[ March 23rd, 2023 ] MDR #19 - Sugarmama Lupa's Mom ​🟡​

[bolitho76]

7 minutes ago, DvDivXXX said:

You decided to resort to superstition and irrational behavior when confronted with expected variance in your data. That's remarkable in a way, but it doesn't make it valid. If you had kept going, you would have eventually seen results closer to the drop rate in your anecdotal sample as it got larger.

I think you had misunderstood renalove. How I undertand the posting the "worst droprate" refers not to a nerfed droprate for Mythic shards, it refers to the personal bad streak renalove had this time. There are some more reports (some from my side too) where people report that they stopped to fight for Mythic shards because of a bad streak and that they don't want to go all in to break the bad streak.

[Liliat]

il y a 2 minutes, bolitho76 a dit :

There are some more reports (some from my side too) where people report that they stopped to fight for Mythic shards because of a bad streak and that they don't want to go all in to break the bad streak.

Yeah, if your kobans/resources are limited, it's definitely wise to stop after a very bad streak; simply because your chances of finishing the girl with limited resources gets statistically closer to 0 the longer the bad streak.

I don't see any superstition here.

[garadron]

1 hour ago, DvDivXXX said:

Delirious nonsensical whining about drop rates are NOT welcomed on this forum. Ever.

I think at this point you're so alergic to people who actually whine about RNG that you see them in neutral statements like "I had bad luck so I decided to stop".

[Ravi-Sama]

On 3/25/2023 at 10:35 AM, renalove said:

WORST DROP RATE
312 CP - 7 drops - 14 shards - 2.24%
1538 kobans for refill

At first I was getting Sugarmama Lupa's Mom, but her drop rate was so low that I decided to continue until I used up just one SP. Finally I gave up even that. The drop rate was 2.24%.
I only spent 1538 kobans so it would not affect my gameplay. I believe it was the right decision.

That sucks.  I've had terrible drop rates in the process of getting a girl too, but it always improved by the end.  I understand not attempting to recruit her after that string of bad luck, b/c it might've become too expensive, but I would've at least continued until I finished using the 1 SP.  Hopefully, it'll be easier for you to get her from her revival.

3 hours ago, DvDivXXX said:

The drop rate of your fairly small sample taken in isolation was 2.24%, yeah. But that's not a frame of reference that makes any sense if you know what you're talking about.

Plenty of other players, myself included, grabbed this MD girl with average and even above average drop rates. As usual. The drop rate for this event was the same as usual. That is somewhere around 6.5-7%.

You decided to resort to superstition and irrational behavior when confronted with expected variance in your data. That's remarkable in a way, but it doesn't make it valid. If you had kept going, you would have eventually seen results closer to the drop rate in your anecdotal sample as it got larger.

I agree that their drop rate would've probably gotten better if they continued, but it might've been too expensive to fully acquire the girl, after such bad luck w/ 300 CP already used.  That's why I agree it was savvy to stop before spending too much.  Except, I would finished using the SP.

2 hours ago, bolitho76 said:

I think you had misunderstood renalove. How I understand the posting the "worst drop rate" refers not to a nerfed drop rate for Mythic shards, it refers to the personal bad streak renalove had this time. There are some more reports (some from my side too) where people report that they stopped to fight for Mythic shards because of a bad streak and that they don't want to go all in to break the bad streak.

Yeah, I interpreted it as sharing an instance of bad luck, rather than a suggestion that the universal drop rate must've changed at all.  I remember you sharing bad streaks before, and deciding not to spend more.  That's all this was.

2 hours ago, Liliat said:

Yeah, if your kobans/resources are limited, it's definitely wise to stop after a very bad streak; simply because your chances of finishing the girl with limited resources gets statistically closer to 0 the longer the bad streak.

I don't see any superstition here.

I've had experiences before where my drop rate was so terrible, I double checked how many kobans I had, and if it made sense to continue trying at all.  I always bet that it would improve if I continued using CP, and it always did.  Thankfully, my worst drop rate was just 5.58% for Radka.  If you have enough kobans, it's not an issue, but I understand the anxiety if kobans are limited.

