Yeah, I get that that’s how the game finds it’s random numbers. Exactly as that article says though, “It should be noted that even though good PRNG algorithms exist, they aren’t always used, and it’s easy to get nasty surprises.” So they are fallible and can be influenced by things on the user’s computer. (like the example with Linux and Windows.)
Even a ‘true’ random number generator isn’t truly random. it just takes a complex variable beyond our ability to understand the composition of and that we’re unable to predict, then uses that. Even if we can’t understand it doesn’t mean there aren’t patterns involved in it. For example the example given in the article is an atmospheric static detector. Well, if there’s a thunder storm then it’ll be sensing a constantly amount of atmospheric static, whereas the day after a thunder storm with clear skys would have far less.
“Statistics” is the word used to describe the overarching group. Predictions using previous knowledge, like coin tossing, are statistical predictions. A ratio is also a statistic, for example. Having 2:1 ratio on enemies to soldiers is a statistic, but it’s not retrospective. Similarly looking forward and predicting the chance of something to occur, especially within a finite simulation where all variables can be measured, is also a statistical prediction.
Your argument is that the pseudo-random number functions are designed to give a consistent variety of random numbers. Except, they don’t at smaller sample sizes. Mathematically what’s really the difference between getting 5/10, 50/100 or 1/2? If the pattern that appeared in the 5/10 continued through the next 90 runs went the same way then it would be 50/100. So by getting 5/10 and not the closest possible number (7 or 8 out of 10) it’s actually failing to keep up the chance it predicted.
Enough with the ‘toin coss’ it doesn’t represent the chance that should be prevalent in PP. If we were talking about casino games and games where the entire point is relying on pure chance then you’d have a point but phoenix point is not one of those games. It has strategy, diversity in weapons and soldiers, finite resources, etc. So luck should be far less of an issue. Rolling 50% instead of 75% in a game like PP means you lose more ammo while killing less enemies, the enemies have more opportunities to shoot you back, etc. A little change in chance like that can severely hamper your progress in the game. PP’s individual bullet system helps a lot to deal with this since every shot it rolls the chance to hit 3/6/15 times.
This is not may argument. Can you people not read? I don’t want 100% chance. The fact that soldiers and aliens can miss is good. It makes cover far more important and gives you choices where you have to be aware of the consequences should your soldier fail to hit the shot. I simply want the system to be artificially balanced, rather than using purely random numbers. With it being artificially balanced it won’t screw the player over consistently but it also won’t cause aliens to miss every single shot. It’ll simply make the game more balanced by giving each player the same likelihood of hitting regardless of their own personal luck, or lack thereof.
You say you want it “fair” but unlimited randomness is not fair. If it doesn’t treat players the same way then it’s not a fair game.
You’re right, you would have to miss some shots so that the 75% chance was accurate. However, the benefit of the system is that you would only ever miss up to 4 shots in a row (in a set. It would technically be possible to miss 8 in a row if they were at the end of one set and the start of another but it would be extremely unlikely, and even then you’d have 12 guaranteed shots after that.)
Additionally, it doesn’t have to be a set of 16. It could be a set of 4, for absolutely certain balance. Though I personally feel this would be too predictable and players could exploit it too easily.
Absolutely. I would agree that it might be difficult to work out such a system, but the developers of the game are already designing complex chance systems and they are professionals with relevant training, so i think they could do it and I think it would be worth it.
Let’s assume that, because that’s where the fun is 
Otherwise, it would just be 
This isn’t the main benefit though – rather, the benefit is that you could choose a nice stencil 
After all, you’d need a rather dense scatter plot for it be satisfactorily uniform, and you’d really want that, if it was fixed.
But I’d choose my radial increments to match the desired distribution of accuracy, i.e., I’d let the radius increase as the derivative of the inverse of the cumulative probability distribution over radius / accuracy 
, highly symmetrical and without large gaps (probably what makes it so beautiful 
It would also be trivial to compute an expected outcome: simply take the average outcome of all the points of the sunflower. Taking variable accuracy into account would be simple as well – just scale the stencil with the inaccuracy of the shooter 
. However, for actual shots, there’s just no way drawing a few points is the performance bottleneck. And then again, perhaps Unity offers fast evaluation of Gaussian beams, and you could just shine a “flashlight of probability” from your muzzle towards your target, and see how “illuminated” each surface was? Oh well, I had fun writing this, anyway 
.