Random is rolling a die. Pseudorandom is a computer programmed to generate a number between 1 and 6.
So, is what you are trying to say that its impossible to program a computer to make a truly random selection?
For the most part yes. But to the human brain it's effectively random. Where random vs. pseudorandom really comes into play is cryptography. You want something as close to random as possible so that it's nearly impossible (will take an exorbitant amount of time) for a computer to decrypt the cipher.
We're not dealing with cryptography here. Random vs. Psuedorandom is a non topic in this context.
I'm assuming this is why my phone (and ipod before that lol) sucks at playing music on shuffle.
I looked it up and the article I read claims that it's just my perception of random, meaning I want even distribution not randomness. I refuse to admit I'm the problem though.
Computers use algorithms to generate a "random number", but given the same seed, always generate the same random number. Here's one that goes a little deeper.
Computers use algorithms to generate a "random number", but given the same seed, always generate the same random number. Here's one that goes a little deeper.
I'm assuming this is why my phone (and ipod before that lol) sucks at playing music on shuffle.
I looked it up and the article I read claims that it's just my perception of random, meaning I want even distribution not randomness. I refuse to admit I'm the problem though.
I actually always perceive you to be the solution, not the problem.
So, is what you are trying to say that its impossible to program a computer to make a truly random selection?
This is actually true... there is no way to make a program generate truly random numbers, but since we all use the same algorithm any bias will be felt equally by us all.
Random is rolling a die. Pseudorandom is a computer programmed to generate a number between 1 and 6.
So, is what you are trying to say that its impossible to program a computer to make a truly random selection?
I believe what he is unconsciously trying to say is that he does not know what "pseudo-random" actually means.
For the purposes of education, a software pseudo-random number generator (RNG) performs a series of predictable, repeatable operations each time it is called. It is seeded with an arbitrary value, usually system time in milliseconds and thereafter will use the previous result as input to generate the next one.
The resulting number sequence may appear random if you don't analyze it too closely but is in fact predictable and repeatable - if you use the same RNG code and the same seed value, you will get the same output sequence every time.
Whoever at this stage who still thinks speed has the same chance to go up as any other secondary is just very lucky or very deceived.
I'm quite sure you have relevant data.
I do. My own data. I am quite sure you also have very relevant data to prove otherwise. I still havent seen data proving otherwise from anyone saying it is 25% chance...
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
Sad, because if the are lying, its just goes on to prove how low humanity can fall, by defending the injustices (in this case a million dolar company against the time and/or money of many average people). Sure, what we face it´s a first world problem, so not that big of a deal anyway over "mods" not upgrading speed at 25% average rate. But really, wouldnt like people who go out of their way to defend this by lying around me in any circumstances,
And it is also sad if they are actually telling the truth, because that would mean I am just very unlucky and, actually, falling behind quite fast in the game compared to other people who I will have to play against and will end up much better modded than I will.
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
So really, Go on, tell yourself it is a 25% chance on average. At the end of the day, your win or your lose depending on wether you are telling the truth or not.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
Sad, because if the are lying, its just goes on to prove how low humanity can fall, by defending the injustices (in this case a million dolar company against the time and/or money of many average people). Sure, what we face it´s a first world problem, so not that big of a deal anyway over "mods" not upgrading speed at 25% average rate. But really, wouldnt like people who go out of their way to defend this by lying around me in any circumstances,
I find it far more likely that people are wrong/exegurating/straight up lying than that ea/cg are lying about this.
I also don't know why a lower than 25% chance on speed is an "injustice" of any kind seeying as we all have the same chance.
And why are people who think it's 25% defending a million dollar company, but people who think it's lower are fighting against injustice? So everyone should always side with the player eventhough they think the player is wrong simply because the other party is a million dollar company? That's just silly.
Either it is 25% or it isn't.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
Sad, because if the are lying, its just goes on to prove how low humanity can fall, by defending the injustices (in this case a million dolar company against the time and/or money of many average people). Sure, what we face it´s a first world problem, so not that big of a deal anyway over "mods" not upgrading speed at 25% average rate. But really, wouldnt like people who go out of their way to defend this by lying around me in any circumstances,
I find it far more likely that people are wrong/exegurating/straight up lying than that ea/cg are lying about this.
I also don't know why a lower than 25% chance on speed is an "injustice" of any kind seeying as we all have the same chance.
And why are people who think it's 25% defending a million dollar company, but people who think it's lower are fighting against injustice? So everyone should always side with the player eventhough they think the player is wrong simply because the other party is a million dollar company? That's just silly.
Either it is 25% or it isn't.
