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.

"Roken_Fett;947659" wrote:

"leef;947646" wrote:
define "true RNG"

I'm saying I think this game determines what you want and then makes it impossible to get.

SWGOH is the new Skynet.

Brace yourselves.

"HorishBathens;950124" wrote:

"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.

aren't you hypocritical yourself by saying that it is hypocritical?

"Treadhead2017;950135" wrote:
What the OP is suggesting is definitely possible to do. It's not even the complicated in terms of programming. But I'm not sure it's actually happening. We've all been there, right? You know, when you're two shards away from 7-starring a toon, and you can't get them to drop for anything? Some of that feeling is just because you're paying much closer attention, so it feels like it's not dropping as often as it did before. Drop rates on "good" mods are horrible and have been, but as you start looking for specific ones, it feels even worse. I mean, I couldn't tell you that last time I found a speed primary arrow mod with more than 3 dots. I try and try, but no joy. I don't think it's because the game knows I want one; it's just a really low drop rate.

So it's possible, yes. But I don't think it's likely. Just feels that way.

Yeah it IS possible. So I'm not totally crazy. Just filled with rage.

That being said...Shoretrooper has appeared three straight times since I posted this thread. Lol! :D

"Roken_Fett;950159" wrote:

"Treadhead2017;950135" wrote:
What the OP is suggesting is definitely possible to do. It's not even the complicated in terms of programming. But I'm not sure it's actually happening. We've all been there, right? You know, when you're two shards away from 7-starring a toon, and you can't get them to drop for anything? Some of that feeling is just because you're paying much closer attention, so it feels like it's not dropping as often as it did before. Drop rates on "good" mods are horrible and have been, but as you start looking for specific ones, it feels even worse. I mean, I couldn't tell you that last time I found a speed primary arrow mod with more than 3 dots. I try and try, but no joy. I don't think it's because the game knows I want one; it's just a really low drop rate.

So it's possible, yes. But I don't think it's likely. Just feels that way.

Yeah it IS possible. So I'm not totally crazy. Just filled with rage.

That being said...Shoretrooper has appeared three straight times since I posted this thread. Lol! :D

Maybe the game has figured out it it can't push you any more and has relented on its crusade to keep you from getting Shore trooper?

"AtlasMKx;950181" wrote:

"Roken_Fett;950159" wrote:

"Treadhead2017;950135" wrote:
What the OP is suggesting is definitely possible to do. It's not even the complicated in terms of programming. But I'm not sure it's actually happening. We've all been there, right? You know, when you're two shards away from 7-starring a toon, and you can't get them to drop for anything? Some of that feeling is just because you're paying much closer attention, so it feels like it's not dropping as often as it did before. Drop rates on "good" mods are horrible and have been, but as you start looking for specific ones, it feels even worse. I mean, I couldn't tell you that last time I found a speed primary arrow mod with more than 3 dots. I try and try, but no joy. I don't think it's because the game knows I want one; it's just a really low drop rate.

So it's possible, yes. But I don't think it's likely. Just feels that way.

Yeah it IS possible. So I'm not totally crazy. Just filled with rage.

That being said...Shoretrooper has appeared three straight times since I posted this thread. Lol! :D

Maybe the game has figured out it it can't push you any more and has relented on its crusade to keep you from getting Shore trooper?

This is most certainly the case. There can be no other explanation. However, even with these 3 straight appearances, it's still no where near back to even. I await the reset in the coming hours...

"HorishBathens;950124" wrote:

"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.

Hundreds or even thousands of recorded data points is not "some small sample". Several posters/guilds have tracked drop rates for virtually every aspect of the game. Some examples are:

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/91405/so-i-tracked-2-000-drops/p1

(which has several others posting large sample sizes as well).

As an example an entire guild ran drop rates on one character, specifically. Almost a year ago:

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/21257/rey-drop-rate-32-72/p1

The findings there were virtually identical to character shard drop rates by various posters and guilds since then. The point? That drop rates are not only consistent - but have been virtually since launch. In other words, the drop rates are not only static, but haven't been changed since the beginning of the game.

And anyone who would call thousands of data points done by several different individuals (and entire guilds of 50 people) at different points in time - none of whom have any reason to bias their findings - a "small sample size" or write it off as statistically insignificant, simply does not understand statistics and probability. In fact, many of the people and groups who originally set out to record the data were hoping to find anomalies - but virtually all found the same thing. Drop rates that were random, consistent and predictable given a large enough sample size.

Sorry if actual facts are getting in the way of a handful of conspiracy theorists who "feel" it is subjective - when actual data has shown, time and time again, that it is not.

All well.

"Treadhead2017;950412" wrote:


But it woudn't be hard for an application to analyze your buying pattern and adjust accordingly. Say you're farming from Cantina. You have enough energy left for 1 more try, and you need 1 more shard to promote that toon to 7 stars. The program could most definitely look at those two conditions and decide to reduce the odds of the next several attempts to zero in a move to make you spend gems to refresh. Wouldn't be hard at all.

I don't think that's really happening, but it's not as far fetched as some would think.

In regards to the quoted - except that in many people's experience it doesn't always happen - only sometimes. So there would have to be at least one more layer to the algorithm you are suggesting - one that looks at all of that and only modifies the drop rate occasionally. And I still come back to Occam's Razor.

You close by stating "wouldn't be hard at all" - and yet, the same has been said about fixing Teebo's stealth problem. Which has been an issue for almost a year. Is it possible? Sure. I just don't think it is as simple nor as likely as some suspect. Especially when one considers that pure chance could have the same effect (and does) in many situations.

"Nikoms565;950325" wrote:
Hundreds or even thousands of recorded data points is not "some small sample". Several posters/guilds have tracked drop rates for virtually every aspect of the game. Some examples are:

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/91405/so-i-tracked-2-000-drops/p1

(which has several others posting large sample sizes as well).

As an example an entire guild ran drop rates on one character, specifically. Almost a year ago:

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/21257/rey-drop-rate-32-72/p1

The findings there were virtually identical to character shard drop rates by various posters and guilds since then. The point? That drop rates are not only consistent - but have been virtually since launch. In other words, the drop rates are not only static, but haven't been changed since the beginning of the game.

And anyone who would call thousands of data points done by several different individuals (and entire guilds of 50 people) at different points in time - none of whom have any reason to bias their findings - a "small sample size" or write it off as statistically insignificant, simply does not understand statistics and probability. In fact, many of the people and groups who originally set out to record the data were hoping to find anomalies - but virtually all found the same thing. Drop rates that were random, consistent and predictable given a large enough sample size.

Sorry if actual facts are getting in the way of a handful of conspiracy theorists who "feel" it is subjective - when actual data has shown, time and time again, that it is not.

These datas (while greatly appreciated) have nothing to do with what we are discussing now. You are not even talking about the same test, you are trying to push another Test's results into an entirely different theory and than call it "facts".

To have a controlled test about this subject one (or more people) should take a gear piece at hand, let's say Stun Cuffs for example's sake.
I got 0 to 10 Stun Cuff pieces out of 50 needed, when the gear pieces are between this interval I must spend tens of thousands of energy and take note of the drops.
Than Stun Cuffs are 48+ out of 50 pieces (at that interval only), I must spend tens of thousands of energy and take note of the drops.
And compare the drop chances of each.

The datas you provide take the average chance of drop rates in general. While the theory is that: "when a piece of gear, or shards of a character, get close to finishing, there is a break point and the drop chances lower".

Again it's hard to say how right the theory is since this is on the "Selective Perception" territory of human psychology.
On the other hand it is certainly not harder than to code different Gear drop chances (White/Gold/Purple), and indeed a genius marketing strategy, since people are much more inclined to refreshing their energy to get a Gear piece finished / Star level gained when they are closer to finishing it.
(By that I mean, you are much more likely to refresh your energy with Crystals if you have 49 out of 50 Stun cuffs and your character needs that gear, than if you only had 5-10 pieces out of 50)