I have edited the title of this thread.
I would also like to remind every one of the Community Guidelines.
If you have nothing to contribute to a thread or are unable to disagree respectfully, than take move on and do not post. Thanks!
Thanks Shan! I agree, people should move on if they don't like the post. They shouldn't bother to read them in the first place.
People venting frustration are healthy (unless you tell me never get frustrated in life) and some people try to be half glass full kind of people in their post. But all the negativity arise because ppl respond with negative comments unnecessarily and make it something else.
It's OK for you to post your venting negativity but it isn't OK for other people to post about your venting negativity negatively?
Lol, an argument based on the subtlety of jokes at the expense of misspelled words. Only on the internet.
We've all misspelled words at one point on the thread titles if you haven't yet your time will come as long as it's friendly banter it's ok it's when it goes into grammer Nazi territory it can get a bit nasty and the thread is soured with negative posts
Who is flagging OP threads as spam if you disagree with posts?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd guess (I didn't flag it) because it's a rambling jumble of an RNG complaint without any actual substance. Even the OP acknowledges this in a subsequent post that it's a "venting".
Yes those are made up for your own pleasure, if you wish so.
Don't mind her. She likes to post all over the place how these forums are a terrible place with people being nasty to each other (not like UC where she spends much of her time, which is hilarious in itself), and in-between those posts about how mean we all are, she writes stuff like that.
I write about how you all complain about things like how you think random means unfair. Random means the outcome of any two events are unrelated to each other. The game isn't out to screw you, but you shouldn't expect excellent outcomes every time that you play. Since what happens in any given game event or pull is unrelated to the next one, you have the same chances of an undesired outcome every time you play. They don't get better or worse just because you play more. Any perceived unfairness is due to perception bias and not having a large enough sample size. Over time, everyone is treated exactly the same. This is basic statistics:
The law of large numbers is a principle of probability according to which the frequencies of events with the same likelihood of occurrence even out, given enough trials or instances. As the number of experiments increases, the actual ratio of outcomes will converge on the theoretical, or expected, ratio of outcomes.
For example, if a fair coin (where heads and tails come up equally often) is tossed 1,000,000 times, about half of the tosses will come up heads, and half will come up tails. The heads-to-tails ratio will be extremely close to 1:1. However, if the same coin is tossed only 10 times, the ratio will likely not be 1:1, and in fact might come out far different, say 3:7 or even 0:10.
The law of large numbers is sometimes referred to as the law of averages and generalized, mistakenly, to situations with too few trials or instances to illustrate the law of large numbers. This error in logic is known as the gambler’s fallacy.
I'd just like to make sure there is nothing mean-spirited or hostile about anything I said here. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I also don't say anything here that is not true. I'll stop posting in these forums if that is what everyone would prefer. All I have ever done was try to make reasonable arguments and point out that I find the endless complaining about almost every aspect of the game somewhat annoying, petty, and unproductive.
I wish you had a dedicated complaints area or something. I came to this forum looking for game information and was irritated by all the complaining and the tone it takes. I felt like since I disagreed with a great deal of what was being said, I had just as much of right to speak my mind as anyone else. I'm sorry if other people find my opinions irritating.
Yes those are made up for your own pleasure, if you wish so.
Don't mind her. She likes to post all over the place how these forums are a terrible place with people being nasty to each other (not like UC where she spends much of her time, which is hilarious in itself), and in-between those posts about how mean we all are, she writes stuff like that.
Interesting that you have plenty of time to read other people thread and write something like this about them. But you also failed to mention about the good post other people post either. How convenient....
I don't know what you definition of nasty actually.... where do I post saying how other people including you are mean. In fact, you are actually one of the NASTIEST people in this forum. Going around reading other people thread and say how nasty they are
I don't believe he was referring to you in that context, but one of your detractors.
I don't know how that wasn't obvious, but alas, no good deed goes unpunished. 😐
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
I have edited the title of this thread.
I would also like to remind every one of the Community Guidelines.
If you have nothing to contribute to a thread or are unable to disagree respectfully, than take move on and do not post. Thanks!
