156 réponses à ce sujet

[Lexa_D]

I'm sure someone already posted that, but whatevs, for great justice

Evidently the store uses quasi random sequence when determining the outcome. It generates short number string to determine whether you get Ultra Rare items from the store, and then uses it over and over. Therefore, if you get a Black weapon chances are high to get it in other immediately purchased packs.

So the strategy is: hoard the cash, occasionally buy a (Premium) Spectre Pack. If you get nothing, move along. If you get Black, start spending. No further occurences in next 2-3 packs - might have been a fluke on the first one, move along. Otherwise - spending spree.

Following this method, I recently got 2 double Black cards in a row. Also just now I spent 1.3mn and got some 6-7 Ultra Rares.

Good luck, spend wisely!

Modifié par Lexa_D, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:56 .

[Mozts]

That was debunked back in the demo.

A software that generates random number will come up with different results based on the same thing.

[Shampoohorn]

U. R.

As in you are crazy, until proven otherwise by actually evidence.

Modifié par Shampoohorn, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:14 .

[Lexa_D]

Points is, it does not. The result are clustered. Back in the day I could spend 2-3mn and get single Black and crapload of creature cards. Can't see other explanatins but quasi-RNG using pre-generated sequence. Had this twisted probability back in Civilization IV too.

[Lexa_D]

Shampoohorn wrote...


U. R.

As in you are crazy, until proven otherwise by actually evidence.

Take it or leave it, don't care.

[Lexa_D]

Mozts wrote...

That was debunked back in the demo.

A software that generates random number will come up with different results based on the same thing.

How was it debunked? By showing source code? Don't think so.

[Mozts]

Lexa_D wrote...

Mozts wrote...

That was debunked back in the demo.

A software that generates random number will come up with different results based on the same thing.

How was it debunked? By showing source code? Don't think so.

Even the simplest and oldest algorithm, based on clock-seed don't work the way you said. However, more sofisticated software can generate multiple results based on the exact same seed.

Unless BioWare intentionally rigged their own store, RNG is psudo-random enough so that is no pattern to it. And I doubt they rigged anyting.

The rest is just gambler's falacy.

Modifié par Mozts, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[Slaysman]

Just pray..best you can do and hope someone listens

[Chevyboy88]

So you're incredibly small sample size = fact? Sorry it has been debunked many times.

[Ramsutin]

Lets test this
I am going to random.org, set min to 0 and max to 10. I will draw a new number in around 30 seconds. 0s represent URs. When I hit 0 I will draw 10 times as fast as I can. By your logic I should get many 0s.
And the results are in
5,8,10,4,9,9,5,1,9,5,10,8,
Then I hit 0
Next 8 draws (all under 10 seconds): 99542742
Busted with proof.

Modifié par Ramsutin, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[FellowMusicFan]

I always thought the packs were distributed by aliens. You know, because aliens.

[Mendelevosa]

Nothing to see here...

NPlewes. 

Modifié par NPlewes, 14 novembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[Clearly Balkan]

There is no one true method. Pure luck.

[Mozts]

Ramsutin wrote...

Lets test this
I am going to random.org, set min to 0 and max to 10. I will draw a new number in around 30 seconds. 0s represent URs. When I hit 0 I will draw 10 times as fast as I can. By your logic I should get many 0s.

Bad idea.

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. [/i]

random.or doesn't actually generate anything.

[Tybo]

Mozts wrote...

Lexa_D wrote...

Mozts wrote...

That was debunked back in the demo.

A software that generates random number will come up with different results based on the same thing.

How was it debunked? By showing source code? Don't think so.

Even the simplest and oldest algorithm, based on clock-seed don't work the way you said. However, more sofisticated software can generate multiple results based on the exact same seed.

Unless BioWare intentionally rigged their own store, RNG is psudo-random enough so that is no pattern to it. And I doubt they rigged anyting.

The rest is just gambler's falacy.

This.  People need to learn what pseudo-random really means before making things up about how you can rig a psuedo-random number generator.

[Arveragus]

This was a lucky night for me. I spent about 4 million credits and got 9 ultra-rare cards, including two double black PSP's.

No strategy involved here, though I thought I did notice that when I did get an ultra-rare, the store would be slower to open the PSP in question, but since this happens after you have already bought it, this does not really help you.

[Ramsutin]

Mozts wrote...

Ramsutin wrote...

Lets test this
I am going to random.org, set min to 0 and max to 10. I will draw a new number in around 30 seconds. 0s represent URs. When I hit 0 I will draw 10 times as fast as I can. By your logic I should get many 0s.

Bad idea.

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. [/i]

random.or doesn't actually generate anything.

I know, but it is a good example as it seems random enough to act as a RNG in this instance. IMO.

[Veritas3489]

You're telling me all of my ritual sacrifices and bathing in virgin blood mixed with fresh milk from a cow were all for nothing? Dammit!

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

Ridiculous that people still think this method works. I have tested it several times as have many others and it does not work.

[Kanadood]

The rest is just gambler's falacy.

This.  People love finding patterns that don't exist.  This is another one.  When you have a 20% chance or whatever of getting an UR sometimes you're going to get 3 in a row, and sometimes you're going to get 15 in a row without.  It doesn't mean you found some secret trick when you got 3 in a row, it's just probability.

[Lexa_D]

Ramsutin wrote...

Lets test this
I am going to random.org, set min to 0 and max to 10. I will draw a new number in around 30 seconds. 0s represent URs. When I hit 0 I will draw 10 times as fast as I can. By your logic I should get many 0s.
And the results are in
5,8,10,4,9,9,5,1,9,5,10,8,
Then I hit 0
Next 8 draws (all under 10 seconds): 99542742
Busted with proof.

All the "quasi-RNG" and "picking from pre-generated sequence"... If you look up, you can see them. If you don't, squint.

[Mythicrose]

How to get Black Weapons from the Store?

Easy....

Call the NAACP.

[Lexa_D]

Mozts wrote...

Lexa_D wrote...

Mozts wrote...

That was debunked back in the demo.

A software that generates random number will come up with different results based on the same thing.

How was it debunked? By showing source code? Don't think so.

Even the simplest and oldest algorithm, based on clock-seed don't work the way you said. However, more sofisticated software can generate multiple results based on the exact same seed.

Unless BioWare intentionally rigged their own store, RNG is psudo-random enough so that is no pattern to it. And I doubt they rigged anyting.

The rest is just gambler's falacy.

Actually, no. I wasn't born yesterday, so I know that you can pick different results from randomly generated sequence - therefore sequence, not a single result. Therefore single Black means not much, while second is a hunt, 3rd - a treasure trove.

Why would you expect bioware to use sophisticated software, btw? I think they just plugged in what all guys on the street do - hence CivIV mention.

[Ramsutin]

Ah so OP won't accept anything but his own word. I'm out.

[Lexa_D]

tyhw wrote...

Mozts wrote...

Lexa_D wrote...

Mozts wrote...

That was debunked back in the demo.

A software that generates random number will come up with different results based on the same thing.

How was it debunked? By showing source code? Don't think so.

Even the simplest and oldest algorithm, based on clock-seed don't work the way you said. However, more sofisticated software can generate multiple results based on the exact same seed.

Unless BioWare intentionally rigged their own store, RNG is psudo-random enough so that is no pattern to it. And I doubt they rigged anyting.

The rest is just gambler's falacy.

This.  People need to learn what pseudo-random really means before making things up about how you can rig a psuedo-random number generator.

I think I know, but  correct me if I'm wrong. You get a string of realised values of random process generated using same law, then use it to as a new seed for generating actua; outcomes of what you get in the store. If on average the number of "Black" values is higher in this string than original probability, it can be "exploited" to get higher chance of Black - no guarantee, naturally. An indicator of suce higher density will be balck weapon in your log, 2nd - a better indication - 3rd -even better, etc. Quite rational thing to do, if the pseudo-RNG assumption is correct.

On the contrary, gambler's fallacy is when you see shapes in random movements. I claim the movement isn't random. I bought enough packs to get this "feel" - however, this just might be my luck. Based on the number of players out there, few might face such weird patterns, and I might be one of them. However, the conditional  (on observed outcomes of my strategy) expectation is in favour of pseudo-RNG.