• 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:
    Apply

Blueprints Aren't Random

DeletedUser

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
No, it isn't astonishingly easy to do. The only ones that will cooperate will be the ones that believe it's rigged, so the data will automatically be suspect and unreliable. (Kind of like Cosmic Raven's playstyle.)
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
OK, fine...then let's get to the heart of the matter....randomness is a natural phenomena and is impossible to create by deterministic machines or man...all the 'random' generators are simply algorithms created by the devs. It IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE TRULY RANDOM. End of discussion. Period. Now...if you are a business and have created this random factor algorithm, is it in the best interest of your company to tweak it in your favor..? Absolutely. Does it deprive players of enjoyment in a challenge..? Possibly, but if you aren't playing to be challenged then why play...?
 

DeletedUser31882

Ok, people are missing that I am level 11 with 17 already unlocked. My question pertains to if anyone else experienced anything similar and if it's a way of them getting us to spend diamonds.

Nah. No way to prove if it's a weighted random to spur BP sales. I'd bet they wouldn't bother with such a system, unless BP sales are a big income stream. My guess is BPs are NOT a big income stream.

There is a rarity in bps as well as in goods...it's a design to influence diamond use...And the rarity is different for each player. Every player I talked to noticed this same rarity in every GB...not one could say they had an even amount which is just as random. For the hell of it, I built my Colisseum and ejected all the levels then traded dupes until I had four singles left. Over time the disparity continued, just with a different single bp, but months of GE and RC's just continues the trend with one bp being extremely rare. Will INNO ever admit it...? No. Can anybody say they have an even amount (or close to it) in large numbers on any GB...?

Where is the data to verify if there is a weighted drop sample to encourage the 'gotta have it now' crowd to spend money?

Inno has never confirmed this--and they won't--but a lot of players have long-suspected that there is at least one rare bp for a given gb and often another that's scarce. I've certainly experienced this myself, often enough that it's really unlikely it's merely a statistical fluke. It also seems that the hard-to-find prints vary from player to player; i.e., the rare print on my Arc is the top right corner, but other players will be looking for prints in different positions. Of course this is a strategy to increase diamond sales, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable and fair one since the missing prints will turn up eventually.

It could be a bad algorithm. It could be random. Of course we can also assume it's a 'legit and fair' business strategy. I don't think it is.

It appears random, but in order to create rarity in one place, you have to put those BPs somewhere else, so the game randomly picks one of the other 8 slots to put new BPs to keep a "slight" rarity for one slot. It naturally grows a few others higher, making it look like a standard randomness, but could easily be the result of programming.

True. Or it could be Random.

Do opinions require evidence? I thought only facts do.

They do, especially when the opinion is competing with another for 'truth', or acceptance, and one wants it taken seriously. Otherwise we have to trot out the grandpa line of "Opinions are like butts...".

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? ;)

Atheism is weird. I see why Neil deGrasse Tyson distanced himself from the label in an interview. It also brings to mind my young mind's conundrum when I found out that there are multiple forms/sects of Christianity. How can people define the same thing in different ways? I see the same thing with Atheism, Humanism, Feminism, Egalitarianism, Racism, Sexism, Ageism, Ableism and all the -isms I've missed.
That being said...

An easier explanation is some people don't see evidence of a Judaeo-Christian G-d. We don't have a label for people who don't beleive in Santa Clause, which begs to the question why we need a label for people who don't believe in other deities. I ain't Hindu, does that make me an Atheist?

I distracted myself. The point I was driving at was 'evidence'. There is no evidence to support the argument that Inno has a weighted system for GB blueprints. There is evidence for the BP system being random. Everything else is fun hypothetical.

If I'm feeling Alazy next week, I may look at my BPs and see if my data is worth delivering.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
So religious debate is still allowed but cupcakes are off the table...? Man...OK, BPs are not random, there is no random, it is impossible to make anything truly random in a deterministic program
 

DeletedUser

So religious debate is still allowed but cupcakes are off the table...? Man...OK, BPs are not random, there is no random, it is impossible to make anything truly random in a deterministic program
I think we can all agree that BPs, just like cupcakes, are not purely random because of the shortcomings of technology.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
So religious debate is still allowed but cupcakes are off the table...?

His comment may have included the religious "debate" as well as the cupcake interlude. I wouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions about it. Let's just move on with the topic at hand. ;)
 

DeletedUser31498

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.



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.