Thanks Shan! I agree, people should move on if they don't like the post. They shouldn't bother to read them in the first place.
People venting frustration are healthy (unless you tell me never get frustrated in life) and some people try to be half glass full kind of people in their post. But all the negativity arise because ppl respond with negative comments unnecessarily and make it something else.
It's OK for you to post your venting negativity but it isn't OK for other people to post about your venting negativity negatively?
Yes you can. Just don't be hypocrite saying are you are not bringing negativity in the forum
Yes those are made up for your own pleasure, if you wish so.
Don't mind her. She likes to post all over the place how these forums are a terrible place with people being nasty to each other (not like UC where she spends much of her time, which is hilarious in itself), and in-between those posts about how mean we all are, she writes stuff like that.
Interesting that you have plenty of time to read other people thread and write something like this about them. But you also failed to mention about the good post other people post either. How convenient....
I don't know what you definition of nasty actually.... where do I post saying how other people including you are mean. In fact, you are actually one of the NASTIEST people in this forum. Going around reading other people thread and say how nasty they are
I don't believe he was referring to you in that context, but one of your detractors.
I don't know how that wasn't obvious, but alas, no good deed goes unpunished. 😐
It wasn't a "good deed". I pointed out that because what she posted was so far outside my own experiences playing the game, I didn't think what she wrote was true. She later admitted it wasn't.
I then followed up a few minutes later by trying to explain what "random" actually means. Neither post was particularly "nasty", and most of what I have to say is much more respectfully written than the angry and dismissive blow back I usually receive in response.
I think some animosity comes from the need for some to completely dissect everything anyone says. If I say the sky is blue, someone is going to come in and say technically the sky is all colors of the spectrum however blue is the color most easily scattered in the sky, so your argument is completely false and your facts are incorrect......BRO! THE SKY IS BLUE.
Yes those are made up for your own pleasure, if you wish so.
Don't mind her. She likes to post all over the place how these forums are a terrible place with people being nasty to each other (not like UC where she spends much of her time, which is hilarious in itself), and in-between those posts about how mean we all are, she writes stuff like that.
Interesting that you have plenty of time to read other people thread and write something like this about them. But you also failed to mention about the good post other people post either. How convenient....
I don't know what you definition of nasty actually.... where do I post saying how other people including you are mean. In fact, you are actually one of the NASTIEST people in this forum. Going around reading other people thread and say how nasty they are
I don't believe he was referring to you in that context, but one of your detractors.
I don't know how that wasn't obvious, but alas, no good deed goes unpunished. 😐
It wasn't a "good deed". I pointed out that because what she posted was so far outside my own experiences playing the game, I didn't think what she wrote was true. She later admitted it wasn't.
I then followed up a few minutes later by trying to explain what "random" actually means. Neither post was particularly "nasty", and most of what I have to say is much more respectfully written than the angry and dismissive blow back I usually receive in response.
Data, sorry i misunderstood you. I saw you quoted only me and I thought the comment was for me. I admit my mistake and I'll delete my comment if i can. So, Sorry again!!
Hmm.. i didn't say it isn't all true either.
I said It didn't happen all in one day, but many of them like failed shuttles/gauntlet/voyages are typical.
3/4 failed shuttles are typical to me. Rarely saw 4/4 or 3/4 success rate (except for events). Not sure about other ppl. I don't care much about gauntlet these days, so just mirror match and collect free merits.
Point is ...we could bump the overal success/percentage for everyone to make the game more enjoyable. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be offset in other aspect of the game.
There is always discussion about rng, but the fact is besides rng, there is algorithm. If half of the population say they are ok with what's going on, then either the other half of the population have bad luck or there is something else.
Yes those are made up for your own pleasure, if you wish so.
Don't mind her. She likes to post all over the place how these forums are a terrible place with people being nasty to each other (not like UC where she spends much of her time, which is hilarious in itself), and in-between those posts about how mean we all are, she writes stuff like that.
