50/50 my butt

Unknown

They say our chances of getting the awards or ISO for a given battle is 50/50. I call ****. In the current active simulators, both "normal" and hard, there is an opportunity for 74 awards. I currently only have 34 and I have been grinding (1st place in hard mode with 51098 and 13th in "normal" with 12805). and i have played each battle severel times just trying to get the awards. This is a little ridiculous especially since the progression awards are virtually unattainable. Devs, we want some compensation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unknown

I demand my compensation in cookies and milk!!!!

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

I demand my compensation in cookies and milk!!!!

NO, BROWNIES. BROWNIES!!

Unknown

kevind722 wrote:

They say our chances of getting the awards or ISO for a given battle is 50/50. I call ****. In the current active simulators, both "normal" and hard, there is an opportunity for 74 awards. I currently only have 34 and I have been grinding (1st place in hard mode with 51098 and 13th in "normal" with 12805). and i have played each battle severel times just trying to get the awards. This is a little ridiculous especially since the progression awards are virtually unattainable. Devs, we want some compensation!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've probably played about 70 battles on the missions with 4 rewards, which lines up with the 50% chance and the amount of points you have. I don't see the problem other than you not understanding how to calculate odds, and that your experience may be slightly on the low end of variance.

Unknown

kevind722 wrote:

They say our chances of getting the awards or ISO for a given battle is 50/50. I call ****. In the current active simulators, both "normal" and hard, there is an opportunity for 74 awards. I currently only have 34 and I have been grinding (1st place in hard mode with 51098 and 13th in "normal" with 12805). and i have played each battle severel times just trying to get the awards. This is a little ridiculous especially since the progression awards are virtually unattainable. Devs, we want some compensation!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you flip a coin two times and it comes up heads both times, what will the next coin flip be?

This is the gambler's fallacy.

Unknown

Bow down before the God of Random Number Generation.

Unknown

starsrift wrote:

kevind722 wrote:

They say our chances of getting the awards or ISO for a given battle is 50/50. I call ****. In the current active simulators, both "normal" and hard, there is an opportunity for 74 awards. I currently only have 34 and I have been grinding (1st place in hard mode with 51098 and 13th in "normal" with 12805). and i have played each battle severel times just trying to get the awards. This is a little ridiculous especially since the progression awards are virtually unattainable. Devs, we want some compensation!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you flip a coin two times and it comes up heads both times, what will the next coin flip be?

This is the gambler's fallacy.

+1

I'm sure it's more out of frustration than anything else but I feel like everyone who makes posts about this is only focused on the 50% chance of getting a reward. They forget about the 50% chance of not getting it.

Unknown

You've probably played about 70 battles on the missions with 4 rewards, which lines up with the 50% chance and the amount of points you have. I don't see the problem other than you not understanding how to calculate odds, and that your experience may be slightly on the low end of variance.[/quote]


I understand probabilities and odds. My point is if I play 1 mission 1o times i should have more than just 1 award. This happened for several missions Mr. smart guy. As far as my being on the low end of the variance, I have ready many post with gamers experiencing the same low award output.

Unknown

I have a better idea. Just stop handing out that worthless 20 iso. Give us something we can use

Unknown

kevind722 wrote:

I understand probabilities and odds.

... but not small sample size.






I went to a Yankees double-header one time and Derek Jeter went 1 for 10. The scoreboard lied to me, it told me he was a .300 hitter.

Unknown

kevind722 wrote:

I understand probabilities and odds. My point is if I play 1 mission 1o times i should have more than just 1 award.

I'm not trying to be a jerk (in this case) but these two sentences contradict one another.

kevind722 wrote:

This happened for several missions Mr. smart guy. As far as my being on the low end of the variance, I have ready many post with gamers experiencing the same low award output.

Let's just say you're talking about on these forums... we have less than 3000 users signed up and a large amount of those never post anything. There were over 60,000 players in the Hulk events so like Adam said, sample size...

Almost no one ever posts about getting 10 meaningful rewards in a row, but it happens too.

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

kevind722 wrote:

I understand probabilities and odds.

... but not small sample size.






I went to a Yankees double-header one time and Derek Jeter went 1 for 10. The scoreboard lied to me, it told me he was a .300 hitter.

What would you consider to be a meaningful sample size for this type of thing? 10 games is obviously way too small - a hundred games still seems like it wouldn't be enough in this case. I know everyone's opinion on sample size may differ, but what do you think - a thousand should be acceptable? I'm just curious, really. I agree that OP is misguided.

jojeda654

dearbluey wrote:

What would you consider to be a meaningful sample size for this type of thing? 10 games is obviously way too small - a hundred games still seems like it wouldn't be enough in this case. I know everyone's opinion on sample size may differ, but what do you think - a thousand should be acceptable? I'm just curious, really. I agree that OP is misguided.