Here's an example from the beginning of the year, where my drop rate was 3.82% for Lunar Bunny's Mom, after using 131 CP, but that's a small sample size, so I continued, and it improved, to be slightly above avg by the end, at 6.7%.  Not the best example, but you get the idea.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Ravi-Sama

[Liliat]

il y a 5 minutes, Ravi-Sama a dit :

Except, I would finished using the SP.

With 7 Drops/14 Shards, it wouldn't really make a difference: you're gonna use 6/11 charges on your 5th booster anyway. Whether you waste half a booster at the beginning, or half a booster at the end, same result. He'll need 4 full boosters (43/44) to finish the girl anyway.

I did the same "mistake" (not really a mistake) when going for Lyka last year: despite horrible drop rates while I was trying to save Kobans, I overspent to try and finish my 3rd boosters. At 64/66, I realized it was pointless, because I needed 2 boosters to finish her either way. I could have stopped at 56/66 and it wouldn't have made a difference (Except I would have saved more kobans on the short term, at a time where my Kobans were in short supply and I really needed to save them).

[Ravi-Sama]

28 minutes ago, Liliat said:

With 7 Drops/14 Shards, it wouldn't really make a difference: you're gonna use 6/11 charges on your 5th booster anyway. Whether you waste half a booster at the beginning, or half a booster at the end, same result. He'll need 4 full boosters (43/44) to finish the girl anyway.

I did the same "mistake" (not really a mistake) when going for Lyka last year: despite horrible drop rates while I was trying to save Kobans, I overspent to try and finish my 3rd boosters. At 64/66, I realized it was pointless, because I needed 2 boosters to finish her either way. I could have stopped at 56/66 and it wouldn't have made a difference (Except I would have saved more kobans on the short term, at a time where my Kobans were in short supply and I really needed to save them).

It's true that where he stopped, he'd still need 4 SP later, except if he continued, he'd need 4 less drops later, so less kobans for CP, making it easier in the future.

It's a difference of needing either 43 drops or 39 drops later.  Not a big deal, but I'd rather need 4 less, and not waste an SP, that I already bought.

It would've been possible to just use 3 SP later (22 -> 88 shards), then get 12 drops w/o SP.  Except, now it's mandatory to use 4 SP.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Ravi-Sama

[DvDivXXX]

Alright, so let's revisit this after a couple of hours, then.

@renalove @bolitho76 @Liliat @garadron @Ravi-Sama

So, you guys are describing a working definition of an irrational and superstitious approach to probabilities, and then you proceed to describe it as perfectly sane and rational? Do you actually understand how ridiculous this sounds? I have too much esteem for over half of you to assume as much, so instead this must be a misunderstanding. I'll try to dissipate it.

Random is random. Variance in results from odds-based outcomes occurs, not at certain times of the year (or the day), not during a particular event, and not when you're wearing your lucky shirt, but any and all times you use the odds-based mechanic in question. Considering the slice of your continuum of odds-based outcomes that happens to match a specific event as if that had any relevance to your variance is just plain wrong and taking it seriously gets you very close to superstition.

A bad streak is not like a cloudy sky. If you stop using the mechanic for awhile, it won't magically reset your outcome curve with that mechanic. You're just as likely to resume your bad run 5 minutes or 5 months into the future. Or even more accurately, the variations you see in your outcomes are to be expected and will occur, in a continuum for as long and as many times as you use the odds-based mechanic.

So no, it doesn't make any rational sense to flip the coin a few times, see that you don't get good results from that isolated sample, and decide this basically means you're cursed right now or for this event duration so you should stop flipping the coin for now. Especially not if you expect your future outcomes to be any different in the next event. It doesn't work like that at all, and narratives based on perception and anecdotal slices conveniently isolated from the continuum of outcomes are basically superstition. Or rationalization, at the very least, if you prefer. You're telling yourself a story with the patterns you picked up from a much larger pattern but it isn't anything real and it doesn't change the larger pattern's behavior in the least.