I write about how you all complain about things like how you think random means unfair. Random means the outcome of any two events are unrelated to each other. The game isn't out to screw you, but you shouldn't expect excellent outcomes every time that you play. Since what happens in any given game event or pull is unrelated to the next one, you have the same chances of an undesired outcome every time you play. They don't get better or worse just because you play more. Any perceived unfairness is due to perception bias and not having a large enough sample size. Over time, everyone is treated exactly the same. This is basic statistics:
The law of large numbers is a principle of probability according to which the frequencies of events with the same likelihood of occurrence even out, given enough trials or instances. As the number of experiments increases, the actual ratio of outcomes will converge on the theoretical, or expected, ratio of outcomes.
For example, if a fair coin (where heads and tails come up equally often) is tossed 1,000,000 times, about half of the tosses will come up heads, and half will come up tails. The heads-to-tails ratio will be extremely close to 1:1. However, if the same coin is tossed only 10 times, the ratio will likely not be 1:1, and in fact might come out far different, say 3:7 or even 0:10.
The law of large numbers is sometimes referred to as the law of averages and generalized, mistakenly, to situations with too few trials or instances to illustrate the law of large numbers. This error in logic is known as the gambler’s fallacy.
Question: Why do people tend to give only the data that supports their own theory?
That copy-paste is taken from the wiki, but is missing several key elements that actually disagree with that statement.
1st: That statement is accurate in relation to real life factors, not controlled. In real life, you can't control all the factors that influence the outcome(in a fair attempt). In a computer algorithm, you control everything. Basically, you tell the algorithm the outcome that needs to happen.
2nd: the caveat. The caveat states that when an unlikely outcome is becoming likely, there is a very high probability that the coin is rigged. Ex: if you get either heads or tails 10-15 times in a row. But the problem is that the statement is relative to 50-50 odds. Translating to 60-40; 70-30 and so on, it states that when the lower chance outcome defies the odds, again, that outcome is rigged.
So, again I ask, why have you ommited those facts from your argument?
... The game isn't out to screw you, but you shouldn't expect excellent outcomes every time that you play. Since what happens in any given game event or pull is unrelated to the next one, you have the same chances of an undesired outcome every time you play. They don't get better or worse just because you play more. ... Over time, everyone is treated exactly the same.
I take issue with some of the wording, but it might be semantics. There's no data I know of that the game is fair, so I would have omitted the first phrase quoted above, and changed the most of the wording from declarative to subjunctive.
... Any perceived unfairness is due to perception bias and not having a large enough sample size. ...
The hard data I've seen is from a sample too low for either of our tastes (around 500 datapoints, if I remember correctly). But it suggests there may be a real bias (of about 10%). I think concluding that "all" perceived unfairness was due to perception bias would be unfair. "Some" is probably true. Nicole said "any."
I don't think anecdotal speculation - either that the game is biased or that it is fair - is helpful.
Question: Why do people tend to give only the data that supports their own theory?
That copy-paste is taken from the wiki, but is missing several key elements that actually disagree with that statement.
1st: That statement is accurate in relation to real life factors, not controlled. In real life, you can't control all the factors that influence the outcome(in a fair attempt). In a computer algorithm, you control everything. Basically, you tell the algorithm the outcome that needs to happen.
2nd: the caveat. The caveat states that when an unlikely outcome is becoming likely, there is a very high probability that the coin is rigged. Ex: if you get either heads or tails 10-15 times in a row. But the problem is that the statement is relative to 50-50 odds. Translating to 60-40; 70-30 and so on, it states that when the lower chance outcome defies the odds, again, that outcome is rigged.
So, again I ask, why have you ommited those facts from your argument?
The Law of Large Numbers isn't a theory it's a statistical law, meaning it is true all of the time. It doesn't have to be 50-50 to work. If the odds are 20% or 10% or 5% of the event occurring, then given enough samples they will always reach those odds. It is a mathematical fact that is learned pretty close to the first day of any intro to statistics class. I copied the definition out of a math dictionary, but I learned it in high school statistics and then again in college statistics. I've learned how to construct random simulations in these classes that prove that the law of large numbers always works. Quite simply, there is no alternative theory to include. These are facts.
