7/12 start on Thursday, including a 1/4 start hurted the most with that lineup. Went down to 3500 for one run. 75 percent actual is basically my go to average now a days. I just realized I had too much fun and forgot to record what I did yesterday success wise. It happens.
You're trying hard and presenting hard numbers. I love it. It's not the rng it's the bonus crew calculations that creates the false fails.
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
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
that's likely to happen 12% of the time, which is hardly an outlier.
I've had 91-95% fail regularly during this event and have tons of legendary crew with bonuses. I don't think anyone will run 1000 shuttles through the entire event even if they speed up shuttles with Dilithium.
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.
Please be more careful with your quotes, @NicoleK!
The words quoted were said by BitterDevil, not me.
For the record, I'm not taking "your side" against BD, just saying the quote in your posting is improper.
I'm happy to discuss anything I post. I'm not happy with people attributing things to me that I didn't say. Please edit your post appropriately!
@BitterDevil, I think you know - just to be explicit. Not saying anything bad about what you wrote. It's the principle of the thing.
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.
Please be more careful with your quotes, @NicoleK!
The words quoted were said by BitterDevil, not me.
For the record, I'm not saying taking "your side" against BD, just saying the quote in your posting is improper.
I'm happy to discuss anything I post. I'm not happy with people attributing things to me that I didn't say. Please edit your post appropriately!
@BitterDevil, I think you know - just to be explicit. Not saying anything bad about what you wrote. It's the principle of the thing.
Curiosity. Out of 20 missions, my 94% shuttle has failed 12 times. Ofc some people will yell "small sample". It is not! The event only lasts for 30-40 runs, so if the sample size "needed" is in the hundreds or thousands of runs, the percentage becomes meaningless. That's the thing people either don't get or simply intentionally omit: The percentage has to corelate with the event.
Simple example. 90% chance out of 1000 is not the same as 90% chance out of 10000 when you have only 30 tries.
Curiosity. Out of 20 missions, my 94% shuttle has failed 12 times. Ofc some people will yell "small sample". It is not! The event only lasts for 30-40 runs, so if the sample size "needed" is in the hundreds or thousands of runs, the percentage becomes meaningless. That's the thing people either don't get or simply intentionally omit: The percentage has to corelate with the event.
Simple example. 90% chance out of 1000 is not the same as 90% chance out of 10000 when you have only 30 tries.
2 options: (1) Combine data with other people to increase sample size, and (2) Longer observation period. [On this second, while you'd never have data to conclude on an individual event, over time the "noise" should wash.]
As another poster alluded, the best source of information is DB's data, but that's not available.
Curiosity. Out of 20 missions, my 94% shuttle has failed 12 times. Ofc some people will yell "small sample". It is not! The event only lasts for 30-40 runs, so if the sample size "needed" is in the hundreds or thousands of runs, the percentage becomes meaningless. That's the thing people either don't get or simply intentionally omit: The percentage has to corelate with the event.
Simple example. 90% chance out of 1000 is not the same as 90% chance out of 10000 when you have only 30 tries.
2 options: (1) Combine data with other people to increase sample size, and (2) Longer observation period. [On this second, while you'd never have data to conclude on an individual event, over time the "noise" should wash.]
As another poster alluded, the best source of information is DB's data, but that's not available.
To use the data of more than one person and have a reliable result, you would have to combine the identical ones... meaning that we'd have to take all 94% shuttles that used the same crew in the same combination(for example) otherwise all you get is a statistic and not a probability. Statistic(post facto): 1 in every 4 people is asian; probability(ante facto): does that mean that a caucasian couple will have 25% chance to have an asian offspring?
Longer observation period. That means 2 things:
1. the statistic will not be fractal, otherwise we would not have this conversation;
2. the odds are meaningless as long as they do not corelate with the length of the event or number of tries allotted
I am one of those posters and the problem is that they are withholding it. Wonder why?