Now, about cutting your losses when you notice you don't have enough resources to complete the event... That's something else entirely, but long story short: if you go to this type of event with the amount of resources it takes to complete it on average, then you're doing it wrong. To properly take variance into account, you should always go with something closer to the worst-case scenario amount of resources it might take to complete the event. Or at the very least with more than the average. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up to fail except when you're having good to average "luck". By instead preparing for "bad luck", you can only have good surprises, not bad ones. In any case, this is a matter of planning and proper resource management more than it's a matter of understanding how probabilities work in the long run.

I can see from renalove's table that the maximum amount of kobans they've ever spent on an MD is a bit below 8k, which is much closer to the expected average than it is to the worst-case scenario. So it seems that they're definitely doing this exact mistake, time and time again. They even stopped an MD with 97% of the girl after having spent almost 7.5k kobans. That's a terrible play. Don't go into an MD with under 10k kobans. Sometimes you'll have to spend it all, other times barely two thirds, and anything in between, including the AVERAGE of 7.5k. Either way, you won't have to resort to mystical beliefs about Lady Luck and RNGesus and how this or that period wasn't good for you. You'll have it covered. And it will be a lot less stressful on top of being way more efficient and reliable over time.

Now, it's entirely possible that some of you guys made a quick comment here and there bordering on the same type of superstition in the past and I didn't pay attention. I'm unfortunately very much used to phasing out this kind of discourse unless I have to address it, which has been a sizable part of my job for over a decade IRL. I also used to have chatty clubmates with such delusions and who shared and "reviewed" their daily drops during most events (sigh). Thankfully not these days.

In this case, Renalove went too far by making a large post about it with too many tables and spreadsheets and other stuff that probably gives fans of Excel e-sports a hard-on, but are neither useful nor relevant to their irrational reaction to unfavorable odds-based outcomes. "The RNG Witch must have cursed me, I have the Bad Luck now! Here's my perfectly normal data to back up the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about". So yeah, I've lifted the curse and gave the user a warning. I stand by this decision.

That will be all, folks. Moving on please.

Edited March 27, 2023 by DvDivXXX
Mod edit: Redacted

[Liliat]

il y a 22 minutes, DvDivXXX a dit :

So, you guys are describing a working definition of an irrational and superstitious approach to probabilities, and then you proceed to describe it as perfectly sane and rational? Do you actually understand how ridiculous this sounds? I have too much esteem for over half of you to assume as much, so instead this must be a misunderstanding. I'll try to dissipate it.

Random is random. Variance in results from odds-based outcomes occurs, not at certain times of the year (or the day), not during a particular event, and not when you're wearing your lucky shirt, but any and all times you use the odds-based mechanic in question. Considering the slice of your continuum of odds-based outcomes that happens to match a specific event as if that had any relevance to your variance is just plain wrong and taking it seriously gets you very close to superstition.

A bad streak is not like a cloudy sky. If you stop using the mechanic for awhile, it won't magically reset your outcome curve with that mechanic. You're just as likely to resume your bad run 5 minutes or 5 months into the future. Or even more accurately, the variations you see in your outcomes are to be expected and will occur, in a continuum for as long and as many times as you use the odds-based mechanic.

So no, it doesn't make any rational sense to flip the coin a few times, see that you don't get good results from that isolated sample, and decide this basically means you're cursed right now or for this event duration so you should stop flipping the coin for now. Especially not if you expect your future outcomes to be any different in the next event. It doesn't work like that at all, and narratives based on perception and anecdotal slices conveniently isolated from the continuum of outcomes are basically superstition. Or rationalization, at the very least, if you prefer. You're telling yourself a story with the patterns you picked up from a much larger pattern but it isn't anything real and it doesn't change the larger pattern's behavior in the least.

Who said anything like this? That looks like the textbook definition of a straw man fallacy to me.