If the odds are 20% then over time the event will happen about 20% of the time. That isn't unfair. It's how these things work. You don't need published drop rates to understand this concept. The developers have 0 incentive to make the game unfair. They make no money if you win and no money if you lose. Their benefit comes from you playing. If anything, they would have an incentive to skew results in the player's favor if they were actually interested in cheating.
Question: Why do people tend to give only the data that supports their own theory?
That copy-paste is taken from the wiki, but is missing several key elements that actually disagree with that statement.
1st: That statement is accurate in relation to real life factors, not controlled. In real life, you can't control all the factors that influence the outcome(in a fair attempt). In a computer algorithm, you control everything. Basically, you tell the algorithm the outcome that needs to happen.
2nd: the caveat. The caveat states that when an unlikely outcome is becoming likely, there is a very high probability that the coin is rigged. Ex: if you get either heads or tails 10-15 times in a row. But the problem is that the statement is relative to 50-50 odds. Translating to 60-40; 70-30 and so on, it states that when the lower chance outcome defies the odds, again, that outcome is rigged.
So, again I ask, why have you ommited those facts from your argument?
The Law of Large Numbers isn't a theory it's a statistical law, meaning it is true all of the time. It doesn't have to be 50-50 to work. If the odds are 20% or 10% or 5% of the event occurring, then given enough samples they will always reach those odds. It is a mathematical fact that is learned pretty close to the first day of any intro to statistics class. I copied the definition out of a math dictionary, but I learned it in high school statistics and then again in college statistics. I've learned how to construct random simulations in these classes that prove that the law of large numbers always works. Quite simply, there is no alternative theory to include. These are facts.
If the odds are 20% then over time the event will happen about 20% of the time. That isn't unfair. It's how these things work. You don't need published drop rates to understand this concept. The developers have 0 incentive to make the game unfair. They make no money if you win and no money if you lose. Their benefit comes from you playing. If anything, they would have an incentive to skew results in the player's favor if they were actually interested in cheating.
My mistake, I should've typed slower.
1.Where have I said that TLOLN is a theory? When I said theory i was referring to your theory that the game is fair and not rigged. And I use the word theory as "speculation presented as fact".
2."over time"...here's a biggie. TIME! If the odds are reached over a greater period of time, e.g. 1 year, those odds are meaningless to a player. The player would have to play for an entire year(the same odds) to reach those odds. If that period of time is lower, e.g. 1 month, the odds are reached faster and are easily observed.
3.No incentive to skew? What world do you live in? If things are normal or better, the player doesn't have the same incentive to pay(cheat).
I think this type of event frustrates people the most. With a ton of bonus crew and with skill boosts, most people are at 90 percent success shuttles. After the first day, most of my fleet had a few runs of 2/4 or 1/4 successes. I usually am around 75 percent actual VS the 90 shown and when running time boosts the constant fails are terrible.
I have tracked my events before and it is always 10 points less than shown. Most of us agree it's not the rng but there is some disconnect between bonus crew or skill boosts not being added correctly and leading to a mission that shows one percentage but is calculated at another. Best way I can describe this is when you go to select a crew and know a bonus crew should be showing to select over another but isn't. After you restart the game, the bonus crew is shown up again correctly. So for that time and place, the bonus percentage wouldnt be calculated on the server side. Another case is false fail when you have a bad connection and the server gives a fail automatically because it can't connect. I don't know if all that makes sense.
Especially, it's not the stats people have a problem with, its the actual program that has errors and the display isn't what is really calculated.
I think this type of event frustrates people the most. With a ton of bonus crew and with skill boosts, most people are at 90 percent success shuttles. After the first day, most of my fleet had a few runs of 2/4 or 1/4 successes. I usually am around 75 percent actual VS the 90 shown and when running time boosts the constant fails are terrible.
