I started this topic when i saw that even if nothing comes for free when you pay you still get nothing, and i mean not like it was advertised...
You got exactly what was advertised: the Doffs, 10 Lobi Crystals, and a chance to win a Jem Bug.
You are the typical person who believes odds are cumulative. IE, if I have a 1% chance to win something I'll buy 100 tickets and that means I will win by the 100th ticket. That's not how it works. A 1% chance per ticket is still just a 1% chance whether you buy 1 ticket or 100.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
You got exactly what was advertised: the Doffs, 10 Lobi Crystals, and a chance to win a Jem Bug.
You are the typical person who believes odds are cumulative. IE, if I have a 1% chance to win something I'll buy 100 tickets and that means I will win by the 100th ticket. That's not how it works. A 1% chance per ticket is still just a 1% chance whether you buy 1 ticket or 100.
there's some formula for figuring out the number of tickets you'd have to buy at 1% chance to make it almost a sure thing. but we are dealing with a RNG not hard math, so you can throw that out the window too.
I tried some packs, only 11, in hopes of a JHAS my self, ended up with a cell ship, a ton of doffs for fleet projects, and a chunk of lobi.
Personally though I don't want the ship, I want the pets that I have to have the ship to get, a stupid move in my opinion, since the ship would sit and gather dust for people like me. But hey what can you do.
Typically though your better off buying the packs or the keys, then selling them, and simply buying what you wanted.
even lobi, which I have opened boxes exclusively for to get items that cant go on the exchange, your usually better off just selling the keys, you could get lucky and score a few 25 or 50 lobi pulls, but your usually going to get 4-6 with the odd 10-11.
I wouldn't call lock boxes or doff packs a scam, but they are out to make money, its gambling, in essence, the odds are never stacked in your favor, always the houses, and you should know that going in. Some people get lucky, others get disappointment.
You got exactly what was advertised: the Doffs, 10 Lobi Crystals, and a chance to win a Jem Bug.
This. It's nearly exactly the same as buying a mystery pack (in the case of lockboxes, leaving Lobi aside), or, in the case of the doff pack, getting the chance to participate in a lucky draw after making a minimum purchase. Just like going to a supermarket, and seeing that they have a contest where on buying 2 cartons of milk, you get to spin a wheel/do a lucky dip. Or do they not have those in the US of A?
there's some formula for figuring out the number of tickets you'd have to buy at 1% chance to make it almost a sure thing. but we are dealing with a RNG not hard math, so you can throw that out the window too.
The droprate, according to duke's test on Tribble, is closer to 0.5%. What a person considers "almost a sure thing" is of course subjective, but for arguments sake let's make it 90%. Then the formula is like this:
log(1-0.90)/log(1-0.005) = 459 boxes
With other words, if you open 459 packs, you have a 90% chance of getting 1 ship assuming the droprate is 0.5%. If you want a 99% chance of getting 1 ship the number of packs increases to 919. Still - you're not guaranteed a ship...
This. It's nearly exactly the same as buying a mystery pack (in the case of lockboxes, leaving Lobi aside), or, in the case of the doff pack, getting the chance to participate in a lucky draw after making a minimum purchase. Just like going to a supermarket, and seeing that they have a contest where on buying 2 cartons of milk, you get to spin a wheel/do a lucky dip. Or do they not have those in the US of A?
Not exactly, but similar things. One place I go to likes to give you codes on your receipt for chances to win soemthing if you enter the code on their website.
You got exactly what was advertised: the Doffs, 10 Lobi Crystals, and a chance to win a Jem Bug.
You are the typical person who believes odds are cumulative. IE, if I have a 1% chance to win something I'll buy 100 tickets and that means I will win by the 100th ticket. That's not how it works. A 1% chance per ticket is still just a 1% chance whether you buy 1 ticket or 100.
Exactly, hell I just ran 5 consecutive doff missions with a 25% chance of a critical success!!! Guess what all 5 times it was just a regular success proving how odds can be a pain in the TRIBBLE at times.
The droprate, according to duke's test on Tribble, is closer to 0.5%. What a person considers "almost a sure thing" is of course subjective, but for arguments sake let's make it 90%. Then the formula is like this:
log(1-0.90)/log(1-0.005) = 459 boxes
With other words, if you open 459 packs, you have a 90% chance of getting 1 ship assuming the droprate is 0.5%. If you want a 99% chance of getting 1 ship the number of packs increases to 919. Still - you're not guaranteed a ship...
There cannot be any cumulative probability in an act with more than two possible outcomes. Note that the possible outcomes of opening a Lock Box are not "get super ship" and "don't get super ship," but rather, all the various possible results of opening. Mathematicians need to pay attention to Logicians about this. On the 459th box opened, as on the 919th and the first, your chance of getting what you want is the same; there is no "maturity of chances" in such a case. By all means, google "Gambler's Fallacy."
There cannot be any cumulative probability in an act with more than two possible outcomes. Note that the possible outcomes of opening a Lock Box are not "get super ship" and "don't get super ship," but rather, all the various possible results of opening. Mathematicians need to pay attention to Logicians about this. On the 459th box opened, as on the 919th and the first, your chance of getting what you want is the same; there is no "maturity of chances" in such a case. By all means, google "Gambler's Fallacy."
What you are saying here is that the probability of opening 10 packs in a row and not getting a ship is equal to the probability of opening 10,000 packs in a row and not getting a ship. Is this what you intended to say?
I bought three packs last weekend and got the Suliban ship in the first one and the Jem'Hadar in the third.
Nobody was more surprised than me.
:eek:
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
What you are saying here is that the probability of opening 10 packs in a row and not getting a ship is equal to the probability of opening 10,000 packs in a row and not getting a ship. Is this what you intended to say?
Yes. Do you want me to google "Gambler's Fallacy" for you? Actually, I don't have to, since I have the Fallacy Files website in my faves. Here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html
Yes. Do you want me to google "Gambler's Fallacy" for you? Actually, I don't have to, since I have the Fallacy Files website in my faves. Here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html
That's not the Gambler's Fallacy - the Gambler's Fallacy is in thinking that the odds of getting a ship in the eleventh pack after ten failures is different from the odds of getting a ship in the ten-thousand-and-first pack after ten thousand failures.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Usually, via gambling (that's what this is) someone works out the odds of winning. They aren't always presented to you, and it isn't up to Cryptic to provide those odds.
Actually, when you are gambling, its required by law that the organization providing whatever form of gambling it is, provides the chances of winning in a clear manner. Do a little research and you'll find that out for yourself. Lottery organizations don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. To say nothing of the fact that when you hide something its because you have something to hide. Those packs are a scam
Either way, if you had that much resources, you wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. You'd just buy one off the exchange for 300m.
you'd be surprised how many people make mistakes like that because they didn't work things out first.
The BS explaination (quite brilliant, I admit) around the whole lottery issue is that the ships are not a prize, but a bonus.
It's a random reward box, with the possibility to get a prize... Not a lottery.
what? they are a prize. care to explain the dominion lockboxes then? you are spending something of value for a random chance to win something. that is gambling, period.
Not really
There was/is a 'disclaimer' at the bottom of the page in the news-feed that was released when they restarted the 'prize with a DOFF pack' event.
yes really. 'rare' is not stating odds. explain exactly what rare is in context. you can't because they don't make it clear.
That's just their explanation. I doubt if it would uphold if actually legally challenged by someone. They just get away with it because no one will go that far for a few dollars.
correct
There is no reason it wouldn't be upheld. These sort of things are used all over the world in various forms. Ever go to a random dispenser outside of a store as a child and try to get the ring only to end up getting the sticker? Same principal.
no, not the same principle. if it was they would have to a) post the odds of getting each item and b) prevent children from using it in the first place because its illegal for minors to gamble.
and it wouldn't be upheld. technically it violates gambling laws. just because nobody has bothered to do anything about it doesn't mean its legal. companies try to scam people all the time. that doesn't mean its legal for them to do so. look at what people try to slip into contracts and tos agreements and claim they can be upheld if challenged.
