Thread history
From Talk:Random Movement
Viewing a history listing
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Viewing a history listing
| Time | User | Activity | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04:18, 21 December 2013 | Rednaxela (talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 04:18, 21 December 2013 | Rednaxela (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to mersenne twister) |
| 04:08, 21 December 2013 | Straw (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to mersenne twister) |
| 03:08, 21 December 2013 | Tmservo (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to mersenne twister) |
| 02:49, 21 December 2013 | Chase-san (talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 02:49, 21 December 2013 | Chase-san (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to mersenne twister) |
| 01:32, 21 December 2013 | Tmservo (talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 00:45, 21 December 2013 | Tmservo (talk | contribs) | New thread created |
The strength of the RNG doesn't have a massive bearing on the effectiveness of random movement. Also I am pretty sure most of us are already well aware of the Mersenne Twister.
The main issue seems to be that you can't move to a random independent GF on all waves because waves are fired faster than their travel time.
Because:
- So few random numbers are generated that even a pretty mediocre pseudorandom number generator would be pretty much impossible to predict. You need to capture a decent chunk of data to crack even a bad PRNG's state.
- Battles have other confounding factors (i.e. walls) which may hide what random number a bot chose.
As an aside, that mersenne twister implementation is not a suitable replacement for Math.random() even if PRNG quality mattered, because it's not really more notably secure. If that was an issue, you'd want a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, not a mersenne twister.
Also, an out-of-the-blue link to a mersenne twister page isn't really a useful post.