I have tracked my events before and it is always 10 points less than shown. Most of us agree it's not the rng but there is some disconnect between bonus crew or skill boosts not being added correctly and leading to a mission that shows one percentage but is calculated at another. Best way I can describe this is when you go to select a crew and know a bonus crew should be showing to select over another but isn't. After you restart the game, the bonus crew is shown up again correctly. So for that time and place, the bonus percentage wouldnt be calculated on the server side. Another case is false fail when you have a bad connection and the server gives a fail automatically because it can't connect. I don't know if all that makes sense.
Especially, it's not the stats people have a problem with, its the actual program that has errors and the display isn't what is really calculated.
You don't run enough missions during a faction event to be able to judge if it is fair or not. Consider the following simulation of rolling a dice and getting a 1:
There aren't any errors. Your sample is too small.
I'm right with you in complaining about DB RNG. My drops aren't the best, and I've failed four 95-96% shuttles so far this event. My suspicion is that DB incorrectly computes the event share when the shuttle comes home. DB doesva lot of things wrong. That being said...How are you failing 4/4, then 3/4, and then 3/4 again? Your difficulty should be decreasing with these fails to make them succeed. You are doing something wrong. Second, it's not DBs fault you let your voyage fail. You weren't paying attention. Finally, with the gauntlet, if you don't have the best gauntlet crew, you need to adjust your expectations. It is well known who the good crew are. If you don't have locutus and guinan, you are in the same boat I am, but there are other options. e.g. Kahless, gowron, seven, gangster Spock, phlox or one of the 5* med crew, etc etc.. Take the time to FE these folks and you will be competitive. Keep playing and make good choices for the long term. You'll get there.
I think I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about 12 runs, I'm talking about 300 runs I tracked during a Borg event. I went an entire event one time posting on the forums and posted my success vs shown. I believe that was 85 shown but 75 actual. Its something we live with but still mind boggling. This event I'm a tad over 80 but 92 is my average event shown percentage.
Another event I even took an extra step and made a spreadsheet of all runs. It's a pain but what I learned was that almost half my fails was on one mission. Switched it up an I had better successes. Another one I had issues with the shared crew missions failing. It seems to be different every time. So rng isn't the issue, it's the calculation of bonus crew that I suspect is.
Failing 4 missions in this situation is likely to happen about 14% of the time, so it's not all that unlikely
Failing 3 missions is likely 21% of the time. Failing 2 is likely 26% of the time and failing 1 is likely 20%
I think I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about 12 runs, I'm talking about 300 runs I tracked during a Borg event. I went an entire event one time posting on the forums and posted my success vs shown. I believe that was 85 shown but 75 actual. Its something we live with but still mind boggling. This event I'm a tad over 80 but 92 is my average event shown percentage.
Another event I even took an extra step and made a spreadsheet of all runs. It's a pain but what I learned was that almost half my fails was on one mission. Switched it up an I had better successes. Another one I had issues with the shared crew missions failing. It seems to be different every time. So rng isn't the issue, it's the calculation of bonus crew that I suspect is.
Upload your spreadsheet. I'd like to see exactly what you calculated. And you're telling me that you are running 4 shuttles and averaging 92% predicted on each one?
I've got a lot of mirror crew and I'm running 3 4000 point shuttles, and I'm getting in the high 80s on 1 shuttle, low 80s on the second, and I am struggling to get the 3rd one into the high 70s. I just really find it very hard to believe you are getting 90% or more on multiple shuttles.
I think I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about 12 runs, I'm talking about 300 runs I tracked during a Borg event. I went an entire event one time posting on the forums and posted my success vs shown. I believe that was 85 shown but 75 actual. Its something we live with but still mind boggling. This event I'm a tad over 80 but 92 is my average event shown percentage.
Another event I even took an extra step and made a spreadsheet of all runs. It's a pain but what I learned was that almost half my fails was on one mission. Switched it up an I had better successes. Another one I had issues with the shared crew missions failing. It seems to be different every time. So rng isn't the issue, it's the calculation of bonus crew that I suspect is.
Upload your spreadsheet. I'd like to see exactly what you calculated. And you're telling me that you are running 4 shuttles and averaging 92% predicted on each one?
