Knobs conspiracy

I watched a video once that said the earth was flat. Can CG confirm or deny this, too?

For real, though, what's wrong with some people?

Besides. If they clearly and concisely and uneqivocally said "No, we don't use knobs." All you'd do is say "Wel, of COURSE they'd *say* they don't..."

"Liath;c-1876814" wrote:
They denied that they change drop rates (again) the other day in the Q&A. I mean, how much denial do you require?

But that's what they said about the earth too and they were lying about that.

"NicWester;c-1876807" wrote:

"Ohhplzz;c-1876801" wrote:

"NicWester;c-1876799" wrote:
I watched a video once that said the earth was flat. Can CG confirm or deny this, too?

For real, though, what's wrong with some people?

CG didn't make the earth did they.. It's an actual game mechanic patent that EA holds.

How do you know CG didn't make the earth? This could all be a glitch in the matrix.

Well they ARE sucking the life out of us

I for one have been collecting data since the CLS event for when a single shard or gear is required and the case when zero of the target amount is collected.

Summary of 637 shards when 1 away from completing a star level:
Assumption:
Using a single sim until the condition of missing 1 shard is void.
Data is compared against 33.33% drop rate.
Data is compared against recorded shard drop rates per node.
Chi squared model is used to prove occurrences of drop rate changes under known conditions.
Result:
Dramatic decrease to 3.74% given the case before the sim. Original shard drop rates could be modeled under a Gaussian curve. Mean was 32.97+\-0.56%. Std Dev was +\-4.82%.

Being more than 5 standard deviations away from the mean when under these conditions is suspicious.

A similar result for gear is only 4 standard deviations away from the population mean. More confidence in the gear data is warranted due to a data population size of 2, 528.

Conclusion: More data needs to be recorded.

"TVF;c-1876818" wrote:

"Liath;c-1876814" wrote:
They denied that they change drop rates (again) the other day in the Q&A. I mean, how much denial do you require?

But that's what they said about the earth too and they were lying about that.

We all know that you're lying.....you don't watch videos. :D

"Nikoms565;c-1876865" wrote:

"TVF;c-1876818" wrote:

"Liath;c-1876814" wrote:
They denied that they change drop rates (again) the other day in the Q&A. I mean, how much denial do you require?

But that's what they said about the earth too and they were lying about that.

We all know that you're lying.....you don't watch videos. :D

You got me. I paid someone to watch it for me.

Knobs conspiracy? Ohh plzz.

"EpsilonRhoMew;c-1876845" wrote:
I for one have been collecting data since the CLS event for when a single shard or gear is required and the case when zero of the target amount is collected.

Summary of 637 shards when 1 away from completing a star level:
Assumption:
Using a single sim until the condition of missing 1 shard is void.
Data is compared against 33.33% drop rate.
Data is compared against recorded shard drop rates per node.
Chi squared model is used to prove occurrences of drop rate changes under known conditions.
Result:
Dramatic decrease to 3.74% given the case before the sim. Original shard drop rates could be modeled under a Gaussian curve. Mean was 32.97+\-0.56%. Std Dev was +\-4.82%.

Being more than 5 standard deviations away from the mean when under these conditions is suspicious.

A similar result for gear is only 4 standard deviations away from the population mean. More confidence in the gear data is warranted due to a data population size of 2, 528.

Conclusion: More data needs to be recorded.

Actually pretty interested in going into this a bit @EpsilonRhoMew, could you expand a bit on how the tracking was done? e.g.

The way you present it, it sounds like 637 is the number of times, while having 1 shard needed to upgrade, you did a single sim? If so, then you got the shard to upgrade on 24 occasions? Or on 23 occasions? Because 24 occasions would be 3.77% but 23 occasions would be 3.61% (neither of which is 3.74%). I mean maybe the non whole number comes from you fitting a curve to a distribution? If so what did you use in this case? I mean 23 is probably a big enough number to approximate the (assumed) Poisson distribution with a Gaussian but maybe not?

Would be interested if you looked at the the distribution of zero shard streaks? That would give you something to fit to but the closed form expression for that is pretty complicated, Kudos if that's what you used?

But I am struggling with the choice of a chi square test when a simple binomial would do... but maybe that shows my bias.

Or are you saying that you reached a star upgrade 637 times (on farmed characters since CLS release). And had to sim 17,032 time to get those stars? Which doesn't seem to make sense? But then maybe you only upgraded a star level 24 times since 2 years ago? Although that does make more sense as you could have skipped the ones that didn't end up on 1 shard away from an upgrade?

Anyways, genuinely confused and interested, not trying to be difficult.

637 is the number of times I had 1 shard left to complete a star level plus the sim to get the shard. Starting at a point of 24/25 or 29/30, 49/50, 64/65 ... 99/100, these all fit under my conditions. Then I did a single sim to try and get the next shard and recorded the attempt.

I plotted the points (22 successfully achieved shards) on a plot (x axis - shard / y axis # of simulations) I printed the plot and brought it to my teacher. I drew my own line of best fit on the plot which I thought would best split the data. I took two points of data on the line to calculate the slope which is the drop rate.

I did Chi Squared with my teacher. Since I had it done might as well share the findings. It wasn’t part of my original discussion we just happen to be learning Chi Squared in class and adapted to it. We tried to write our own predictions to see if you get X many of zeros then you will get a success. The accepted value was 0, 0, 1 as the population value. Our hypothesis were much worse and seemed to explain the data better. We came to our null and hypothesis by changing the bin sizes of our histogram (# of sims till success) and made assumptions about the std dev of the population 33%.

I couldn’t use the rest of my fiends’ data since they didn’t acquire the shards using a single sim. Some did 2 at a time and others did 1 at a time. They only recorded the # of shards and # of sims. It was bad communication on my part for that. We have since then corrected our data recordings. Without points to plot or knowing when success occurred during sims, I could only get the rate which was 18.67%. 472 shards out of 2528 sims.

My conclusion was inconclusive since using only 1 source for data was dramatically different from my other 4 friends. My teacher mentioned that I might have bad luck and it is confirmation bias. But I argued that I was doing this before the hype.