Nanoquest: It's the littlest things that matter most. (HxH)

[Liam-don]

[blockquote]Rolled 10d100 : 24, 28, 61, 97, 75, 90, 12, 32, 85, 99, total 603[/blockquote]

 

[Vindictus]

...

From now on GM rolls.

 

[Larekko12]

Damn it.

 

[Lilithium]

....

PIIIPPPPPEEEEEMMMMMAAAAAAANNNNNN

FFFFFFFCFFFCFFC C.F. GJG YUI WE RE F2F JOOBBF T FSSS F ZGHYOKJGGSS F2F HUH CNN I UP ON HMMM JGCD TREE SASS ZCGFG BHJB

 

[Bloodshifter]

I'd have to agree Pipe your rolls suck have you ever rolled high when it mattered?

 

[Pipeman]

Yes.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

*gives it a shot*

[blockquote]Rolled 10d100 : 42, 16, 17, 27, 30, 82, 96, 98, 89, 55, total 552[/blockquote]

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

So.....either really good, or really awful for me.

 

[Vindictus]

Much like your plans?

Although in your defense, your plans are generally simultaneously horrible and awesome, as opposed to one or the other.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Much like your plans?

Although in your defense, your plans are generally simultaneously horrible and awesome, as opposed to one or the other.

Click to shrink...

Ouch. I mean I admit that my plans aren't always winners, but still. Ouch.

 

[Vindictus]

Nonono, I'm saying you tend to fail your [Morality] rolls while succeeding on your [Awesome] rolls when you start planning...

... This is a bad analogy, isn't it?

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Nonono, I'm saying you tend to fail your [Morality] rolls while succeeding on your [Awesome] rolls when you start planning...

... This is a bad analogy, isn't it?

Click to shrink...

Ohhhhhh. Umm....

Okay, yes, I do tend to do that. Especially when I'm playing certain characters. Guilty as charged.

I thought you were saying that my plans tend to be bad yet awesome at the same time. Which does happen, but I like to think I have a fair amount of straight up successes. Although when I do make a bad plan, I like to think they still tend towards awesome. In the sense of, "Sense of awe you feel when you see a mile wide crater where a city used to be," because when I start gambling I don't play for loose change.

Morality is a regular casualty though. Morality is my Kenny.

 

[Bloodshifter]

[blockquote]Rolled 10d100 : 29, 92, 89, 77, 56, 85, 70, 48, 77, 65, total 688[/blockquote]

Well lets see my Luck!

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Are you fucking kidding me? That's insane.

 

[Liam-don]

Cheating on a roll for nothing? Hymn, I am dissapoint.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Cheating on a roll for nothing? Hymn, I am dissapoint.

Click to shrink...

What cheating? I rolled a set, hit preview. But when I posted the system considered them tampered by default. Ultimately I decided to just delete the whole thing, since it seemed pointless.

Preview function is nifty though. Obviously not good for when you're posting for reals, but when you're doing it for personal curiosity it's good. And I dunno if I'm biased, been getting weird luck, or the RNG isn't very good, but there seems to be a significant bias for the extremes. They seem to average out fine, but....y'know what, public experiment time.

[blockquote]Rolled 20d100 : 5, 67, 40, 49, 45, 3, 20, 91, 17, 76, 21, 37, 90, 44, 1, 26, 14, 72, 44, 89, total 851[/blockquote]

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Huh, apparently there's a 20dXXX limit. But still. Am I the only one who things these spreads are bizarre? It's a combination of high and low rolls dominating the middling rolls. It seems to balance out over time, but that's a crapload of extreme values that should be outliers.

Or were you referring to me playing around with the RNG before posting the results properly? If so, guilty as charged, I guess. Not sure where you'd see that, but yeah. Did you know that if you hit preview for a roll, the numbers displayed in board format will be one set, but the ones inside the reply box will be another? I still haven't figured out what's up with that.

 

[Bloodshifter]

Huh, apparently there's a 20dXXX limit. But still. Am I the only one who things these spreads are bizarre? It's a combination of high and low rolls dominating the middling rolls. It seems to balance out over time, but that's a crapload of extreme values that should be outliers.

Or were you referring to me playing around with the RNG before posting the results properly? If so, guilty as charged, I guess. Not sure where you'd see that, but yeah. Did you know that if you hit preview for a roll, the numbers displayed in board format will be one set, but the ones inside the reply box will be another? I still haven't figured out what's up with that.

Click to shrink...

RNG is weird but it changes per roll look
[blockquote]Rolled 20d100 : 96, 87, 68, 30, 38, 68, 22, 59, 46, 54, 49, 47, 46, 62, 98, 4, 38, 17, 79, 73, total 1081[/blockquote]
and again
[blockquote]Rolled 20d100 : 46, 95, 6, 14, 47, 22, 91, 43, 33, 22, 75, 44, 38, 53, 90, 2, 1, 13, 93, 25, total 853[/blockquote]
this too
[blockquote]Rolled 20d100 : 48, 36, 86, 65, 70, 41, 73, 19, 35, 13, 34, 11, 57, 81, 97, 1, 53, 60, 13, 62, total 955[/blockquote]

 

[Bloodshifter]

Snip

Click to shrink...