Anyway, I think everyone agrees about these 4 paragraphs, and nobody contested that. We've seen this argument a lot in the past, but not here, not today.

il y a 26 minutes, DvDivXXX a dit :

Now, about cutting your losses when you notice you don't have enough resources to complete the event... That's something else entirely, but long story short: if you go to this type of event with the amount of resources it takes to complete it on average, then you're doing it wrong. To properly take variance into account, you should always go with something closer to the worst-case scenario amount of resources it might take to complete the event. Or at the very least with more than the average. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up to fail except when you're having good to average "luck". By instead preparing for "bad luck", you can only have good surprises, not bad ones. In any case, this is a matter of planning and proper resource management more than it's a matter of understanding how probabilities work in the long run.

Sometimes you plan for 1% worst, and after 300 rolls, you realize you're in the extremely bad 0.1% worst or 0.01% worst. That's when it's time to re-evaluate your chances.

2.24% drop rate in 300 rolls is pretty bad and very hard to plan for. Of course, when you've saved 40k over a few months or get 30k+ kobans per month, it's pretty easy to just discard this. But going for a MD with 10k Kobans is reasonable enough; and cutting your losses after such a horrible streak is also very reasonable.

All of this is pure speculation, of course. Renalove only posted a couple of sentences, and nobody knows how much he planned for this, and how much margin he had. But considering his long detailed history of past Mythic Days, I think it's not completely absurd to consider that he might have planned for 5% drop rate or lower (Which is waaaay below 1% worst case scenario). I myself typically plan for approximately 5%, and never missed. So I can totally relate, and I don't feel like I'm doing it wrong. If I hadn't accumulated tens of thousands of Kobans over the past year, I would probably do the exact same thing after a 2.24% drop rate in 300 fights (Well, technically, I think it still fits within my own safety margin... Barely. So my stubborn self would probably push further and see what happens. But I would for sure redo the math at least 3 times before that, just to be sure ).

il y a 36 minutes, DvDivXXX a dit :

I can see from renalove's table that the maximum amount of kobans they've ever spent on an MD is a bit below 8k, which is much closer to the expected average than it is to the worst-case scenario.

I think you're mis-interpreting these numbers. "Cost" is a very abstract value for MD/MDR, because it depends on how many resources you put into the event. A season-pass buyer will typically have much cheaper MD for equal luck, because the season pass contains a lot of free combativity. Same goes for players who store combativity, or climb Pantheon only during MD. The cost also varies a lot when comparing MD to MDR, for the same luck and number of shards.

So taking the "cost" as an indication of "average luck" gives a strongly biased result. Just for illustration, here are some of my own results:

7.80% / 7 585 Kobans
7.05% / 6 799 Kobans
6.80% / 7 139 Kobans

If anything, a lower Kobans cost for a lower drop rate indicates "good planning" (= more saved/free combativity). So cost is not a good metric here.

And if you check renalove's drop rates instead, you see a wide range, that actually demonstrates the opposite: he were able to obtain Mythic Girls with low drop rates (around 5.5%), which suggests his approach is far from stupid. Almost all of his "failed" (?) attempts show drop rates below this 5.5% mark; which in my book is very reasonable (My own worst drop rate was around 5.7%, and 5.5% is what I plan for).

(again, this is pure speculation. I don't know if he stopped getting shards because he "failed", or because he never intended to get the girl in one go anyway. So I'm just over-interpreting the values from his spreadsheet).

il y a 46 minutes, DvDivXXX a dit :

In this case, Renalove went too far by making a large post about it with too many tables and spreadsheets and other stuff that probably gives fans of Excel e-sports a hard-on

3 lines of text? Yeah, way too long. Come on. Usually you complain when players don't give enough details about their stats, making it impossible to accurately gather data; today a player gives a detailed overview of his track-record to support his claim that he just had his "worst luck" ever; and that's "too much"? (He claimed nothing else, by the way. The TLDR; is "worst luck", "I give up so it doesn't affect my gameplay". No superstitious claim whatsoever.

Anyway, that sentence is just plain condescending. I haven't read any rule in this forum forbidding the use of Excel Spreadsheets; especially in a topic where basically everyone gives a detailed result of their very own anecdotal run. I think it's perfectly adequate, and certainly not the first time we've seen this. It's the first time I hear someone complaining about it.

il y a 52 minutes, DvDivXXX a dit :

The RNG Witch must have cursed me, I have the Bad Luck now! Here's my perfectly normal data to back up the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about". So yeah, I've lifted the curse and gave the user a warning. I stand by this decision.

