Ohboy said: I have to assume you at least know that random numbers fall under a normal distribution shteev. Your description perfectly describes a bell curve.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distributionThis is what you EXPECT to find in randomness. A uniform drop rate is the most basic tell of a non random process.
Houdin said: Ahh @shteev I think you may just have been the first to "speak out loud" what we all deep down no to be true but have tried to convince ourselves isn't. Let's be honest. If drop rates are not random. In fact if drop rates have been programmed to consistently give a player duplicates of cards they have already received almost 100% of the time, then the reality is that D3 has been purposely lying to us for quite some time in an effort to take our money. I don't think many of us really want to have to contemplate the ramifications of that.
Why does everyone assume that their algorithm is purely random?
They are a business, with a business model, and there is typically business logic behind everything in their application.
Steeme said: Why does everyone assume that their algorithm is purely random?They are a business, with a business model, and there is typically business logic behind everything in their application.
shteev said: You believe that Normal Distributions flatten out at infinity? That's not true, is it?
Should random numbers fall on a normal distribution?
Ohboy said: I think we can at least agree that none of us have drawn anywhere close to a billion cards yet. I believe it completely flattens out at infinity. I'm not sure how many rares I've opened, but I think I can safely assume it's less than a million. I did a million random rare open simulation to see how well it flattens out.The point is that we will all have rares that are more "common" than others. That's expected. Even after a million run simulation, it looks pretty flat with about a 250 card variance between the max and min number of copies of a certain rare.If everyone's most common rare were the same, it would lend credibility to the theory of biased tiers within rarities, but as far as I can tell, that's just not happening. I have I think 12 inexorable blobs from SOI. How many do you have? It's just normal variance.As for streaks...it's interesting to note that another common way to detect non random numbers is the lack of streaks, because humans tend to think streaks reveal non randomness and seek to remove them.
Ohboy said: The point is that we will all have rares that are more "common" than others. That's expected. Even after a million run simulation, it looks pretty flat with about a 250 card variance between the max and min number of copies of a certain rare.If everyone's most common rare were the same, it would lend credibility to the theory of biased tiers within rarities, but as far as I can tell, that's just not happening. I have I think 12 inexorable blobs from SOI. How many do you have? It's just normal variance.As for streaks...it's interesting to note that another common way to detect non random numbers is the lack of streaks, because humans tend to think streaks reveal non randomness and seek to remove them.
Ohboy said: I think we can at least agree that none of us have drawn anywhere close to a billion cards yet. I believe it completely flattens out at infinity. I'm not sure how many rares I've opened, but I think I can safely assume it's less than a million. I did a million random rare open simulation to see how well it flattens out.
shteev said: But this... this confuses the tinykitty out of me. Please elucidate. If a distribution of random numbers should fall on a curve of any description, then changing the sample size will not change the shape of the curve. A small sample size may deviate from the curve to a greater degree than a large sample size, with outliers such as my 10 Consulate Crackdowns, but the shape of the underlying curve itself won't change.