RNG? I think not

"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.

"Tharivol;948785" wrote:

"leef;948769" wrote:

"Tharivol;948667" wrote:

"leef;948645" wrote:
@Tharivol
during the course of my "swgoh carreer" i've farmed quite alot of characters and gear, yet i've only noticed myself noticing worse drops just before an unlock/star up etc. not nearly as often. So it's easy for me to assume it's my mind playing tricks on me, wich is also far more likely than the game being coded to drop less when needed most.

As I said, I am not suggesting that there "is" some code like that mate. I am suggesting that there can very well be such codes in the game, and that it would be a genius Marketing Tactic. Also the only way to know it, would be to test it out very thoroughly, that only 1 person can't handle in a limited time.

Also it is not something to take lightly, if you only knew how much money was spent by Candy Crush to analyze and code stuff you would be blown away. (From analyzing people who are more likely to spend money on the game to changing chances in the game)

So you don't actually think it's going on, but you're arguing because we need to acknowledge that there is atleast the possibility that it is in fact going on?
Ofcourse i can't rule out that ea/cg actually is altering droprates or any other shenanigans. However, i have no reason to think they are altering droprates, if they are it hasn't effected me whatsoever, so why would I want to put in the effort to investigate such a claim? So i can prove myself wrong? lol

As I said I am not telling that there "is" or there "is not". I am simply telling the theory that I faced countless times in my gaming years, not just in this game either (which is more than 25 years but you can eliminate the first 15, since it was the old era) and that this is what the "OP is trying to explain and getting bashed since he couldn't explain it the way he wanted to"

i think you're doing most of the bashing in this thread though. or do you consider offering alternative explanations bashing?
these threads come and go, usually the OP is too lazy to collect the data to confirm his suspicion and is only ranting. More than a few players actually tracked data, wich was in line with what was to be expected and with devs' statements. coincedentilly the guy you're badmouthing has collected quite alot of data ;)

"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.

"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.

http://i.imgur.com/B2DUfsU.gif
Never mind. You deserve the booger.

So, for the last few months I was hard farming General Grievous out of fleet shipments, (and let's not discuss here how dumb that actually was of me), point being: I got to within 5 shards of unlocking him, a single purchase away - and then he didn't drop in the fleet shipments for me for TWO MONTHS.

But - it gets better. When GG finally did drop in the fleet shipments it was only after I'd finally gotten tired of waiting and spent the last 400 tokens I had otherwise been saving for when he did show up. Joke was on me.

I guess my point behind that long, pathetic tale is: it happens. Oh, and don't waste your time farming GG - he's really just awful.

"EventineElessedil;948838" wrote:

I did say something. Let me rephrase. The hyperbole evidenced by your comments about the "countless" hoards who have concocted the same theory about a game algorithm that withholds rewards from you in an attempt to encourage crystal purchases only serves to underscore the fact that you have nothing more than anecdotal evidence to back up your claims. That is why I highlighted those particular comments, not because I "did not read" any of the other chapters of your thesis (I may have skimmed some, guilty).

You did not "skim some" you skimmed everything that leads to that point since, this was not even my theory to start with. I am a gamer for 25 years, and if you skip the first 15 years of the old era, on modern gaming I have pretty much a lot of experience, and on forums as well. And yess I've seen this theory literally "countless" of times, not just on this game but others too. Also my post's entire purpose was to help the OP that couldn't explain himself (with the help of rage unfortunately), and to explain what he actually means. I didn't say I believe this Theory, or not.

"EventineElessedil;948838" wrote:
I could just as easily argue that such an algorithm would suppress spending because if I am only a few pieces short of completing a set of 50 salvage to construct a piece, why would I suddenly give up and go purchase a full piece for 1400 crystals when just a little more patience will do fine. (This happens to be the philosophy I strive to embrace.) Why go buy a Chromium when tomorrow I will (probably, RNG willing) get the shards I need to promote my hero?

Again evidence that you seriously didn't read 90% of the written stuff. We are not talking about buying 1400 crystals Gears. We are talking about "refreshing" energy when you are close to 48/50 of a piece (like stun cuffs, that you can farm with energy) and can't reach there, especially if it's something important.

"EventineElessedil;948838" wrote:
But I have a tinfoil hat, too. I (almost) never get Mk 5 Droid Caller salvage from the Pit raid, especially when I need them (except for yesterday when I got 40 of them, but that was clearly an exception), but somehow mysteriously have a 300+ surplus of Mk 7 Scanners (of which all are technically useful, except I can't be bothered to use them). Why does the raid withhold Callers from me when I want them????

Enjoy your time here. Sorry about the booger.

And again with the arrogance, and "Illusory correlation" (as in Confirmation Bias) your friend likes to use a lot.

You are adding literally nothing to the subject, away from aggression, provocation and arrogance. You didn't even read 90% of the messages you replied to on this Topic, that speaks for itself.
So unless you send us your precious "Data" that @leef keeps telling about, please stop commenting. Oh but if you really want to do some help, send us those datas too so we can learn something. (I'm sincere with this, unlike you not trying to mock others.)

"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.

"AbyssalH;950037" wrote:
Its proof that the right mode will drop less than the left mods .. I myself besides many other ppl tracked it .. The most commons are squares and cicles with about 53% of all drops together.. Now diamonds have 19% arrows are 9% cross is 15% and triangles are the least with 5%

This is not what the thread is about. RNG and set drop rates are two different things. Saying that character shards drop less because the game has figured out you want them is different then just making some of the mods rarer, which is the case, the former being tin foil hat territory.

"AbyssalH;950074" wrote:

"AtlasMKx;950046" wrote:

"AbyssalH;950037" wrote:
Its proof that the right mode will drop less than the left mods .. I myself besides many other ppl tracked it .. The most commons are squares and cicles with about 53% of all drops together.. Now diamonds have 19% arrows are 9% cross is 15% and triangles are the least with 5%

This is not what the thread is about. RNG and set drop rates are two different things. Saying that character shards drop less because the game has figured out you want them is different then just making some of the mods rarer, which is the case, the former being tin foil hat territory.

You missed it lol.. He thiks its rng dependent why he doesnt got any triangle.. Its not.. The droprate is just bad as hell

You are correct, but we established this a long time ago. I am pretty sure even the poster would agree with this statement by now.