To use the data of more than one person and have a reliable result, you would have to combine the identical ones... meaning that we'd have to take all 94% shuttles that used the same crew in the same combination(for example) otherwise all you get is a statistic and not a probability. Statistic(post facto): 1 in every 4 people is asian; probability(ante facto): does that mean that a caucasian couple will have 25% chance to have an asian offspring?
Longer observation period. That means 2 things:
1. the statistic will not be fractal, otherwise we would not have this conversation;
2. the odds are meaningless as long as they do not corelate with the length of the event or number of tries allotted
...
Good observation. Combining data would require scaling back the analysis to the "lowest common denominator." Its a trade-off.
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.
No, it is not the same.
Winning a 0% run is merely because of a lack of UI update - the game recalculates the probability when you launch the shuttle and ends up with 15% (as the formula requires).
However, this does not apply for the 100% runs. The reason why they fail is rounding: missions with a chance higher than 99.5% display a 100% success rate since the game doesn't print decimals - meaning one in 200 will fail despite displaying a 100% success rate.
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.
This made my day. A non-mathematician telling us about the law of large numbers without even realizing that largely there isn't even a RNG at work.
And there is no perception bias when you, like me, DO SERIOUS DATA COLLECTION!
The game is out to screw you! Presented numbers are incorrect all over the place. For shuttles that's not even a debate but proven a hundred times over (also by myself with a SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SAMPLE SIZE). You just don't see it since you don't care about success or failure, because you probably just send another $100 DB's way if you miss out on something.
It's people like you WHY the game is out to screw us. If there were nobody behaving exactly the way you do, there would be no reason to build the game like that.
You (and people like you) are part of the problem!
I'm done trying to be logical and to use math. If people don't understand why 20 or 30 faction missions isn't enough to judge, that's fine just be bitter. I'm not going to be able to convince you no matter what I do. There are literally tens of thousands of faction missions being run each event. What happens to you in your run is just a pebble in the sand. It isn't a representative sample, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
You don't need to be a "mathematician" to understand these concepts. A few college math courses in statistics is more than enough. It isn't rocket science. These are quite basic concepts.
I'm done trying to be logical and to use math. If people don't understand why 20 or 30 faction missions isn't enough to judge, that's fine just be bitter. I'm not going to be able to convince you no matter what I do. There are literally tens of thousands of faction missions being run each event. What happens to you in your run is just a pebble in the sand. It isn't a representative sample, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
You don't need to be a "mathematician" to understand these concepts. A few college math courses in statistics is more than enough. It isn't rocket science. These are quite basic concepts.
those few college courses should've taught you the difference between statistic and probability...but...oh, well...
I'm done trying to be logical and to use math. If people don't understand why 20 or 30 faction missions isn't enough to judge, that's fine just be bitter. I'm not going to be able to convince you no matter what I do. There are literally tens of thousands of faction missions being run each event. What happens to you in your run is just a pebble in the sand. It isn't a representative sample, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
You don't need to be a "mathematician" to understand these concepts. A few college math courses in statistics is more than enough. It isn't rocket science. These are quite basic concepts.
Well I am a mathematician with a masters degree and 5 years experience as a statistical analyst. So let me assure you that my analysis is bullet proof. My analysis alone is at almost 700 missions and the current result is solid proof we are getting screwed. Will continue the analysis and unless the game stops screwing us the results will not be much better when I reach 5000.
You are not using math, you are using dogma, blind admiration and misplaced trust in DB. You will not accept math if bites you in the butt! You are just one of those people! But that's OK, it takes all kinds to make a world. But don't try to sell your opinion as logical analysis! Where is the link to your data? You can find mine in a separate thread in Engineering (data will be updated after the current event).
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.
And with your comments in every thread you show us the OP ist right. Please, you don't need to write down your oppinion in every thread.
And like shan said here:
I'm done trying to be logical and to use math. If people don't understand why 20 or 30 faction missions isn't enough to judge, that's fine just be bitter. I'm not going to be able to convince you no matter what I do. There are literally tens of thousands of faction missions being run each event. What happens to you in your run is just a pebble in the sand. It isn't a representative sample, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
You don't need to be a "mathematician" to understand these concepts. A few college math courses in statistics is more than enough. It isn't rocket science. These are quite basic concepts.
