So an inspection that played until something looked off would have a large bias for false alarms (this is in fact, unfortunately, how most commercial research is done: see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False ).Is the game really rolling the dice as stated, or is it cheating Of course the matching question is: are player memories at all fair; would they remember the other 4 out of 5 times they made such a shot.
Xcom Enemy Unknown Cheat Engine Generator Code InThere are already some interesting articles on collecting and analyzing XCOM data and finding and characterizing the actual pseudo random generator code in the game, and discussing the importance of repeatable pseudo-random results. But we want to add a discussion pointed a bit more at analysis technique in general. We emphasize methods that are efficient in their use of data. This is a statistical term meaning that a maximal amount of learning is gained from the data. In particular we do not recommend data binning as a first choice for analysis as it cuts down on sample size and thus is not the most efficient estimation technique. This can be done by mere re-loading when the pseudo random number generator is not a self-contained function (i.e. Of if is in fact deterministic, then by re-starting from a save and using a bad flip on an event we dont care about can allow the player to move a good flip to an event they do care about. Statisticians are fairly clever about avoiding these issues by ensuring that separate processes use separate random deterministic number sources, so a change in behavior of one process cant introduce a change in behavior in another by changing what random numbers the second process sees. So no coin flip from that point forward will ever by surprising. Comput., Vol. 17, No. April 1988. These are indeed powerful and interesting questions, but are too related to computers games and simulations to apply to data that comes from real world situations (such as advertisement conversion rates). Our goal is to see if there is any simple systematic net bias in the XCOM dice rolls. We are not testing for a bias varying in a clever way depending on situation or history. In particular we want to see if we are missing near sure thing shots more than we should (so we want to know if the bias varies as the reported probability of success changes). Our method will be to test if observed summary statistics have surprisingly unlikely values. We collected data on one partial classic ironman run of XCOM: Enemy Unknown on an XBox 360. The data is about 250 rows, is all of the first 20 missions and can be found in strong TSV format here: XCOMEUstats.txt. We will use R to analyze the data. There are, however, around 250 usable rows in the data set: so the data should be sufficient to test if there is a large unchanging bias (that is assumed to not depend on the play through, game state or history). To test for smaller biases or more complicated theories you would need more data and to record more facts. As an aside: notice that I do not talk about a treatment and control set. I have found slavish experimental set-up (I wont call it design) to always appeal to treatment and control is absolutely no substitute for actually taking the responsibility of thinking through if your data actually supports the type of analysis you are attempting. Just because you have a control does not mean you have a usable experimental design, and many legitimate experiments do not have a useful group labeled as control. No analysis was performed prior to stopping at ten missions of data collected. This is a simple (but not entirely necessary) method of avoiding a stopping bias as we would expect even a fair coin sequence to appear somewhat unfair on some prefixes (see, for example, the law of the iterated logarithm ).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |