I take issue with randomness of pulls, please prove me wrong

123457

Comments

  • OneLastGambit
    OneLastGambit Posts: 1,963 Chairperson of the Boards
    Punatulkku wrote:
    Could anyone make somekind of webpage where we can record our token drops? So that we could get some raw data. Cause for me, the token drops feel gimbed and arranged...

    I second this notion^^^ the only true way to test this complaint
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,328 Chairperson of the Boards
    OneLastGambit wrote:
    Umm I'm not taking ICE's word, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying if someone wants me to believe that a random system is not random they need to provide empirical evidence to back up their point, I would also like for that evidence to be p<0.05 too if it all possible. One (self reported and unverified) result would not be within this normally accepted and very reasonable probability margin.
    I know that people saying that ICE has confirmed this, but he did not. He only confirmed that the odds of this happening by chance were very slim. He did not verify what the poster had claimed, that part of the data was self reported and unverified so it can't really be taken as accurate. How do we know that person was telling the truth? How do we know it was not a sandboxed account?
    How do we know it was not hyperbole? the internet (forums in particular) are very prone to this last one.

    I don't understand... who established you as the incontrovertible authority with the right of demanding the burden of proof from the opposing view? You claim that simonsez's statements are backed by "tenuous evidence" but you yourself have no proof (and no possible way to prove) that the system is random. You start with the assumption that there is randomness then, circularly, proceed to defend that belief with the logic developments that belief would enable if true. This is what is called "begging the question". In this discussion the one that has evidence, no matter how tenuous, has the edge over the one who only has solid logic built over a pretended self-justifying "fact".
  • NighteyesGrisu
    NighteyesGrisu Posts: 563 Critical Contributor
    Punatulkku wrote:
    Could anyone make somekind of webpage where we can record our token drops? So that we could get some raw data. Cause for me, the token drops feel gimbed and arranged...

    mischiefmaker did one waaay back in time

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYgqFHHtQB7fWUkix2IGhbqDOVIapfX6AZdJOrpJcLQ/edit#gid=0&vpid=F9

    it's probably not being maintained anymore, though
  • scottee
    scottee Posts: 1,610 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:
    OneLastGambit wrote:
    Umm I'm not taking ICE's word, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying if someone wants me to believe that a random system is not random they need to provide empirical evidence to back up their point, I would also like for that evidence to be p<0.05 too if it all possible. One (self reported and unverified) result would not be within this normally accepted and very reasonable probability margin.
    I know that people saying that ICE has confirmed this, but he did not. He only confirmed that the odds of this happening by chance were very slim. He did not verify what the poster had claimed, that part of the data was self reported and unverified so it can't really be taken as accurate. How do we know that person was telling the truth? How do we know it was not a sandboxed account?
    How do we know it was not hyperbole? the internet (forums in particular) are very prone to this last one.

    I don't understand... who established you as the incontrovertible authority with the right of demanding the burden of proof from the opposing view? You claim that simonsez's statements are backed by "tenuous evidence" but you yourself have no proof (and no possible way to prove) that the system is random. You start with the assumption that there is randomness then, circularly, proceed to defend that belief with the logic developments that belief would enable if true. This is what is called "begging the question". In this discussion the one that has evidence, no matter how tenuous, has the edge over the one who only has solid logic built over a pretended self-justifying "fact".

    The tokens themselves have a table attached to them that state the odds they give. If someone were to say that those odds were lying, yes, the burden of proof would be on them, not the tokens.
  • SirLanik
    SirLanik Posts: 345 Mover and Shaker
    So many pages and so many posts that can be largely summed up by: "I don't actually understand what random means and my personal experience disproves it."
  • hurcules
    hurcules Posts: 519
    Well, the token odds table is known to be not directly linked to the underlying draws. See the various instances where new characters were drawn (e.g. Phoenix) before the token odds table is updated. Not saying the odds listed are not accurate, but the odds table is a label at best.
  • OneLastGambit
    OneLastGambit Posts: 1,963 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:
    OneLastGambit wrote:
    Umm I'm not taking ICE's word, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying if someone wants me to believe that a random system is not random they need to provide empirical evidence to back up their point, I would also like for that evidence to be p<0.05 too if it all possible. One (self reported and unverified) result would not be within this normally accepted and very reasonable probability margin.
    I know that people saying that ICE has confirmed this, but he did not. He only confirmed that the odds of this happening by chance were very slim. He did not verify what the poster had claimed, that part of the data was self reported and unverified so it can't really be taken as accurate. How do we know that person was telling the truth? How do we know it was not a sandboxed account?
    How do we know it was not hyperbole? the internet (forums in particular) are very prone to this last one.

