Basicly just because the drop rate is 33% doesn't mean its gonna be 33%...
Just because it is, doesnt mean that it is.
Yes, and no.
A 33% drop rate WILL result in a shard dropping about once every 3 battles/sims, approximately, over the course of eternity. Unfortunately, that's a 33% drop rate across the entire player base. NOT a 33% drop rate for each individual. Therefore, your mileage may vary.
@OP is just making the point that RNG overall is not the same as that one particular instance where you get offense up on your best attacker, the target you WANT to hit is not being protected by another hero taunting and that target has no foresight or stealth on them either.
Its also NOT the same as the enemy having offense up on there best attacker and a clear shot at your weakest link with no foresight or stealth or taunt to protect them.
RNG is more, or it could be less than the average overall % of those things happening AND furthermore the combination of the AI and player commands...
In other words... its saying that if you win the lotto your more likely to be struck by lighting and vice versa...
And if lose the lotto your less likely to be struck by lightning...
The thing about RNG and statistics is that you can bias your opinion off anything... if i have the ability to call any thread PINK if it has the keyword LUKE or CLS in it then i can say that over 50% of the threads in forum have the word PINK in them... now in reality its far far far less... so also factor in that theres some unique buffs/abilities that are unit specfic... and some that are shared by multiple heros... all of these little things add to the RNG of one thing over another. But if i keep repeating the whole pink thing again and again then more peeps are likely to belive it and somehow it becomes more accepted... or rather it happens more often... because more peeps belive it. Unless the community shoots it down and beats it like a dead horse, seperates the corpse and buries it in different corners of the universe and then kill themselves to hide the locations forever.
So in recap...
Basicly just because the drop rate is 33% doesn't mean its gonna be 33%...
Just like the way obamas "hope & change" slogan didnt bring hope & change... or trumps "make america great again" slogan is not making america great again... or maybe they did/are... just depends on who ya ask... because its all relative to your experience.
There was a REALLY BAD thread that got deleted but it brought up a good point: Folks don't understand numbers.
If a ship has a 44% dodge rate and you attack it 8 times, there is a 0.140482% chance of all eight attacks being dodged. That's one in a thousand. We don't know how many people play the game, but let's assume it's "only" 100,000. That means, on mathematical average, this happens to 100 people a day. In reality, the number of players is vastly higher than 100,000, so it's going to happen quite a bit throughout a day, but it will only happen to you once every few months.
So please don't make death threats because you don't understand that you aren't the only person playing this game. Even if it's a joke, it's a dumb joke and you're a dumb person. Go to a library and undumb yourself.
(PS: My numbers are probably wrong because I'm very bad at math. But I get the general idea anyway.)
I'm not sure any Sane person thinks rng doesn't work against them or is rigged. It's why you have so many 0/8 1/15 in gear farming. Gets you to buy crystals.
Except any time anyone actually tracks results with a statistically significant number of results they find that the expected values are played out--roughly 33% for shards, roughly 15% (I think?) for purple gear, etc.
Sure but not in a regular pattern. Designed to have hot and cold streaks that lead to spending. Not to mention how bad arena rng is...
You are correct that the RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR is not set to a REGULAR PATTERN.
It wasn't 8 tie fighter dodges in a row, but I just lost a ship battle where I had him down to just his TF in the red, I had 5 ships still alive, and three turns in a row he dodged me, allowing his Tarkin to use its special, killing my whole team and costing me the match.
The field of battle is like the mongoose. Slow to joviality, but thirsty for morning sunshine.
-Sun Tzu
It wasn't 8 tie fighter dodges in a row, but I just lost a ship battle where I had him down to just his TF in the red, I had 5 ships still alive, and three turns in a row he dodged me, allowing his Tarkin to use its special, killing my whole team and costing me the match.
A very similar thing happened to my a few minutes ago. I even posted this in the gif thread:
The bad news is that in the mobile-gaming company I worked for, they were always talking about using what's called "Dark UX" to manipulate players into spending. A horrible example that I do not know to be true (but might be): when you sim for a character shard or a piece of gear, and you need multiple shards to complete the character or set, the RNG is probably whatever it is. However, when you are only ONE shard away (say 49/50) they might indeed reduce the probability for that one, singular roll. Because nothing will make a person buy gems more than being balked that close to success and having to wait for their energy to replenish. I'll bet they literally get more gem purchases from people in that circumstance than almost any other, because it's not a thought-out purchase (like a pack of Chromiums), it's an angry, psychologically-induced spontaneous purchase.
