Alone in classic on an infinite timeline

[7thGate]

Yeah, I am not sure. How well do fear golems resist non-lure fire nukes from a 60? A Rogue might be able to land lower resist poison and click one to death while evasive before getting death touched, though you would need pro-gamer level accuracy and speed on your clicking. A shaman might be able to malo and do the same thing with wort pots.

[Bardp1999]

I think a Necro would get the furthest. Enchanters are great and all but you would have literally no way to heal. All alone in the world Feign Death seems almost mandatory. Also if you leveled up some other classes to help... you could...MAYBE?...solo the Monk epic? Especially if you cheesed the Xeno fight with guards?

[branamil]

Yeah my 30s were kind of a blur I spent that decade trying to kill trakanon on an empty server. Got him to 85% on try number 652 then the server got deleted after I was in urgent care of kidney problems. Not my proudest decade but I learned alot about myself

[Castigate]

Originally Posted by branamil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah my 30s were kind of a blur I spent that decade trying to kill trakanon on an empty server. Got him to 85% on try number 652 then the server got deleted after I was in urgent care of kidney problems. Not my proudest decade but I learned alot about myself

I'd rather not think of this experiment as your life but an actual solo EQ hell that goes on for all eternity. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Dugface]

Originally Posted by branamil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah my 30s were kind of a blur I spent that decade trying to kill trakanon on an empty server. Got him to 85% on try number 652 then the server got deleted after I was in urgent care of kidney problems. Not my proudest decade but I learned alot about myself

Lol at this.

[Pringles]

Forget Boltzmann brains they got Boltzmann raids up in here.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Rygar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Funny but false. As I understand it, the RNG at its core is based off a timed variable such as a micro second on the server. Since Trak's attack is timed as well it is mathematically impossible he will always miss and eventually his attack rate would be in sync with the microsecond value of a hit / proc success.

Caiu linked some site about a true RNG that uses values based off white noise from outer space. Only with this in place could your scenario be possible.

I'm sure it is based off the clock and all that. That doesn't preclude getting long strings of a certain result and certainly not over an infinite time period.

[fadetree]

Hmm...it depends on the range of the RNG algorithm in use by P99. What it's seeded from doesn't matter, as long as it's not the same every time and has a value range that matches the limit of the RNG distribution. No matter the seed value, any algorithm is going to produce a characteristic range and distribution that looks statistically similar. If that range can be lopsided enough to never have a value that crosses the 'to hit' value then yeah...but these algorithms are designed not to do that kind of thing. I mean, they can only generate so many values before they wrap around again because they are deterministic and do not generate an infinite range of values. Any RNG that has a mathematical chance of generating very lopsided results is not a good RNG, by definition. I think there are seed values and generation lengths and algorithms that could do what is being talked about in a short run, but of course the chances get more and more unlikely the longer the series is.

So, basically I think that Rygar is correct, it wouldn't be possible using an algorithmic RNG such as the one P99 uses. It probably would be possible using an actual source of randomness, but the time range on that would certainly far exceed the life expectancy of any neckbeard, no matter how dedicated. Also, no one is sure what 'random' actually means or how to detect it. There's a paradox about detecting actual randomness...to detect it you have to define what it looks like, and if you do that then it's not random any more.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If that range can be lopsided enough to never have a value that crosses the 'to hit' value then yeah...but these algorithms are designed not to do that kind of thing. I mean, they can only generate so many values before they wrap around again because they are deterministic and do not generate an infinite range of values. Any RNG that has a mathematical chance of generating very lopsided results is not a good RNG, by definition.

You're massively misunderstanding randomness if you think that's true. By definition any RNG that can't (when given an infinite amount of time) generate lopsided results is a terrible RNG. A truly random RNG should generate a healthy series of "1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ..."-style sequences, but it absolutely should also generate "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..." from time to time, or else it's not truly random. And technically all computer-generated random numbers aren't actually random ... but the pseudo-random numbers that are generated are still far more random than that.

Also, to be clear every random number you will ever see in any computer game ever is timer based. That's just how computers generate random numbers, since they can't roll dice: they check the time, do some math on that time, and generate a (pseudo-)random number.

But, that in no way guarantees that "eventually you'll get hit because eventually you'll hit the right time". It's not like anything the computer is doing is based on time in that way: it's more like the computer looks at the last digit of the current millisecond (although it's not that simple), and obviously every time it checks that last digit could keep being 7 or whatever number it needs to be to fail.

Depending on how the EQ Emulator code works it's possible that their specific implementation ensures Trak never misses more than X number of times in a row, but there's nothing inherent in RNGs that would guarantee that, and unless someone did an experiment on their own private EQ Emu server to test it out I'd tend to believe the software really does have (pseudo-)random numbers.

[Rygar]

Monkeys locked in a room with a typewriter won't ever write Shakespeare. It is only a theoretical probability but can't actually happen.

Just like when people calculate the odds of a tornado assembling an airplane from raw parts.

Get back to reality and endulge this fantasy thread!