The straw man is back.

Here's the real quote (No spreadsheets, promise):

Citation

WORST DROP RATE
[...]

At first I was getting Sugarmama Lupa's Mom, but her drop rate was so low that I decided to continue until I used up just one SP. Finally I gave up even that. The drop rate was 2.24%.
I only spent 1538 kobans so it would not affect my gameplay. I believe it was the right decision.

(Now I wonder if there is a confusion between "drop rate" and "drop chance"? Nobody claimed that "MD Drop Chance has been nerfed to 2.24%" or whatever. But we all post our effective drop rate - mine was around 5%, his was at 2.24%. That's just plain fact; unless we've all been using the wrong word to describe our own effective results).

il y a 55 minutes, DvDivXXX a dit :

That will be all, folks. Moving on please.

Always a pleasure to defend our point of view 😂

[DvDivXXX]

51 minutes ago, Liliat said:

Who said anything like this? That looks like the textbook definition of a straw man fallacy to me.

Okay, then if that's the case I'm back to thinking there's a misunderstanding between me and you guys on this. I was not building a strawman at all, but simply elaborating on what I perceived to be the implications of your statement (and others') that it's rational or even wise to start an event then decide if you want to complete it or not depending on the random luck you happen to have in the beginning of the event.

It seems that it might have more to do with going insufficiently prepared in case you get a bad run, than being superstitious. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on having enough resources or not as a deciding factor along with your early RNG in the event, whereas to me it's a bad move to even start the event unless you have enough in the tank to see it through regardless of your RNG. Conversely, with your "system" you could just as easily start an event on a great streak, decide it's worth going all in and then have worse RNG later on and that would be even worse. This approach just seems inconsistent and unnecessarily risky to me.

But okay, it seems that enough of you guys see it as reasonable ("I'll take my chances") rather than how I interpret it.

Also, yeah, you do have a point that Renalove's post wasn't that big aside from the spreadsheets and stuff, and in the end we ended up arguing over it for much longer than the post itself. Plus given how wordy I can be, it certainly feels like the pot calling the kettle black, in this case. I'll remove my warning to them. Next time someone whi... hmm... does that type of storytelling-oriented post for their own RNG through an event, I'll just phase it out (in my head, not in the thread, to be clear). Thanks.

PS1: I'm definitely 0% in the mood for arguing any further (I've spent too long on this forum for one day as it is, frankly), but to be clear I've picked the koban amounts as a quick check to get a rough idea, I didn't run my algorithm army on the thing. Of course it's not a perfect criterion and we don't have all the variables in that spreadsheet alone either. It just stands to reason that someone who find themselves too tight on resources regularly for the same event format might benefit from a different strategy.

PS2: Sorry my joke didn't get through about Excel e-sports. I wasn't referring to you guys. I recently learned that this is actually a real thing IRL! I shit you not. ^^ I'm still unsure whether I'm in a Twilight Zone episode or I might wake up any minute now, but it cracks me up something fierce. I have nothing against spreadsheets in general or in this forum (and this type of threads) in particular.

[Ravi-Sama]

A Brief Paraphrased Summary
(I'm gonna poke some fun at everyone to lighten the mood).

Renalove: My drop rate sucked after spending 300 CP, so I stopped spending after ~1,500 kos.

Div:  "Delirious nonsensical whining about drop rates are NOT welcomed on this forum. Ever."

Zoo: 🙄.

Bolitho:  Hey, it's a misunderstanding, he just had bad luck, I've posted about this before.

Liliat:  Makes sense if resources are limited.

Garadron:  Div is allergic to the mentioning of RNGeezus.

Ravi:  That sux.  I think you were right to stop if kobans are tight.  Except, I would've used the whole SP.

Liliat:  Using the whole SP can be pointless in the short term, b/c you waste the last SP anyway.

Ravi:  Needing less drops later is good.