    I don't understand... who established you as the incontrovertible authority with the right of demanding the burden of proof from the opposing view? You claim that simonsez's statements are backed by "tenuous evidence" but you yourself have no proof (and no possible way to prove) that the system is random. You start with the assumption that there is randomness then, circularly, proceed to defend that belief with the logic developments that belief would enable if true. This is what is called "begging the question". In this discussion the one that has evidence, no matter how tenuous, has the edge over the one who only has solid logic built over a pretended self-justifying "fact".

    What do you class as evidence? One persons word? Personally if somebody wants me to believe something it is for that person to provide me with evidence to convince me. When I try to convince them then I will provide evidence. As for the idea of evidence being provided in the form of ICE statement, yes he said that the results posted by that poster were very unlikely. but he did also say the RNG works perfectly fine so using your example of evidence we are even (though I am not using ICE word as evidence).

    I am not trying to tell anybody anything, I'm saying for someone to convince me that what they say is true - don't ask me to take your word for it. Show me that it is true, I don't ascribe to belief at all.

    In the world of science if we make a hypothesis we must then test this and provide evidence of this testing so it can be verified and checked by other people. We can't just say "well person x says this happens so it must do."

    I don't believe myself to be any kind of authoritive figure on these forums at all but the easiest way to win an argument or discussion is to have evidence that you are correct. People tend to listen to someone who is correct, I will happily do a 180 if you show me that token pulls are not random and join your side of the debate. I'm not stubborn.
  • The Bob The
    The Bob The Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    Heyyyy guys, TOTALLY unrelated to anything, but does anyone know if there's a way to unsubscribe from getting notifications for a thread? Asking for a friend.
  • Malcrof
    Malcrof Posts: 5,971 Chairperson of the Boards
    NighteyesGrisu wrote:
    Punatulkku wrote:
    Could anyone make somekind of webpage where we can record our token drops? So that we could get some raw data. Cause for me, the token drops feel gimbed and arranged...

    mischiefmaker did one waaay back in time

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYgqFHHtQB7fWUkix2IGhbqDOVIapfX6AZdJOrpJcLQ/edit#gid=0&vpid=F9

    it's probably not being maintained anymore, though

    Been looking for that since this thread started, you sir rock. Thanks!!
  • PeterGibbons316
    PeterGibbons316 Posts: 1,063
    scottee wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:
    OneLastGambit wrote:
    Umm I'm not taking ICE's word, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying if someone wants me to believe that a random system is not random they need to provide empirical evidence to back up their point, I would also like for that evidence to be p<0.05 too if it all possible. One (self reported and unverified) result would not be within this normally accepted and very reasonable probability margin.
    I know that people saying that ICE has confirmed this, but he did not. He only confirmed that the odds of this happening by chance were very slim. He did not verify what the poster had claimed, that part of the data was self reported and unverified so it can't really be taken as accurate. How do we know that person was telling the truth? How do we know it was not a sandboxed account?
    How do we know it was not hyperbole? the internet (forums in particular) are very prone to this last one.

    I don't understand... who established you as the incontrovertible authority with the right of demanding the burden of proof from the opposing view? You claim that simonsez's statements are backed by "tenuous evidence" but you yourself have no proof (and no possible way to prove) that the system is random. You start with the assumption that there is randomness then, circularly, proceed to defend that belief with the logic developments that belief would enable if true. This is what is called "begging the question". In this discussion the one that has evidence, no matter how tenuous, has the edge over the one who only has solid logic built over a pretended self-justifying "fact".

    The tokens themselves have a table attached to them that state the odds they give. If someone were to say that those odds were lying, yes, the burden of proof would be on them, not the tokens.
    Exactly this. This entire thread is absurd because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You don't get to make a ridiculous claim and then say "prove me wrong." You need to submit supporting evidence that back up your claim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... n_of_proof
  • PeterGibbons316
    PeterGibbons316 Posts: 1,063
    OneLastGambit wrote:
    Umm I'm not taking ICE's word, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying if someone wants me to believe that a random system is not random they need to provide empirical evidence to back up their point, I would also like for that evidence to be p<0.05 too if it all possible. One (self reported and unverified) result would not be within this normally accepted and very reasonable probability margin.
    I know that people saying that ICE has confirmed this, but he did not. He only confirmed that the odds of this happening by chance were very slim. He did not verify what the poster had claimed, that part of the data was self reported and unverified so it can't really be taken as accurate. How do we know that person was telling the truth? How do we know it was not a sandboxed account?
    How do we know it was not hyperbole? the internet (forums in particular) are very prone to this last one.
    YES! Thank you!!!

    You would think that someone who claims to be a statistician would understand why such an anecdotal data set would not suffice for determining randomness.