Ugh Sal, you can't write, "I don't believe you can get a big enough sample size to prove anything." and also write, "and it also doesn't mean I don't understand statistics"

Please feel free to brush up on T-Distributions....but you probably already know about that. The funny part is it's so easy to calculate what a meaningful sample is, yet you don't get that, yet insist you know statistics. you really keep digging a large hole. And obviously your Arc numbers are fairly even, or you'd post it. Lol.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Ugh Sal, you can't write, "I don't believe you can get a big enough sample size to prove anything." and also write, "and it also doesn't mean I don't understand statistics"

Let me be more specific. I don't believe you can get a big enough sample size HERE IN THESE FORUMS to prove anything. Better? That was a rhetorical question... feel free not to respond. Either way, that's my opinion, so you don't have to.

obviously your Arc numbers are fairly even, or you'd post it.

You can assume this if you'd like. But I'm not playing by your rules. I post what I want, when I want. I don't care about jumping through this particular hoop for you. It's a pain in the butt to crop nine separate screenshots since all of mine only show 99+ unless I hover over each one separately. Not interested in putting forth the effort. Others have weighed in, some showing their numbers. I don't really care. I'm not arguing an opinion. It's my opinion. You are welcome to yours.
 

DeletedUser31498

Let me be more specific. I don't believe you can get a big enough sample size HERE IN THESE FORUMS to prove anything. Better? That was a rhetorical question... feel free not to respond. Either way, that's my opinion, so you don't have to.



You can assume this if you'd like. But I'm not playing by your rules. I post what I want, when I want. I don't care about jumping through this particular hoop for you. It's a pain in the butt to crop nine separate screenshots since all of mine only show 99+ unless I hover over each one separately. Not interested in putting forth the effort. Others have weighed in, some showing their numbers. I don't really care. I'm not arguing an opinion. It's my opinion. You are welcome to yours.

I mean it's fine to have an opinion, but when your opinion is that data is or isn't sufficient, it's actually not really acceptable? Idk I mean I can have an opinion that a gallon has like 100 ounces, but math tells me it's a fact that it's 128, but am I entitled to my opinion? I guess?

You don't have to post 9 pics, just write nine numbers. Takes like 1 minute, as opposed to all your complaining about sample size. And again, I guess you can have an opinion that your sample isn't helpful, but again, you'd be wrong.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
I mean it's fine to have an opinion, but when your opinion is that data is or isn't sufficient, it's actually not really acceptable? Idk I mean I can have an opinion that a gallon has like 100 ounces, but math tells me it's a fact that it's 128, but am I entitled to my opinion? I guess?

False equivalency. If you told me that you could chart something about milk production using statistics and my opinion was that you'd never get enough individual cow data to make the math worthwhile, that would be an equivalent argument.

You don't have to post 9 pics, just write nine numbers. Takes like 1 minute, as opposed to all your complaining about sample size. And again, I guess you can have an opinion that your sample isn't helpful, but again, you'd be wrong.

Writing 9 numbers is easily faked. I'm not opening myself up to being called a liar. And I don't care if you say I wouldn't be. Better to err on the side of no thanks. If you don't like my complaining, stop reading it. I stopped reading yours long ago, but you decided it was time to reengage me on this.
 

DeletedUser14354

You don't have to post 9 pics, just write nine numbers. Takes like 1 minute, as opposed to all your complaining about sample size. And again, I guess you can have an opinion that your sample isn't helpful, but again, you'd be wrong.

Lets put some numbers to this issue. My arc is currently unlocked to about level 80. The reason its only unlocked to level 80 is I don't have a remaining BP for the center square. The lowest number I have for any of the other 8 is 12 BPs and the high is 33 BPs. Lets further assume I traded whenever I got 2 excess BPs up to level 10. So that means I have had 70 full sets since then. That means my low is 70 BPs for the center and 103 for the upper right quadrant.

I think we would all agree that is a pretty big imbalance. However, its not proof that the randomizer is rigged. The odds of my having this disparity are easily within the bounds of what you would expect out of a random distribution.
 

DeletedUser

Lets put some numbers to this issue. My arc is currently unlocked to about level 80. The reason its only unlocked to level 80 is I don't have a remaining BP for the center square. The lowest number I have for any of the other 8 is 12 BPs and the high is 33 BPs. Lets further assume I traded whenever I got 2 excess BPs up to level 10. So that means I have had 70 full sets since then. That means my low is 70 BPs for the center and 103 for the upper right quadrant.

I think we would all agree that is a pretty big imbalance. However, its not proof that the randomizer is rigged. The odds of my having this disparity are easily within the bounds of what you would expect out of a random distribution.
Not only is it not proof that the randomizer is rigged, I would even say it's not a "pretty big imbalance", when you consider that it is only 30 BPs out of over 800. If the numbers were closer than that, I would say it was rigged to be too balanced. :)
 
Top