get an easily defensible position (Australia all time fav, but South America is good, too) and then just mass troops at the choke point, ensuring to take at least one (usually just one) territory each turn to get a card. I'd do that until I had enough forces to wipe the map or most of it at least. Of course strategy varies when humans are involved, but I feel the skill to luck ratio is reasonable in Risk. Certainly no worse than something like Monopoly[2023-8-09. : 7:27 am]  O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- astraramosastraramos shouted: Hi there and there it is, the spam copypasta lmao[2023-8-09. : 6:35 am] Oh_Man -- I think RISK is a bit TOO luck based. Like, you can make every mathematically correct decision and still lose. That shouldn't happen in a game imo[2023-8-09. : 6:33 am] Oh_Man -- He was claiming i won based on pure luck and i was arguing my course of action was based on choosing the action that had a higher chance of success and hence I outskilled him[2023-8-09. : 6:32 am] Oh_Man -- I remember getting into a massive argument in a game of RISK re probability[2023-8-08. : 4:28 pm]  Vrael -- in reality the gambler has gotten lucky already in essence, and ended up in a situation where he does have a better chance of getting his desired outcome, but the chance of rolling a 1 on the 3rd die was always 1/6[2023-8-08. : 4:25 pm] Vrael -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: Gamblers fallacy tells us that the outcome of a previous roll does not affect the outcome of the next roll. Yet cumulative probability tells us rolling 1 three times in a row has a 1/216 chance or 0.463%. What gives?? if you need to roll a 1,1,1 and you have rolled two 1's already, the probability of the next 1 is still 1/6, but its a heck of a lot better than 1/216, so a gambler might say "Oooh I'm hot" and think his two previous 1's make another 1 more likely[2023-8-08. : 4:15 pm] Vrael -- in many games where 112 and 121 and 211 are equivalent (yahtzee comes to mind, or anything where you sum the dice) then some outcomes have greater likihood than others[2023-8-08. : 4:14 pm] Vrael -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: My understanding is any possible roll combination has the same likelihood as any other combination (assuming same number of rolls). this is only true if you consider the order of the dice independently, that is, 112 is different from 121 or 211[2023-8-08. : 11:49 am] Voyager7456 -- IggyhopperIggyhopper shouted: Is Doom Dragoon compatible with 1.16.1? It should be[2023-8-07. : 12:37 pm] Oh_Man -- My understanding is any possible roll combination has the same likelihood as any other combination (assuming same number of rolls).[2023-8-07. : 1:54 am] NudeRaider -- So I guess what might confuse people is that rolling 11 is already fairly unlikely, but since it already happened they treat it as 100% likely and figure it must be the last roll that contains all the "unlikelyness", which is obviously not true.[2023-8-07. : 1:43 am] NudeRaider -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 all have a 1/216* chance not 8000 i mean*. So the fallacy is thinking changing your roll even matters *every* roll with n dice has a 1/6^n chance of appearing. For n = 3 that's 1/216. So 111, 112, ... but also 666, 123 etc. If you *already* rolled 11 that had a chance of 1/6^2 = 1/36 of happening. Getting *another* 1 is just another single dice roll, so the chance is 1/6^1 = 1/6. If you multiply the chances of your first 2 rolls and the last roll together you get the total chance: 1/36 * 1/6 = 1/216[2023-8-06. : 12:55 pm] Oh_Man -- 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 all have a 1/216* chance not 8000 i mean*. So the fallacy is thinking changing your roll even matters[2023-8-06. : 12:54 pm] Oh_Man -- but the actual truth is any role is actually a one in 8000 thousand chance[2023-8-06. : 12:53 pm] Oh_Man -- So the fallacy is like, hmm 1 1 1 has a one in 8000 thousand chance I would be crazy to beat on a 1 appearing on this third dice role[2023-8-06. : 10:30 am] Moose -- The cumulative probability of rolling 1 1 1 is different from the conditional probability of rolling 1 given previous rolls of 1 1.[2023-8-06. : 8:38 am] NudeRaider -- But I'd really like to hear from Oh_Man where his confusion lies, so we can specifically address it.[2023-8-06. : 8:34 am] NudeRaider -- sraw531sraw531 shouted: I believe gamblers fallacy, being a fallacy, is saying the opposite - that the odds of future rolls are based on rolls in the present/past. The explanation for how it *actually* works is that its not based on present/past rolls. At the point you determine the odds, it becomes fixed from that point, but the odds collapse as the cumulative results come in The beginning is a little confusing. The rest is correct. The fallacy is "I rolled 2 1's in a row, the odds of rolling *another* 1 is really low". But that's just not how it works, so it's a fallacy.[2023-8-06. : 1:01 am] sraw531 -- I believe gamblers fallacy, being a fallacy, is saying the opposite - that the odds of future rolls are based on rolls in the present/past. The explanation for how it *actually* works is that its not based on present/past rolls. At the point you determine the odds, it becomes fixed from that point, but the odds collapse as the cumulative results come in[2023-8-05. : 4:21 pm] Ultraviolet -- That concept fucked with me for a while, too, but it makes sense to me now. You always have the same 1/216 probability of rolling three 1's in a row regardless of previous outcomes. And after the first roll of 1, you have a 1/36 chance in doing it two more times to get three 1's in a row. But you also have a 1/36 chance of getting two 5's or any other number because the probabilities will always be the same regardless of previous outcomes.