Well I am a mathematician with a masters degree and 5 years experience as a statistical analyst. So let me assure you that my analysis is bullet proof. My analysis alone is at almost 700 missions and the current result is solid proof we are getting screwed. Will continue the analysis and unless the game stops screwing us the results will not be much better when I reach 5000.
You are not using math, you are using dogma, blind admiration and misplaced trust in DB. You will not accept math if bites you in the butt! You are just one of those people! But that's OK, it takes all kinds to make a world. But don't try to sell your opinion as logical analysis! Where is the link to your data? You can find mine in a separate thread in Engineering (data will be updated after the current event).
Perhaps I've missed it, but could you post your raw data?
Edit: Missed your last line...will be looking for it
Well I am a mathematician with a masters degree and 5 years experience as a statistical analyst. So let me assure you that my analysis is bullet proof. My analysis alone is at almost 700 missions and the current result is solid proof we are getting screwed. Will continue the analysis and unless the game stops screwing us the results will not be much better when I reach 5000.
You are not using math, you are using dogma, blind admiration and misplaced trust in DB. You will not accept math if bites you in the butt! You are just one of those people! But that's OK, it takes all kinds to make a world. But don't try to sell your opinion as logical analysis! Where is the link to your data? You can find mine in a separate thread in Engineering (data will be updated after the current event).
You are just way more angry about this than I am. I don't pay to run faction missions. I never have. I don't like faction events and stop running when I clear the thresholds. I haven't experienced an abnormally large number of my missions failing. I also don't use nearly the number of boosts that you people apparently do. If I'm going to go for ranked rewards I'll do it in a galaxy event so I don't have to check in every 3 hours 24/7 for days on end.
I haven't been disrespectful to you or anyone else. I just really have a hard time believing that the game is designed to cheat anyone. That may make me an idiot, but at least I'm not an angry hostile jerk towards other people.
Just saw hope's posts about 400 shuttle runs. Great work. I tracked on excel for one event. It's hard work. A few others it's been a combo of our line chat and pen and paper. Otherwise I would contribute to here
OK found the one I detailed in the forums. I tracked total, speed boosts, skill boosts, and over night. In total it was almost 90 percent shown vs 80 actual
I have some observable symptoms that have been reported several times and seems to be still occurring.
Put a character on a slot that does not skill match and then put a boost on it.
Remove that character and then put one that does skill match and put the same boost on it.
In many instances I've seen the percentage gained to be the exact same value.
'Hidden' skils are supposed to be a small percentage and should not match something like, oh I dunno, bonus crew.
I think that can contribute to some folks failures not matching the presented value with the prevalence of 'AND' slots where and the possibility of only matching one skill.
That may not explain all of what folks are experiencing, but it shows that there is more to the story than just simple RNG. The gathered data of others in the engineering section, the fact that 0% shuttles are more like 14%, etc also add to these thoughts.
I have some observable symptoms that have been reported several times and seems to be still occurring.
Put a character on a slot that does not skill match and then put a boost on it.
Remove that character and then put one that does skill match and put the same boost on it.
In many instances I've seen the percentage gained to be the exact same value.
'Hidden' skils are supposed to be a small percentage and should not match something like, oh I dunno, bonus crew.
I think that can contribute to some folks failures not matching the presented value with the prevalence of 'AND' slots where and the possibility of only matching one skill.
That may not explain all of what folks are experiencing, but it shows that there is more to the story than just simple RNG. The gathered data of others in the engineering section, the fact that 0% shuttles are more like 14%, etc also add to these thoughts.
Whatever the reason is, there is a bias. Data I will post tomorrow after the event shows the current event as one of the worst events ever. Have about 80% higher fails occurring than I should observe. The data for the event before that was actually the first I tracked, where I got exactly the numbers that were shown. Still, there is nowhere the outlier in my favor to be found, so it's next to impossible that the numbers for shuttle missions are as displayed.