The bad news is that in the mobile-gaming company I worked for, they were always talking about using what's called "Dark UX" to manipulate players into spending. A horrible example that I do not know to be true (but might be): when you sim for a character shard or a piece of gear, and you need multiple shards to complete the character or set, the RNG is probably whatever it is. However, when you are only ONE shard away (say 49/50) they might indeed reduce the probability for that one, singular roll. Because nothing will make a person buy gems more than being balked that close to success and having to wait for their energy to replenish. I'll bet they literally get more gem purchases from people in that circumstance than almost any other, because it's not a thought-out purchase (like a pack of Chromiums), it's an angry, psychologically-induced spontaneous purchase.
...
My subjective feeling: You are right on the spot.
Unfortunately, they don't even need to. With a low enough probability, like 33% for shards and 20% for gear, the computer randomicity is enough to make that last shard hard to get all on their own without being malicious about it.
Basicly just because the drop rate is 33% doesn't mean its gonna be 33%...
Just because it is, doesnt mean that it is.
Yes, and no.
A 33% drop rate WILL result in a shard dropping about once every 3 battles/sims, approximately, over the course of eternity. Unfortunately, that's a 33% drop rate across the entire player base. NOT a 33% drop rate for each individual. Therefore, your mileage may vary.
What in god’s name are you talking about? Drop rate probabilities are uniform across all players unless manipulated based on something like spending habits. If it’s true RNG at a 33% likelihood, every single player, not the “whole player base”, will see a 33% success rate across many trials in playing the game.
The "streaky" results are simply from a high variance.
The mean is the mean, but actual results will be radically different in small trials (like attacks in one fight or missions from full energy) due to variance.
The higher the variance the more trials (larger sample needed) to actually arrive at the mean and the streakier things appear.
All I know is I play a lot of D&D and the dice make great things happen and horrible things happen, and I am assured of BOTH of those happening in any given session. Other then a few bizarre, pizza ridden, intoxicated late night sessions and seeing a 16 pop up for the third time, the numbers vary as you would expect.
It's probably because I throw so many dice that I'm suspect of the RNG in this game. And to be totally honest, we all should be until %'s are officially listed as is required in some other countries. It's not just this game, but everyone on the market. It's not even a bad thing, a company will make the money it can, they need to make profits. But, much like calories on all the menu's in NYC, the actual % should be publicly available.
Honestly I do not think the author of this post... or anyone supporting a "observation bias" explanation really does not understand the math.
The RNG for combat this game uses is very poor... Because it is based on a single seed value. If you do not understand that statement, fine... I will dumb it down. Because of how the randomness is done it increases the odds of a string of "bad rollls", because depending of the initial seed the odds of a "Bad Roll" will go up.
Even in actual gambling, the (usually local, state) laws permit operators to change the odds of payout of automated machines, e.g. if a machine isn't getting much use, you can jack up the win rate such that if someone *does* try it, it will seem "hot" at first, and then dial the win rate back down if the machine becomes more popular:
State law allows [casino operators] to change the odds after a machine has been idle for four minutes...
There seems to be a weird assumption that in a game like swgoh[0] - which isn't bound by any of these laws, and has a huge financial incentive to meddle - the game's creators are relying on a pure and neutral rng that doesn't ever change, and people who observe suspicious outcomes just don't understand math. I would be extremely surprised if this is how swgoh actually worked.
My assumption is that CG will sometimes tip the scales in your favor and sometimes not, depending on whatever is most likely to wring the greatest lifetime value (LTV) out of a given customer.
Basicly just because the drop rate is 33% doesn't mean its gonna be 33%...
Just because it is, doesnt mean that it is.
Yes, and no.
A 33% drop rate WILL result in a shard dropping about once every 3 battles/sims, approximately, over the course of eternity. Unfortunately, that's a 33% drop rate across the entire player base. NOT a 33% drop rate for each individual. Therefore, your mileage may vary.
What in god’s name are you talking about? Drop rate probabilities are uniform across all players unless manipulated based on something like spending habits. If it’s true RNG at a 33% likelihood, every single player, not the “whole player base”, will see a 33% success rate across many trials in playing the game.
They use a single random number generator for all requests. Yes, each fetch has a 33% chance. Over all requests, there will be a 33% drop. But I may get 2 drops and you miss 4. In fact, this could be such bad luck that a single individual could, potentially, never get a drop at all, even though overall, over the whole player base, the drop rate is 33%.