Div:  "...too many tables and spreadsheets and other stuff that probably gives fans of Excel e-sports a hard-on"

Ravi:  Yes.  I get hard from spreadsheets.  It's a fetish, that I now realize I've always had...

Div:  I'll edit my post to apologize for over-reacting, and unmute Renalove.

[Obelisk]

15 hours ago, Ravi-Sama said:

A Brief Paraphrased Summary
(I'm gonna poke some fun at everyone to lighten the mood).

Renalove: My drop rate sucked after spending 300 CP, so I stopped spending after ~1,500 kos.

Div:  "Delirious nonsensical whining about drop rates are NOT welcomed on this forum. Ever."

Zoo: 🙄.

Bolitho:  Hey, it's a misunderstanding, he just had bad luck, I've posted about this before.

Liliat:  Makes sense if resources are limited.

Garadron:  Div is allergic to the mentioning of RNGeezus.

Ravi:  That sux.  I think you were right to stop if kobans are tight.  Except, I would've used the whole SP.

Liliat:  Using the whole SP can be pointless in the short term, b/c you waste the last SP anyway.

Ravi:  Needing less drops later is good.

Div:  "...too many tables and spreadsheets and other stuff that probably gives fans of Excel e-sports a hard-on"

Ravi:  Yes.  I get hard from spreadsheets.  It's a fetish, that I now realize I've always had...

Div:  I'll edit my post to apologize for over-reacting, and unmute Renalove.

Seems to me that DvD (not pinging you because you're a mod and that'd be unnecessary as you'd see everything anyway), is weak at maths or doesn't understand maths that is too complex for him (don't worry I'm pretty much like you Dv). But instead of dismissing maths as "superstition"or "random is random" (nothing is random within a game as a game is built on systems and codes, it feels random because it's too hard to keep track of the calculation , at least for me it as I'm not that great at it.) you should either try to understand it like me or discuss with other mods (hopefully they are good or at better at understanding). Otherwise we'd keep getting side tracked with these petty misunderstandings which are at the end just waste of the most valuable resource we all have, time.

Ps. Keep up with the maths and spreadsheets zoo and others! It's really intriguing! I hope to learn more from you guys to improve my game

[DvDivXXX]

@Obelisk It's no secret, I famously suck at maths (algebra and calculations in particular) and I've always been open about it. However there's a common misconception among some people very good at (that side of) maths that as soon as maths are involved in something, it's all there is to understand. And, by extension, that they understand everything. Which is a much bigger problem than just a one-dimensional character like Zoopokemon looking down on me on this forum. Scientific literature is saturated with dumb fantasies passing for legitimate physics because they made a lot of complicated equations to support their completely arbitrary claim and "the maths work". You can make the maths "work" for anything in a vacuum if you're good at it, but it's how the maths relate to reality or not that matter. Also, I've never dismissed (this type of) maths or pretended I was good at it. On the contrary, I ask for help or confirmation from people who are good at it whenever in any doubt and if it matters to the situation.

It isn't the maths I was conflating with superstition in this case (or any case really) but the player's strategy in face of the maths. I understand game theory and human behavior very well, and I'm especially experienced (and professionally trained) in how human players deal (or can't deal) with probabilities and randomness in general and in a game in particular. This doesn't require doing any calculations myself, just knowing the key data and how probabilities work. But more importantly, how people tend to react to it on a very different scale than how odds "behave".

As for "random is random", the fact that most games and programs cannot produce real randomness and instead simulate it with complex algorithms doesn't change the meaning of the phrase. I used to work in a company that had an actual physical Random Number Generator, a very expensive and impressive piece of machinery using multiple physical phenomena to generate truly random numbers (or at least truly unpredictable no matter how good you are at maths; you can argue that the universe itself is maths, there's a cult school of thought in the scientific community for that). It doesn't change much aside from exactly countering any claim that random is not random. For the purpose of simple odds-based mechanics in a game, sufficiently complex pseudo-random is more than enough. Nitpicking about it is missing the point. The meaning of this saying isn't about the definition of randomness but about the fact that a random outcome doesn't have a personality or an agenda against or for any player. Because many players tend to take unfavorable random outcomes personally.

