Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 2637727" data-attributes="member: 3051">Oh, I know the way I'm doing it is horribly slow.  The absolute fastest way is to loop a few million times, see what the result each time is, then drop it into a simple distribution and extract the probabilities.  Especially since we don't care about the second or third decimal place for something like this.But since some people upthread were complaining that our methods that showed the medians couldn't add were flawed because iterating is bad, I felt like solving it more rigorously.  The way I'm doing it now is exact, running every single combination down and weighting by the total probability, so there's really no way to argue that it's wrong.  Inefficient, sure, but not wrong.  And while the way you're doing it is just as accurate, I figured sooner or later someone would argue that order of operations is important, so the vector/matrix multiplication route was out unless you wanted to manipulate 5d matrices before reducing.Anyhoo, no one really cares about this math stuff.  Bottom line, any of the distributions we've talked about would work.  The 20-12-8-6-4 distribution seems like it'd work nicely as a substitute for the flat 50-charge wand.  Mean's 50, median's just under 45, and the chance of getting a lousy wand (10 or fewer charges) is tiny.  I'd say go with that.</blockquote>