[2023-8-05. : 2:04 pm] NudeRaider -- Where do you see a contradiction? One statement is about individual rolls, the other statement says how likely it is to get a specific outcome in three rolls.[2023-8-05. : 11:26 am] Oh_Man -- Gamblers fallacy tells us that the outcome of a previous roll does not affect the outcome of the next roll. Yet cumulative probability tells us rolling 1 three times in a row has a 1/216 chance or 0.463%. What gives??[2023-8-04. : 4:42 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- but gotta be careful because i'm pretty sure someone who wasn't a bot got banned for being a bot recently  [2023-8-04. : 4:41 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- "Thanks a lot for useful info!" is such a vague and generic post that they're almost 100% certainly a bot[2023-8-04. : 2:31 pm] Ultraviolet -- RIVERIVE shouted: Maaaan, UV you gonna callout anyone who breaks your wob chain. A wob chain you probably reposted in 4 times. naw I wasn't too worried about that. I said sus because I was suspicious they were a bot, but their post and shout weren't obvious enough to tell for sure[2023-8-04. : 5:04 am] RIVE -- Maaaan, UV you gonna callout anyone who breaks your wob chain. A wob chain you probably reposted in 4 times.[2023-8-01. : 8:47 pm] Ultraviolet -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Ultraviolet I wonder if rebooting the server would temporarily solve that problem. I mean it used to work at some point. Nothing major has changed since then. *shrugs* I remember you tried with my Impossible UV map a long time ago and it wouldn't work for you either. And I update it frequently enough (although admittedly less these days) that it's not really worth the hassle of working with a basically defunct system  [2023-8-01. : 7:54 pm] NudeRaider -- UltravioletUltraviolet shouted: TheHappy115 I'm probably the wrong person to ask unfortunately. SEN's DLDB hates me, my maps won't upload at all lol. I just use alternate hosting these days (Google Drive for me) I wonder if rebooting the server would temporarily solve that problem. I mean it used to work at some point. Nothing major has changed since then.[2023-8-01. : 5:18 pm] TheHappy115 -- ah okay, thanks. It seems the main one got deleted but now I can't upload the new one haha[2023-8-01. : 12:34 pm] Ultraviolet -- TheHappy115TheHappy115 shouted: @Ultraviolet is there a way to delete uploaded files? I can't seem to upgrade my file so I want to delete and old one and just upload a new version of it. I can't seem to find the delete button though (File in Questions is Touhou Shooting 12 UFO v1.00) I'm probably the wrong person to ask unfortunately. SEN's DLDB hates me, my maps won't upload at all lol. I just use alternate hosting these days (Google Drive for me)[2023-8-01. : 4:08 am] TheHappy115 -- @Ultraviolet is there a way to delete uploaded files? I can't seem to upgrade my file so I want to delete and old one and just upload a new version of it. I can't seem to find the delete button though (File in Questions is Touhou Shooting 12 UFO v1.00)[2023-8-01. : 3:30 am] jjf28 -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: jjf28 Should be in the Wiki tbh. thanks for volunteering, you have my blessing [2023-7-31. : 9:13 pm] sraw531 -- So, I found a rar with most of the ai scripts, but it seems to be lacking most of the area town scripts, is there a better place I could go to get these[2023-7-31. : 6:22 am] NudeRaider -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: sraw531 see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9SbYY4lBPG52pj199eMyMqGZzPfsYqOEJkeOqKsebo/edit?usp=sharing Should be in the Wiki tbh.[2023-7-31. : 5:22 am] jjf28 -- sraw531sraw531 shouted: see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9SbYY4lBPG52pj199eMyMqGZzPfsYqOEJkeOqKsebo/edit?usp=sharing So, I have been trying to figure out stuff involving frames, I swear there was some post that talked about how game seconds can never be equal to real time seconds for some reason involving frames. How many frames is a non-hyper trigger cycle? "Every 2 seconds" is the only metric I know, so is that every 32 frames?[2023-7-31. : 5:18 am] sraw531 -- So, I have been trying to figure out stuff involving frames, I swear there was some post that talked about how game seconds can never be equal to real time seconds for some reason involving frames. How many frames is a non-hyper trigger cycle? "Every 2 seconds" is the only metric I know, so is that every 32 frames?[2023-7-23. : 11:25 pm] TheHappy115 -- I can always just upload the newest file but I'd rather not do that if I can help it[2023-7-23. : 11:21 pm] TheHappy115 -- and this is a file on StarEdit that I'm trying to update as I previously released a demo version of the game and now want to release full version[2023-7-23. : 11:20 pm] TheHappy115 -- I'm trying to update a file. This new one uses EUD Editor 3 Modifications on it but it won't let me update, whenever I try to it gives me "error: Invalid Extension" |