Of course, 33% is high enough that the likelihood of that happening is very very low.
It's easier to imagine if you consider the drop rate of omegas in cantina 8. It has to be very low based on the results; maybe 1% or 0.1% drop rate (totally made up, but it is very low). Even though every 1000 sims or so would drop an omega, an individual could go their entire gameplay without ever seeing an omega drop from cantina 8. Though someone else might get 2 from 1900 sims.
When the random number generator is a single point that is accessed by all players, the RNG holds out across the whole player base, but each individual's results could vary.
If each slot machine was tied into a central computer, and the odds of winning the jackpot were 1 in a million. If you have 10 slot machines with 10 monkeys pulling the lever once a second, you'll get a jackpot about once a day (every 27.7 hours, give or take). The jackpot could happen at any of the ten machines. After 10 days or so, you'd have 10 jackpots, though because they're all tied in to a central computer, each jackpot could occur at any of the machines and you may have one or two of the machines that never got a jackpot at all and another that got 2 or 3.
But if each slot machine was only run by it's own computer, and the odds of winning the jackpot were 1 in a million. If you have 10 slot machines with 10 monkeys pulling the lever once a second, you won't necessarily get a jackpot about once a day. Instead, each machine would get a jackpot about once every ten days, give or take. Each machine would eventually get a jackpot. (Of course, with the odds that low, you could still go forever without getting a jackpot, but I'm using this for illustration purposes only.)
Even in actual gambling, the (usually local, state) laws permit operators to change the odds of payout of automated machines, e.g. if a machine isn't getting much use, you can jack up the win rate such that if someone *does* try it, it will seem "hot" at first, and then dial the win rate back down if the machine becomes more popular:
State law allows [casino operators] to change the odds after a machine has been idle for four minutes...
There seems to be a weird assumption that in a game like swgoh[0] - which isn't bound by any of these laws, and has a huge financial incentive to meddle - the game's creators are relying on a pure and neutral rng that doesn't ever change, and people who observe suspicious outcomes just don't understand math. I would be extremely surprised if this is how swgoh actually worked.
My assumption is that CG will sometimes tip the scales in your favor and sometimes not, depending on whatever is most likely to wring the greatest lifetime value (LTV) out of a given customer.
You forget the law of lazy programming.
The law of lazy programming says that a programmer will do just enough to meet the requirements and if it's difficult to do, he won't do it unless specifically forced to.
There's also Hanlon's Razor in play.
The odds for drop rates like shards and purple gear are low enough that pure RNG can drive dry spells and winning streaks to stoke the same behavior from players as you suggest they have coded.
People have brought this up before, and I do not find it compelling.
The law of lazy programming applies to things like polish and code quality. It is much less likely to apply to features that affect revenue.
And even in your own description of how the law works, you say "if it's difficult to do, [they] won't do it unless specifically forced to". We have no reason to assume they weren't specifically forced to.
I mean, if I were making business decisions for CG I would absolutely prioritize behavioral features in the RNG if these could be demonstrated to lead to an increase in some desirable metric.
The odds for drop rates like shards and purple gear are low enough that pure RNG can drive dry spells and winning streaks to stoke the same behavior from players as you suggest they have coded.
fwiw I think it is surely plausible that there is no rng chicanery going on, just unlikely. This game grosses hundreds of millions of dollars a year. I guarantee they have entire bizdev teams sitting around brainstorming ways to increase revenue by a few basis points per month, and the kind of suggestions they have are not things like "new FO toons".
All I know is I play a lot of D&D and the dice make great things happen and horrible things happen, and I am assured of BOTH of those happening in any given session. Other then a few bizarre, pizza ridden, intoxicated late night sessions and seeing a 16 pop up for the third time, the numbers vary as you would expect.
It's probably because I throw so many dice that I'm suspect of the RNG in this game. And to be totally honest, we all should be until %'s are officially listed as is required in some other countries. It's not just this game, but everyone on the market. It's not even a bad thing, a company will make the money it can, they need to make profits. But, much like calories on all the menu's in NYC, the actual % should be publicly available.
Throwing dice is precisely why the game's RNG seems off to you and here is why: this game has a higher variance than your dice rolling.
They very well could post that on average drops are 33% and be mathematically (and legally) covered. They can then distort the tar out of it by having a ridiculously high variance, causing such annoying streaks.
The odds for drop rates like shards and purple gear are low enough that pure RNG can drive dry spells and winning streaks to stoke the same behavior from players as you suggest they have coded.
fwiw I think it is surely plausible that there is no rng chicanery going on, just unlikely. This game grosses hundreds of millions of dollars a year. I guarantee they have entire bizdev teams sitting around brainstorming ways to increase revenue by a few basis points per month, and the kind of suggestions they have are not things like "new FO toons".
The problem is i wrote my own computer RNG with a fair probability and found that with a low enough probability, even 33% or 20%, it's completely easy and common for the computer to generate sequences of winning or losing steaks. I also have the experience of being frustrated to get the last shard/gear piece and plenty of enough experience where it came to me as soon as i tried for it and in abundance.
Like i said, there's no need for them to lay down a complicated mechanism where it frustrates you for that last piece when it's just as easy to let the RNG do that for them. In fact, it works against them to do so.
If the drop rate is set to be 33% then I don’t think it’s possible for drop rates to reach a normal distribution, even with infinite repetitions (i.e. large numbers).
The data would fit something more like a Poisson distribution. If you observes one billion instances of drop rates of a shard when simmed every 5 times, and your drop rate is x/5 with possible values ranging from 0-5.
In this case, you would have an x axis for your probability distribution ranging from 0-5. A normal distribution would place the mean at 2.5 (50% drop rate) and allow for a symmetrical bell shaped curve. However, if we know the true population value is 1.65 shards per 5 sims (33% drop rate), then infinite observations of groups of 5 sims would converge on 1.65, not 2.5.
As such, the probability distribution would be positively skewed and appropriately fit a Poisson distribution. Because the highest probability value is 1.65, values closer to that will also have higher probabilities (i.e. more area under the curve) than values further away. This distribution would also accurately illustrate the fact that the probability of getting 0 or 1 drops out of 5 sims is much greater than 5 (which would be the least probable value).
Like i said, there's no need for them to lay down a complicated mechanism where it frustrates you for that last piece when it's just as easy to let the RNG do that for them. In fact, it works against them to do so.
I will tell you that someone very close to me had an interview with Blizzard many months ago for some kind of micro-transaction consulting position...anyway, the entire interview was about how to manipulate compulsory behavior to entice spending. This included ways to manipulate perceived RNG and rewards, "shorting" rewards, etc.
Now, this is anecdotal, but I would be absolutely shocked if EA didn't employ similar strategies for the highest grossing Star Wars mobile game...
If the drop rate is set to be 33% then I don’t think it’s possible for drop rates to reach a normal distribution, even with infinite repetitions (i.e. large numbers). .
Huh? What does drop rate in a binary-outcome event have to do with "normal distribution" (of what exactly)?
If the drop rate is set to be 33% then I don’t think it’s possible for drop rates to reach a normal distribution, even with infinite repetitions (i.e. large numbers). .
Huh? What does drop rate in a binary-outcome event have to do with "normal distribution" (of what exactly)?
Regarding the distribution of shard/gear drops for every N simulations. The law of large numbers suggests that as observations increase, the data will more closely fit a normal distribution. But, I don’t think this would be true if the true population distribution is a Poisson rather than normal.
Sorry, that slot machine link was the best I could find to explain how algorithms use small wins to hook people into trying for a big win.
That has nothing to do with ships dodging attacks but my point is that CG most definitely influences the outcome of all the rngs using histogram she to weight outcomes.
Go watch chromium pack videos on YouTube and see how Paploos you can count.
Like i said, there's no need for them to lay down a complicated mechanism where it frustrates you for that last piece when it's just as easy to let the RNG do that for them. In fact, it works against them to do so.
You keep coming back to this, but the reality is we know that companies have divisions dedicated to psychological analysis and generating microtransaction income. We know that Activision (as an example) applied for and received a patent on a matchmaking algorithm designed to skew matchmaking to encourage purchasing, and we know they've applied for other patents to behaviorally encourage spending through other methods as well. This is happening in gaming. It may not be happening here, but until companies are required by law to post their code there is no way of knowing.
Data collection isn't enough without the code because as @Woodroward said earlier, unless you have large and separate samples of data for each specific point along your progression (which would be impossible for all practical purposes), even a flat rate of 33% is meaningless in terms of understanding if there is manipulation going on. Without the code this is a discussion of theory and nothing more. Fun all the same, but people throwing around the idea that one side or the other are wrong or dumb are making judgments without legitimate relevant facts.
Regarding the distribution of shard/gear drops for every N simulations. The law of large numbers suggests that as observations increase, the data will more closely fit a normal distribution. But, I don’t think this would be true if the true population distribution is a Poisson rather than normal.
OK, and what does the 33% have to do with it? How is it different from any other number in the (0,1) range?
Replies
Yes, and no.
A 33% drop rate WILL result in a shard dropping about once every 3 battles/sims, approximately, over the course of eternity. Unfortunately, that's a 33% drop rate across the entire player base. NOT a 33% drop rate for each individual. Therefore, your mileage may vary.
Ha ha u would make a great politician
Great advice!
-Sun Tzu
My subjective feeling: You are right on the spot.
Unfortunately, they don't even need to. With a low enough probability, like 33% for shards and 20% for gear, the computer randomicity is enough to make that last shard hard to get all on their own without being malicious about it.
The mean is the mean, but actual results will be radically different in small trials (like attacks in one fight or missions from full energy) due to variance.
The higher the variance the more trials (larger sample needed) to actually arrive at the mean and the streakier things appear.
It's probably because I throw so many dice that I'm suspect of the RNG in this game. And to be totally honest, we all should be until %'s are officially listed as is required in some other countries. It's not just this game, but everyone on the market. It's not even a bad thing, a company will make the money it can, they need to make profits. But, much like calories on all the menu's in NYC, the actual % should be publicly available.
The RNG for combat this game uses is very poor... Because it is based on a single seed value. If you do not understand that statement, fine... I will dumb it down. Because of how the randomness is done it increases the odds of a string of "bad rollls", because depending of the initial seed the odds of a "Bad Roll" will go up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/technology/from-the-back-office-a-casino-can-change-the-slot-machine-in.html
There seems to be a weird assumption that in a game like swgoh[0] - which isn't bound by any of these laws, and has a huge financial incentive to meddle - the game's creators are relying on a pure and neutral rng that doesn't ever change, and people who observe suspicious outcomes just don't understand math. I would be extremely surprised if this is how swgoh actually worked.
My assumption is that CG will sometimes tip the scales in your favor and sometimes not, depending on whatever is most likely to wring the greatest lifetime value (LTV) out of a given customer.
They use a single random number generator for all requests. Yes, each fetch has a 33% chance. Over all requests, there will be a 33% drop. But I may get 2 drops and you miss 4. In fact, this could be such bad luck that a single individual could, potentially, never get a drop at all, even though overall, over the whole player base, the drop rate is 33%.
Of course, 33% is high enough that the likelihood of that happening is very very low.
It's easier to imagine if you consider the drop rate of omegas in cantina 8. It has to be very low based on the results; maybe 1% or 0.1% drop rate (totally made up, but it is very low). Even though every 1000 sims or so would drop an omega, an individual could go their entire gameplay without ever seeing an omega drop from cantina 8. Though someone else might get 2 from 1900 sims.
When the random number generator is a single point that is accessed by all players, the RNG holds out across the whole player base, but each individual's results could vary.
If each slot machine was tied into a central computer, and the odds of winning the jackpot were 1 in a million. If you have 10 slot machines with 10 monkeys pulling the lever once a second, you'll get a jackpot about once a day (every 27.7 hours, give or take). The jackpot could happen at any of the ten machines. After 10 days or so, you'd have 10 jackpots, though because they're all tied in to a central computer, each jackpot could occur at any of the machines and you may have one or two of the machines that never got a jackpot at all and another that got 2 or 3.
But if each slot machine was only run by it's own computer, and the odds of winning the jackpot were 1 in a million. If you have 10 slot machines with 10 monkeys pulling the lever once a second, you won't necessarily get a jackpot about once a day. Instead, each machine would get a jackpot about once every ten days, give or take. Each machine would eventually get a jackpot. (Of course, with the odds that low, you could still go forever without getting a jackpot, but I'm using this for illustration purposes only.)
You forget the law of lazy programming.
The law of lazy programming says that a programmer will do just enough to meet the requirements and if it's difficult to do, he won't do it unless specifically forced to.
There's also Hanlon's Razor in play.
The odds for drop rates like shards and purple gear are low enough that pure RNG can drive dry spells and winning streaks to stoke the same behavior from players as you suggest they have coded.
People have brought this up before, and I do not find it compelling.
The law of lazy programming applies to things like polish and code quality. It is much less likely to apply to features that affect revenue.
And even in your own description of how the law works, you say "if it's difficult to do, [they] won't do it unless specifically forced to". We have no reason to assume they weren't specifically forced to.
I mean, if I were making business decisions for CG I would absolutely prioritize behavioral features in the RNG if these could be demonstrated to lead to an increase in some desirable metric.
fwiw I think it is surely plausible that there is no rng chicanery going on, just unlikely. This game grosses hundreds of millions of dollars a year. I guarantee they have entire bizdev teams sitting around brainstorming ways to increase revenue by a few basis points per month, and the kind of suggestions they have are not things like "new FO toons".
Throwing dice is precisely why the game's RNG seems off to you and here is why: this game has a higher variance than your dice rolling.
They very well could post that on average drops are 33% and be mathematically (and legally) covered. They can then distort the tar out of it by having a ridiculously high variance, causing such annoying streaks.
The problem is i wrote my own computer RNG with a fair probability and found that with a low enough probability, even 33% or 20%, it's completely easy and common for the computer to generate sequences of winning or losing steaks. I also have the experience of being frustrated to get the last shard/gear piece and plenty of enough experience where it came to me as soon as i tried for it and in abundance.
Like i said, there's no need for them to lay down a complicated mechanism where it frustrates you for that last piece when it's just as easy to let the RNG do that for them. In fact, it works against them to do so.
The data would fit something more like a Poisson distribution. If you observes one billion instances of drop rates of a shard when simmed every 5 times, and your drop rate is x/5 with possible values ranging from 0-5.
In this case, you would have an x axis for your probability distribution ranging from 0-5. A normal distribution would place the mean at 2.5 (50% drop rate) and allow for a symmetrical bell shaped curve. However, if we know the true population value is 1.65 shards per 5 sims (33% drop rate), then infinite observations of groups of 5 sims would converge on 1.65, not 2.5.
As such, the probability distribution would be positively skewed and appropriately fit a Poisson distribution. Because the highest probability value is 1.65, values closer to that will also have higher probabilities (i.e. more area under the curve) than values further away. This distribution would also accurately illustrate the fact that the probability of getting 0 or 1 drops out of 5 sims is much greater than 5 (which would be the least probable value).
Agreed 100%.:)
I will tell you that someone very close to me had an interview with Blizzard many months ago for some kind of micro-transaction consulting position...anyway, the entire interview was about how to manipulate compulsory behavior to entice spending. This included ways to manipulate perceived RNG and rewards, "shorting" rewards, etc.
Now, this is anecdotal, but I would be absolutely shocked if EA didn't employ similar strategies for the highest grossing Star Wars mobile game...
Huh? What does drop rate in a binary-outcome event have to do with "normal distribution" (of what exactly)?
Regarding the distribution of shard/gear drops for every N simulations. The law of large numbers suggests that as observations increase, the data will more closely fit a normal distribution. But, I don’t think this would be true if the true population distribution is a Poisson rather than normal.
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/can-a-computer-generate-a-truly-random-number/
You can create a parameterized RNG that has a non-uniform distribution and weight the results anyway you want.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5976927/slot-machines-casinos-addiction-by-design
Sorry, that slot machine link was the best I could find to explain how algorithms use small wins to hook people into trying for a big win.
That has nothing to do with ships dodging attacks but my point is that CG most definitely influences the outcome of all the rngs using histogram she to weight outcomes.
Go watch chromium pack videos on YouTube and see how Paploos you can count.
You keep coming back to this, but the reality is we know that companies have divisions dedicated to psychological analysis and generating microtransaction income. We know that Activision (as an example) applied for and received a patent on a matchmaking algorithm designed to skew matchmaking to encourage purchasing, and we know they've applied for other patents to behaviorally encourage spending through other methods as well. This is happening in gaming. It may not be happening here, but until companies are required by law to post their code there is no way of knowing.
Data collection isn't enough without the code because as @Woodroward said earlier, unless you have large and separate samples of data for each specific point along your progression (which would be impossible for all practical purposes), even a flat rate of 33% is meaningless in terms of understanding if there is manipulation going on. Without the code this is a discussion of theory and nothing more. Fun all the same, but people throwing around the idea that one side or the other are wrong or dumb are making judgments without legitimate relevant facts.
OK, and what does the 33% have to do with it? How is it different from any other number in the (0,1) range?