You checked all bug fixes. Because there are bug fixes you conclude that the RNG can be bugged as well. If so, since bugs are fixed, so would that bug be. See any mention of it?
Will you please re-explain what you're saying?
Now why on earth did I expect that comment?
Why did you expect that comment?
So when it suits you, Inno is transparant in the bugs they fix, but if it does not suit you, they might not be?
Nine years of RNG in this game. Nine years of players complaining about the RNG, but every time a player takes the time and effort to keep track, they confirm the numbers given by Inno are correct. It's the complainers that never come up with the proof
He never said that inno is transparent about all bug fixes or even implied it. There are "almost always bug fixes" means something different than "all" bug fixes.
The RNG for "random" gbg matchmaking was not random for several months at the start of 2021.
We were specifically told it was random and working correctly by a variety of official innogame sources.
... and yet the random matchmaking was "bugged." We proved beyond a reasonable doubt that matchmaking was not random. All it takes is 1 example of a "random" function to prove that RNG can be bugged.
Mission accomplished.
If you think there's bugs in the RNG, prove there's bugs in the RNG. Otherwise you're just making stuff up. Proof. Something you seem unwilling and unable to provide. Afraid you'll prove it works correctly?
We agree that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something is wrong. Unwilling and unable are different. You must first be able before you can be truly unwilling. The problem with proving things like "the loot box RNG is broken" is that it's practically impossible for a single player to do because there is no way to get a large enough sample size.
A lack of proof for something you can't prove is inevitable.
I've brought collected data (not just assumptions), and it's rarely been proof enough for anyone that doesn't share my point of view or concern. (i.e. people saying RQ limit was to reduce server load, so I brought actual data about network usage (among other things). It showed that RQs were a drop in the bucket compared to a variety of regular in-game activities, the largest of which was loading a city after login. Later devs confirmed server usage was not the issue, just as many of us were saying.)
The points that My Push Account made about human error in RNG are completely valid.
Unfortunately, unless there's a governing body or regulations that is able to audit game developers and their RNG for prizes, all we can do is suck it up and take it, complain and get nowhere, or quit. Lack of accountability in gaming with "pay to win" features is a major problem. Hopefully, crypto gaming brings more light to the necessity of a regulating body for online games just as there is one for casinos.
I have been tracking 4 SCs in GbG over the past 4 months and have never gotten less than 9 attrition in 150 fights (121 sector levels to 150) in that time. While still close to the advertised 4% chance it has always been over by 1-2 %. The highest was 17 and the lowest was 9 attrition.
I also did some tracking and had similar results. Over for 1300 fights, 3SC was off by 1.77% and 1071 fight with 4 SC was off by 0.95%. Across 3956 fights of various support, total actual vs gained was 35.64 worse than predicted (just a hair under 1%).
I have tracked the past 122 times that I fought 100+ on the same sector with 4 SCs for over 3 months now.
That's a 10k+ Fight sample size.
To Push account's point, that is more than enough to come to meaningful conclusions.
I have a degree in chemistry. At that time, I had to deal with many scientific publications which are considered the standard for accurate and proven science. It was uncommon, if not rare to have sample sizes that large (10k+). Fresh out of college, I did QA/QC for a pharma company and even their sample sizes were laughably small. This obsession with humongous data sets and
always saying a sample size isn't large enough or relevant might as well concede defeat or total ignorance (this goes both ways, on both sides of the argument).
What's interesting to me is that the data I've collected and the data people have shared with me are never in favor of the player if the sample size is large enough. For small samples, there are certainly times that the player is "up" but for large samples sizes, it's usually 1-3% underperforming. Shouldn't there be equally as many large samples that favor players?
I’d proffer that CDMark’s ToR data was clear evidence that the trigger mechanism for relics is underperforming by 2-3%.
Another off by 1-3% example.
It'd be nice if you'd provide a link to that. Because I'm certainly not going to waste time searching for it. Especially since "underperforming by 2-3%" is hardly worth mentioning and clearly does not support a claim of a bug/broken RNG/greedy schemes by Inno.
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. If you apply that to event prizes (which drive in-game purchases), it starts getting into "worth mentioning" and "motive." Since most special buildings disproportionality require the last upgrade to get their benefit, there is a lot of incentive for players to spend diamonds to ensure they get the final upgrade. If 1-3% of players have to spend extra because they are short upgrades, that turns into a lot of money at a million or billion-dollar scale. (Insert Office Space references here)
People that work with big numbers IRL know that 2-3% is a big deal.
it gets really tiresome for you to keep beating the same dead horse
No one is forcing you to participate.