When you buy a Key to open a Lockbox you do so for 4 Lobi. The fact that there's a random chance that you might get something else too doesn't change the fact that you're buying Lobi.
LOL! what? you are not buying keys for lobi crystals. you are doing so to get a random item in the lockbox. if what you are claiming were true they would not have multiple different kinds of lockboxes with different prizes. its very clearly about the ships not the lobi
There are no "rights" for those who gamble. Do it at your your own risk...
actually there are. quite a few actually. the key one being the right to know the odds and to be able to have it demonstrated that its not a rigged scam. there are many, many laws and regulations that apply to gambling
With other words, if you open 459 packs, you have a 90% chance of getting 1 ship assuming the droprate is 0.5%. If you want a 99% chance of getting 1 ship the number of packs increases to 919. Still - you're not guaranteed a ship...
let me make this very clear: if you bought 919 of those things and still didn't win a ship you are a being scammed. period. at that point something has been rigged on the programming side of things. i'm well aware of how randomization works, i'm a programmer. I know a rigged one when I see it. that situation would be very clearly rigged.
There cannot be any cumulative probability in an act with more than two possible outcomes. Note that the possible outcomes of opening a Lock Box are not "get super ship" and "don't get super ship," but rather, all the various possible results of opening. Mathematicians need to pay attention to Logicians about this. On the 459th box opened, as on the 919th and the first, your chance of getting what you want is the same; there is no "maturity of chances" in such a case. By all means, google "Gambler's Fallacy."
actually, machines in casinos, for example, are programmed to guarantee to put out a certain amount per day at minimum and to put out larger amounts based on the total number of times the machine is played, within a certain time frame. all part of regulations to prevent the machines from being rigged to never put out any decent amount. the point is the math is nowhere near as simple as that. the point is don't assume the math is that simple here either
It really is the luck of the draw...
no it isn't. nothing that happens as a result of random number generators is ever actually random, nor is it ever truly random. programs only do what they're programmed to do
That's not the Gambler's Fallacy - the Gambler's Fallacy is in thinking that the odds of getting a ship in the eleventh pack after ten failures is different from the odds of getting a ship in the ten-thousand-and-first pack after ten thousand failures.
let me make this very clear: if you bought 919 of those things and still didn't win a ship you are a being scammed. period. at that point something has been rigged on the programming side of things. i'm well aware of how randomization works, i'm a programmer. I know a rigged one when I see it. that situation would be very clearly rigged.
You're mistaken. The probability is coded. It doesn't increase nor decrease due to the number of attempts. This means, as I've stated repeatedly, that you don't have any greater chance on the 919th attempt than you did on the first one. EVERY attempt has the SAME probability of giving the super ship. That's just how it works, and if you are in denial about that, then you need to go take some classes in Logic, as well as Probability and Statistics.
actually, machines in casinos, for example, are programmed to guarantee to put out a certain amount per day at minimum and to put out larger amounts based on the total number of times the machine is played, within a certain time frame. all part of regulations to prevent the machines from being rigged to never put out any decent amount. the point is the math is nowhere near as simple as that. the point is don't assume the math is that simple here either
Source for this assertion? If verified, then justification in light of the laws?
No - read the post you responded "Gambler's Fallacy" to, and you'll find that you are wrong.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
No - read the post you responded "Gambler's Fallacy" to, and you'll find that you are wrong.
You're mistaken. Read the earlier posts in the conversation. He was questioning if that was what I had already said. I responded in the affirmative. Please don't "correct" me on matters pertaining to a discipline which I was trained to teach, especially without the context of the larger conversation. I wasn't saying that what I was replying to at that moment was an example of the Gambler's Fallacy. Quite the contrary.
protogoth, you're correct in your statement that each individual pack has the exact same probability to drop a ship or not. But we're not discussing opening a single pack here. We're discussing the probability of finding one ship in a series of opened packs (in this case 459 and 919). It's analogous to flipping a coin. Each flip has the same probability to give you heads or tails (assuming the coin is perfectly balanced). But taken a long series of flips into account, the probability that it should be tails grows increasingly more improbable every time you get a tail. Remember that it must equal out after an infinite amount of flips.
