Data? So a 3/3 crit with a 5% chance to crit is not data???? Are you insane or just trolling?
Your post said the crit rate was 25%...and none of your screen shots were 3 rolls (all were 6 rolls). So I don't know where you're getting "3/3 crit with 5% chance" from any of those screen shots. To answer your question, I'm neither insane or trolling. If anything, you're the one with the shifting story with insufficient information to back it up.
Data? So a 3/3 crit with a 5% chance to crit is not data???? Are you insane or just trolling?
Your post said the crit rate was 25%...and none of your screen shots were 3 rolls (all were 6 rolls). So I don't know where you're getting "3/3 crit with 5% chance" from any of those screen shots. To answer your question, I'm neither insane or trolling. If anything, you're the one with the shifting story with insufficient information to back it up.
ONE of my posts talked about one thing...the others, another thing...the things are connected...
HOW CAN YOU NOT FOLLOW A WRITTEN CONVERSATION? Why do I have to repeat things that are already posted?
You said nothing about 5% crit in this thread until that post. You expect people to follow the trials and tribulations of She wants the...'s problems with probability across all of your post history?
It is perfectly reasonable for a 1/10k occurance to happen 4 times in 5000 times (though, unlikely, I'll admit). Without a significant volume of data showing these happen more frequently than they should, it's impossible to actually determine.
You also ignore the rest of my argument that your 38 streak was already pretty unlikely to have occurred in the first place. Regardless, keep crying. Until you compile a volume of data, all it is is noise.
You said nothing about 5% crit in this thread until that post. You expect people to follow the trials and tribulations of She wants the...'s problems with probability across all of your post history?
It is perfectly reasonable for a 1/10k occurance to happen 4 times in 5000 times (though, unlikely, I'll admit). Without a significant volume of data showing these happen more frequently than they should, it's impossible to actually determine.
You're also ignore the rest of my argument that your 38 streak was already pretty unlikely to have occurred in the first place. Regardless, keep crying. Until you compile a volume of data, all it is is noise.
dude...i was talking about what happened to me today...then the discussion turned to the "likely vs unlikely" and i gave the 1/10000 example...what's so difficult to understand??? Do u need a diagram, a chart?
And no...a thing can't be both reasonable to occur and unlikely at the same time...they are opposites.
Let me put it even in more simpler terms: If it's reasonable for a 1/10000 to occur for 4 times in 5000...then it's a thousand times more likely for me to win 90% of the rounds in which i only have 25% chance to win. But that has happened to no one!
I'm unsure if your problem is with understanding probability or English. At any rate, this is no longer interesting or fun, so have fun with the game. Or don't.
And, yet, typed out. No good deed and all that I suppose.
Why do people who hide behind this fallacy tend to forget two VERY important things:
Well, the gamblers fallacy isn't something to be hidden behind, it's a mathematical fact, but since we're apparently playing Donald Trump rules where inconvenient fact is to be dismissed as fake, let's wander down this road. I hope there are going be lions and tigers and bears oh my!
1. In the same fallacy you also have a caveat...which states that when a very unlilely result becomes likely, the ods are most surely rigged;
It can be rigged, but the onus is on your to prove it. Outliers exist. This week two first-time golfers managed back-to-back holes in ones, odds of that are in the high millions to one, yet it happens.
Here in the UK, you can wander into casinos and on the roulette wheels they'll actually tell you the percentages of the results - odd/even, red/black, etc. And it's not unusual to see quite a drift from ~49% (it's never 50% due the green zeroes, which is the wheels base profit margin.) That's not dodgy wheels.
2. That is related to REAL LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, not virtual and controlled ones.
Yes, the game uses a pRNG, they're not perfect, but they're a close enough approximation. I've used pRNGs quite a lot over the years and, as long as you use new seeds, they're good enough. You can get similar spreads, but guess what, happens in every game.
tl;dr: you're mixing apples with oranges!
The fact you're either unable, or unwilling, to understand pretty much means you're in for a long and unhappy time at the Gauntlet, and pretty much everything RNG related in the game. Have fun with that.
LE: again with the "bad luck" ****. Why not "because aliens/gremlins/santa" or even worse "cause god wants it to happen"?
Because with RNG bad luck has an identifiable cause, which is the numbers didn't fall in your favour.
If you buy 90% of all possible combinations for a lottery, and the winning numbers come out in the 10%, is that bad luck because of how the numbers panned out, or because Martian Robot Santa is angry at you?
Op post reads as boo hoo I lost a battle I should have won or did I miss something? I've won over 50 gauntlets I choose not to play it maybe you should do the same
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hi everyone, is it really completely random to get Guinan? I have played every round since she was released, I almost always finish at least in the top 5 if not 1 or 2 and with streaks around 45-55 and I have never received her. Is it just a crap shoot and I should just keep plugging away?