Lifetime?

Unknown

jojeda654 wrote:

dearbluey wrote:

What would you consider to be a meaningful sample size for this type of thing? 10 games is obviously way too small - a hundred games still seems like it wouldn't be enough in this case. I know everyone's opinion on sample size may differ, but what do you think - a thousand should be acceptable? I'm just curious, really. I agree that OP is misguided.

Lifetime?

How about being reasonable?

Clintman

Odds being what they are my experience with getting rewards is much worse than 50% Always in the bottom 50% never in the blessed top 50% which must exist.

Unknown

I think these statistics are accurate. My butt is exactly 50/50. Half on the left and the other half on the right.

Can't speak for other players, they might be on the rear-end of the curve. I suppose with out the developers' insight on the backside, all our speculation is up in the derri-air.

Unknown

dearbluey wrote:

What would you consider to be a meaningful sample size for this type of thing? 10 games is obviously way too small - a hundred games still seems like it wouldn't be enough in this case. I know everyone's opinion on sample size may differ, but what do you think - a thousand should be acceptable? I'm just curious, really. I agree that OP is misguided.

We can answer this with our friend the binomial distribution. In particular, if the probability is truly 50/50, then if we try 'N' time the variance will be sqrt{N} / 2. That is, if I let V = variance = sqrt{N}/2, the number of successes should fall in the range [N/2 - V , N/2 + V] most of the time (about 68% of the time to be exact.)

To answer your question, I think 1,000 samples would be plenty to answer the question. If we made a spreadsheet where people recorded all their successes and failures from 1,000 samples, then:

1. The variance is about 16. So, We'd expect about 484-516 successes in the 1,000 attempts.

2. If there are less than 484, we can call **** with 68% confidence. If it's less than 468 (2-sigma),we can call **** with 95% confidence. If it's less than 452 (3-sigma), we can be 99.9% sure the devs haven't been honest about the success rate.

It's important to note that you shouldn't count the first try of a node, however, as that has a 100% success rate. Only count subsequent tries.

It's part of the human psyche to remember those misses more than the hits, so I don't know whether the rate is 50/50. But, if someone bothers to keep track we can answer that question pretty confidently without an enormous number of trials.

Puritas

walkyourpath wrote:

I think these statistics are accurate. My butt is exactly 50/50. Half on the left and the other half on the right.

Can't speak for other players, they might be on the rear-end of the curve. I suppose with out the developers' insight on the backside, all our speculation is up in the derri-air.

Ahahahahahahahaha

Unknown

dearbluey wrote:

What would you consider to be a meaningful sample size for this type of thing? 10 games is obviously way too small - a hundred games still seems like it wouldn't be enough in this case. I know everyone's opinion on sample size may differ, but what do you think - a thousand should be acceptable? I'm just curious, really. I agree that OP is misguided.

John did a nice writeup. Looking at the opposite side of things, if you did a sample size of 1000, odds are that ten matches in a row with a 20 ISO reward will occur. (1 in 2^10 or 1 in 1024) Considering how many people play and how many matches are played, this happens a lot. Seriously, it happens all the time to a lot of people. That is also assuming the OP is not exaggerating. (see gambler's fallacy mentioned above) I don't tend to keep track of all my games, but maybe he's different. The point is, we don't need a sample size because the RGN isn't acting abnormally, even if this ancedotal evidence is completely accurate. But if the RNG is off, don't stop when you have 1000 data points. More data will only help your case. But remember to only use true data. Don't forget some matches. Don't count matches with 0 or 4 rewards. When you start, don't include previous data that could influence you to start keeping track.

Spencer75

I have a strong background in statistics and I think you guys might be dismissing the OP a little too quickly.

He's received 34 awards. Leave out the 2 missions that only reward one prize ( the high iso prize)

18 other missions with the first one guaranteed.

So he's basically received 16 awards where he could have gotten a 20 iso reward instead.

Now he doesn't tell us how many times exactly he grinded these missions, but how many times before you would take his claims more seriously?

I don't know if we should dismiss these claims so quickly. How about collecting actual data?

Unknown

Yes, it is possible there is a bug and he's stuck on the 20 ISO reward. Maybe he was keeping strict records of all his games, and he did have a streak of 10 ISO 20 prizes in a row for several nodes. That is a possiblity. However, we don't really have the exact facts. This is being looked at in a vacuum. Plus, it is a response to a negative outcome. Gambler's fallacy and the misconception of the reality of statistical chance are easy traps to fall into, even when you are fully aware of them.

It could be either way. They are both possible. But even if the system was broken, the data still needs to be checked for reliability.