Random option with different probability

[AftPeakTank]

@AftPeakTank perfectly valid solution. I think it gets messy if you want many items, since fitting them all into 100 while also having decent weights is difficult. For something as small as the example, there's no reason you shouldn't use this method if you prefer.

a note though: reading from counters is slower than reading from an active's alterable value! I see counters used a lot around the forums so I figured I would mention it.

@casleziro , I bet one can automate it to do as many weights you want. All you have to do is to use the sum of the odds instead of the 100% percentage.

It really is quite simple.

You do a random pick from 1 to "the sum of the odds" and you check with a loop so many times as the number of weights you want to have, to see in which range of numbers you are in. Then you apply your result.

By the way, I used the counter so one could see visualy how it works. This code can of course work in any type of values.

[casleziro]

The sum method you're describing is similar to what I used in post #6.

Instead of comparing if you are in a range of numbers, the weight of each item is subtracted from the random pick from 1 to "sum of the odds" until it reaches 0. The loop is then broken and the current item returned. One comparison for each item is likely faster than multiple. But there are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes.

@Volnaiskra got me thinking of ways my method could be sped up even further. I think using an array with 2 y indexes (actual item and item weight) would be faster, or maybe 2 alterable value "containers" like he used in his optimization! Tokenizing a string is surely slow.

I didn't realize about the counters, sorry @AftPeakTank . I see them used a lot in examples and it irritates me much the same way the list object does

[AftPeakTank]

The sum method you're describing is similar to what I used in post #6.

Instead of comparing if you are in a range of numbers, the weight of each item is subtracted from the random pick from 1 to "sum of the odds" until it reaches 0. The loop is then broken and the current item returned. One comparison for each item is likely faster than multiple. But there are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes.

I didn't realize about the counters, sorry. I see them used a lot in examples and it irritates me much the same way the list object does

Ahh, yes, like you said, looks like...But in the loop I wouldn't do it this way. I would just check for the range with a combo of conditions. I wouldn't loop so many times. Though even like you describe it would be fast enough. Fastloops are really fast.

Well, I see them too but they are only there for helping purposes...Aren't they?
hmmmm....
LOL

[AftPeakTank]

@casleziro , here is the code I was describing.

I think it works. You can put as many weights as you want in the active object (works as a holder of values) and you need to update the first Alt. Value with the total number of weights.

randompick2.png

Then the following events are doing the job:

randompick1.png

You may download the MFA here randompick.mfa

Second frame holds the current example.

[Volnaiskra]

I think @Fenris is going to need a random number generator to decide which of the above methods to use

[AftPeakTank]

I think @Fenris is going to need a random number generator to decide which of the above methods to use

Now that was a good one...

[Fenris]

@elvisish @Volnaiskra @AftPeakTank @casleziro
Thanks a ton guys! It's amazing to see how many different approaches there is. I guess I really need a random generator to decide which method to use
You've been extremely helpful, thank you very much

[Fenris]

@casleziro , here is the code I was describing.

I think it works. You can put as many weights as you want in the active object (works as a holder of values) and you need to update the first Alt. Value with the total number of weights.

randompick2.png

Then the following events are doing the job:

randompick1.png


Second frame holds the current example.

Even though I will probably go with the simpler examples that will be more than enough for me, I really want to understand what is going in this one Keep in mind, I'm a beginner to coding and fusion, and at this moment I have no idea what this example does I don't understand what the code does. It works like a charm, but I need to know how exactly. And I would really like to figure it out alone, because I think that'll be the best way to learn.

I have some business to do in the next two days, but when I get back home, I'll bury myself in this example and do my best to figure out what exactly it does and how. If I fail completely then I'd like to ask some more questions if that's ok If I don't reply in a week or two, then I probably figured it out and I thank you very much

[AftPeakTank]

Even though I will probably go with the simpler examples that will be more than enough for me, I really want to understand what is going in this one Keep in mind, I'm a beginner to coding and fusion, and at this moment I have no idea what this example does I don't understand what the code does. It works like a charm, but I need to know how exactly. And I would really like to figure it out alone, because I think that'll be the best way to learn.

I have some business to do in the next two days, but when I get back home, I'll bury myself in this example and do my best to figure out what exactly it does and how. If I fail completely then I'd like to ask some more questions if that's ok If I don't reply in a week or two, then I probably figured it out and I thank you very much

Ahh, happy I helped and you are satisfied. In fact the people in this community are always kind and help as much as possible.

Of course you may ask anything. Just tag me

[Fenris]

Ok @AftPeakTank I finally figured it out. I'm kind of a math retard, so it took me more time than I'm willing to admit

I literally took pen and paper and went through the code multiple times to try to figure it out. And I did a rookie mistake thinking that LoopIndex is the number of loops and it gets smaller every time loop runs until I looked it up and learned that it actually goes up with every loop *facepalm*. I can't believe how simple it actually is

I just have one question. If i would set multiple values to 0, (because the options aren't available at the start of the game, for example) there shouldn't be any problems right? It would just add the 0 to the counter, 1 to LoopIndex and everything else would stay the same. I tried it a couple of times and it seems to work, i just want to make sure