RNG? I think not
I've been trying to get a Triangle Health Mod for the past 5 days, burning through all my energy plus two refreshes (said in another thread). ZERO. And since the 6am refresh this past Friday, there...
Forum Discussion
"HorishBathens;948867" wrote:"Nikoms565;948843" wrote:"HorishBathens;948818" wrote:"Exletion;948301" wrote:"HorishBathens;948285" wrote:"Nikoms565;947694" wrote:
OP - Google "Occam's Razor"
Occam's razor doesn't apply here
It can apply,
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
The simplest explanation is that the drops are random according to the most common form, a Gaussian distribution, and people don't like it when they get bad drops.
Yes, I know what it is. It doesn't apply here because EA has already provided the evidence, in this game and others, that they are fully capable and willing to manipulate perceptions for their bottom line. The least likely explanation is that for some reason they chose NOT do do this here.
Also, in response to another poster, you can't compare this game to a casino because 'gambling' is highly regulated. This is not. Do you think casinos would not jump on the opportunity to modify the odds of their slot machines if they were allowed?
That's quite a set of straw men you've constructed. Impressive.
Since most of the actual data that had been tracked regarding drop rates has shown contrary to the OP's theory, the burden of proof, at this point lies with those that are suggesting manipulated rates.
How much data is there? I see way more posts claiming bad runs of lengths that are HIGHLY improbable using your view of how these random events are drawn. Some of these streaks should only occur maybe once in a sample size of 100k or more. But we see posts for them everyday.
I've seen maybe a handful of 'actual' data, usually from a single person tracking a few hundred or a couple thousand drops at most.
Maybe I should make a spreadsheet. Those seem to be the bar by which the truth is guaged. Unless someone has tracked hundreds of thousands of drops, any 'data' they provide is still just empirical and statistically insignificant.
on the one hand you put your faith in the amount of posts claiming bad runs of lenghts that are improbable, on the other hand you don't trust "empirical and statisically insignificant" data.
objectively speaking, the latter seems far more trustworthy.
