Why do I keep getting a great artist in my NE city?

Riflin'Joe

Prince
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
329
Location
New Zealand
I just finished the National Epic in a typical GP Farm with Great Library and a number of scientists (plus an engineer for a few turns). With the chances at 95% for a GS, 3% GA and 2% GE I just popped a Great Artist. Meh... Now I would just shrug my shoulders about this, but it seems to keep happening so often. I'm now wondering if there's some hiiden not-so-random factor at work here, or have I just offended the RNG gods in some way? Does anyone else have similar experiences?
 
After sidsushi corp avaliable
I look at my specialist farm city and realise that I have no any merchant rate
then I decide to change to caste system and running all specialist for merchant and that +1 Great artis from NE will have no chance haha
then I got great artis......... ok then I will keep him for jewel corp ):
 
I just finished the National Epic in a typical GP Farm with Great Library and a number of scientists (plus an engineer for a few turns). With the chances at 95% for a GS, 3% GA and 2% GE I just popped a Great Artist. Meh... Now I would just shrug my shoulders about this, but it seems to keep happening so often. I'm now wondering if there's some hiiden not-so-random factor at work here, or have I just offended the RNG gods in some way? Does anyone else have similar experiences?
You will know if you have offended the RNG gods if you spawn a Great Engineer :lol:
 
If it's any consolation, I recently got 3 great scientists in a row at very low odds, instead of the artists I wanted for my cultural victory (all because the governor kept assigning a scientist for a couple of turns when I wasn't looking). The last one provoked a rage-quit.
 
very similiar experience in this game, had nat. epic and glib and got like 2-3 artists and 10 scientist(or less) i ran 3 scientists, so the odds were pretty low, oh well they gave me some golden ages atleast :P
 
It's programmed to give you the GP you want the least.

True story. :p

Nah, it's because the NE itself increases the likelihood of a GA, and sometimes crap happens.
 
Embrace art.

I read an article about a teacher who had his students flip a coin 100 times and record the results. The students also had the option of not flipping a coin and just writing down a string of results. He surprised the class each year by being able to tell which list was produced by chance and which by students simulating chance. If a student really flipped a coin there would always be long strings of heads or tails, 10 to 20 in a row, but a student would never invent that as a "random" result because it just doesn't feel random. Lesson: don't trust your feelings about what is random and what is not.
 
10 to 20?

Considering after the first head or tail of a new run, getting 9 the same afterwards would be a probability of 1/512 (=1/(2^9)), I doubt that ;)

EDIT: And 2^19 is a whopping 524288
 
each new flip has a 50% chance of either outcome. plus if the coin doesn't have very much air time, i've noticed that the results are slightly more controlled.
 
That's my point exactly, it sounds unlikely so you would never invent it yourself, but consider the fact that your 1/512 starts again after every failure so you get +/- 90 shots at it. If the required string was 500 instead of 100, I don't know for sure what it was, then you approach having 500 chances to do something that will occur once in 512 attemps. The numbers are the best I can remember, that's why I kept it a little vague. I didn't read the article yesterday though. At first it sounds impossible, but it turns out that it is almost impossible for it not to happen.

The point is simply that in a truly random situation things that seem unlikely will occur. Try this, on a piece of paper try making random dots. This sounds easy but is actually extremely hard for a human to do. Humans will try to coat the paper evenly with dots but a random dot generator will produce clumps of dots and areas of empty space, something that doesn't "look" random.
 
Each failure to get 10 in a row uses up 2-9 tosses.

Sounds more like the test was 500 or even 1000 tosses. 20 heads or tails in a row would be very rare indeed.

The smart kids would write a computer program to simulate the results of course ;)

There's a let's discuss mathematics thread in Sci/Tech if you want to go into it in more detail.

EDIT: Read this for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
 
Yes, but the last flip that causes the failure is also the first flip of the new string so it is actually 1-9. And yes 20 would be rare, but you see already that 10 would very, very common. If, however, you ask people if they would get 10 in a row, almost regardless of the number of flips, most people would say no way, isn't going to happen. If I had to forge a random result I would never put more than 4 or 5 in a row, it just feels too improbable while in fact the opposite is true. I will look at your link.
 
I repeated that simulation with 100 coin tosses.

It took me 33 attempts (of 100 tosses each attempt), to get 10 in a row (in fact I got 13 in a row!).
 
It doesn't take long, since you get the results as a 10x10 array and a run of 10 occupies an entire row (with wrap around, of course), so it's easy to spot a run of 10 ;)
 
8 is a lot less than 10 though. 1/4 as likely.
 
Fair enough, but Mec has already said he isn't entirely sure about the numbers. Just replace the number "10" with the number "8" in his original anecdote and go from there.

Plus, doing the maths reveals that the odds of getting 10 in a row in a run of 100 flips is only 1/5.6 so it's not particularly unlikely really.
 
Back
Top Bottom