423
edits
Talk:Honey: Difference between revisions
→Rarities incorrect
(→Rarities incorrect: 4¢) |
|||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Er alright that's not the best example because every roll on a dice has the same odds, where the different pokemon have different odds. Well my point is, results don't always reflect the chance. Just because there's a 10% chance of finding a certain Pokémon and a 20% chance of another, doesn't mean in 100 tries you'll find more of the Pokémon with the 20% chance. It's just more likely. Whoops left out my sig, sorry for the triple edit. [[User:Derian|[[Derian]]]] 17:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | Er alright that's not the best example because every roll on a dice has the same odds, where the different pokemon have different odds. Well my point is, results don't always reflect the chance. Just because there's a 10% chance of finding a certain Pokémon and a 20% chance of another, doesn't mean in 100 tries you'll find more of the Pokémon with the 20% chance. It's just more likely. Whoops left out my sig, sorry for the triple edit. [[User:Derian|[[Derian]]]] 17:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::If I roll a die 1000 times and it comes up 4 half the time, my first conclusion is going to be "this is a loaded die", not "well that COULD have happened I guess". What's the point of testing something if I'm prepared to assume my test results are a fluke, no matter what they are? [[User:Eevee|Eevee]] 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | :::If I roll a die 1000 times and it comes up 4 half the time, my first conclusion is going to be "this is a loaded die", not "well that COULD have happened I guess". What's the point of testing something if I'm prepared to assume my test results are a fluke, no matter what they are? [[User:Eevee|Eevee]] 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::In practice I would assume that to, when the results found from the in-game tests heavily contradicted the results found from the coding, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to review the code and make sure there weren't any errors. but submitting those findings as the percentages isn't right, an isolated incident showing otherwise doesn't prove that the percentages are wrong. How you 'feel' about something doesn't have a bearing on science, science is about facts. Just because you feel like the die is loaded because you get more 4's then anything else doesn't mean it is, I for one can remember rolling five 6's in a row. Strange things happen. But odds aren't "This will happen this percentage of the time" odds are "this is more likely to happen then this". There's no way to be certain about something, and odds don't reflect results. Results reflect odds. Maybe those numbers found in the code were wrong, could have been a calculation error. But the results found through testing definitely weren't right, and there's no way to prove specifics scientifically what the odds are from that kind of testing. [[User:Derian|[[Derian]]]] 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== One little problem... == | == One little problem... == | ||