I don't know if the mistake occurs because DB want's to defraud their players, if it's incompetence, or just an honest mistake. But that does not really matter. What is 100 percent certain is that they know about the problem and don't do anything about it. And that is something that I am and many other are angry about, justifyingly so. @Nicole K is certainly right about that.
I want to keep the analysis light, I just want to prove beyond reasonable doubt if the numbers are off. All I need for that are the following numbers:
- The total number of shuttle missions during events you tracked
- The average displayed success rate of those shuttle missions
- The total number of those shuttle missions that were successful
I will try to consolidate my data and the data others contributed some time during the holiday. But will need a little time for that.
My hope is still that DB stops ignoring the problem and admits wrongdoing. To achieve that it's important that people stop just blindly defending DB and doubting anybody who cries foul, only because they don't believe that it's possible. The other way round is important too, just don't give in to your feelings. That's why I started the thread, to present hard facts and not just feelings.
My hope is still that DB stops ignoring the problem and admits wrongdoing. To achieve that it's important that people stop just blindly defending DB and doubting anybody who cries foul, only because they don't believe that it's possible. The other way round is important too, just don't give in to your feelings. That's why I started the thread, to present hard facts and not just feelings.
I 100% support your efforts. I'm all for actually collecting data and having actual proof which backs up allegations. So far you and @(FF)ThisSisko1 are the only really serious effort at providing such proof that I am aware of. I don't like unfounded accusations based on feelings either. And that's what 90% of the complaining about this subject have been. I've never said it's impossible there is a problem, and if there is I would really love to see it fixed.
If you play gauntlet a lot do you notice that (have 7000+ now according to my achievement):
1. Every 3rd streak when you ready to open the crate, more likely you will lose because your opponents have better overall skills/both skills/Crits/higher rolls.
2. When you are in the top 10, you are more likely to lose the match. Whereas when you are in the 50 or worse, you are more likely to win.
3. Many people prob save the last round to the last 5-10 mins before gauntlet finishes, but you will also have higher probability to lose.
I have responded to some threads where I normally play gauntlet conservatively but I also have had higher # of losing mirror match or even with higher stats/crits. We don't really need to have spreadsheet or be a math expert for this. Certainly I could have bias in reporting this, but I think humans have tendency to see pattern (esp after you play this for more sometimes and play this daily).
Many people think randomness in games is purely RNG and try to collect data/statistics. But there is always algorithm with inputs (could be VIP level, $$ and time you've spent, crew strength in your deck, last login, IOS vs Android, or could be something else) and some inputs could be given more weight than the others. A tweak on the input here and there or the algorithm itself could alter the outcome and render the collected data useless.
DB announces they will rebalance the voyage loot table which means the algorithm or input to the algorithm will be tweaked. Of course no players know how often they change but I guess a small change were done more often and not announced.
This thread is fake news. The OP admitted he just listed a bunch if bad stuff that happened to him and made up (lied) about them happening all in one day. I cannot trust any of his details.
" There is no guarantee that any individual player's experience will align with the stated odds, but this is in no way an indication that the system as a whole is not functioning correctly."
Excerpt from a PS statement. So, we're actually complaining for nothing since they admit that the result will not conform with the odds stated.
This thread is fake news. The OP admitted he just listed a bunch if bad stuff that happened to him and made up (lied) about them happening all in one day. I cannot trust any of his details.
The conversation moved away from the original "fake news" you mention a long time ago and onto a more general discussion of game fairness, especially in faction events.
This thread is fake news. The OP admitted he just listed a bunch if bad stuff that happened to him and made up (lied) about them happening all in one day. I cannot trust any of his details.
Comments
You're trying hard and presenting hard numbers. I love it. It's not the rng it's the bonus crew calculations that creates the false fails.
Please share with us the data that supports the claim that the RNG works.
I've had 91-95% fail regularly during this event and have tons of legendary crew with bonuses. I don't think anyone will run 1000 shuttles through the entire event even if they speed up shuttles with Dilithium.
Please be more careful with your quotes, @NicoleK!
The words quoted were said by BitterDevil, not me.
