The reality of probability...don't let your brain warp it

[Johnny B. Goode]

If an attrition point is scored in the first wave then it disregards the possibility in the second wave setting the possibility at 0%. Else the second wave is tested at 4%. I don’t see how you can’t see this distinction without me pointing it out to you. Stop looking for arguments, it’s getting old.

But an attrition point isn't scored on the first wave, it's scored after the second wave. I just did a two wave battle and it scored the attrition point after the second wave. Your statement still doesn't make sense. It would be ignorant to have it tested twice for one battle. And you said yourself (which also makes no sense) that the second wave never gets an attrition point. So what data do you have to back up your assertion that a two wave battle is tested twice? Do you see attrition points showing up at different stages of various two wave battles? If it never awards two attrition points for a two wave battle, then all you have is conjecture, yet you're presenting is as a fact. I'm not looking for arguments, I'm looking for truth.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

For individual players, 1-3% isn't that big of a deal for gbg or TOR, but across all players, that 1-3% adds up.

That is an enormous leap in logic unsupported by data. ONE player tracked his ToR. To extrapolate that one player's results to a game wide phenomenon is just dishonest. It's just as likely that another player could track the same thing and get 1-3% over, and you know it.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

But an attrition point isn't scored on the first wave, it's scored after the second wave. I just did a two wave battle and it scored the attrition point after the second wave. Your statement still doesn't make sense. It would be ignorant to have it tested twice for one battle. And you said yourself (which also makes no sense) that the second wave never gets an attrition point. So what data do you have to back up your assertion that a two wave battle is tested twice? Do you see attrition points showing up at different stages of various two wave battles? If it never awards two attrition points for a two wave battle, then all you have is conjecture, yet you're presenting is as a fact. I'm not looking for arguments, I'm looking for truth.

This is what I said , you obviously don't care much about truth " No , 2 waves never each get an attrition added even when there are no SCs against the sector. "
I will test 160 double wave battles X 10 against 160 single wave battles X 10 , this should give similar results if the 2 wave battles are weighted to count more than the single wave. This was already stated right below the suggestion to try this. Reading comprehension seems to elude you. As far as the first wave not getting the point ? Not true , I just did 50 fights on a 3 SC sector and 6 of the attrition points got added on the first wave and 4 got added on the second wave.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

No , 2 waves never each get an attrition added even when there are no SCs against the sector. "

Now you're saying something different from what you said earlier. I never said each wave gets an attrition added, that was what your statements implied. When there are no SCs involved, the attrition point is scored when (and only when) you beat the second wave. If you don't beat the second wave, there is NO attrition added. I just tested that under each possible scenario.

Do me a favor, next time you see an attrition point added on the first wave, don't beat the second wave and tell me what happens.

 

[Agent327]

Now you're saying something different from what you said earlier. I never said each wave gets an attrition added, that was what your statements implied. When there are no SCs involved, the attrition point is scored when (and only when) you beat the second wave. If you don't beat the second wave, there is NO attrition added.

He is not disputing that. He knows you can only get attrition after the second fight. His point is, that if those waves are counted as single fights, it could be possible it influences the 4% probability.

Say you get attrition on the first wave. Max attrition is 1, so you can not get any attrition anymore on the second wave. That means it will show as one after the fight, but you do not know on which wave you get it. With two waves, you might have twice the chance to get attrition, with still a max of one, but with a higher chance to get attrition. I think that is his point why it might be higher than expected.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

He is not disputing that. He knows you can only get attrition after the second fight. His point is, that if those waves are counted as single fights, it could be possible it influences the 4% probability.

Say you get attrition on the first wave. Max attrition is 1, so you can not get any attrition anymore on the second wave. That means it will show as one after the fight, but you do not know on which wave you get it. With two waves, you might have twice the chance to get attrition, with still a max of one, but with a higher chance to get attrition. I think that is his point why it might be higher than expected.

Thank you Agent , that is precisely what I was saying.

 

[Agent327]

Thank you Agent , that is precisely what I was saying.

While I understand your argument, I do not think it to be likely. When the two wave battles were abused to score points, they put in a simple fix, by muting the first wave and give double points for the second wave. Easy fix, not really fair on the actual situation, but that did not lead to a better adjustment. With that in mind and the first wave being muted, it is not likely you could get attrition on it, in my opinion.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

That is an enormous leap in logic unsupported by data. ONE player tracked his ToR. To extrapolate that one player's results to a game wide phenomenon is just dishonest. It's just as likely that another player could track the same thing and get 1-3% over, and you know it.

