Something similar occurs in card draws, usually with shorter sequences because there are more possible sequences, but still pretty often because there are a lot of places the pattern could occur. eg if I flip a coin ten times, most people assume the chance of getting five or more of one kind in a row is very low, but because the sequence could start on any of the first six flips and I only need to get the following four the same, it turns up more than intuition expects (more than 20% of the time). Think of flipping a coin (assuming it's a fair coin-toss): if I do it over and over again, longish sequences of the same result come up fairly often. Probability is actually a bit counter intuitive. Fortunately I've never been asked to do this to intentionally cheat people, I hope I'd bluntly refuse if that came up. logically impure? but people can often be more satisfied with the results and it's always been for purposes I can live with. This tends to leave me feeling a bit annoyed as it feels. I have sometimes ended up writing complicated processes to eliminate "not random seeming enough" random results in order to make users happy. People spot particular kinds of patterns very easily, and the surrounding rules of the game make some patterns more prominent than others. My experience has been that when I've designed and/or implemented genuinely random processes, human perception of it has often been "it's not random". However - at various points I've been involved in making software that uses randomisation, either in games design or e-learning. Can't speak for the internal logic of Spider, though I quite enjoy it (haven't played for ages, but I'm missing it now!).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |