We've tested some of the top tactics for 200,000 matches to measure the RNG as precisely as possible.
For example, the score of Katana 4231 104p v3.1 tactic, which was 64.4 points after 4,000 matches, dropped to 61.9 points after 200,000 matches.
The 200,000 matches test helped us to measured the RNG on various distances. For example, for a 4,000 matches distance the RNG is about 2.4 points, which means that "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic hit almost the highest RNG possible for that distance, but that's typical almost for any tactic at the top, speaking other words, a tactic that scored 63 or 64 points in our test almost for sure hit the highest RNG for its shape.
The above means that if we keep retesting "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic for 4,000 matches then we will be getting such scores as 59.6, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64.4 points.
As you can see even after a solid test such as 4,000 matches the score of "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic can go as low as 59.6 points and as high as 64.4 points but of course, the 59.6 and 64.4 points would be a very rare and "extreme" results, rare as unicorns and you have to repeat the test many and many times to get it. On average after 4,000 matches testing "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic you'll be getting more "reasonable" numbers such as 61, 62, 63 points.
Also, we estimated that if you want to get a score that will be as close as "1" point to "the real score" then you have to test a tactic for about 16,000 matches and if you want to get a score that we'll as close as "0.5" point to "the real" score then you have to test a tactic for about 32,000 matches.
You might already noticed that we added "RNG" numbers to the test results, the "RNG" numbers are based on the data that we got after our 200,000 matches RNG test.
I hope the above information and the "RNG" numbers will be useful you.
Guys, I just want to let you know that we've fixed a small bug in the RNG values, due to the bug they were displaying incorrect values, which were as twice bigger as they should be.
Hey there,
We've tested some of the top tactics for 200,000 matches to measure the RNG as precisely as possible.
For example, the score of Katana 4231 104p v3.1 tactic, which was 64.4 points after 4,000 matches, dropped to 61.9 points after 200,000 matches.
The 200,000 matches test helped us to measured the RNG on various distances. For example, for a 4,000 matches distance the RNG is about 2.4 points, which means that "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic hit almost the highest RNG possible for that distance, but that's typical almost for any tactic at the top, speaking other words, a tactic that scored 63 or 64 points in our test almost for sure hit the highest RNG for its shape.
The above means that if we keep retesting "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic for 4,000 matches then we will be getting such scores as 59.6, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64.4 points.
As you can see even after a solid test such as 4,000 matches the score of "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic can go as low as 59.6 points and as high as 64.4 points but of course, the 59.6 and 64.4 points would be a very rare and "extreme" results, rare as unicorns and you have to repeat the test many and many times to get it. On average after 4,000 matches testing "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic you'll be getting more "reasonable" numbers such as 61, 62, 63 points.
Also, we estimated that if you want to get a score that will be as close as "1" point to "the real score" then you have to test a tactic for about 16,000 matches and if you want to get a score that we'll as close as "0.5" point to "the real" score then you have to test a tactic for about 32,000 matches.
You might already noticed that we added "RNG" numbers to the test results, the "RNG" numbers are based on the data that we got after our 200,000 matches RNG test.
I hope the above information and the "RNG" numbers will be useful you.
Cheers.
Excellent work, always adding improvements and clarity to the testing.
Guys, I just want to let you know that we've fixed a small bug in the RNG values, due to the bug they were displaying incorrect values, which were as twice bigger as they should be.
Now, it's been corrected.