Developers, please fix a randomizer for Carnival!

Discussion in 'Questions' started by True592, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Well, I tried to ignore them, since they were so obviously irrelevant, but you keep bringing them up as if they are valid examples of random probability. Which they are not.
     
    Graviton likes this.
  2. THEKYLe

    THEKYLe Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Pretty sure Lord Muggle meant that when I read the words you type it feels like I'm having a stroke.

    My best guess here is that you're saying the "infinite probability" of the draw system is too open ended. You would like to see a system where a 5% chance of success guarantees a reward at minimum 1x per 20 attempts.

    You want to play with loaded dice and are upset that the rest of us understand probabilities and statistics rates and are using math to explain how this works.

    I know that's like school and this is game. But... this game is math. All of it.

    This is the first event in my over 3 years of play that I've completed and didn't get the final grand prize ( grand bridge stuck at L6) am I bothered by that? Sure. But I saw the odds when the event started and get how this game is developed. Had I actually /wanted/ to get the last upgrade. I could spend any of my 6k+ diamonds to earn it. But I'm saving those for the summer event .

    Bothered or not, I'm not going to blame the event or RNG. I spun out on several risky attempts and could have managed my tickets better for better chances. I'm going to play the game and hope that the upgrade shows up in daily challenges or on the big wheel.

    It's no question thaybthis event has had some of the worst odds of recent events. But not every event is the same and not every one is meant to shower you with amazing prizes. In fact, many are supposed to challenge you and push you to try for more.
     
  3. True592

    True592 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Why guess, I've stated it quite few times.
    As for name, it's been already called "pure random" here.

    Well... I've said quite different... not once, as well.
    I said that 15-turning-30 percent is too much to treat it as a math random. If it swings beyond 100% then it is broken.
    So, it is when you play 15% and not winning on 13 consecutive tries, or you play 30% and not winning on 7 tries.
     
  4. icarusethan

    icarusethan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Please use your theory for the casino games. Then you gonna win a million dollars and say goodbye to this stupid game which actually follow the math.
     
  5. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    So if you roll a die 12 times and the 2 doesn't come up once, the die is defective? That is the logic you're trying to get us to buy here. And we ain't buyin'.
     
  6. heybo

    heybo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Page 7! :rolleyes:

    You know, normal people have 32 teeth.

    Some frequent posters here must only have 6.

    It’s simple meth....
     
  7. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    As someone who takes the bus every day, the idea that my bus isn't perfectly predictable is not lost on me but it's more appropriate to associate scheduling problems using queuing theory. I'm not sure what you mean by punch power and RoI has been the basis of my arguments in determining expectations.
     
  8. True592

    True592 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Yet, all together they create a random value.
    Take off accidents, and you get a random value within boundaries.
     
  9. True592

    True592 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    I was talking about acceptable deviation.
     
  10. Graviton

    Graviton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Which is still not the same thing as the probability of rolling a 15 or less on a 100-sided die. The bus schedule example is a melange of variables, any one of which can alter the outcome. You have the same chance of rolling 15 or less no matter how many times you try: a fifteen percent chance. Doesn't matter what kind of table on which you're rolling or which hand in which you hold the die. And only in a sufficiently large sample size will the overall results even out to 15%. With small sample sizes, the results can vary wildly. I can roll twice and hit a 15 or less both times, or I can roll ten times (or twenty, or thirty) and roll above 15 every time. Neither means that my odds changed or swung in either direction, it simply means that I didn't roll enough times to smooth out the curve.

    The above is a restatement of pretty much every post in this thread except yours.
     
  11. Darth Mole

    Darth Mole Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Can we safely add True592 to the TROLL list?
     
  12. freshmeboy

    freshmeboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    SloppyJoeSlayer actually created a FAQ for this very argument last year...it ain't the first time this horse has been flogged on these forums. Suffice it to say, True, you are in the wrong about this game and no amount of spouting will get INNO to change their games of chance. 100 hundred years + of playing experience has collectively tried to convince you otherwise but you remain steadfast. I admire the persistence but it's a losing battle.....
     
    Stephen Longshanks likes this.
  13. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Acceptable by whom and by what standard?
     
    Stephen Longshanks likes this.
  14. gutmeister

    gutmeister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2017
    There is absolutely no way that is true. Even if you doubled the 15% game every single time (which is insanely improbable that you did that), the odds of winning 8x in a row is a 1 in 200. If you didn't double, then this almost certainly never happened more than once. Why make up such a useless lie?
     
  15. icarusethan

    icarusethan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    well, I made a wrong conclusion, there are 3 people in this forum.
     
  16. XiongChangnian

    XiongChangnian Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    That's a good example of a hollow brag.

    I, too, know something about probability; and why random numbers cannot be generated by a standard microprocessor-based server without some form of cheating... which, at least in principle, either makes the sequence predictable or rests on an unreliable gimmick.

    That aside... you do not believe you have been lucky. Fine. I believe nobody is lucky; but people have been lucky every day. Wildly improbable events happen constantly. Those who end up on top often like to think skill put them there; those on the bottom curse Fate. Sometimes, they're right.

    Looked at squarely, it is impossible that I should win the state lottery. I can use any system, pump my wages into a stack of tickets. The odds are insurmountable. The same is true for each player, no exceptions. Yet somebody wins every month. The lottery is not rigged, the winners are not skilful, the gods did not spit on their ping-pong balls.

    In a sufficiently big world, every possible improbable outcome eventuates... eventually. Congratulations!
     
  17. XiongChangnian

    XiongChangnian Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Generating pseudo-rands is hard work, most of it thrown away... and everyone carps about the result... everywhere from Angband to Tomorrowland.

    Ping-pong balls are cheap but bulky; and interfacing the drum is easy but the swimsuit model must be fed and watered.

    Anyway... study-up on "true" RNGs:

    Software engineers without true random number generators often try to develop them by measuring physical events available to the software. An example is measuring the time between user keystrokes... [or] task-scheduling, network hits, disk-head seek times and other internal events. One Microsoft design... [snortchuckle].

    The method is risky... because a clever, malicious attacker might be able to [control or spoof] the external events... allowing control of the "random values" used by the cryptography.
    -- WP
     
  18. True592

    True592 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    So why have you decided to repeat it again?
     
  19. True592

    True592 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    No, it is safe to add you.
    Meaningless and inflaming attack -- what is a better reason?
     
  20. True592

    True592 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    At least, thank you for not repeating example of throwing dice million times! :)
    The thing is, the argument is beyond that.
    It is not like a school test, like solve 100 of problems in 10 minute, 80% is pass.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2018

Top