I've got a lot of mirror crew and I'm running 3 4000 point shuttles, and I'm getting in the high 80s on 1 shuttle, low 80s on the second, and I am struggling to get the 3rd one into the high 70s. I just really find it very hard to believe you are getting 90% or more on multiple shuttles.
Believe it. There is so much event crew it’s ridiculous. Every seat on my 4 shuttles are event crew. I usually fill my shuttles then put secondary crew on a voyage but this event I’m filling my voyage with the best crew first then filling the shuttles and I’m still succeeding almost every mission
As soon as they come back I'll take screen shots. Feel free to research my previous posts to find the spreadsheet. It is saved on my work computer so I can upload it later though.
Again my friend, I am not doubting math or stats. I'm not even doubting the rng program in use is working. My doubt is bonus crew isn't calculated correctly. You take away bonus crew and only use skill boosts, it's close to the actual shown percentage.
Final thought, and I'll post in 2.5 hours my screen shots of the missions I am running, did you know it was possible to fail a 100% mission? That's why it now only shows 99%. Also have you seen when bonus crew don't pop up? You have to restart the game for them to pop up sometimes. I'm focusing on the funky part of the issues not rng or stats.
Final thought, and I'll post in 2.5 hours my screen shots of the missions I am running, did you know it was possible to fail a 100% mission?
Same way (as discussed in a few previous threads) that 0% chance of success missions actually succeed approximately 14% of the time. There is an obvious disconnect between the actual chance of success and what we are shown.
Today I was 12/16. 75 is less than shown but you deal with it
When I ran your numbers through a binomial distribution calculator it comes back with
P(X=12) = 0.027408499733785993
P(X=13) = 0.0969839221349351
P(X=14) = 0.23899609383251874
P(X=15) = 0.36646067720986236
P(X=16) = 0.2633936117445887
P(12 … 16) = 0.9932428046556909
16 results isn't a large enough sample to draw conclusions from. Ideally you would want over 1,000 outcomes. But even so it's predicted to happen about 3% of the time. It's not outside the realm of plausible outcomes. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying I'm not convinced it is really not giving you correct odds. 13/16 happens 10% of the time.
If you consider the odds of either of going 12/16 or 13/16
Comments
It's OK for you to post your venting negativity but it isn't OK for other people to post about your venting negativity negatively?
We've all misspelled words at one point on the thread titles if you haven't yet your time will come as long as it's friendly banter it's ok it's when it goes into grammer Nazi territory it can get a bit nasty and the thread is soured with negative posts
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd guess (I didn't flag it) because it's a rambling jumble of an RNG complaint without any actual substance. Even the OP acknowledges this in a subsequent post that it's a "venting".
I'd just like to make sure there is nothing mean-spirited or hostile about anything I said here. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I also don't say anything here that is not true. I'll stop posting in these forums if that is what everyone would prefer. All I have ever done was try to make reasonable arguments and point out that I find the endless complaining about almost every aspect of the game somewhat annoying, petty, and unproductive.
I wish you had a dedicated complaints area or something. I came to this forum looking for game information and was irritated by all the complaining and the tone it takes. I felt like since I disagreed with a great deal of what was being said, I had just as much of right to speak my mind as anyone else. I'm sorry if other people find my opinions irritating.
I don't know how that wasn't obvious, but alas, no good deed goes unpunished. 😐
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Yes you can. Just don't be hypocrite saying are you are not bringing negativity in the forum
It wasn't a "good deed". I pointed out that because what she posted was so far outside my own experiences playing the game, I didn't think what she wrote was true. She later admitted it wasn't.
I then followed up a few minutes later by trying to explain what "random" actually means. Neither post was particularly "nasty", and most of what I have to say is much more respectfully written than the angry and dismissive blow back I usually receive in response.
Data, sorry i misunderstood you. I saw you quoted only me and I thought the comment was for me. I admit my mistake and I'll delete my comment if i can. So, Sorry again!!
Hmm.. i didn't say it isn't all true either.
I said It didn't happen all in one day, but many of them like failed shuttles/gauntlet/voyages are typical.