For the record, I'm not taking "your side" against BD, just saying the quote in your posting is improper.
I'm happy to discuss anything I post. I'm not happy with people attributing things to me that I didn't say. Please edit your post appropriately!
@BitterDevil, I think you know - just to be explicit. Not saying anything bad about what you wrote. It's the principle of the thing.
Edited for grammar.
Yeah, I get it.
A specific testable hypothesis. Brilliant!
If any of my fellow data-geeks are reading, this should be fairly straightforward to collect data on!
Simple example. 90% chance out of 1000 is not the same as 90% chance out of 10000 when you have only 30 tries.
2 options: (1) Combine data with other people to increase sample size, and (2) Longer observation period. [On this second, while you'd never have data to conclude on an individual event, over time the "noise" should wash.]
As another poster alluded, the best source of information is DB's data, but that's not available.
To use the data of more than one person and have a reliable result, you would have to combine the identical ones... meaning that we'd have to take all 94% shuttles that used the same crew in the same combination(for example) otherwise all you get is a statistic and not a probability. Statistic(post facto): 1 in every 4 people is asian; probability(ante facto): does that mean that a caucasian couple will have 25% chance to have an asian offspring?
Longer observation period. That means 2 things:
1. the statistic will not be fractal, otherwise we would not have this conversation;
2. the odds are meaningless as long as they do not corelate with the length of the event or number of tries allotted
I am one of those posters
Good observation. Combining data would require scaling back the analysis to the "lowest common denominator." Its a trade-off.
Yeah.
No, it is not the same.
Winning a 0% run is merely because of a lack of UI update - the game recalculates the probability when you launch the shuttle and ends up with 15% (as the formula requires).
However, this does not apply for the 100% runs. The reason why they fail is rounding: missions with a chance higher than 99.5% display a 100% success rate since the game doesn't print decimals - meaning one in 200 will fail despite displaying a 100% success rate.
This made my day. A non-mathematician telling us about the law of large numbers without even realizing that largely there isn't even a RNG at work.
And there is no perception bias when you, like me, DO SERIOUS DATA COLLECTION!
The game is out to screw you! Presented numbers are incorrect all over the place. For shuttles that's not even a debate but proven a hundred times over (also by myself with a SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SAMPLE SIZE). You just don't see it since you don't care about success or failure, because you probably just send another $100 DB's way if you miss out on something.
It's people like you WHY the game is out to screw us. If there were nobody behaving exactly the way you do, there would be no reason to build the game like that.
You (and people like you) are part of the problem!
You don't need to be a "mathematician" to understand these concepts. A few college math courses in statistics is more than enough. It isn't rocket science. These are quite basic concepts.
those few college courses should've taught you the difference between statistic and probability...but...oh, well...
Well I am a mathematician with a masters degree and 5 years experience as a statistical analyst. So let me assure you that my analysis is bullet proof. My analysis alone is at almost 700 missions and the current result is solid proof we are getting screwed. Will continue the analysis and unless the game stops screwing us the results will not be much better when I reach 5000.
You are not using math, you are using dogma, blind admiration and misplaced trust in DB. You will not accept math if bites you in the butt! You are just one of those people! But that's OK, it takes all kinds to make a world. But don't try to sell your opinion as logical analysis! Where is the link to your data? You can find mine in a separate thread in Engineering (data will be updated after the current event).
And like shan said here:
Thank you
Perhaps I've missed it, but could you post your raw data?
Edit: Missed your last line...will be looking for it
You are just way more angry about this than I am. I don't pay to run faction missions. I never have. I don't like faction events and stop running when I clear the thresholds. I haven't experienced an abnormally large number of my missions failing. I also don't use nearly the number of boosts that you people apparently do. If I'm going to go for ranked rewards I'll do it in a galaxy event so I don't have to check in every 3 hours 24/7 for days on end.
I haven't been disrespectful to you or anyone else. I just really have a hard time believing that the game is designed to cheat anyone. That may make me an idiot, but at least I'm not an angry hostile jerk towards other people.