Hi everyone, is it really completely random to get Guinan? I have played every round since she was released, I almost always finish at least in the top 5 if not 1 or 2 and with streaks around 45-55 and I have never received her. Is it just a crap shoot and I should just keep plugging away?
It's completely random she has been known to drop on 3 win streaks some players have multiple copies on their f2p account and none on their main account just keep plugging away you be fortunate enough to get one
And, yet, typed out. No good deed and all that I suppose.
Why do people who hide behind this fallacy tend to forget two VERY important things:
Well, the gamblers fallacy isn't something to be hidden behind, it's a mathematical fact, but since we're apparently playing Donald Trump rules where inconvenient fact is to be dismissed as fake, let's wander down this road. I hope there are going be lions and tigers and bears oh my!
1. In the same fallacy you also have a caveat...which states that when a very unlilely result becomes likely, the ods are most surely rigged;
It can be rigged, but the onus is on your to prove it. Outliers exist. This week two first-time golfers managed back-to-back holes in ones, odds of that are in the high millions to one, yet it happens.
Here in the UK, you can wander into casinos and on the roulette wheels they'll actually tell you the percentages of the results - odd/even, red/black, etc. And it's not unusual to see quite a drift from ~49% (it's never 50% due the green zeroes, which is the wheels base profit margin.) That's not dodgy wheels.
2. That is related to REAL LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, not virtual and controlled ones.
Yes, the game uses a pRNG, they're not perfect, but they're a close enough approximation. I've used pRNGs quite a lot over the years and, as long as you use new seeds, they're good enough. You can get similar spreads, but guess what, happens in every game.
tl;dr: you're mixing apples with oranges!
The fact you're either unable, or unwilling, to understand pretty much means you're in for a long and unhappy time at the Gauntlet, and pretty much everything RNG related in the game. Have fun with that.
LE: again with the "bad luck" ****. Why not "because aliens/gremlins/santa" or even worse "cause god wants it to happen"?
Because with RNG bad luck has an identifiable cause, which is the numbers didn't fall in your favour.
If you buy 90% of all possible combinations for a lottery, and the winning numbers come out in the 10%, is that bad luck because of how the numbers panned out, or because Martian Robot Santa is angry at you?
you're talking about dismissing facts? funny
Fact, if the coin is suspected to be rigged and i have to prove that, you need to let me test that coin...you can't say "prove it...but u ain't getting near tha coin"...that's the same argument with religion. I have no access to the algorithm...so the only thing i can do (besides giving up on work and start to gather tons of data on this game) is give you empirical evidence...such as a very unlikely thing happening more times than it should.
Bad-luck, in the real world, is when the unlikely happens due to UNFORSEEN circumstances. If I create a program that uses RNG, I HAVE TO SET THE PARAMETERS! I control it! If I don't give out odds, it's not my problem that you lose every time. If I give out odds, that means the parameters are set so that those odds are real, programmed, CONTROLLED.
Data? So a 3/3 crit with a 5% chance to crit is not data???? Are you insane or just trolling?
Collect that data over 1 million tries and then it's meaningful. All that one try shows is you got the short end of the stick.
In all the many threads about this issue the meaningful data has shown there may be a bias in favor of the defender. However even that was within the noise level for the sample size so it was not proven.
Come on guys. I know that people have taken large samples of gauntlet rolls that show the RNG rolls true, but I'm pretty sure these few uncorroborated screenshots prove conclusively that DB has singled this guy out and reassigned their coders to alter odds for him alone to increase the chance of spectacular failures at inopportune times.
Seriously, though, this game has way too many RNG rolls. We all feel this way sometime. There's just so many rolls required every day for every little bit of progress that you're basically guaranteed to have "bad luck" streaks somewhere on a daily basis.
Gauntlet is 90% RNG. Don't waste dil on it. I don't and I've gotten 5 Guinans (3 in one evening) and a Locutus. Just focus on developing key gauntlet crew and every now and then you'll get streaks at random. I've gotten streaks into the 60's a few times and again no dil spent on them. Only time I have spent dil was to try to grab first place 5 minutes before the end of a gauntlet. Wasn't worth it, so haven't done it in ages.
5 Guinan? that’s insane. I played so many rounds and nada.
So...let's put it all together:
1. a player gets "bad luck" because, statistically there are many rounds being played, by lots of player so it stands to reason that everything that can happen will happen...but when it comes to the "good luck" part, well, that's dependent only of the times the player actually played as the underdog.
2. claiming that the RNG is bad, flawed, rigged, needs lots of data to corroborate that statement...but claiming that the RNG is good, working, normal, needs only anecdotal data to corroborate that statement.
3. Again, due to the massive number of players and actions, the good and bad outcomes are actually evenly distributed, be it missions, shuttles or gauntlet. Except DABO...because...wow, now that's interesting, the DABO part was always skipped over, without any explanation as to why there aren't many 1st row wins.
