Blueprints Aren't Random

[DeletedUser14354]

...is an admittance that I could also be right. You don't think so, and that's fair. But you can't prove that I'm not right if you don't have the source code. My understanding of statistics (or lack thereof in your opinion) has nothing to do with whether or not Inno could have a custom algorithm in play that creates a slight rarity for one blueprint, which would encourage diamond usage. I believe it to be relevant that there is a monetary motive to doing so and you do not. You believe in a 100% altruistic course of development to a game that is inherently designed to generate diamond sales

I didn't say you couldn't be right. Nor have I said you are not right. Nor do I subscribe to a "100% altruistic course of development" (note the straw man argument).

What I have said is quite simple. The disparities that the OP was complaining about are not surprising to anyone with a basic understanding of statistics.

The evidence for your opinion is no greater or worse than the evidence for divine intervention in BP disparity. Yet you disregard that explanation. Why? Because you understand Inno's motives? Motives are not evidence.

 

[Salsuero]

You choosing to believe that the BP distribution is not random is an argument from a position of faith.

No it's not. Let it go. I've no more desire to have this discussion with you.

So we can add theology and logic to the fields of discipline you also clearly don't understand.

Clearly? Insults are all you people have to fall back on every time.

The evidence for your opinion

Do opinions require evidence? I thought only facts do.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

No it's not. Let it go. I've no more desire to have this discussion with you.

YOu have a possible motivation for why Inno MIGHT play with the algorithm. What actual evidence do you have that they ARE IN FACT doing so?

 

[Salsuero]

YOu have a possible motivation for why Inno MIGHT play with the algorithm. What actual evidence do you have that they ARE IN FACT doing so?

Once again... I don't need evidence as it's my opinion, and I never stated it was a fact. I acknowledged that you may be correct. However I may also be correct and I stated it as MY OPINION.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Once again... I don't need evidence as it's my opinion, and I never stated it was a fact. I acknowledged that you may be correct. However I may also be correct and I stated it as MY OPINION.

An opinion based on no actual evidence is a faith-based opinion. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Salsuero]

An opinion based on no actual evidence is a faith-based opinion. Thank you for proving my point.

I tell you what. You win. You're also basing your data on opinion and therefore faith. Enjoy your victory lap. You are now being ignored.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

If they’re messing with the odds there are two ways I see to do it

1) Make one print more rare in the world. This is unlikely and easy to prove.

2) Make the last few prints harder to get once you have most of the set. This is easy to achieve in programming, but the print distribution would still be statically even in the world. This is more likely in the event that it’s weighted, and I’m not sure how you would figure it out data-science wise.

Thank you for making the more intelligent argument on their behalf.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Who said anything about a conspiracy...? I said this is a business decision and my logic behind it is sound...Being able to dictate the growth of the game based on randomness is faulty...basing it on percentages that look random is a far better idea for a gaming company...or do you think they create these mechanics, look at each other, nod and say "Let er' rip Heinrich..!"

Its either random or its not. If its not random, then Inno has clearly misrepresented how BPs are rewarded. And, yes, they have said numerous times, in numerous different ways that BPs are randomly awarded. If thats the case, then, by definition, its a conspiracy. I agree that you could also make the argument that it could be a sound business decision. However, true randomness would create nearly the same unequal distribution (if you are missing the center BP, it really doesn't matter whether you have 1 or 50 extra upper right BPs), and would likely spur roughly the same diamond purchases.

My point has always been that every aspect of this game that deals in percentages has someone complaining about how those percentages are rigged. In nearly all cases, the proof they offer isn't actually proof of anything other than the fact that a basic bell curve will always have outliers. When you have thousands of people participating, that means there will be dozens if not hundreds of outliers. Some of them will complain. That is what we are seeing here.

If its not random, it is almost guaranteed to be the case that the skewness is so minor that you would need data from hundreds or thousands of players to establish to a mathematical certainty (95+ confidence) that it exists.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

If its not random, it is almost guaranteed to be the case that the skewness is so minor that you would need data from hundreds or thousands of players to establish to a mathematical certainty (95+ confidence) that it exists.