Every time that a player tries to present results that appear to be contrary to the INNO published stats you invariably insist that he has not collected enough data, that his sample size is to small. But, from what you said above, even if that player went back and collected 10X, 100X, 1000X more observations you will still not accept his results because you do not believe that it is "honest" to extrapolate one player's results to the entire population. What this tells me is that you do not understand inferential statistics. The intent of statistical modelling is to make predictions about the population based on a representative sample. It is indeed "honest" to extrapolate one player's results to the entire game.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Every time that a player tries to present results that appear to be contrary to the INNO published stats you invariably insist that he has not collected enough data, that his sample size is to small. But, from what you said above, even if that player went back and collected 10X, 100X, 1000X more observations you will still not accept his results because you do not believe that it is "honest" to extrapolate one player's results to the entire population. What this tells me is that you do not understand inferential statistics. The intent of statistical modelling is to make predictions about the population based on a representative sample. It is indeed "honest" to extrapolate one player's results to the entire game.

I am not even saying that this is something nefarious just perhaps an oversight in the RNG design. It is not simply one seeded number picked and if higher than a certain threshold then you gain 1 attrition point. There are multiple battles per fight , traps and SCs to consider as well as making sure that ownership doesn't persist when a sector changes hands and the SC or trap is not lost.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I'm usually fighting in GBG with the benefit of 4+ SCs and I don't build attrition. However, just to see, I hit a tile tonight with 2SC support. I put in 96 battles (didn't do a breakdown of 1-wave and 2-wave) and racked up 60 attrition. The expected attrition is 51 but 60 is likely within the margin of error for a sample of 96.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

He knows you can only get attrition after the second fight.

Really? Then why does he state this:

I just did 50 fights on a 3 SC sector and 6 of the attrition points got added on the first wave and 4 got added on the second wave.

If he knows you only get attrition after the second wave, then why does he say that he had 6 of the attrition points added on the first wave? Inquiring minds want to know.

He is stating that the attrition is figured after each wave, but there is no proof of that if attrition is only added after the second wave. I don't use SCs, so if the % chance were figured after the first wave, I would see some indication of that, but I see none. Zero. Attrition is added at the point where the second wave is defeated, not before, and I see no indication that anything is figured before that point. Is he saying that he actually sees the attrition added after the first wave? If so, I would like for him to then surrender before defeating the second wave and see if the attrition point stays and then report what he sees happen.

As I stated earlier, when fighting a two wave battle with zero SCs, the attrition points are not added under any scenario until the point where the second wave is defeated. So I'm curious as to how he could see attrition added before he defeats both waves.

 

[iPenguinPat]

That is an enormous leap in logic unsupported by data. ONE player tracked his ToR. To extrapolate that one player's results to a game wide phenomenon is just dishonest. It's just as likely that another player could track the same thing and get 1-3% over, and you know it.

What part is dishonest? Do you believe that I know what I'm saying is wrong and saying it anyways?

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I did a test with 4 3SC sectors with 80 manual fights with 1 wave and got 22 attrition and with manual 80 fights with 2 waves and got 29 attrition. The attrition was always counted after the second wave. Much harder to do the test with 4 SCs because the guild jumps all over those ones. The 3 SC sectors are quiet enough to test on though.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What part is dishonest? Do you believe that I know what I'm saying is wrong and saying it anyways?

Yep, pretty much. You take one player's data and assume it's applicable across the board. If you don't know that you're wrong in that, you're not as smart as I thought you were. Unless there's something else in that data that isn't being shared. It's kind of hard to know unless someone shares a link to that post.

EDIT: Nevermind. I found the post. Another one where you argued ridiculously for a tiny set of data to indicate a system wide problem. Even the player that tracked and shared that data stated that he didn't think it indicated anything. And remember, the thread that triggered this one was over 4 level 9 Pirates Hideouts tracked over a measly 3 days (or maybe it was 3 of them over 4 days, in either case it was 12 collections) that didn't pay out FPs. All you conspiracy theorists jumped on it as an indication of a problem with game mechanics. Same old same old.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Yep, pretty much. You take one player's data and assume it's applicable across the board. If you don't know that you're wrong in that, you're not as smart as I thought you were. Unless there's something else in that data that isn't being shared. It's kind of hard to know unless someone shares a link to that post.