Comments
Your post said the crit rate was 25%...and none of your screen shots were 3 rolls (all were 6 rolls). So I don't know where you're getting "3/3 crit with 5% chance" from any of those screen shots. To answer your question, I'm neither insane or trolling. If anything, you're the one with the shifting story with insufficient information to back it up.
ONE of my posts talked about one thing...the others, another thing...the things are connected...
HOW CAN YOU NOT FOLLOW A WRITTEN CONVERSATION? Why do I have to repeat things that are already posted?
this is one of the 4 times it happened
It is perfectly reasonable for a 1/10k occurance to happen 4 times in 5000 times (though, unlikely, I'll admit). Without a significant volume of data showing these happen more frequently than they should, it's impossible to actually determine.
You also ignore the rest of my argument that your 38 streak was already pretty unlikely to have occurred in the first place. Regardless, keep crying. Until you compile a volume of data, all it is is noise.
dude...i was talking about what happened to me today...then the discussion turned to the "likely vs unlikely" and i gave the 1/10000 example...what's so difficult to understand??? Do u need a diagram, a chart?
And no...a thing can't be both reasonable to occur and unlikely at the same time...they are opposites.
Let me put it even in more simpler terms: If it's reasonable for a 1/10000 to occur for 4 times in 5000...then it's a thousand times more likely for me to win 90% of the rounds in which i only have 25% chance to win. But that has happened to no one!
And, yet, typed out. No good deed and all that I suppose.
Well, the gamblers fallacy isn't something to be hidden behind, it's a mathematical fact, but since we're apparently playing Donald Trump rules where inconvenient fact is to be dismissed as fake, let's wander down this road. I hope there are going be lions and tigers and bears oh my!
It can be rigged, but the onus is on your to prove it. Outliers exist. This week two first-time golfers managed back-to-back holes in ones, odds of that are in the high millions to one, yet it happens.
Here in the UK, you can wander into casinos and on the roulette wheels they'll actually tell you the percentages of the results - odd/even, red/black, etc. And it's not unusual to see quite a drift from ~49% (it's never 50% due the green zeroes, which is the wheels base profit margin.) That's not dodgy wheels.
Yes, the game uses a pRNG, they're not perfect, but they're a close enough approximation. I've used pRNGs quite a lot over the years and, as long as you use new seeds, they're good enough. You can get similar spreads, but guess what, happens in every game.
The fact you're either unable, or unwilling, to understand pretty much means you're in for a long and unhappy time at the Gauntlet, and pretty much everything RNG related in the game. Have fun with that.
Because with RNG bad luck has an identifiable cause, which is the numbers didn't fall in your favour.
If you buy 90% of all possible combinations for a lottery, and the winning numbers come out in the 10%, is that bad luck because of how the numbers panned out, or because Martian Robot Santa is angry at you?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's completely random she has been known to drop on 3 win streaks some players have multiple copies on their f2p account and none on their main account just keep plugging away you be fortunate enough to get one
you're talking about dismissing facts? funny
Fact, if the coin is suspected to be rigged and i have to prove that, you need to let me test that coin...you can't say "prove it...but u ain't getting near tha coin"...that's the same argument with religion. I have no access to the algorithm...so the only thing i can do (besides giving up on work and start to gather tons of data on this game) is give you empirical evidence...such as a very unlikely thing happening more times than it should.
Bad-luck, in the real world, is when the unlikely happens due to UNFORSEEN circumstances. If I create a program that uses RNG, I HAVE TO SET THE PARAMETERS! I control it! If I don't give out odds, it's not my problem that you lose every time. If I give out odds, that means the parameters are set so that those odds are real, programmed, CONTROLLED.
Collect that data over 1 million tries and then it's meaningful. All that one try shows is you got the short end of the stick.
In all the many threads about this issue the meaningful data has shown there may be a bias in favor of the defender. However even that was within the noise level for the sample size so it was not proven.
Seriously, though, this game has way too many RNG rolls. We all feel this way sometime. There's just so many rolls required every day for every little bit of progress that you're basically guaranteed to have "bad luck" streaks somewhere on a daily basis.
5 Guinan? that’s insane. I played so many rounds and nada.
1. a player gets "bad luck" because, statistically there are many rounds being played, by lots of player so it stands to reason that everything that can happen will happen...but when it comes to the "good luck" part, well, that's dependent only of the times the player actually played as the underdog.
2. claiming that the RNG is bad, flawed, rigged, needs lots of data to corroborate that statement...but claiming that the RNG is good, working, normal, needs only anecdotal data to corroborate that statement.
3. Again, due to the massive number of players and actions, the good and bad outcomes are actually evenly distributed, be it missions, shuttles or gauntlet. Except DABO...because...wow, now that's interesting, the DABO part was always skipped over, without any explanation as to why there aren't many 1st row wins.