"Woodroward;c-1902171" wrote:
There are millions of people who play this game. It is installed several thousand times a day according a site I looked at. There are thousands of people on the forums. of those thousands you found 5. So less than 1% of the population is on the forums. Of those elite less than 1% players, less than 1% of them did it without GG.
A million to a thousand is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001. A thousand to single digits is a decrease by a magnitude of 3 or roughly .001.
.001 * .001 = .000001 or .0001% Your finding those 5 people who got it without GG is equivalent to showing that .0001% of the game population did it without GG (1 out of 1,000,000). It is evidence that it is extremely unlikely to get it without GG. Now if you had a whole thread where every response in it was people doing it without GG, that'd be another thing. Your evidence literally supports it being 1 in a million at this point.
Point is, your evidence is flimsy at best. Now please stop arguing with me, for the last time.
First, to be clear, I found 8 total, but it's true that in this context there's not much difference between 5 and 8. There were also many people in that thread who posted in support who did not explicitly say they pulled it off, so I didn't count them. And if I looked for more than a few minutes, I could probably find more. But that's a minor point.
The total sample which you used as a dividend is inappropriate. It should not be the entire game population (like any mobile game, most download the game to try it or mess around for a short period of time, then lose interest), nor even the entire forum population. It should only be those among forum posters who actually attempted to 7 star Padme without Grievous. A case can be made to include those who tried it with Grievous as well, though I don't think they should.
Regardless, it should be successful attempts among forum posters out of total attempts among forum posters. I don't know what that number is, but I'd guess it's a lot less than a million or even a thousand. Here's an analogy: to calculate a particular US college's acceptance rate, it should be number of acceptances to that college out of total applicants to that specific college - total forum users would be like everyone who applied to any college that year, and total game base would be like the entire US population.
Think about it, if you use your total sample, it would seem extremely unlikely for even people with Grievous to succeed in the event. Even if you grant 100 forum posters (a made up number) reporting success with Grievous (the actual number is probably much lower, I'd guess 2-3 dozen at most), 100 out of 1 million (1/10k) is still an extremely low success rate which does not reflect the true effectiveness of a proper Grievous team in the event which I would guess to be above 70-90% or higher.
Is it more likely that at least 8 people managed to defy million to 1 odds in a few days, or that the odds aren't quite that bad? That's all I was saying my evidence showed. I wasn't saying it was evidence that a team without Grievous was a good idea; indeed, I don't believe that to be the case. It's evidence that one has a real shot without Grievous and should at least try; if the odds were as dire as portrayed, one shouldn't even bother to try. And those odds were for the last time around - the reworks should greatly improve them.
Also, on reflection, I believe it's possible that some of our disagreements are misunderstandings on both sides, and I extend an offer to clear them up, not to argue, via PM's if you are willing and can keep an open mind. It is perfectly understandable if you decline.
