Unluckiest WoW player ever?

[thorgill]

Just thought I'd share this with yous. It happened last night when a friend and I rolled for use of an ore vein. He rolled first, I laughed at what he rolled and then I got shot back down. It's all in the attached image. Suppose it served me right.

:grin:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6495/unluckyky5.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=unluckyky5.jpg)

So, do I win? Am I the unluckiest player or has something worse happened to you?

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Been there, done that.

[xDarkDrifterx]

lol yup been there and done that

the opposite happened the other day in a pug instance - a guys rolls 99 out of 100 and says "sweet! beat that! lol" and 3 of us at the same time (complete strangers) did a /roll 100-101 everyone cracked up

[det]

You lost the roll on a node...hardly "The unluckiest player evah" :grin:

Try our rogue who runs Kara for the 22nd time and lost all rolls when the cloak he wants drops from Prince...or such...

[Euin]

I subscribe to the unique idea that if you are truly unlucky enough to roll a "1" on a specifically "phat lewt", you are therefor entitled to said "phat lewt", due to your sheer epic ability to fail. XD

Although, this certainly wouldn't be my response to a recent dungeon run, in which every important roll I made had a strange knack at never hitting above an "11".

I got some sweet vendor trash though!

[thorgill]

I subscribe to the unique idea that if you are truly unlucky enough to roll a "1" on a specifically "phat lewt", you are therefor entitled to said "phat lewt", due to your sheer epic ability to fail. XD

Although, this certainly wouldn't be my response to a recent dungeon run, in which every important roll I made had a strange knack at never hitting above an "11".

I got some sweet vendor trash though!

I will say the guildy I was with that beat me let me have half the vien. Think he felt sorry for me. :tongue:

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

When I played EverQuest, I had built a macro to "change up" the rolling schemes. In WoW, it would work like:

/group "Roll 1 shows low-end, Roll 2 shows high-end, Roll 3 is either 0 (lowest wins) or 1 (highest wins):
/roll 1 100
/roll 200 1000
/roll 0 1

Which basically, you'd end up with people rolling different ranges all the time. If I ended up with rolls like:
24
843
0

Then people would type:
/roll 24 843

and the lowest roll wins.

There was no point, other than mixing things up a bit, some people liked it as well. Plus, it eliminated problems where you had people swear they "always rolled low" or "always rolled high" (which I was prone to "always roll low" it seemed).

[Zachariah]

I realised I play too much wow when not only did I think 'been there, done that" as well but I recognised the location straight away without looking at the text or the mobs.

[Morollan]

I was running Strat last year some time and some loot dropped. We all rolled and I got 100 so I just went and picked up the loot. I didn't actually check what anyone else rolled first so was a little shocked by the outrage when I looted. Turns out someone else had rolled 100 too. Fortunately it was a bunch of friends who all knew I wouldn't have deliberately ninja'd something.

[bwirum]

I think the funny part is that you wiped his name from the chat pane, but left in the group setup :wink:

[thorgill]

LOL! Ye never realised. Ah well, he won't mind. Not like I'm grassing him up for cheating.

Which he does btw ... ;)

[Kugan]

I was running Strat last year some time and some loot dropped. We all rolled and I got 100 so I just went and picked up the loot. I didn't actually check what anyone else rolled first so was a little shocked by the outrage when I looted. Turns out someone else had rolled 100 too. Fortunately it was a bunch of friends who all knew I wouldn't have deliberately ninja'd something.

Does get any more unlucky than rolling 100 and not getting the loot :grin:

[Tollin]

I hate when you start an instance run, up pop some green vendor/d/e trash and you roll a 99..... you just know thats it for you for the rest of the run. :(

[cyradis2003]

Back before chests were group loot we would do lowest roll wins for those just because there were always those folks that rolled low ... everytime.

[theshard]

My girlfriend was level 42 on her druid before she ever won a single roll. I didn't point it out to her but since we were the only two in the group, it was an item I would have let her have regardless.

[mesonm]

My girlfriend was level 42 on her druid before she ever won a single roll. I didn't point it out to her but since we were the only two in the group, it was an item I would have let her have regardless.

That you ever roll on loot against your gf makes her the unluckiest.....:thumbsup:

[Tollin]

That you ever roll on loot against your gf makes her the unluckiest.....:thumbsup:

Quoted and seconded for emphasis..

[theshard]

That you ever roll on loot against your gf makes her the unluckiest.....:thumbsup:

Point taken. However due to circumstances, I think that was only the second time we had ever been in a group together. And that was after a year of dating, we usually just didn't have much time to game at the same time.

[tehskirt]

It happens! Sucks, but it happens.

[mesonm]

Point taken. However due to circumstances, I think that was only the second time we had ever been in a group together. And that was after a year of dating, we usually just didn't have much time to game at the same time.

ROFL

You've been together for a YEAR, and you STILL rolled against her....

hahahahaha :shocked:

:laughing:

[Mesmer]

Then people would type:
/roll 24 843

and the lowest roll wins.

There was no point, other than mixing things up a bit, some people liked it as well. Plus, it eliminated problems where you had people swear they "always rolled low" or "always rolled high" (which I was prone to "always roll low" it seemed).

In general random numbers generated by most programming languages return a "random" number between a fixed min and max. ie in Java it is a double between 0 and 1 and C it is 0 and RAND_MAX (normally 32767). You would then scale the result to get the final number based on the output range. All that to say you basically you have the same chance of scoring high on a 0-100 roll as you do on a 200-100000 roll. Although having said that they may have implemented their own pseudorandom number generator but I know I wouldn't have bothered ;)

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

In general random numbers generated by most programming languages return a "random" number between a fixed min and max. ie in Java it is a double between 0 and 1 and C it is 0 and RAND_MAX (normally 32767).

This, I know. You missed the point entirely. The point of the system I set up was not to change the odds on scoring high or low. The point was variety -- rather than the same old 1 - 100 roll, you had a random-set low, and a random-set high value. Then there also was a third check made to determine if low-roll wins, or high-roll wins.

And, since you want to talk about randomization odds, the pseudo-random sequences are only as good as their respective algorithms are. However, most (particularly older Unix /dev/random ones, or the ones built into the Windows API) are not as evenly-distributed as they could be across the spectrum of choices. By fluctuating the low and high-ends like I did, I was actually somewhat counteracting a potentially flawed pseudo-random function (which EverQuest was prone to having).

However, in the end, it was different, something that produced a little variety, and was kind of fun (according to the people I grouped with).

You would then scale the result to get the final number based on the output range. All that to say you basically you have the same chance of scoring high on a 0-100 roll as you do on a 200-100000 roll.

are you honestly implying that you have the same odds to get 100000 on a 200-100000 roll, as you would get 100 on a 0 - 100 roll? Or are you talking same percentage points of the high-end have the same odds when accounting for scale?

Although having said that they may have implemented their own pseudorandom number generator but I know I wouldn't have bothered ;)

Actually, considering the flawed nature of many pseudo-random generators that had cropped up in the past, I'd say it isn't completely impossible. That said, as long as there is no reliance on the Windows API for pseudo-random values, or on the older Unix /dev/random (rather than /dev/urandom) for the pseudo-random values, it should all be, since fast pseudo-random generators are now not too difficult to create.

[cyradis2003]

ROFL

You've been together for a YEAR, and you STILL rolled against her....

hahahahaha :shocked:

:laughing:

With luck like hers it should be on Free for All .... :hanky: :flowers: