So I tracked 2,000 drops
The purpose was to get an idea of their model and figure out what was the best way to obtain the infinite amount of gear required. It wasn't really to find out what their exact "drop rate" is. If y...
Forum Discussion
"Tiggus;894153" wrote:"sneeekypants;894005" wrote:
The long stretches bothered me a lot as well, there are an infinite number of examples in the game where the incredibly unlikely happen, repeatedly. ...
I also suspect that the game artificially boosts "streaks" (both winning and losing), as I've witnessed being extremely lucky or unlucky much more than in natural randomness (e.g. dice).
It's also very easy to do, since the computer can clearly identify on each coin toss what's a win an what's a lose: just seed the RNG to alternate 200 "unlucky" outcomes (say 30% of success) with 200 "lucky" ones (say 70%). On average over the long term, you still perceive it as balanced, and on average on all players, it's also balanced. But your perception will alternate extreme frustration with feeling powerful and lucky. I wouldn't be surprised that psychological studies show that this reinforces addiction (or other factors that lead to spending).
But without access to the source code, this one is a very hard one to demonstrate by statistical observation alone.
I don't think it's anything as nefarious as that for a few reasons. First Occam's razor comes to mind. The complexity of some of the layered algorithms people are suggesting get quite complex, my guess is they are already have their hands full. It's a mobile game that has been around for a little over a year from a small dev group that has only been incorporated for a few years. Although they are owned by EA, those ties are on the business side.
You may not be able to see anomalies by observation alone from the client end but you can easily build a model and compare. I thought about it because it's just so annoying but at that point it's work and I don't want to because I'm not getting paid for it.