This is true, but to Sal's defense I don't think he's complaining (least I hope not). I don't think much in this game is unweighted and truly random. In the new DC (and many events) they show you how they weight possible prizes. I suspect everything is weighted to some degree, and that's just the game. Without being able to change randomness at all you might not be able to fix something else that goes wrong, it's a fairly complex ecosystem.
If I learned definitively that Inno was making it harder to earn the last print I wouldn't call it anything other than part of the game. Not lies or conspiracy, but prerogative.

 

[DeletedUser31498]

I'm just really interested in finding out if it's true. And it's astonishingly easy to do so.

Lots of people here must have thousands of prints. So please share the info. Cosmic raven would be proud

 

[DeletedUser14354]

This is true, but to Sal's defense I don't think he's complaining (least I hope not). I don't think much in this game is unweighted and truly random. In the new DC (and many events) they show you how they weight possible prizes. I suspect everything is weighted to some degree, and that's just the game. Without being able to change randomness at all you might not be able to fix something else that goes wrong, it's a fairly complex ecosystem.
If I learned definitively that Inno was making it harder to earn the last print I wouldn't call it anything other than part of the game. Not lies or conspiracy, but prerogative.

I understand. My issue with his argument is not that he is complaining, he is not. My issue is that his argument rests on the assumption that its not random. He may be right on that point, but there is no credible evidence to support that position. Thus, its a faith-based argument. It doesn't make it any less valid, but the fact that he seems to dismiss divine intervention as an explanation precisely because its not fact-based, while simultaneously arguing in favor of another faith-based opinion is interesting.

Its okay not to understand statistics, most people don't. But to automatically assume, as the original poster did, that any disparity is proof that the game is rigged is going way to far. It wouldn't surprise me to learn its not random. It would absolutely surprise me if someone could actually offer credible proof.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

the game is rigged

If I may I think this is where we don't agree. I don't think it's unweighted random (I do think it's close), but I don't think that counts as rigging the game. That is my opinion, but it's one that comes from not just an understanding of statistics, but of programming. What we could see as rigging, the programmers could see as correcting something for balance (or yes, a shot to make a small percentage more on diamonds).

It would absolutely surprise me if someone could actually offer credible proof.

With this I agree completely. This isn't as simple as "everyone report in" And OP proves nothing

 

[DeletedUser31440]

If you guys want some samples see below.
Pictures run X, W, F, E from top to bottom.
X - doing a fp swap on 1 other person's Arc so expect less bp's.
W - doing a group fp dump on Arc between guildees, similiar to straight swap but not set amounts for investment, but mid-level Arcs contribute (lvl 26-40)
F - doing a 5 person fp swap, expect better bp distribution because of that
E - started a swap with another player this week, newest world for me with an Arc, small guild so not as many bp's from aids





Given the differences in swapping fp's with other Arc's and the number of players in FE on the worlds I don't have any doubts that the bp's are randomized with no rarity introduced by Inno for specific bp's.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I may I think this is where we don't agree. I don't think it's unweighted random (I do think it's close), but I don't think that counts as rigging the game. That is my opinion, but it's one that comes from not just an understanding of statistics, but of programming. What we could see as rigging, the programmers could see as correcting something for balance (or yes, a shot to make a small percentage more on diamonds).

You took his quote out of context. The original poster is most certainly saying that the game is rigged. And if the algorithm for BPs is weighted like the original poster implies, in order to push Diamond sales, while the company has been putting forth the idea that they are random, then that counts as being rigged by definition. It wouldn't be relativistic "you see it one way, I see it another", it would be pure and simple rigging of the game. Some things really are black and white.

I tell you what. You win. You're also basing your data on opinion and therefore faith. Enjoy your victory lap. You are now being ignored.

Sorry, but when you come up with some theory that things aren't what they seem, the burden of proof is on you. Since you have no proof, and don't even claim to have any, then by definition it is a belief-based opinion rather than fact-based.