Rolled 20d100 : 96, 87, 68, 30, 38, 68, 22, 59, 46, 54, 49, 47, 46, 62, 98, 4, 38, 17, 79, 73, total 1081

Rolled 20d100 : 46, 95, 6, 14, 47, 22, 91, 43, 33, 22, 75, 44, 38, 53, 90, 2, 1, 13, 93, 25, total 853

Rolled 20d100 : 48, 36, 86, 65, 70, 41, 73, 19, 35, 13, 34, 11, 57, 81, 97, 1, 53, 60, 13, 62, total 955

60 Dices
Low end 1-33:18
Middle 34-66:25
High end 67-100: 17

Evens out over time with Mid taking a slight lead even larger samples prove this to be true. This Roller be aiming to give alot of Neutral Rolls with EXTREME outliners

 

[Vindictus]

I'm seeing a surprising amount of ones.

Out of 60, 2 being crit failures is a DEFINATE statistical fuckup.

 

[Bloodshifter]

I'm seeing a surprising amount of ones.

Out of 60, 2 being crit failures is a DEFINATE statistical fuckup.

Click to shrink...

like I said the Dice bot likes its Mid and Extremes
Rolled 20d100 : 96, 87, 68, 30, 38, 68, 22, 59, 46, 54, 49, 47, 46, 62, 98, 4, 38, 17, 79, 73, total 1081

Rolled 20d100 : 46, 95, 6, 14, 47, 22, 91, 43, 33, 22, 75, 44, 38, 53, 90, 2, 1, 13, 93, 25, total 853

Rolled 20d100 : 48, 36, 86, 65, 70, 41, 73, 19, 35, 13, 34, 11, 57, 81, 97, 1, 53, 60, 13, 62, total 955

Breaking this down further
1-10:5
11-20:7
21-30:5
31-40:7
41-50:10 *Oh mushroom*
51-60:6
61-70:5
71-80:4
81-90:3
91-100:8 *(O.O)*

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

No, I know it changes per roll. And that first set of rolls there looks surprisingly well distributed at a glance. Can't say the same for the other two sets though. Which isn't bad, necessarily. That's the nature of RNG. The weird RNG just seems to tend towards extremes.

Back on changing per rolls, when I hit preview I would see a set of rolls just like what I see in your post right now. But in the reply box that contains the text, there's a different set. I GUESS the program is switching things around, or seeing certain patterns and deciding, 'Need to roll these numbers again.' Haven't figured out exactly what though.

Annnnnnd I should probably stop here before I become irrevocably distracted and start rolling hundreds of dice.

Rolled 20d100 : 96, 87, 68, 30, 38, 68, 22, 59, 46, 54, 49, 47, 46, 62, 98, 4, 38, 17, 79, 73, total 1081

Rolled 20d100 : 46, 95, 6, 14, 47, 22, 91, 43, 33, 22, 75, 44, 38, 53, 90, 2, 1, 13, 93, 25, total 853

Rolled 20d100 : 48, 36, 86, 65, 70, 41, 73, 19, 35, 13, 34, 11, 57, 81, 97, 1, 53, 60, 13, 62, total 955

60 Dices
Low end 1-33:18
Middle 34-66:25
High end 67-100: 17

Evens out over time with Mid taking a slight lead even larger samples prove this to be true. This Roller be aiming to give alot of Neutral Rolls with EXTREME outliners

Click to shrink...

.....

No.

No no no NO NO NO.

Your sample size is not even as big as the number of possible outcomes. More to the point, dividing it into thirds skews the data by a large amount because numbers in the ones/ninetys seem to come up so much that it doesn't portray an accurate picture of 10-30 or 70-90. Ish. At minimum I would examine the distribution in tenths. Twentieths would be cutting corners, a proper study would be rolling thousands of dice and examining the amount of times each outcome was hit.




And Vin, yeah, two critfails is a statistical anomaly, but not as much as, lemme see....3 13s? 3 22s? 3 46s? 2 62s? 2 68s? ALL in the same 60 dice rolled?

Yeah, it's pretty weird alright.

 

[Bloodshifter]

No, I know it changes per roll. And that first set of rolls there looks surprisingly well distributed at a glance. Can't say the same for the other two sets though. Which isn't bad, necessarily. That's the nature of RNG. The weird RNG just seems to tend towards extremes.

Back on changing per rolls, when I hit preview I would see a set of rolls just like what I see in your post right now. But in the reply box that contains the text, there's a different set. I GUESS the program is switching things around, or seeing certain patterns and deciding, 'Need to roll these numbers again.' Haven't figured out exactly what though.

