156 réponses à ce sujet

[Lexa_D]

SweetWilly013 wrote...

This thread's still alive?

Yes they're pseudo random numbers. No they're not perfect. But a computer processor moves way too fast for you to be able to exploit it and the numbers might as well be completely random to any human, especially at the snails pace one is able to buy packs. (processors are in the GHz range, you can buy packs at fastest maybe around the 0.1 Hz,,,,,that's a 10^10 magnitude difference, good luck).

This "evidence" all sounds very placebo.

Or maybe I'm special like that, catching al the "good" numbers with my magic fingers.
Things you said have nothing to do with the case I'm advocating, please read into it.

[Lexa_D]

Shampoohorn wrote...

dbushik wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

I bought 4 PSPs in a row. The first three gave me just gold cards. The fourth one upgraded my CSMG.



What now, OP?

I'm not the OP, but nothing you experienced contradicts what he is talking about in the least.  Had you bought 4 PSPs in a row and the first one had a UR but the next three didn't, that might impact what the OP is getting at, but that's not what you did, right?

This thread is really ridiculous, not in the least your statement above.

At the very least go take artificial ignorance's pack buying results and see if there is even a shred of consistency between the OP's foil hat hypothesis and a reasonably large set of data.

The link you provided can't be used in this thread cause it does not track outcomes for clustering. So thanx for the link, but no relation, which you would've seen if you cared to.

[Lexa_D]

cowwy wrote...

Lexa_D wrote...

hudder92 wrote...

Some people just do not understand what a Random Number Generator is, or how they work. There is no way to cheat the RNG. What you speak of is just total luck. It has nothing to do with a pattern. An RNG resets after every run of the algorithm.

Have you ever seen a slot machine do two jackpot payouts back to back? I doubt it.

I have spent real money on packs and the drops rates aren't any better or worse spending real money. I have received 5 UR's in a row, and I have spent $50 and not received a single UR.

Yes, but what constitutes a run? Each purchase? Empirical evidence does not support it. Each store visit? In my experience - more like it.

Spending real money on PSPs? Ouch, that must've hurt.

But anecdotal evidence does?

10/10 would read trolling again.

The evidence I provide is empirical (=based on real runs of the shop algorythm), the word is available in every diary.

[Shrakelle]

You get URs by buying SPs or PSPs. It's completely random, there's no pattern.

[Lexa_D]

I'm conducting analysis that can be proven right or wrong. People come here and talk about "completely random" and "tin foil hats". I'd be happy to see some mathematical backing for these claims, otherwise it's just your religious views.

[cowwy]

Lexa_D wrote...

I'm conducting analysis that can be proven right or wrong. People come here and talk about "completely random" and "tin foil hats". I'd be happy to see some mathematical backing for these claims, otherwise it's just your religious views.

Well considering the fact that you're the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you. And we're going to need more than a few cases, we need a statistically significant number of trials and a significant number of cases that support your argument before we can determine if there is any correlation at all.

And what does my belief in the flying spaghetti monster have to do with the price of beans?

[Lexa_D]

You're using antireligious lingo while behaving like a "true believer".

By default, the store is perfectly random, cuase that's what you're told by your betters from BW (religion). I've provided data analysis which shows clustering significantly more probable than pure random, and my hypothesis is testable, it can be proven wrong (science). I have some data support, you have none, so unless you dig up some proof of the opposite, your words are empty.

It's not my goal to "prove" anything to anyone. I've made a hypothesis, test it rigorously and post the results here. It might show that my initial assumption was wrong. If it helps some people, all the better. Can't see how it can do harm in a purely random setup.

[Mzzl]

If you swipe your mouse around in the ANTI-clockwise direction 360 degrees (clockwise if you're on the southern hemisphere) and triple click the buy premium spectre pack button, you are guaranteed at least two rare items.

[Ronnie Blastoff]

Dont waste your time Lexa D, your talking to a majority or people with their heads to far up someones azz to see anything but poo. Whats really funny is that although many argue against this, the majority of people with MAXED OUT MANIFEST have used this same method, while most who claim it doesn't work also complain about not getting anything but ammo in packs.

I have also been using this since I 1st discovered it back in april. I can't back it up with any data, but I sure as hell had alot less "crap" streaks than the average person. Buy 5 PSPs, don't get UR, wait an hour, repeat. Once you start unlocking, buy 5 until you don't get another, and don't go over.

Odds seemed to favor this method, random or not it works.

[PreGy]

R
A
N
D
O
M

/thread

[12323432543]

Doesn't apply to me then. I have a hard time saving up money for packs . Once I get enough, I'll cash in.

[Shepard VI]

Sometimes you just have to go with your gut. I was absent for the last five or so days, and last night, after completing the Omega DLC, I had 1.3 million saved up in mp. So I spent the majority of it on PSPs. Got the Asari derp maxed out right away, then Level 4 equipment. Kept going. Eventually got the Typhoon VII in my 7th pack. Then my last pack, the 9th, I managed to get the Javelin X and the Indra VII.

The store is random. There is no mathematical science to it. You either get URs or you don't. The fact that they're so illusive is what adds value to them.

Modifié par IndoctrinatedSpectre, 30 novembre 2012 - 11:32 .

[iOnlySignIn]

Reverse Gambler's Fallacy

[Lexa_D]

IndoctrinatedSpectre wrote...

Sometimes you just have to go with your gut. I was absent for the last five or so days, and last night, after completing the Omega DLC, I had 1.3 million saved up in mp. So I spent the majority of it on PSPs. Got the Asari derp maxed out right away, then Level 4 equipment. Kept going. Eventually got the Typhoon VII in my 7th pack. Then my last pack, the 9th, I managed to get the Javelin X and the Indra VII.

The store is random. There is no mathematical science to it. You either get URs or you don't. The fact that they're so illusive is what adds value to them.

looks like a cluster to me 3 out of 18 = 16.7% odds, same as my last sequence. The difference is that using my approach, I would've never arrived at pack #7

[Lexa_D]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Reverse Gambler's Fallacy

Well, so far the coin is spinning the right (for me) way. Please provide some arguments for random.

[cowwy]

Lexa_D wrote...

You're using antireligious lingo while behaving like a "true believer".

By default, the store is perfectly random, cuase that's what you're told by your betters from BW (religion). I've provided data analysis which shows clustering significantly more probable than pure random, and my hypothesis is testable, it can be proven wrong (science). I have some data support, you have none, so unless you dig up some proof of the opposite, your words are empty.

It's not my goal to "prove" anything to anyone. I've made a hypothesis, test it rigorously and post the results here. It might show that my initial assumption was wrong. If it helps some people, all the better. Can't see how it can do harm in a purely random setup.

You're right, I believe that BioWare is going to deliver us out of the hell we're currently in via the date the Mayans predicted.

Clearly your goal is to "prove" something because you keep dismissing our assertions that your data are wrong. I don't have to run any tests to know that your testing is arbitrary and wrong. Where you're wrong is that you are taking cases that prove your point, and ignoring the ones that show otherwise.

My point is that you're looking for a pattern where there is none. You stated that you provided data analysis, and now I'm doing the same. Your testing and analysis were full of bias.

[CapitateGoose]

Lexa_D wrote...

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.

I've been suspecting the same thing and applied the same strategy, until recently, when I decided I don't really need more URs, but more medigels in Recruit Packs.

I also suspect that the probabilities for each class of items can be adjusted temporarily/permanently by a human administrator.
For example,
  - if too many missiles glitchers are reported: lower the propability for URs and raise it for L4 ammo.
  - if people stop buying SPs/PSPs after weaks of lack of URs, temporarly raise the probability for URs to wake up interest.
  - assign a probability to Rare gear lower than URs probability. Adjust it later, after numerous complaints.
Don't have proof for this, it is just a supposition as a result of observation of my spending habits.

[CapitateGoose]

Always this confusion between "perfectly random" and "(non)random output", when talking about RNG store.

TRUE: store is perfectly random. RNG will give a perfectly random number between 1-1000. Each number is assigned to a card you will receive in next PSP/Slot3. Some adjustment may be needed if you have maxed out that card.
TRUE: output can be selective.
Proof: Commendation packs have a N7 weapon/slot 3, guaranteed.
Proof2 : PSPs have 2 rare guaranteed.
Not a proof: Bioware management decides there will be no URs for the next 3 days in PSPs. Administrator will adjust the probability for the UR to 0%, and raise the probability for L4 ammo accordingly.

[BOB.id]

left, right ,left, right, A, B start, then buy a spectre pack

[Zso_Zso]

OK, guys here is the REAl -- guaranteed method to get black weapons:

1. Take any gold / silver weapon into the "weapon bench" menu, i.e. changing mods
2. add the penetration mod to the weapon
3. TADA, you got a Black weapon !

Go enjoy, you can thank me later!

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Lexa_D wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Reverse Gambler's Fallacy

Well, so far the coin is spinning the right (for me) way. Please provide some arguments for random.

You are the one claiming that packs cluster and URs can be obtained more frequently using your method, so the burden is on you to provide sufficient supporting evidence.  Yes, you have provided some evidence, but it isn't nearly enough to conclude anything reasonably with respect to your claim.  What you have done is the equivalent of flipping a coin 20 times, and when it comes up Heads 15 times, you conclude that a coin flip has a 75% chance of Heads.  Even if we're to take your "evidence" as 100% accurate, it just isn't enough.

CapitateGoose wrote...

Lexa_D wrote...

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.

I've been suspecting the same
thing and applied the same strategy, until recently, when I decided I
don't really need more URs, but more medigels in Recruit Packs.

I also suspect that the probabilities for each class of items can be adjusted temporarily/permanently by a human administrator.
For example,
  - if too many missiles glitchers are reported: lower the propability for URs and raise it for L4 ammo.
  - if people stop buying SPs/PSPs after weaks of lack of URs, temporarly raise the probability for URs to wake up interest.
  - assign a probability to Rare gear lower than URs probability. Adjust it later, after numerous complaints.
Don't have proof for this, it is just a supposition as a result of observation of my spending habits.

I've suspected that they do this for a long time now.  What you're describing would still use the RNG, and therefore would technically still choose at random.  But they would be altering the probabilties of getting the various items.

Modifié par CmnDwnWrkn, 30 novembre 2012 - 08:06 .

[dbushik]

Shampoohorn wrote...

dbushik wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

I bought 4 PSPs in a row. The first three gave me just gold cards. The fourth one upgraded my CSMG.



What now, OP?

I'm not the OP, but nothing you experienced contradicts what he is talking about in the least.  Had you bought 4 PSPs in a row and the first one had a UR but the next three didn't, that might impact what the OP is getting at, but that's not what you did, right?

This thread is really ridiculous, not in the least your statement above.

At the very least go take artificial ignorance's pack buying results and see if there is even a shred of consistency between the OP's foil hat hypothesis and a reasonably large set of data.

Not seeing anything in ai's results regarding clustering or any impact on method of buying impacting results.  If ai had info on how the purchases where made instead of just what came out of those purchases, there might be something useful to talking about this specific thing the OP is getting at, but I don't see that there.  Am I missing something there?  I think a lot of dismissive responses here are talking past what is actually being said.

[ChurchOfZod]

I thought about getting a Collector SMG VII and VIII in the same PSP as I was opening it and then it happened. So obviously it's based in psychic abity. /THREAD

[dbushik]

cowwy wrote...

... Where you're wrong is that you are taking cases that prove your point, and ignoring the ones that show otherwise...

Not at all.  He's established a method to test and taking data.  If you have something like the previous study ai did to give a reasonable approximation of baseline percentages, you can compare the results of the method you are testing to what you would expect as a baseline.  That baseline that you would compare your method results to would be the "otherwise" you mention.  The "other" cases are not being ignored.  With larger sample sizes, the results become more conclusive one way or the other.

That's not really that hard to wrap your head around.  He testing a method.

[dbushik]

Lexa_D wrote...
...
Doing that on my own, although with larger sums usually. Anyone is welcome to post their results here if they wish.

Okay, but wanted to follow some standard method so any data would be fully compatible (gathered with an identical method).  The initial discription of your method is loose.