What?
You mean, Sillicon wouldn’t exist without Heisenberg’s principle?
EDIT:
This is the person who tells ME to leave the pseudoscience:
Literally handpicks a perfect scenario (imagined) to “prove” his own theory, ignoring the existence of every other variable. Completely scientific. Bravo.
It’s about time you get back on ignore.
Semiconductors work because the uncertainly principle must be true.
Also you added ignorance about probability and statistics big time.
You think 1 lucky moment is irrelevant because it’s 1 big moment.
First of all 1 lucky moment is enough to be an advantage anyway.
It’s inevitable that more Hero choice is more power eventually.
Whilst there is a certain amount of frustration and anger in the OP, I get where it’s coming from. My experience is the same. I can guarantee given a choice of six minions to attack, my opponent will repeatedly attack the one I don’t want him too, and the opposite is true on my turn.
Also I never get a useful minion when I triple.
Now I know you guys who spend half their lives on here will tell me my sample size is too small , or it’s “confirmation bias”, but it happens all the time, it can’t just be bad luck.
Preemptively saying it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Yeah sometimes they high roll.
Don’t you ever high roll?
You’ve proven my point quite nicely.
Even the basics of how semiconductors work, to make even one out of the billions of transistors in the CPU in a traditional computer, requires an understanding of quantum mechanics. From the distribution of states that leads to the unique electrical properties of semiconductors to being able to design around accommodating current leakage due to quantum tunneling, quantum mechanics is required and used in myriad ways to make the thing you’re blathering to me through anything more than a shiny rock. And none of it requires a “quantum computer” that uses entanglement.
Your armchair dismissal of the massive amount of hard work done by a huge number of people is insulting. You have no idea what you’re talking about or how the world around you works.
Not just his computer, his chair he’s sitting on would not work. The atoms would collapse onto themselves if the uncertainly principle isn’t in effect.
There are times that the triple reward will give you nothing and has no synergy. That doesn’t mean it’s each time. Many times you just failed to identify the correct reward to take that is actually good. Keep at it and eventually you found something most times you triple.
Also triples are worse if you don’t upgrade the tavern level fast enough.
PS BGs are extremely counter-intuitive in terms of Discover,
unlike Standard Discover means “FROM THE TAVERN”.
Here’s something for you pro-rigged folk to give a try in real life.
Go out and buy a real d-20 die. Begin rolling it and record your results from each roll. Do this for as long as you can until you fill up your piece of paper with those results.
Then you will have a more realistic view as to how often Critical successes happen (19-20) as well as unfavorable rolls (11-18) Failures (3-10) and Critical Failures (1-2). I just made up those brackets so no one come at for if Im not aligned with any established DnD brackets lol. But just look at your spread of results from just filling up that one page. Once youve done this you will begin to notice that eventually, you will roll every possible side of the d-20 there is. You will also notice you will not always roll Critical Successes but they do occur. So when Your Avenge minion is sniped, that is both your opponent getting the critical success, and you getting anything other than critical success in response.
Its gonna start to dawn on you that the odds of getting favorable rolls isnt something you can actually rely on happening. You may be in a position where you depend on that roll being favorable, or even critical success to avoid being eliminated, but depending on the results of the roll is not the same as relying on them. You can depend on someone having your back in a fight, and the results of that scenario can go any direction if depending on them fails for you. However you can also know you cant rely on that same person for something mundane as a ride to the airport. Its possible both can be true sometimes, but I think most people would be able to make lists of folk they think they can depend on for something but also can admit they cant really rely on them for something else. Bad RNG results for you and Good RNG results for others can and does happen. The idea of it being rigged is absurd tho. All results can and do happen, and when you get a good number of dice rolls recorded under your belt you;ll begin to know that rigging isnt what you are experiencing.
But you don’t understand. These people are the chosen ones. They always roll 20s unless its rigged.
That’s the thing, they don’t think it’s random. “If I win it’s skill, if I lose they cheated” is the operating mantra.
The only true constant I have seen in BG is that if you want to play quillboar, you will never ever find quillboar.
Comparing real life odds to digital algorithms/rng? Wild.
I don’t know if you’re serious or only joking (because the other part of this post points to you being serious), but I can tell you:
a) That “rule” is already known as the “Murphy’s law”,
b) It’s not actually true, Murphy was an engineer with a sense of humor, nothing else - this only seems to be true because of negativity bias, where we tend to remember bad outcomes much more easily than good, as historically our survival depended on it,
c) the reality is quite the opposite - the more you want something, the more you are prepared to fight for it, and eventually get it, and the existence of economy is proof enough of that.
