DeletedUser14354
No one is arguing that it wouldn't be beneficial to Inno to play with the numbers. However, the fact that it might make sense for them to do so isn't PROOF that they did, in fact, do so.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Blueprints Aren't Random
- Thread starter ndstate
- Start date
No one is arguing that it wouldn't be beneficial to Inno to play with the numbers. However, the fact that it might make sense for them to do so isn't PROOF that they did, in fact, do so.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
You can't prove your opinion and/or disprove mine either. We are therefore at a stalemate.
DeletedUser14354
If Inno is representing that the distribution of BPs is random (which they have), but in fact playing with the odds, that is the textbook definition of a conspiracy.
What we know is that there is an imbalance in BPs. That can easily be explained by random chance. It could also be explained by Inno toying with the percentages. You choose to believe the latter. Thats fine. However, understand that your position is no more scientific than arguing that God wants the OP to have too many of the upper left quadrant BP.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
That is a HUGE logical stretch. This isn't a faith-based argument. It's based on a REAL possibility, not an imaginary one. It may not be true, but it could actually be true. Don't stretch the boundaries of logic too far... that band will eventually snap!
DeletedUser14354
My opinion is that the OP's distribution of BPs could easily be explained by random chance. In fact, we actually calculated those odds at 4%. If he has 10 GBs (again, a reasonable assumption given how long he has been playing), the odds of him having this unequal distribution in one of his GBs is better than 50%. He isn't complaining about this disparity on ALL of his GBs, only 1. So, I have PROVED my opinion.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
You've proved nothing. He's just one player. Small sample size, right?
DeletedUser14354
It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don't understand how statistics work.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
It's obvious you feel that you being right means I don't understand something. I'm frankly tired of you folks claiming that I'm ignorant simply because I disagree with you. If you're right, you're right. I don't have to believe that you are just because you can show math that you could be right. It's not a guarantee against the possibility that an algorithm tweak may exist. You may have a 99% probability of being correct. I see the 1% in my own experience and since I can see why Inno would choose to do it, I'm opining that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that a slight (as I've said all along) rarity has been programmed in.
DeletedUser14354
To put this in more basic terms. If you flip a coin 5 times, the odds of you getting 5 straight "heads" is 1/2^5. That's roughly 3%. That isn't much different than the odds of the BP disparity the OP described. Lets further assume a bet was constructed where you would win $1 if the coin wasn't 5 straight heads, but paid $100 if it was.
If it came out 5 straight heads, by your logic, you would have all the proof you need to state that the coin was rigged.
If it came out 5 straight heads, by your logic, you would have all the proof you need to state that the coin was rigged.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
If you can't guarantee that the person flipping the coin hasn't once in a while substituted a two-headed coin, you have no way of knowing that your random event is truly always random.
DeletedUser14354
Except I am not arguing that the game IS RANDOM. I am simply arguing that you can't assume its NOT RANDOM just because 1 person, in 1 particular GB, has a disparity.
Thats why my opinion CAN BE RIGHT.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
One person? I'm done with you.
DeletedUser14354
I also can't guarantee that God doesn't prefer a flipped coin to land on heads.
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
You could if you were an atheist. I don't argue God-based nonsensical arguments.
DeletedUser32389
There are some very dedicated players here, combining our shared statistics on one building would give us the sample size we need to settle this, would it not?
Also (call me a dork) but building true randomness into a computer algorithm is actually a more complex problem than it seems. I know that’s not exactly the point here, the question is if Inno messes with the distribution on purpose.
If I was programming that kind of manipulation I wouldn’t let it be so obvious as to just make one bp more rare across the board for everyone. I would make it slightly harder to get bps you don’t have, making it seem more random, but still effecting each player. This would be more work to deduce.
All that said, I expect they do mess with the distribution a little bit, and I don’t really care to prove it. Too much work.
Also (call me a dork) but building true randomness into a computer algorithm is actually a more complex problem than it seems. I know that’s not exactly the point here, the question is if Inno messes with the distribution on purpose.
If I was programming that kind of manipulation I wouldn’t let it be so obvious as to just make one bp more rare across the board for everyone. I would make it slightly harder to get bps you don’t have, making it seem more random, but still effecting each player. This would be more work to deduce.
All that said, I expect they do mess with the distribution a little bit, and I don’t really care to prove it. Too much work.
DeletedUser14354
The atheist assumes the lack of a god. That is no different than your assumption that there is an algorithm that interferes with pure random chance. If the god-based argument is nonsensical....
Salsuero
Well-Known Member
You don't understand atheism. The atheist assumes nothing. The atheist doesn't assume there IS or ISN'T a God. The atheist simply rejects God period as there is no proof that one exists. The atheist rejects faith alone as proof of His existence. However, an algorithm tweak is actually possible and provable if the actually-existing source code were released. It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe it could be possible to do a programming tweak such as the one suggested.
DeletedUser32389
This is where what I was saying needs to be understood without bias: There is no such thing as “pure randomness” when it comes to computer programming. Random number generators require a surprising ammount of computational power. Google “how do random number generators work” and you’ll see what I mean.
As that applies to this game I imagine they had to cut some corners to create the appearance of randomness. This means that the blind random baseline doesn’t really exist. The crux of the question is whether you believe that Inno "games the system" to encourage people to buy prints. If I was the programmer, I would. It’s a business, not a charity. I’m still gonna play.
DeletedUser14354
Its somewhat off topic, but its actually you that doesn't understand the definition of "atheism". Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god(s). That belief structure is based on a fundamental assumption... that there is no god. You are describing agnosticism, which is defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
The larger point is that, just as the existence of god is unknowable to us, the existence of a tweak to the source code is unknowable to us. Yet you accept that, because it could exist, it likely does exist. That is a faith-based argument. Therefore, it is no more or less logical than an argument that god is dictating the distribution of BPs.
By contrast, basic statistics indicates that, in any large population of players, there are going to be some who have the unequal distribution described by the OP.
DeletedUser14354
I understand your point about a pure RNG being somewhat more complicated in practice than in theory. However, the question here is whether Inno intentionally altered the randomness of the BP generations.
I don't think a handful of anectodal evidence outweighs the mountain of statistical evidence that it was designed to be random (whether they truly pulled it off or not).