RNG, was a new one ever implemented?

[Fat Midnight]

I remember reading that a new RNG was in development but I don`t remember hearing that it had been part of a publish. Are we seeing it now or is it the same ol same ol?

 

[Storm]

I think we have the same one I remember them saying they looked at it but dont think it was ever changed

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Last I remember, they were in the process of coding a new RNG that was less streaky. But that was almost a year ago, I think.

If they slipped a new RNG into the game, since it'd be a major change to nearly every system, you'd think we'd have been asked to test it first.

But, this is Mythic and I think we all know their motto by now: "Testing? We don't need no testing!"

 

[Barok]

int RNG()
   static int count;
{
   count++;
   if (count >= 10000)
   {
      count = 0;
      return (SUCCESS);
   }
   else
      return (FAIL);
}

 

[FishinFool]

If they were smart, the best thing to do would be to produce a centralized rng server that could be used by all of their games.

Would reduce duplication in effort and would probably get more resources allocated to it.

 

[Clog|Mordain]

If they were smart, the best thing to do would be to produce a centralized rng server that could be used by all of their games.

Would reduce duplication in effort and would probably get more resources allocated to it.

You wonder why Mythic havent thought of this yet...

 

[lucitus]

int RNG()
   static int count;
{
   count++;
   if (count >= 10000)
   {
      count = 0;
      return (SUCCESS);
   }
   else
      return (FAIL);
}

private int count = 0;

public static int RNG()
{
count++;
if (count >= 10000)
{
count = 0;
return(1);
}
else
{
return(0);
}
}

would say this code should work. But not as RNG

 

[FishinFool]

Oddly enough, computers don't like to generate random numbers.

Putting together a solid RNG does take a bit of work.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

I remember reading that a new RNG was in development but I don`t remember hearing that it had been part of a publish. Are we seeing it now or is it the same ol same ol?

50-50 that they had one
50-50 that they used it
50-50 that it "worked > better"
50-50 that they could tell if it did/didn't
50-50 that they would say they "saw" it as above
50-50 that they would be right in that assesment
50-50 that they could "prove it" to be so
50-50 that they wouldn't "bother"
50-50 that they "could/would" bother ... but be interminably delayed in communicating it ...
#err ... make that 99-1
*calculating uhall hyperbole ...
*tick*
*tock*
*tick* ... *tick* ... *bing!*

possibility of "new RNG code insert" ... >(greater than zero)
Effect if no loot table restructure = -0.0 (negitive multiplier = over flow of doesn't matter)

SUM:: (therefore) who cares + post count +1 ...