So to conclude:
- yes, each single pack has the same probability to drop a ship (0.5%).
- opening 459 packs gives you a 90% probability of getting at least 1 ship
- opening 919 packs gives you a 99% probability of getting at least 1 ship
- no amount of packs (regardless of numbers) can give you a 100% probability to get a ship
EDIT: I made the logical error of writing "exactly 1 ship" in my conclusion which I have now corrected to "at least 1 ship". There's a 10% probability (0.995^459) of getting 459 [JHAS] empty packs in a row. That means there's a 90% probability of getting any other combination which means combinations that must have AT LEAST one JHAS pack.
You're mistaken. Read the earlier posts in the conversation. He was questioning if that was what I had already said. I responded in the affirmative. Please don't "correct" me on matters pertaining to a discipline which I was trained to teach, especially without the context of the larger conversation. I wasn't saying that what I was replying to at that moment was an example of the Gambler's Fallacy. Quite the contrary.
What you are saying here is that the probability of opening 10 packs in a row and not getting a ship is equal to the probability of opening 10,000 packs in a row and not getting a ship. Is this what you intended to say?
Regardless of previous context, your affirmative response is a) incorrect and b) not connected to the Gambler's Fallacy. Saying that your response wasn't to an example of the Gambler's Fallacy is just covering for your mistake. When you respond to a quoted post, you're going to be assumed to be on-topic unless you make it at least marginally clear that you're not on topic.
And I believe that I'll correct you (not "correct" you) as long as you continue to be wrong.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
There was/is a 'disclaimer' at the bottom of the page in the news-feed that was released when they restarted the 'prize with a DOFF pack' event.
To quote what it said:
Furthermore, whilst your motivation for buying said packs was clearly to obtain a JHAS, the fact remains that you did not buy a box that was guaranteed to contain a JHAS, you received E X A C T L Y what you paid for: a DOFF pack.
This is what people are talking about when "F2P" and "exploitation" appear in the same sentence.
It's exploitative, insidious, greed. And you people with deep pockets who fork over the cash for these casino boxes make it possible. PWE doesn't even have to chase the white whale, the whales are throwing themselves into the boat.
This is what people are talking about when "F2P" and "exploitation" appear in the same sentence.
It's exploitative, insidious, greed. And you people with deep pockets who fork over the cash for these casino boxes make it possible. PWE doesn't even have to chase the white whale, the whales are throwing themselves into the boat.
Um, duh... MMOs aren't charities. they have to make money some how.
Well I'm not familiar with "rights" in the US but if you would classify the lockboxes etc. as gambling / game of chance then those laws would probably also apply to lockboxes etc.. And in that case I think the odds might have to be published. It serves to avoid people becoming addicted to gambling. Quite obvious why Cryptic doesn't want the odds to be known.
You're probably right: lockboxes are gambling (and thus subject to Cryptic having to publish the odds). Thing of it is, though, PWE has an endless stream of money (ironically, courtesy of lockbox openers), and a lot of lawyers. You, otoh, have nothing -- at least not enough to go up against them. So, best we let it go.
As for the odds, I've always understood them to be around 0.2% only.
I love how internet anonymity gives some people the courage to complain about things they'd never have the guts to criticize in the real world because they know they would be easily identified and their arguments would be internationally mocked and ridiculed. :P
I dare you to say that to my face mister manly man ....
.:eek:
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
protogoth, you're correct in your statement that each individual pack has the exact same probability to drop a ship or not. But we're not discussing opening a single pack here. We're discussing the probability of finding one ship in a series of opened packs (in this case 459 and 919). It's analogous to flipping a coin. Each flip has the same probability to give you heads or tails (assuming the coin is perfectly balanced). But taken a long series of flips into account, the probability that it should be tails grows increasingly more improbable every time you get a tail. Remember that it must equal out after an infinite amount of flips.
So to conclude:
- yes, each single pack has the same probability to drop a ship (0.5%).