Annnnnnd I should probably stop here before I become irrevocably distracted and start rolling hundreds of dice.


.....

No.

No no no NO NO NO.

Your sample size is not even as big as the number of possible outcomes. More to the point, dividing it into thirds skews the data by a large amount because numbers in the ones/ninetys seem to come up so much that it doesn't portray an accurate picture of 10-30 or 70-90. Ish. At minimum I would examine the distribution in tenths. Twentieths would be cutting corners, a proper study would be rolling thousands of dice and examining the amount of times each outcome was hit.




And Vin, yeah, two critfails is a statistical anomaly, but not as much as, lemme see....3 13s? 3 22s? 3 46s? 2 62s? 2 68s? ALL in the same 60 dice rolled?

Yeah, it's pretty weird alright.

Click to shrink...

Breaking this down further
1-10:5
11-20:7
21-30:5
31-40:7
41-50:10 *Oh mushroom*
51-60:6
61-70:5
71-80:4
81-90:3
91-100:8 *(O.O)*

 

[Liam-don]

Begin production of 200 000 Gastric Units; Workers protected by an acid resistant shell to survive in the stomach. This number is considered sufficient to achieve perfect efficiency of food breakdown, leaving no toxin or waste. 1 000 000 regular Workers are created to assist nutrients absorption from the intestine to the bloodstream.

External sensory input: Ponzu spends muc hof the evening munching on drumstick or devouring cake and sweets. A boy remarks that "she is stocking up for the Exam" and get punched on the head in answer. No other words are said on the matter.

Warning: Ponzu's food intake for night represents 5.2% of her body mass. While this more than cover the needs of a colony an order of magnitude larger than our own for the foreseeable future, change in host's volume will be visible to the naked eye even if we maximize fatty tissues' density. Suggestions?

External sensory input: Once the party winds down, Ponzu helps put the children to bed. She then goes into a small single bedroom, probably her own and goes to sleep herself.

Begin Second Phase: Sensory optimization.

........
..............
...................

Complete. Slight adjustments of key components of the sensory organs will improve our host's senses by 5 to 10%.

Begin Third Phase: Lymph Nodes' Subvertion. By managing antigen production we will ensure that we won't be a target for the immune system and improve its response time to real threats. Proceeding...


..........
............ Alert!:A Severe Adverse Reaction was triggered by our units. Immune system recognized our action as Hostile and deployed immediately tagged our units for destruction. Because our stealth mantle identifies us White Blood Cells, the immune system is tearing itself apart in its attempt to protect itself. Warning!: Our units are targets as well and vastly outnumbered. Aside from the Gastric Units. The Colony faces a very real risk of complete destruction.

Orders?

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

Breaking this down further
1-10:5
11-20:7
21-30:5
31-40:7
41-50:10 *Oh mushroom*
51-60:6
61-70:5
71-80:4
81-90:3
91-100:8 *(O.O)*

Click to shrink...

Yeesh, that is a lopsided spread.

But honestly, I don't think we can draw any conclusions that amount to more than a gut feeling without a much, much bigger sample size requiring more time than any of us have for this.



.....Ah HELL. Whelp. We're in trouble now.

 

[Bloodshifter]

Yeesh, that is a lopsided spread.

But honestly, I don't think we can draw any conclusions that amount to more than a gut feeling without a much, much bigger sample size requiring more time than any of us have for this.



.....Ah HELL. Whelp. We're in trouble now.

Click to shrink...

How big of a Sample do you want? I can go ahead and start it then begin the counting spread.

 

[Hymn of Ragnarok]

How big of a Sample do you want? I can go ahead and start it then begin the counting spread.

Click to shrink...

Don't. Really, don't. Unless you have a program to do it all automatically, it's not worth it, just me being idly curious. I would do it myself if I had more time, but since I don't, only do it if you're curious about it and presumably have nothing better to do.

 

[nick012000]

[X] Outright replace the white blood cells with our own nanobots, and the lymph nodes with macroscale facilities to maintain and mass-produce them. (Tier 1 Enhancement)
-[X] Once this is complete, begin production of a distributed and constantly updated back-up of the host's mindstate, along with Tier 2 brain enhancements to help facilitate this. They will also most likely assist her in the exam, due to improved brain functionality.

 

[Bloodshifter]

Don't. Really, don't. Unless you have a program to do it all automatically, it's not worth it, just me being idly curious. I would do it myself if I had more time, but since I don't, only do it if you're curious about it and presumably have nothing better to do.

Click to shrink...

I finished my Final I got NOTHING TO DO for... *Checks Calendar* 4 Hours. as for that program I think I have something like a Number sorter lying in my files somewhere.

 

[Vindictus]

[X] Begin Teir 1 modification- replacement of the immune system.