3/4 failed shuttles are typical to me. Rarely saw 4/4 or 3/4 success rate (except for events). Not sure about other ppl. I don't care much about gauntlet these days, so just mirror match and collect free merits.
Point is ...we could bump the overal success/percentage for everyone to make the game more enjoyable. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be offset in other aspect of the game.
There is always discussion about rng, but the fact is besides rng, there is algorithm. If half of the population say they are ok with what's going on, then either the other half of the population have bad luck or there is something else.
Question: Why do people tend to give only the data that supports their own theory?
That copy-paste is taken from the wiki, but is missing several key elements that actually disagree with that statement.
1st: That statement is accurate in relation to real life factors, not controlled. In real life, you can't control all the factors that influence the outcome(in a fair attempt). In a computer algorithm, you control everything. Basically, you tell the algorithm the outcome that needs to happen.
2nd: the caveat. The caveat states that when an unlikely outcome is becoming likely, there is a very high probability that the coin is rigged. Ex: if you get either heads or tails 10-15 times in a row. But the problem is that the statement is relative to 50-50 odds. Translating to 60-40; 70-30 and so on, it states that when the lower chance outcome defies the odds, again, that outcome is rigged.
So, again I ask, why have you ommited those facts from your argument?
Agree. This is often misunderstood.
I take issue with some of the wording, but it might be semantics. There's no data I know of that the game is fair, so I would have omitted the first phrase quoted above, and changed the most of the wording from declarative to subjunctive.
The hard data I've seen is from a sample too low for either of our tastes (around 500 datapoints, if I remember correctly). But it suggests there may be a real bias (of about 10%). I think concluding that "all" perceived unfairness was due to perception bias would be unfair. "Some" is probably true. Nicole said "any."
I don't think anecdotal speculation - either that the game is biased or that it is fair - is helpful.
Seeing that DB withholds statistics, anecdotal is the only evidence we have to go on.
More mooooooooving
The Law of Large Numbers isn't a theory it's a statistical law, meaning it is true all of the time. It doesn't have to be 50-50 to work. If the odds are 20% or 10% or 5% of the event occurring, then given enough samples they will always reach those odds. It is a mathematical fact that is learned pretty close to the first day of any intro to statistics class. I copied the definition out of a math dictionary, but I learned it in high school statistics and then again in college statistics. I've learned how to construct random simulations in these classes that prove that the law of large numbers always works. Quite simply, there is no alternative theory to include. These are facts.
If the odds are 20% then over time the event will happen about 20% of the time. That isn't unfair. It's how these things work. You don't need published drop rates to understand this concept. The developers have 0 incentive to make the game unfair. They make no money if you win and no money if you lose. Their benefit comes from you playing. If anything, they would have an incentive to skew results in the player's favor if they were actually interested in cheating.
My mistake, I should've typed slower.
1.Where have I said that TLOLN is a theory? When I said theory i was referring to your theory that the game is fair and not rigged. And I use the word theory as "speculation presented as fact".
2."over time"...here's a biggie. TIME! If the odds are reached over a greater period of time, e.g. 1 year, those odds are meaningless to a player. The player would have to play for an entire year(the same odds) to reach those odds. If that period of time is lower, e.g. 1 month, the odds are reached faster and are easily observed.
3.No incentive to skew? What world do you live in? If things are normal or better, the player doesn't have the same incentive to pay(cheat).
I have tracked my events before and it is always 10 points less than shown. Most of us agree it's not the rng but there is some disconnect between bonus crew or skill boosts not being added correctly and leading to a mission that shows one percentage but is calculated at another. Best way I can describe this is when you go to select a crew and know a bonus crew should be showing to select over another but isn't. After you restart the game, the bonus crew is shown up again correctly. So for that time and place, the bonus percentage wouldnt be calculated on the server side. Another case is false fail when you have a bad connection and the server gives a fail automatically because it can't connect. I don't know if all that makes sense.
Especially, it's not the stats people have a problem with, its the actual program that has errors and the display isn't what is really calculated.
You don't run enough missions during a faction event to be able to judge if it is fair or not. Consider the following simulation of rolling a dice and getting a 1:
There aren't any errors. Your sample is too small.