- opening 459 packs gives you a 90% probability of getting at least 1 ship
- opening 919 packs gives you a 99% probability of getting at least 1 ship
- no amount of packs (regardless of numbers) can give you a 100% probability to get a ship
EDIT: I made the logical error of writing "exactly 1 ship" in my conclusion which I have now corrected to "at least 1 ship". There's a 10% probability (0.995^459) of getting 459 [JHAS] empty packs in a row. That means there's a 90% probability of getting any other combination which means combinations that must have AT LEAST one JHAS pack.
Listen carefully: when more than two possible outcomes exist for a given act, there can be no cumulative probability for any possible outcome of that given act. You can check that in books on Mathematics as well as in books on Logic. See, I've had this discussion before elsewhere. Mathematicians' "Cumulative Probability" is the same mistake known by Logicians as "Maturity of Chances." Good heavens, the names even obviously mean the same thing. Renaming the fallacy in an effort to insist that it's sound reasoning doesn't obfuscate the issue, particularly when the meaning of the two names is so obviously identical.
Regardless of previous context, your affirmative response is a) incorrect and b) not connected to the Gambler's Fallacy. Saying that your response wasn't to an example of the Gambler's Fallacy is just covering for your mistake. When you respond to a quoted post, you're going to be assumed to be on-topic unless you make it at least marginally clear that you're not on topic.
And I believe that I'll correct you (not "correct" you) as long as you continue to be wrong.
Yeah, that's not a review. That's a re-visitation of the same single post. The mistake was on your part in not only failing to, but blatantly refusing to, read the post in the context of the larger discussion. My affirmative response is indeed correct. It is likewise connected to the Gambler's Fallacy. As stated several times, there cannot be any "maturity of chances" (which, by the way is another name for the Gambler's Fallacy) or "Cumulative Probability" as mathematicians like to try to euphemistically rename it in an effort to cover the fact that they're guilty of the Gambler's Fallacy when they spew nonsense like this, in any case involving more than two possible outcomes. Even mathematicians will admit this much, but really, there is no "cumulative probability" in ANY trial where the attempts are not in any way affected by past attempts. Now, if the code allows previous attempts to affect subsequent attempts, that's another matter, and the "cumulative probability is coded, but otherwise, random is random (Chaos Theory notwithstanding), and any attempt to "predict" an outcome involving Probability is fallacious.
Comments
You are the typical person who believes odds are cumulative. IE, if I have a 1% chance to win something I'll buy 100 tickets and that means I will win by the 100th ticket. That's not how it works. A 1% chance per ticket is still just a 1% chance whether you buy 1 ticket or 100.
there's some formula for figuring out the number of tickets you'd have to buy at 1% chance to make it almost a sure thing. but we are dealing with a RNG not hard math, so you can throw that out the window too.
I tried some packs, only 11, in hopes of a JHAS my self, ended up with a cell ship, a ton of doffs for fleet projects, and a chunk of lobi.
Personally though I don't want the ship, I want the pets that I have to have the ship to get, a stupid move in my opinion, since the ship would sit and gather dust for people like me. But hey what can you do.
Typically though your better off buying the packs or the keys, then selling them, and simply buying what you wanted.
even lobi, which I have opened boxes exclusively for to get items that cant go on the exchange, your usually better off just selling the keys, you could get lucky and score a few 25 or 50 lobi pulls, but your usually going to get 4-6 with the odd 10-11.
I wouldn't call lock boxes or doff packs a scam, but they are out to make money, its gambling, in essence, the odds are never stacked in your favor, always the houses, and you should know that going in. Some people get lucky, others get disappointment.
This. It's nearly exactly the same as buying a mystery pack (in the case of lockboxes, leaving Lobi aside), or, in the case of the doff pack, getting the chance to participate in a lucky draw after making a minimum purchase. Just like going to a supermarket, and seeing that they have a contest where on buying 2 cartons of milk, you get to spin a wheel/do a lucky dip. Or do they not have those in the US of A?