And back to the point about atheists from a ways back. Atheists have a belief system, because they believe that there is no god, and refuse to accept any facts that appear to refute that view. If they didn't have a belief system, then they wouldn't believe that there is no god. You might be able to make the claim that agnostics don't have a belief system, because they acknowledge the possibility of a god, but don't take a stand either way.

 

[Salsuero]

Sorry, but when you come up with some theory that things aren't what they seem, the burden of proof is on you.

No, because I wasn't attempting to prove anything as it isn't provable without access to the source code or direct admittance by the developers. It was an OPINION based on personal experience.

Since you have no proof, and don't even claim to have any, then by definition it is a belief-based opinion rather than fact-based.

No kidding. I said it was an opinion. I did not say it was a fact.

Atheists have a belief system, because they believe that there is no god

That is incorrect. Not believing in something is not the same as believing that something does not exist. Atheists do not believe in God. There is no belief, period. Atheists do not believe there is no God. That's a backwards way of explaining it. Atheists have a total LACK of belief. No need to believe in anything because God does not exist. I don't "believe" there is no God because that implies a God could exist not to believe in. It might sound like word trickery, but there IS a difference. "I don't believe in God" ≠ "I believe there is no God" -- even though it might be said both ways, and it sounds similar, atheists believe the former, not the latter. You can't believe in something not existing. It either exists or it doesn't. You can believe it exists or you can not believe that it exists, but you can't believe that it doesn't exist. Confused?

 

[DeletedUser31498]

@Salsuero
"No, because I wasn't attempting to prove anything as it isn't provable without access to the source code or direct admittance by the developers. It was an OPINION based on personal experience."

PLEASE stop writing this. I get it, you hate statistics. but posting ACTUAL BP distributions is how you can prove it without "source code". Please stop saying you understand statistics, but also ignoring how statistics can help. you have hundreds of Arc BPs, POST THEM!!!!! it's a big sample, which as you know is essential to statistics.

 

[Salsuero]

PLEASE stop writing this. I get it, you hate statistics. but posting ACTUAL BP distributions is how you can prove it without "source code".

I'm writing it because I keep getting misquoted, and I don't believe you can get a big enough sample size to prove anything... but again... that's my opinion. I do not hate statistics. Don't put words into my proverbial mouth.

Please stop saying you understand statistics

Actually, I never once said that I do. But I do. Just because I don't agree with you that it's 100% random doesn't mean I'm right... and it also doesn't mean I don't understand statistics.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

Again, just playing devils advocate, this is where the language gets tricky. There is a chance that you'll get any print, that's "random" the chances are not always weighed the same though (maybe is the point)... That doesn't mean they're lying, it means saying
"...and you'll receive a blueprint based on the weighted odds of our selection algorithm" doesn't speak to players in a way they understand. "Trade in two prints for a random print" isn't an implicit guarantee on their part that they don't have a finger on the scale.

Not about right or wrong, It's just I don't see where they say implicitly that this is totally random and in no way weighted.
It IS random, it just might not be perfectly random. My point here is that IF it's true, it wouldn't make INNO liars.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, because I wasn't attempting to prove anything as it isn't provable without access to the source code or direct admittance by the developers. It was an OPINION based on personal experience.

And yet you keep arguing for your opinion. Hmmm.

No kidding. I said it was an opinion. I did not say it was a fact.

And if something is belief-based rather than fact-based, it is by definition based on faith. Which you denied.

but you can't believe that it doesn't exist. Confused?

No, but you seem to be. Some people believe that there are aliens visiting the planet. I believe that there are not aliens visiting the planet. Same logic. Yes, I can believe that something does not exist, and that believe in no way admits the possibility. It simply means that it is something that can't be proven, like the existence of a god. To deny something is not to admit it is possible, now that is backward logic for sure.

 

[DeletedUser]

Opinion is the key word here, because there is absolutely no factual evidence for your view, only your cynicism interpreting small sample data.

I should have added that it was small sample data that was deliberately misleading due to the original poster leaving out pertinent information. Like that he had already used 8 sets of BPs before he came here to complain he was out of one.