Shouldn’t be a problem. Besides, every digital algorithm is based on things we know from real life. It’s a literal recipe, so you can always find analogies within cooking, if nothing else.
Also, to everyone else, why bother? For example:
This is the way to go about threads like this. At least we’re having some fun in otherwise pointless, idiotic and unconstructive topics full of disagreement and irrationality.
This, however, at this point is also a delusion. It’s very naive to assume tin-foiled hats would ever perform such an experiment, let alone accept it as proof. That would be logical, and rational. They don’t need that. Whole purpose in this is to avoid being logical and rational, and blame external factors for own fails, because it’s easier to go through life that way.
At least, that’s what they think, not knowing their whole existence is miserable because they refuse to learn and improve.
Setting out from the beginning to play only a specific tribe is a sure way to end up in 8th place. You play what you are given not what you want.
They don’t even need a 20-sided or they don’t even need a 6-sided. They can literally just use 1 coin.
Humans have terrible probabilities intuition and they think 50% means heads-tails-heads-tails…
Nope. True randomness of ~50% is often heads-heads-heads-tails-tails-heads…
This reminded me, while I was in high school, I had this idea that I could spend hours every day in a club with poker machines for gambling and write down all the results people got from playing on it in a notebook.
I filled 2-3 notebooks complete with outcomes and not once did I find anything resembling a pattern (even though I had the feeling like I spotted one constantly while the results were showing on the screen, live, which is natural, as we remember and track only few specific ones, which biases us towards wrong conclusions).
Not even a repetition of 2 same outcomes in a row. It seemed either impossible to humanely track and exploit, or generally impossible, because the machine is fixed on a 95% payout and there’s no system possible at all with such a limitation built in. The machine has to respond properly even in cases where someone suddenly bets much more in 10 minutes than it happens in 15 days, which is enough to let you know that it decides who wins at the moment of clicking “Play”, not before, and certainly not after you make a conscious choice hoping to affect the probabilites.
That, is what rigged means. You know, scientifically, that you cannot make it give you more than it takes from you.
Well, this isn’t it. The same way we know that, by using logic, we also know that anything other than pure RNG would be detrimental to their success. It most definitely is NOT possible to find a system that works better than pure chance, because any such system would be predictable and exploitable, and would thus lose it’s primary purpose and be shut down.
You can’t make it, no, but sometimes people do get lucky enough to win more than they lose. If that never happened no one would gamble.
Yes, I know. Weird, right?
I think this is self-explanable, even to the tin-foiled hats out there. They’re not stupid, just consciously delusional (or wilfully ignorant, if you prefer. It just doesn’t get the message across as clearly as the original phrase does).
It’s not like I haven’t been there, I have. Most of these are probably children and will grow up and accept the truth eventually. But some, are not, and they won’t be conducive to logic, that’s for sure.
But its easier to see the widespread results of the outcomes with a d20 over and over than it is with only a coin flip over and over. At least to me and my mathematically unskilled eyes and brain. I can plot on a graph how many 1s, 2s, …19s and 20s and just compare the bars to each and understand there may have been a string of certain types of rolls in my example. but if i do it again the following day its doubtful ill see the same results in any significant similarity as i did previously.
with coin flips the only thing i can think of to assess rng type results is just a binary bar graph type way… which really doesnt reflect a whole lot in my mind. like if there were a way convey the number of back to back same results and triples and so on in a similar way as the simple graph i proposed for the d20 results. maybe. but with such a limited thing like coin flips i cant think of an easily understandable way to convey that unlike the d20’s simplicity.
i guess id call that like an inverse relationship to how the lower the variables the less obvious to understand it it becomes, and the more variables allowed makes it a far simpler idea to express. idk. i aint a math surgeon for nasa as i still dont know the multiplication table by memory so maths aint my strong suit. lol. its sorta like my obviously not owned by me suit lol.
but at least i can grasp rng, chance, statistics in terms of one’s experience in games. and understand there isnt any rigging going on in bgs.
just unbelievable speed in reaching t6 prior to turn 12 like always lol.
The coin flip nature of their fallacy simplifies, when they think “I should have won but it’s rigged”. They basically think “if it’s ~50-60% win rate supposedly: I can’t be losing 4 times in a row” etc.
Basically they think way too often “I’m due for a win” which is the textbook description of the gambler’s fallacy.