The droprate, according to duke's test on Tribble, is closer to 0.5%. What a person considers "almost a sure thing" is of course subjective, but for arguments sake let's make it 90%. Then the formula is like this:
log(1-0.90)/log(1-0.005) = 459 boxes
With other words, if you open 459 packs, you have a 90% chance of getting 1 ship assuming the droprate is 0.5%. If you want a 99% chance of getting 1 ship the number of packs increases to 919. Still - you're not guaranteed a ship...
My character Tsin'xing
Exactly, hell I just ran 5 consecutive doff missions with a 25% chance of a critical success!!! Guess what all 5 times it was just a regular success proving how odds can be a pain in the TRIBBLE at times.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
There cannot be any cumulative probability in an act with more than two possible outcomes. Note that the possible outcomes of opening a Lock Box are not "get super ship" and "don't get super ship," but rather, all the various possible results of opening. Mathematicians need to pay attention to Logicians about this. On the 459th box opened, as on the 919th and the first, your chance of getting what you want is the same; there is no "maturity of chances" in such a case. By all means, google "Gambler's Fallacy."
What you are saying here is that the probability of opening 10 packs in a row and not getting a ship is equal to the probability of opening 10,000 packs in a row and not getting a ship. Is this what you intended to say?
I bought three packs last weekend and got the Suliban ship in the first one and the Jem'Hadar in the third.
Nobody was more surprised than me.
:eek:
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Yes. Do you want me to google "Gambler's Fallacy" for you? Actually, I don't have to, since I have the Fallacy Files website in my faves. Here:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html
That's not the Gambler's Fallacy - the Gambler's Fallacy is in thinking that the odds of getting a ship in the eleventh pack after ten failures is different from the odds of getting a ship in the ten-thousand-and-first pack after ten thousand failures.
Actually, when you are gambling, its required by law that the organization providing whatever form of gambling it is, provides the chances of winning in a clear manner. Do a little research and you'll find that out for yourself. Lottery organizations don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. To say nothing of the fact that when you hide something its because you have something to hide. Those packs are a scam
you'd be surprised how many people make mistakes like that because they didn't work things out first.
what? they are a prize. care to explain the dominion lockboxes then? you are spending something of value for a random chance to win something. that is gambling, period.
yes really. 'rare' is not stating odds. explain exactly what rare is in context. you can't because they don't make it clear.
correct
no, not the same principle. if it was they would have to a) post the odds of getting each item and b) prevent children from using it in the first place because its illegal for minors to gamble.
and it wouldn't be upheld. technically it violates gambling laws. just because nobody has bothered to do anything about it doesn't mean its legal. companies try to scam people all the time. that doesn't mean its legal for them to do so. look at what people try to slip into contracts and tos agreements and claim they can be upheld if challenged.
LOL! what? you are not buying keys for lobi crystals. you are doing so to get a random item in the lockbox. if what you are claiming were true they would not have multiple different kinds of lockboxes with different prizes. its very clearly about the ships not the lobi
actually there are. quite a few actually. the key one being the right to know the odds and to be able to have it demonstrated that its not a rigged scam. there are many, many laws and regulations that apply to gambling
let me make this very clear: if you bought 919 of those things and still didn't win a ship you are a being scammed. period. at that point something has been rigged on the programming side of things. i'm well aware of how randomization works, i'm a programmer. I know a rigged one when I see it. that situation would be very clearly rigged.
actually, machines in casinos, for example, are programmed to guarantee to put out a certain amount per day at minimum and to put out larger amounts based on the total number of times the machine is played, within a certain time frame. all part of regulations to prevent the machines from being rigged to never put out any decent amount. the point is the math is nowhere near as simple as that. the point is don't assume the math is that simple here either
no it isn't. nothing that happens as a result of random number generators is ever actually random, nor is it ever truly random. programs only do what they're programmed to do
Yeah, that's what I said ...
You're mistaken. The probability is coded. It doesn't increase nor decrease due to the number of attempts. This means, as I've stated repeatedly, that you don't have any greater chance on the 919th attempt than you did on the first one. EVERY attempt has the SAME probability of giving the super ship. That's just how it works, and if you are in denial about that, then you need to go take some classes in Logic, as well as Probability and Statistics.
