test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Refining Cogs
instynctive
Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,885 Arc User
Only I can do this...
Upgrading a cog, with a 95% probability, and FAILING. Not once, but FIVE times.
Methinks the game is rigged.. lol
Upgrading a cog, with a 95% probability, and FAILING. Not once, but FIVE times.
Methinks the game is rigged.. lol
"...I grab my wiener and charge!" - ironzerg79
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
NW-DC9R4J5EH - 'The Black Pearl' - Spelljammer! Phlo Riders and Space Orcs
Thanks for all the fish.
Source..?
(10 chars)
"...I grab my wiener and charge!" - ironzerg79
So... shoveled up fresh and steaming from where your donkey squatted.
Actual "logic and reason" - Law of Averages.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Thats a good one...Law of Averages or maybe Law of MrKnowitall....ok mr scientist according to the "reason" of numbers you can fail 1000 times in a 99% chance..however that is statistically impossible.....so with the same reasoning its statistically impossible for more than one person during a certain timeframe, an hour lets say, to fail a 95% chance 5 times in a row. Because these "mishappenings" with sequential fails repeat so often that is beyond any logical and statistical law. I failed around 40 times in a row, twice in a week, for a 20% chance. And i am definetely NOT the exception that confirms the rule. Its been reported so many times that it could be named the Law of Monetizing. You can hide behind the numbers but the numbers cant lie.
Players have been complaining about random number generators in online games since forever, and I doubt there's been more than a case or two when it was warranted. The typical random number generator available in modern coding libraries is very good, and you would need access to a serious computing system to detect the few flaws they have, and serial correlation (the problem being suggested here) is not one of them. And frankly, if you did write code to test one and it found a flaw, I'd suspect your test code first.
There are thousands of playing making thousands of rolls in game, and sure enough, a few come to the forums to complain. Some of them may even be out in that very unlikely event territory, but let me introduce you to another wiki-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor. Using this, I assert the possibility that any given poster misremembered or exaggerated their bad RNG luck in game is much more likely than either the RNG actually being broken, or that an astronomically unlikely event actually took place. The burden of proof is on the poster; bring screenshots with time-tags or log files if you want to be taken seriously.
There's thousands of people playing the game, and each may do a bunch of 95% upgrade attempts per day. Just based on the shear number of trials, it's not that unlikely -- It's only three million to one against for a set of five tries in a row; and in all those attempts people make something like this could easily have happened to someone, but the real bad luck was that it happened to you. Or maybe good luck to the rest of us. ;-)
The only fact of statistics is that nothing is 100%.
At 99.99% there is always an chance on the outside spectrum to constantly fail. It is just not the norm or expectancy.
I think it may be the need to look into the coding or to clarify the way the outcome is based upon.
This because of aluding above in a post to the first 100 players to upgrade get a completed upgrade while everyone after fails until a reset in whatever alotted time frame. This is the first 100 shoppers get a pencil, not statistics, but a definite set value. If this is the case, then it is the wording in the tool tip that calls it a % rather than a set value.
As for failing so often at 20%, well that is tougher to accompolish. It may also be an incentive to procure items like wards. If that is the particular intent, I could not say, only a possiblitity of speculation.
All RNG is a gamble. I like definite values that do not rely on a RNG to determine outcomes. I like a definitive increase in power over the RNG of crit for actual damage. It is knowing I have very bad RNG statistic outcome for the most part, but that sometimes is amazing in a proc of unexpected luck.
May whatever, the RNG?, be with you all.
And I sadly missed haelra's postings as I wrote mine.
Sorry if I reiterated.
Luck to you all.
What this is saying is in X time frame... if 95 people succeed the next 5 people have to fail. Even if the next 5 attempts are the same player.
So,it is a true gambling stat... instead of the usual RNG bs.