So it has to be at least 50 players watching for 3 months and keeping and posting the data for your inspection and then it's valid and until then you are right about everything ? Sound about right ?

It is a game that some of us spend a fair bit of real money on and we deserve to be treated like a customer by Inno because that is what we are. I have a problem with a posted rate and did some verification after spending about 4400$ on the game then I deserve an answer like every other paying customer. That is the way capitalism works whether that is how you work or not.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

So it has to be at least 50 players watching for 3 months and keeping and posting the data for your inspection and then it's valid and until then you are right about everything ? Sound about right ?

It is a game that some of us spend a fair bit of real money on and we deserve to be treated like a customer by Inno because that is what we are. I have a problem with a posted rate and did some verification after spending about 4400$ on the game then I deserve an answer like every other paying customer. That is the way capitalism works whether that is how you work or not.

See my above post that I was editing as you were posting this.

 

[My Push Account]

It's just as likely that another player could track the same thing and get 1-3% over, and you know it.

As luck would have it, I‘ve been collecting ToR samples from several cities since CDMark posted their data. I’ll even share it for you. I was going to save it for a Christmas present once it reached 10K, but it’s close enough.



I’ve added the 99% confidence intervals (lower, upper, width), as well as tracked how each entry performed relative to expected value after Lord Pest‘s assertion that their outcomes weren’t being evenly distributed above and below expected value. There are several troubling findings (Skip this part if you are a statistics expert and want to draw your own subjective opinions about the data).

- Three of the tracked levels are already performing outside of the 99% confidence interval (note that most data analysis is only run against 95% confidence). Several others are approaching the outer spectrum and just need another month or so of values to shrink the width.
- The overall total value is already outside of the 99% confidence interval.
- Only one level is exceeding expectation.
- The distribution of the results versus expected value should roughly be about 11% hitting expectation, 44.5% below, and 44.5% above. The actual results are heavily weighted to underperformance with about 62% of the results being below expectation and only 24% above.
- The average relic gap for the misses is 3.5, while the average relic gap for the overages is 2.5.
- The total performance is 2.4 points under advertisement (in real value not as a percentage), well outside of statistical variance for this quantity (basically double), and it’s caused a 7.5% reduction in relics.

Coupled with CDMark’s data and even Lord Pest’s assertions, there is clearly something up with relic generation. Maybe RNG, maybe a table, maybe bad code, maybe something else.

Now, what I can’t predict is which worn-out response will be used to rebut this data, maybe:
-what about the millions of other ToR hits
-you need to sample at least 100,000
-this is just a bunch of bad luck on top of more bad luck and more bad luck that just happened to be tracked
-what about the one level that is overperforming
-its only off a couple percent, that doesn't prove anything, it will get closer if you just keep tracking
-obfuscation!
-gee, maybe there is something to this probability theory stuff, I think I might take the time to learn more about that and see if it could be used to explain why things happen in chance events and provide more constructive feedback to misguided individuals in the future

Ok, so one of those is off the table…….

 

[Emberguard]

I’d proffer that CDMark’s ToR data was clear evidence that the trigger mechanism for relics is underperforming by 2-3%.

As luck would have it, I‘ve been collecting ToR samples from several cities since CDMark posted their data. I’ll even share it for you. I was going to save it for a Christmas present once it reached 10K, but it’s close enough.

Did either of you ensure you pick up every relic at the time of it spawning? Or did you leave them spawned and only pick up when you completed the level? If there are any limitations in how many can spawn then it won't matter what the % is (just like how there are limits on Incident spawns: if you don't have a spot available for it to spawn then it won't spawn until a spot opens up)

 

[Agent327]

It is a game that some of us spend a fair bit of real money on and we deserve to be treated like a customer by Inno because that is what we are. I have a problem with a posted rate and did some verification after spending about 4400$ on the game then I deserve an answer like every other paying customer. That is the way capitalism works whether that is how you work or not.

So you are a customer and want to be treated as a customer. What would be the logical approach to take? Contact customer support, or start arguing with other customers?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

So you are a customer and want to be treated as a customer. What would be the logical approach to take? Contact customer support, or start arguing with other customers?

Are you implying that contacting Support will result in an answer to the question?

What's wrong with arguing with other customers? Ever been shopping on Black Friday?