Source for this assertion? If verified, then justification in light of the laws?
No - read the post you responded "Gambler's Fallacy" to, and you'll find that you are wrong.
You're mistaken. Read the earlier posts in the conversation. He was questioning if that was what I had already said. I responded in the affirmative. Please don't "correct" me on matters pertaining to a discipline which I was trained to teach, especially without the context of the larger conversation. I wasn't saying that what I was replying to at that moment was an example of the Gambler's Fallacy. Quite the contrary.
So to conclude:
- yes, each single pack has the same probability to drop a ship (0.5%).
- opening 459 packs gives you a 90% probability of getting at least 1 ship
- opening 919 packs gives you a 99% probability of getting at least 1 ship
- no amount of packs (regardless of numbers) can give you a 100% probability to get a ship
EDIT: I made the logical error of writing "exactly 1 ship" in my conclusion which I have now corrected to "at least 1 ship". There's a 10% probability (0.995^459) of getting 459 [JHAS] empty packs in a row. That means there's a 90% probability of getting any other combination which means combinations that must have AT LEAST one JHAS pack.
Ok, let's review.
Therealfluffy said:
You said:
Regardless of previous context, your affirmative response is a) incorrect and b) not connected to the Gambler's Fallacy. Saying that your response wasn't to an example of the Gambler's Fallacy is just covering for your mistake. When you respond to a quoted post, you're going to be assumed to be on-topic unless you make it at least marginally clear that you're not on topic.
And I believe that I'll correct you (not "correct" you) as long as you continue to be wrong.
LOL! Just LOL!
My character Tsin'xing
right is from: Teh Slaver Weapon
My character Tsin'xing
This is what people are talking about when "F2P" and "exploitation" appear in the same sentence.
It's exploitative, insidious, greed. And you people with deep pockets who fork over the cash for these casino boxes make it possible. PWE doesn't even have to chase the white whale, the whales are throwing themselves into the boat.
My character Tsin'xing
You're probably right: lockboxes are gambling (and thus subject to Cryptic having to publish the odds). Thing of it is, though, PWE has an endless stream of money (ironically, courtesy of lockbox openers), and a lot of lawyers. You, otoh, have nothing -- at least not enough to go up against them. So, best we let it go.
As for the odds, I've always understood them to be around 0.2% only.
This isn't the only way to design a game, nor is it the only way a game can make money.
I dare you to say that to my face mister manly man ....
.:eek:
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
"the doom thread is this way" --->;)
v
and missed the whole joke with a big WOOSH over his head... like when Billy Buzzkill enters the party and say WHAZZUP !!!!!.
^
.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Listen carefully: when more than two possible outcomes exist for a given act, there can be no cumulative probability for any possible outcome of that given act. You can check that in books on Mathematics as well as in books on Logic. See, I've had this discussion before elsewhere. Mathematicians' "Cumulative Probability" is the same mistake known by Logicians as "Maturity of Chances." Good heavens, the names even obviously mean the same thing. Renaming the fallacy in an effort to insist that it's sound reasoning doesn't obfuscate the issue, particularly when the meaning of the two names is so obviously identical.
Yeah, that's not a review. That's a re-visitation of the same single post. The mistake was on your part in not only failing to, but blatantly refusing to, read the post in the context of the larger discussion. My affirmative response is indeed correct. It is likewise connected to the Gambler's Fallacy. As stated several times, there cannot be any "maturity of chances" (which, by the way is another name for the Gambler's Fallacy) or "Cumulative Probability" as mathematicians like to try to euphemistically rename it in an effort to cover the fact that they're guilty of the Gambler's Fallacy when they spew nonsense like this, in any case involving more than two possible outcomes. Even mathematicians will admit this much, but really, there is no "cumulative probability" in ANY trial where the attempts are not in any way affected by past attempts. Now, if the code allows previous attempts to affect subsequent attempts, that's another matter, and the "cumulative probability is coded, but otherwise, random is random (Chaos Theory notwithstanding), and any attempt to "predict" an outcome involving Probability is fallacious.