    This is why I love the comparison to religion. This dude simon KNOWS he is wrong. He has been educated on how to examine data sets, and been given the tools to determine whether a group of outcomes could be considered random. Yet he ignores everything he KNOWS to maintain a ridiculous BELIEF.
  • MrCroaker64
    MrCroaker64 Posts: 70 Match Maker
    PeterGibbons316 wrote:
    Exactly this. This entire thread is absurd because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You don't get to make a ridiculous claim and then say "prove me wrong." You need to submit supporting evidence that back up your claim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... n_of_proof

    I'm sorry, but of all the "ridiculous claims" that have been made in this thread I would have to say that this one is the most outlandish. Of course you get to make statements that you can't back up. Our entire society has graduated to the "Accuse first, Think later" model, just watch the news media for evidence of that.

    If I thought that trying to educate someone on a gaming forum would have any kind of an effect in reversing that trend I would join you in your statements indicating that hard data and incontrovertible evidence are required before stating your opinion. However, that's just not going to happen.

    I personally am in the camp that believes the game is weighted to benefit the AI during game play and to give players covers they either can not use or do not have in an effort to maximize company profits. Do I have any actual data to back that up? Not a bit. Just the 2 accounts that I have been playing consistently for about the last 600 days.

    What I have seen over and over, in both game play and draws, and with both accounts, during those 2 years have made that my opinion. Reading on here how some people believe I am wrong is not going to change my mind. I very seriously doubt that your reading on here what my opinion is will change your mind. So, from my side at least, we can agree to disagree and move on.

    Happy gaming. And may your "luck" never turn so bad that you adopt my opinion.

    Croaker.
  • evil panda
    evil panda Posts: 419 Mover and Shaker
    Can I just interject here about how enjoyable it is that this thread was started by someone named "Helen Keller"
  • TimGunn
    TimGunn Posts: 257 Mover and Shaker
    well IDK what all the fighting is over, but we could easily crowdsource our own data - just put the char pull, the date and where you got the Heroic from (PVE, CMD, PVP, PVP Season, 42 pack). How many sample sizes do you need before we can analyze.

    here is mine:

    11/26/2015 PVE Invisible Woman classic green
    11/27/2015 CMD Thor (goddess) blue
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,328 Chairperson of the Boards
    Welp, I'm out. I tried and tried to make understood my point that regardless of odds being natural, rigged, or just buggy, chance just shouldn't play a defining part at the highest level of effort and commitment; especially not when the scarcity of draws, coupled with the compounding nature of progression make even a short run of not especially good or bad luck can cause enormous dis/advantage between players, let's not even mention long runs of especially good or bad luck.

    But no, people just have to be right and make it all about the odds to be able to show off how smart they are and how much better they understand chance. Who cares about the fringe case of the poor sap that missed an 80% chance of success 16 out of 20 times and whose progression got crippled literally by months, nor anyone else suffering from bad luck. Thanks a lot for showing the devs that change in this area is not necessary as they can count with a small army of genius statisticians (real or wannabe) who will be quick to silence dissension and ridicule discontent even though there's no real gain for them out of it.

    Edit. Today I got two more LTs. X-Force and IW, I tinykitty you not.
  • NighteyesGrisu
    NighteyesGrisu Posts: 563 Critical Contributor
    Malcrof wrote:
    NighteyesGrisu wrote:
    Punatulkku wrote:
    Could anyone make somekind of webpage where we can record our token drops? So that we could get some raw data. Cause for me, the token drops feel gimbed and arranged...

    mischiefmaker did one waaay back in time

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYgqFHHtQB7fWUkix2IGhbqDOVIapfX6AZdJOrpJcLQ/edit#gid=0&vpid=F9

    it's probably not being maintained anymore, though

    Been looking for that since this thread started, you sir rock. Thanks!!

    yw. Thankfully, I don't use google docs often, which means I found it in my recently viewed list icon_e_smile.gif I was unable to find the relevant thread in the forum here as well.
  • NighteyesGrisu
    NighteyesGrisu Posts: 563 Critical Contributor
    NighteyesGrisu wrote:
    Malcrof wrote:
    NighteyesGrisu wrote:
    Punatulkku wrote:
    Could anyone make somekind of webpage where we can record our token drops? So that we could get some raw data. Cause for me, the token drops feel gimbed and arranged...

    mischiefmaker did one waaay back in time

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYgqFHHtQB7fWUkix2IGhbqDOVIapfX6AZdJOrpJcLQ/edit#gid=0&vpid=F9

    it's probably not being maintained anymore, though

    Been looking for that since this thread started, you sir rock. Thanks!!

    yw. Thankfully, I don't use google docs often, which means I found it in my recently viewed list icon_e_smile.gif I was unable to find the relevant thread in the forum here as well.

