Skepticism behind the decision to nerf retreat rate and not tell us...
November 11, 2018 11:31PM
edited November 2018
It's pretty much a fact that you did something with the retreat chance in haat. I can't speak for rancor because I don't retreat my units there. But in haat I can't retreat them no matter what. It will succeed maybe 1 out of 10 times which is far lower than the 40% that it claims to be.
I wonder if the devs are trying to make the raid more difficult for some reason?
I wonder if the devs are trying to make the raid more difficult for some reason?
Post edited by Kyno on
1
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
A raid which is soloable with a single team? Unlikely.
A fact that something was changed? What was the chance of success before the change? What was it changed to?
Better save that team until the end of p2, and if using CLS in p1, then escape in the end. I believe that's what the OP does.
Confirmation bias.
Go to sleep.
You're clueless of how math works, no offense but you're taking the easy way out. "You haven't done hundreds of attempts so I must assume there's no basis to your claims". Sorry but that's not gonna cut it.
Wrong, I start trying to retreat Han at about 25% left of p1, and CLS at 10%, hermit Yoda as soon as everyone has master's training which is over 50% of p1
How does math work? Be the one educate us.
Might want to check the team composition he is talking about, since neither Han or Hoda was included in the team.
Han was include in p1 solo since forever. I added hermit cause I like him
That's exactly how math works. If you retreat twice and succeed each time, that doesn't mean they've boosted the retreat rate to 100%. Likewise, if you retreat 20 times and only 2 go through, it doesn't mean they've secretly dropped it to 10%.
People talk this nonsense all the time--about shard drop rates, about gear drop rates, about zetas in challenges, about all kinds of things with randomness in it--but any time someone actually tracks the numbers for any reasonable amount of statistically significant time the printed rates always bear out.
No but if it was 100% for 10 raids in a row then it would mean that. If it's under 10% for 10 raids in a row then it can't be 40%
So if you don't win the lottery 10 times in a row, that means it's unwinnable?
Wow. Does that mean that if I flip a coin, and get heads an obnoxious amount of times in a row that it isn't just a possible, yet statistically improbable coincidence? Do you mean to tell me that the only reason explanation is that the universe nerfed the drop rate on tails? You learn something new every day. Thanks for teaching me how math works.
You can flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, but the probability of each side is still 50%.
Let me know when you get 10 head and one tails 5 days in a row
Flip a coin more than 10 times and then keep going and let me know when you get to 50%.
Math is funny like that, it can take a huge sample size to show the reality of a situation.
If your theory was correct I should have stretches of "good luck" as well, but I don't
Burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the claim the escape chances are nerfed and that's a fact.
How does this make my statement wrong — let alone my assumption? You ARE using CLS for phase 1. You ARE making CLS escape in the end (I consider ar 10% to be in the end).
I never mentioned neither Han nor HY. My comment mentioned CLS only — but I never mentioned CLS to be solo in p1. You better stick to what people actually write, instead of basing your responses on your own wrong assumptions.
(My original comment still stands)
Do you consider 20 samples a high enough sample size to conclude anything about the chance to escape? "Interesting."
(Sloppily) running through the calculations using some fairly benign approximations says you need well over 100 samples to even have a 95% chance of disproving that it is wrong. It's a Bernulli Distribution and I used a Normal Approximation.
Cheers!