15 réponses à ce sujet

[Jianson]

Since there clearly is a die roll involved somewhere here, can you improve the chances of success by casting a Luck spell on:
- Thalantyr
- Melicamp
- main character
- party leader
?

Or is it just a hard coded probability that can't be affected? What is the chance of success anyway? Melicamp has died in my five last no-reloads games...

[Grond0]

I think it's supposed to be just a straight 50% chance - over the many games I've played half success seems about right so it sounds like you've been unlucky recently.

[corey_russell]

I'd be curious if someone cast Luck on Thalantyr to see if he did it successfully more often. But in my experience it seems to average out to about 50% as well. You do get the runs of successes and failures sometimes (but that's true for flipping a coin too)

[Jianson]

Hehe, I read in the in-game journal that Thalantyr himself said that there was nothing that could have been done to affect the outcome. Guess I'll believe him.

[Incantatar]

IF
Trigger(1)
THEN
RESPONSE #50
StartCutSceneMode()
Face(1)
SmallWait(1)
ForceSpell("Melicamp",EFFECT_ONLY)
Wait(1)
ActionOverride("Melicamp",Polymorph(MAGE_MALE_HUMAN_LOW))
EndCutSceneMode()
RESPONSE #50
StartCutSceneMode()
Face(1)
SmallWait(1)
ForceSpell("Melicamp",EFFECT_ONLY)
Wait(1)
ActionOverride("Melicamp",Polymorph(MAGE_MALE_HUMAN_LOW))
Kill("Melicamp")
EndCutSceneMode()
END


It's a 50:50 chance and it's scripted.

[Grimwald the Wise]

I tried alls orts of things to try and affect the outcome.

At one stage I was sure that Charisma had an effect, just because of a series of lucky rolls.

Then I thought where the chicken was in the inventory had an effect. It doesn't.

That's the problem with random results. They actually are random.

You could therefore get the same result 100 times in a row. Unlikely, but possible.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Grimwald the Wise wrote...
You could therefore get the same result 100 times in a row. Unlikely, but possible.

For a 50% chance, that's a number with 30 zeros. I'm not sure I'd call that "possible".

[Biotic_Warlock]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Grimwald the Wise wrote...
You could therefore get the same result 100 times in a row. Unlikely, but possible.

For a 50% chance, that's a number with 30 zeros. I'm not sure I'd call that "possible".

It's possible, but stasistically i'd win the lottery first

[corey_russell]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Grimwald the Wise wrote...
You could therefore get the same result 100 times in a row. Unlikely, but possible.

For a 50% chance, that's a number with 30 zeros. I'm not sure I'd call that "possible".

It's possible, but stasistically i'd win the lottery first

In sciences other than those that deal with evolution, when a chance of something is low enough, the scientist then considers that chance zero. A number with a decimal point and 30 zeroes might be such a number...

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...
It's possible, but stasistically i'd win the lottery first

You'd win the lottery about 45 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 times before getting the same result 100 times in a row from a 50% chance.

(Of course the previous sentence is complete nonsense and a good example of the gambler's fallacy.)

[AnonymousHero]

corey_russell wrote...
In sciences other than those that deal with evolution,

Your personal beliefs notwithstanding, the science of evolution works like any other science. It's not like there are suddenly any "special rules" when you're dealing with evolution.

[corey_russell]

AnonymousHero wrote...

corey_russell wrote...
In sciences other than those that deal with evolution,

Your personal beliefs notwithstanding, the science of evolution works like any other science. It's not like there are suddenly any "special rules" when you're dealing with evolution.

Your personal beliefs notwithstanding, the science of evolution does not, as far as probabilities go. The statistical likelihood of a simple amoeba forming and functioning from non-life by natural processes  (whether past or present) without intelligent intervention are simply astronomical, much less a much more complex life form like a human, who has many functions in his body that must all work, or he doesn't even live a day. In all other sciences, the statistical probabilities for numbers as above would be considered zero, but not in evolutionary sciences.

Modifié par corey_russell, 13 septembre 2012 - 03:35 .

[Matuse]

Creationism fiction has no place in this forum. Stop it.

[amanasleep]

corey_russell wrote...

AnonymousHero wrote...

corey_russell wrote...
In sciences other than those that deal with evolution,

Your personal beliefs notwithstanding, the science of evolution works like any other science. It's not like there are suddenly any "special rules" when you're dealing with evolution.

Your personal beliefs notwithstanding, the science of evolution does not, as far as probabilities go. The statistical likelihood of a simple amoeba forming and functioning from non-life by natural processes  (whether past or present) without intelligent intervention are simply astronomical, much less a much more complex life form like a human, who has many functions in his body that must all work, or he doesn't even live a day. In all other sciences, the statistical probabilities for numbers as above would be considered zero, but not in evolutionary sciences.

The fun thing about creationists is that not only don't they understand evolution, they don't even understand probability.

[corey_russell]

You guys should check your facts, the simplest amoeba consists of about 2000 proteins. The odds of such an organism randomly coming into existence is 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power.

But I was talking about neither creationism nor evolution directly, but odds, as in the original post about odds of the anti-chickenator spell coming favorably.

[amanasleep]

corey_russell wrote...

You guys should check your facts, the simplest amoeba consists of about 2000 proteins. The odds of such an organism randomly coming into existence is 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power.

But I was talking about neither creationism nor evolution directly, but odds, as in the original post about odds of the anti-chickenator spell coming favorably.

As if there are "facts" being checked in this discussion. Sheesh!

Well as long as we're misunderstanding evolutionary theory and probability, let's add a thorough misunderstanding of microbiology and astronomy to boot.

First, biology:

Nobody, but nobody in the scientific community would claim, as you do, that amoebas spontaneously developed, so that is a massive straw man. Although the steps between early organic compounds and protobionts and prokaryotic life 3.5 billion years ago are imperfectly understood, that does not in any way imply that there is no way to explain it without outside intervention.

On probabilities, please note that whatever the level of spontaneous self-generation actually turns out to be, the probability is evaluated not on the scale of earth, but for the entire universe as a whole.

That is, in the entire history of the universe, what is the probability that the minimum conditions for the spontaneous generation of self-sustaining life would arise on just one planet out of trillions upon trillions, at least once in that planet's history?

I would take those odds to be pretty good.  In a distribution that large, even your absurd spontaneous amoeba might happen every once in a while.

Modifié par amanasleep, 13 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .