RNG? I think not

"Exletion;949967" 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. Wait, does that mean it does apply? Lol. Occam's razor can be subjective?

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?

Wait, are you saying it can apply depending on perspective? Thanks for proving my argument that it can apply :). Saying they are unscrupulous and trying to cheat people with worsening dynamic odds is much more less simple then just making an across the board difficult probability drop rate. Also, are you saying the majority of games are trying to manipulate perception and that to say they do not is unusual? I don't believe this is true. Most companies make paying money in games a great advantage to the gamer or even make ftp impossible without it, but changing their game mechanics and the in games rules they set in a deceptive manner, I do not believe is above 50% of games in existence. But as I said in later comments, it is entirely possible. More often then not however, this theory is ascribed to people who often get fed up with bad drops and are looking for someone to blame.

Even if it were true, what does it matter? We all face the engineer of odds dynamic or not. No one is having a leg up over the other. It will all take time to get what we want in game whether EA is watching you get close and shaking their finger in your face and saying "denied" or not.

More then likely, certain toons become more probable each month in the guild or store and since it takes longer then a month usually to take a toon to 7*, most people see once they get close to actually getting there that the toon they were working on suddenly becomes much less likely. It does seem as though they switch around what pops more in the stores from month to month. For example, I just started wanting to work on Sun Fac. He was in the store non stop before, but now that I want to work on him, he is no where to be seen. How would the game know I suddenly wanted to start working on him? I don't even have him unlocked.

The point was that it doesn't apply because it is subjective. It is much more likely to myself and others that they go beyond just calling a simple random function in their code to generate items that are also part of their revenue model, due to their exhibited behavior in the past.

You are right that it doesn't matter in the end, but to definitively say it is a matter of confirmation bias or some other term seen on Wikipedia, or false because of some small sample testing by a handful of of individuals is hypocritical. Those that do use their own confirmation bias to make this point.