    FWIW, I added a new tab for legendary tokens (with the current draw rate from the official listing)...I hope I didn't forget to update any of the relevant cells icon_e_smile.gif
  • OneLastGambit
    OneLastGambit Posts: 1,963 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Welp, I'm out. I tried and tried to make understood my point that regardless of odds being natural, rigged, or just buggy, chance just shouldn't play a defining part at the highest level of effort and commitment; especially not when the scarcity of draws, coupled with the compounding nature of progression make even a short run of not especially good or bad luck can cause enormous dis/advantage between players, let's not even mention long runs of especially good or bad luck.

    But no, people just have to be right and make it all about the odds to be able to show off how smart they are and how much better they understand chance. Who cares about the fringe case of the poor sap that missed an 80% chance of success 16 out of 20 times and whose progression got crippled literally by months, nor anyone else suffering from bad luck. Thanks a lot for showing the devs that change in this area is not necessary as they can count with a small army of genius statisticians (real or wannabe) who will be quick to silence dissension and ridicule discontent even though there's no real gain for them out of it.

    Edit. Today I got two more LTs. X-Force and IW, I tinykitty you not.


    I actually agree that sometimes I'm unhappy with the RNG (my heroic token pulls are a complete joke) I was only debating the point that people thing the RNG is broken (which the thread title confirms as the topic). I actually think that they could rectify the issue with having more specific covers to be won as prizes rather than tokens and by also having a blank token which can be applied to whichever ability you want. I think both of those might help.

    My last 5 Legendary pulls have been - Phoenix greenflag.png , surfer blackflag.png carnage redflag.png Star-Lord purpleflag.png Thing yellowflag.png. Of those 2 were completely new characters (carnage and Surfer) and the rest were all needed.

    Also I have yet to see even 1 XFW legendary token in over 30 legendary tokens despite people claiming he is the most common.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,328 Chairperson of the Boards
    OneLastGambit wrote:
    Pylgrim wrote:
    Welp, I'm out. I tried and tried to make understood my point that regardless of odds being natural, rigged, or just buggy, chance just shouldn't play a defining part at the highest level of effort and commitment; especially not when the scarcity of draws, coupled with the compounding nature of progression make even a short run of not especially good or bad luck can cause enormous dis/advantage between players, let's not even mention long runs of especially good or bad luck.

    But no, people just have to be right and make it all about the odds to be able to show off how smart they are and how much better they understand chance. Who cares about the fringe case of the poor sap that missed an 80% chance of success 16 out of 20 times and whose progression got crippled literally by months, nor anyone else suffering from bad luck. Thanks a lot for showing the devs that change in this area is not necessary as they can count with a small army of genius statisticians (real or wannabe) who will be quick to silence dissension and ridicule discontent even though there's no real gain for them out of it.

    Edit. Today I got two more LTs. X-Force and IW, I tinykitty you not.


    I actually agree that sometimes I'm unhappy with the RNG (my heroic token pulls are a complete joke) I was only debating the point that people thing the RNG is broken (which the thread title confirms as the topic). I actually think that they could rectify the issue with having more specific covers to be won as prizes rather than tokens and by also having a blank token which can be applied to whichever ability you want. I think both of those might help.

    My last 5 Legendary pulls have been - Phoenix greenflag.png , surfer blackflag.png carnage redflag.png Star-Lord purpleflag.png Thing yellowflag.png. Of those 2 were completely new characters (carnage and Surfer) and the rest were all needed.

    Also I have yet to see even 1 XFW legendary token in over 30 legendary tokens despite people claiming he is the most common.

    You say that you sometimes are unhappy with the RNG, but look at those LT pulls. The only thing I don't need out of them is the purpleflag.png SL. So while I was happily opening XFs and IWs and the such, you got 4 covers ahead of me, by no merit or additional effort from your part. Those 4 covers will increase your chances of getting more covers and LTs than I in the future months, and so it will keep going. If you are "unhappy" over your heroic pulls (which are given out like candy), try to think the proper adjective for how I feel and consider whether any player in my position should feel like this.
  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    Pylgrim wrote:
    You say that you sometimes are unhappy with the RNG, but look at those LT pulls. The only thing I don't need out of them is the purpleflag.png SL. So while I was happily opening XFs and IWs and the such, you got 4 covers ahead of me, by no merit or additional effort from your part. Those 4 covers will increase your chances of getting more covers and LTs than I in the future months, and so it will keep going. If you are "unhappy" over your heroic pulls (which are given out like candy), try to think the proper adjective for how I feel and consider whether any player in my position should feel like this.
    If you pull two 5* covers in a row, will you stop mentioning just how unlucky you are? Please?

    I pulled 3 5* covers from about 50 LTs, and have pulled my millionth 4or and HB on Sunday from two tokens, but I don't talk about that in 5 threads, daily.

    Yes, luck-based progression sucks, but you're not the only one getting screwed over.

Categories