I think I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about 12 runs, I'm talking about 300 runs I tracked during a Borg event. I went an entire event one time posting on the forums and posted my success vs shown. I believe that was 85 shown but 75 actual. Its something we live with but still mind boggling. This event I'm a tad over 80 but 92 is my average event shown percentage.
Another event I even took an extra step and made a spreadsheet of all runs. It's a pain but what I learned was that almost half my fails was on one mission. Switched it up an I had better successes. Another one I had issues with the shared crew missions failing. It seems to be different every time. So rng isn't the issue, it's the calculation of bonus crew that I suspect is.
Let's say you run 50 faction missions at 95% chance. Here are the probabilities for different possible outcomes:
P(X=44) = 0.025989725192513122
P(X=45) = 0.06584063715436653
P(X=46) = 0.13597522890575683
P(X=47) = 0.21987483823058535
P(X=48) = 0.2611013703988198
P(X=49) = 0.20248677704398257
P(X=50) = 0.0769449752767133
Failing 4 missions in this situation is likely to happen about 14% of the time, so it's not all that unlikely
Failing 3 missions is likely 21% of the time. Failing 2 is likely 26% of the time and failing 1 is likely 20%
If we use a more reasonable number like 80%
P(X=35) = 0.029918656849901713
P(X=36) = 0.049864428083169536
P(X=37) = 0.07547048574749987
P(X=38) = 0.10327540154921036
P(X=39) = 0.12710818652210512
P(X=40) = 0.1398190051743157
P(X=41) = 0.1364087855359178
P(X=42) = 0.11692181617364385
P(X=43) = 0.08701158412922337
P(X=44) = 0.05537100808223309
P(X=45) = 0.029531204310524327
P(35 … 45) = 0.9507005621577447
95% of the time you will fail between 5 and 15 missions. So doing 50 missions and falling anywhere in this range is completely possible.
Upload your spreadsheet. I'd like to see exactly what you calculated. And you're telling me that you are running 4 shuttles and averaging 92% predicted on each one?
I've got a lot of mirror crew and I'm running 3 4000 point shuttles, and I'm getting in the high 80s on 1 shuttle, low 80s on the second, and I am struggling to get the 3rd one into the high 70s. I just really find it very hard to believe you are getting 90% or more on multiple shuttles.
Believe it. There is so much event crew it’s ridiculous. Every seat on my 4 shuttles are event crew. I usually fill my shuttles then put secondary crew on a voyage but this event I’m filling my voyage with the best crew first then filling the shuttles and I’m still succeeding almost every mission
Again my friend, I am not doubting math or stats. I'm not even doubting the rng program in use is working. My doubt is bonus crew isn't calculated correctly. You take away bonus crew and only use skill boosts, it's close to the actual shown percentage.
Final thought, and I'll post in 2.5 hours my screen shots of the missions I am running, did you know it was possible to fail a 100% mission? That's why it now only shows 99%. Also have you seen when bonus crew don't pop up? You have to restart the game for them to pop up sometimes. I'm focusing on the funky part of the issues not rng or stats.
Results
Next round
Today I was 12/16. 75 is less than shown but you deal with it
When I ran your numbers through a binomial distribution calculator it comes back with
P(X=12) = 0.027408499733785993
P(X=13) = 0.0969839221349351
P(X=14) = 0.23899609383251874
P(X=15) = 0.36646067720986236
P(X=16) = 0.2633936117445887
P(12 … 16) = 0.9932428046556909
16 results isn't a large enough sample to draw conclusions from. Ideally you would want over 1,000 outcomes. But even so it's predicted to happen about 3% of the time. It's not outside the realm of plausible outcomes. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying I'm not convinced it is really not giving you correct odds. 13/16 happens 10% of the time.
If you consider the odds of either of going 12/16 or 13/16
P(X=12) = 0.027408499733785993
P(X=13) = 0.0969839221349351
P(12 … 13) = 0.1243924218687211
that's likely to happen 12% of the time, which is hardly an outlier.