Paul de Wit

I have no idea what this thing is doing. What iterations? Do you mean the number of times you are expected to attack? If thats the case, then this is pretty useless, since you are only going to choose to attack again after viewing the results of the first attack. Its an excellent idea, but it really needs to polished up, and its purpose clarified.

Excellent!!! I've been wondered what it's better. The only problem is that I have bad luck with dices!!!

This seems quite a bit better for speed now. Its still not as fast as the builtin rand, but I imagine to get maximum speed from this you would need carefully written compiled code. Thanks for the improvement.

I've noticed one other point since - if you call this repeatedly with the same starting integer, you get the same exact pseudo-random sequence.

If you call it repeatedly with a different starting point, then the sequence is the same for the for the first few values. Changing the starting point introduces an offset.

>> r = prng(10,7)'
r =
0.763
0.20333
0.40782
0.48588
0.076487
0.13995
0.4621
0.27007
0.67838
0.2846

>> r = prng(10,8)'
r =
0.20333
0.40782
0.48588
0.076487
0.13995
0.86102
0.669
0.077306
0.68352
0.91051

So, if you need many random numbers, generate the entire set of numbers that you will ever need in one call.

To repair this, can this RNG be set to pick up where the last call left off? Could you use a persistent variable to have it remember the final state of the RNG?