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/1713/shuttle-mission-success-chances-during-events-post-your-data-here/p1
One event I detailed it in an event chat. I'll see if I can find it
Incorrect
https://forums.disruptorbeam.com/stt/viewthread/68900/P15
Final ranking
So far I'm 23/28 for sat and Sunday. Same missions shown.
Put a character on a slot that does not skill match and then put a boost on it.
Remove that character and then put one that does skill match and put the same boost on it.
In many instances I've seen the percentage gained to be the exact same value.
'Hidden' skils are supposed to be a small percentage and should not match something like, oh I dunno, bonus crew.
I think that can contribute to some folks failures not matching the presented value with the prevalence of 'AND' slots where and the possibility of only matching one skill.
That may not explain all of what folks are experiencing, but it shows that there is more to the story than just simple RNG. The gathered data of others in the engineering section, the fact that 0% shuttles are more like 14%, etc also add to these thoughts.
Whatever the reason is, there is a bias. Data I will post tomorrow after the event shows the current event as one of the worst events ever. Have about 80% higher fails occurring than I should observe. The data for the event before that was actually the first I tracked, where I got exactly the numbers that were shown. Still, there is nowhere the outlier in my favor to be found, so it's next to impossible that the numbers for shuttle missions are as displayed.
I don't know if the mistake occurs because DB want's to defraud their players, if it's incompetence, or just an honest mistake. But that does not really matter. What is 100 percent certain is that they know about the problem and don't do anything about it. And that is something that I am and many other are angry about, justifyingly so. @Nicole K is certainly right about that.
If you have data, please feel free to contribute to the thread @(FF) This Sisko1 referred to: https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/1713/shuttle-mission-success-chances-during-events-post-your-data-here
I want to keep the analysis light, I just want to prove beyond reasonable doubt if the numbers are off. All I need for that are the following numbers:
- The total number of shuttle missions during events you tracked
- The average displayed success rate of those shuttle missions
- The total number of those shuttle missions that were successful
I will try to consolidate my data and the data others contributed some time during the holiday. But will need a little time for that.
My hope is still that DB stops ignoring the problem and admits wrongdoing. To achieve that it's important that people stop just blindly defending DB and doubting anybody who cries foul, only because they don't believe that it's possible. The other way round is important too, just don't give in to your feelings. That's why I started the thread, to present hard facts and not just feelings.
I 100% support your efforts. I'm all for actually collecting data and having actual proof which backs up allegations. So far you and @(FF)ThisSisko1 are the only really serious effort at providing such proof that I am aware of. I don't like unfounded accusations based on feelings either. And that's what 90% of the complaining about this subject have been. I've never said it's impossible there is a problem, and if there is I would really love to see it fixed.
1. Every 3rd streak when you ready to open the crate, more likely you will lose because your opponents have better overall skills/both skills/Crits/higher rolls.
2. When you are in the top 10, you are more likely to lose the match. Whereas when you are in the 50 or worse, you are more likely to win.
3. Many people prob save the last round to the last 5-10 mins before gauntlet finishes, but you will also have higher probability to lose.
I have responded to some threads where I normally play gauntlet conservatively but I also have had higher # of losing mirror match or even with higher stats/crits. We don't really need to have spreadsheet or be a math expert for this. Certainly I could have bias in reporting this, but I think humans have tendency to see pattern (esp after you play this for more sometimes and play this daily).
Many people think randomness in games is purely RNG and try to collect data/statistics. But there is always algorithm with inputs (could be VIP level, $$ and time you've spent, crew strength in your deck, last login, IOS vs Android, or could be something else) and some inputs could be given more weight than the others. A tweak on the input here and there or the algorithm itself could alter the outcome and render the collected data useless.
DB announces they will rebalance the voyage loot table which means the algorithm or input to the algorithm will be tweaked. Of course no players know how often they change but I guess a small change were done more often and not announced.
Excerpt from a PS statement. So, we're actually complaining for nothing since they admit that the result will not conform with the odds stated.
The conversation moved away from the original "fake news" you mention a long time ago and onto a more general discussion of game fairness, especially in faction events.
Read my post