You're right that I should cut players a bit more slack in event threads especially, though. Such or such mentioning that they're having poor results at a given time isn't worth fighting for or against. As I've already conceded before your post. From now on, I'll reserve my expertise and intervene only when someone is actually slipping into tinfoil hat territory and questioning the game's RNG over a bad run. Cheers.

[jelom]

Too many replies and arguments.

My understanding is that some players need to vent their frustration a bit in public when they are on a very bad streak, and that doesn't imply they are meaning the drop rate has been changed (*), only that they get on the bad end of RNG this time.

(*) Well, sometimes people has really said that the average drop rate of the event must have been changed, fortunately there are always someone here to correct them.

[Rylarth]

To Bad i already hold the record for dry streaks with an amazing 250 battles for 6 shards🤣 with sandalwood i might add of course it eventually evened out to a 6-7% droprate  also there seems to be a unwriten rule during mythic days for me at least as soon i reach 90 shards the game starts teasing me and be like do you want to do 300 battles for your Last 10 shard to counter that scenario i have chosen to always use 5 sandalwood perfume no matter what because its always better to be safe⛑️🎧 than sorry😭 😉

[OmerB]

11 hours ago, Obelisk said:

Seems to me that DvD (not pinging you because you're a mod and that'd be unnecessary as you'd see everything anyway), is weak at maths or doesn't understand maths that is too complex for him (don't worry I'm pretty much like you Dv). But instead of dismissing maths as "superstition"or "random is random" (nothing is random within a game as a game is built on systems and codes, it feels random because it's too hard to keep track of the calculation , at least for me it as I'm not that great at it.) you should either try to understand it like me or discuss with other mods (hopefully they are good or at better at understanding). Otherwise we'd keep getting side tracked with these petty misunderstandings which are at the end just waste of the most valuable resource we all have, time.

Ps. Keep up with the maths and spreadsheets zoo and others! It's really intriguing! I hope to learn more from you guys to improve my game

It is not math, but statistics  Which is a whole different subject.

There is randomality (not a real one, but it is random enough for us humans) in this game, as in other computers applications that uses random function.

I think that Div understands enough about statistics, but I'm still keeping my right to whine about bad streaks of luck 😉

 

[Karxan]

No comment on drop rates, though the charts @renalove posted seem to support @DvDivXXX's claims; a lot of plays are needed to see those rates.  Casual & new players who don't have free plays saved up won't see those rates, so rates based on incomplete data sets (their experiences) are off.  I hope this clears up a lot of the confusion casuals & newbies have.

What does the 'Start' column in the last chart represent? how many times played or days in event?

 

I was on a server with too much competition; shards went way too fast to get any.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Karxan

[Liliat]

Il y a 6 heures, Karxan a dit :

What does the 'Start' column in the last chart represent? how many times played or days in event?

This was a mythic "revival" event, so I assume "start" represents how many shards he had from the girl's first appearance (usually 1 year before the revival).

[Obelisk]

On 3/28/2023 at 3:10 PM, DvDivXXX said:

It isn't the maths I was conflating with superstition in this case (or any case really) but the player's strategy in face of the maths. I understand game theory and human behavior very well, and I'm especially experienced (and professionally trained) in how human players deal (or can't deal) with probabilities and randomness in general and in a game in particular. This doesn't require doing any calculations myself, just knowing the key data and how probabilities work. But more importantly, how people tend to react to it on a very different scale than how odds "behave".

 

Thanks for clearing this up because I misunderstood you a bit prior to this. Because Rena's stats about the drop rate is average drop rate (which I thought you were talking about, sorry for that) just bad luck due to the randomness of the system mixed with high demand for Lyka. If the demand for her was low then he would have had much better chances which could be mistaken for higher drop rate. Which isn't the case as it's just less chaotic due to low or average participation. If he had resources to get her he should , just like you said his chances would eventually improve. So you are right about that.

Ps sorry the late reply I got busy with both the game (poa and esme revival) and some irl drama =/