Totally I agree with you. I didnt make my point correctly. Injustice is not defending a million dollar company. The injustice part is lying to do it.
Million dollar companies are what actually feed many families around the world and, as such, are often more critisied than they should. So, no, that was not what I was trying to say. Sorry.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
Yeah CG has a program on their single computer to turn the speed chances down specifically for you. Congratulations
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
Yeah CG has a program on their single computer to turn the speed chances down specifically for you. Congratulations
Hope not
But please, if you ever find evidence to back that statement, please let me know
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
Why would you believe some random person on a forum, but don't you believe some other random person on the forum?
The only reason is probably because that one person confirms your beliefs/superstition while that other person doesn't. That's not constructive and critical thinking.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
That's fine. You can claim it's not 25%. People are going to ask for proof though. An "opinion" is, by definition, not proof.
Also, almost nobody will see a 25% chance across the board. Some will be over and some under. Our own personal experiences are too small of a sample size.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out why you're being asked for data. Without data it has a high chance of being a spurious claim.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
As an initial assumption with no prior information even odds is not too unreasonable. I don't think anyone is making that assumption or just taking CG's word for it though. When mods first came out tracking was much more popular since no one knew the answer. Now it's rarer because we do know the answer (from that early tracking and latterly from Dev communication which would result in reputational damage if found to be misleading). Regardless there are recent datasets showing 25% rates for example this one https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/bqyw77/stupid_amount_of_mod_farming_stats/ where speed upgraded 289 times of the 1130 upgrades, a rate of 25.58%.
I personally think data like this with rates just under 25% is more often posted these days (and likely to be even more often posted) due to form of unintentional p-hacking. basically someone wonders what the drop rate is and if it really is 25% so tracks a few 10s of mods. If they see it's close to 25% they think "cool - it is 25% after all" stop tracking and go on with their lives without troubling the internet. If someone does a few 10s of upgrades and gets less than 25% - then if they don't think about it at all they jump straight online and moan about it. If they think about it a bit they'll think "people are just going to say my sample size isn't big enough" and go away and track more data. If they naively roll this new data into the old it'll be biased to a lower value than 25% and immediately become invalid in a way that's unfortunately undetectable.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
Why would you believe some random person on a forum, but don't you believe some other random person on the forum?
The only reason is probably because that one person confirms your beliefs/superstition while that other person doesn't. That's not constructive and critical thinking.
I dont believe a random person over another. But you are right, I believe my own personal experience and thus, might have been too keen on defending the one that sustained my own beliefs. That was probably wrong.
I still feel, though, that when someone posts with what they think is not working as intended in their opinion, people should repply with their own personal experience to prove them wrong rather than simply questioning what they are saying.
And, asking for some data sheet... well, I can make one for you right now with whichever data I would like to transmit, so it is not a valid option for me either.
Posting on the forum about something is not to be questioned or asked to prove (we can all proove what we want, since noone really knos if the proof we give is real or not), but rather to hear about other peoples personal experiences to see if it is a wider thing or just a personal or bad luck one.
So, I feel unlucky with mods. If 30 people comment to say that they do feel it is close to 25%, then I would feel that either I am unlucky or time will sort it out in the long run, because it is hard to make 30 people make up data when they probably dont even knoe each other.
I think that is all this post needed, istead of questioning what the person said at the beginning.
It is really sad to read people taking steps forward, not to defend it is a 25% chance, but to attack people who say it isn´t.
...
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
As an initial assumption with no prior information even odds is not too unreasonable. I don't think anyone is making that assumption or just taking CG's word for it though. When mods first came out tracking was much more popular since no one knew the answer. Now it's rarer because we do know the answer (from that early tracking and latterly from Dev communication which would result in reputational damage if found to be misleading). Regardless there are recent datasets showing 25% rates for example this one https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/bqyw77/stupid_amount_of_mod_farming_stats/ where speed upgraded 289 times of the 1130 upgrades, a rate of 25.58%.
I personally think data like this with rates just under 25% is more often posted these days (and likely to be even more often posted) due to form of unintentional p-hacking. basically someone wonders what the drop rate is and if it really is 25% so tracks a few 10s of mods. If they see it's close to 25% they think "cool - it is 25% after all" stop tracking and go on with their lives without troubling the internet. If someone does a few 10s of upgrades and gets less than 25% - then if they don't think about it at all they jump straight online and moan about it. If they think about it a bit they'll think "people are just going to say my sample size isn't big enough" and go away and track more data. If they naively roll this new data into the old it'll be biased to a lower value than 25% and immediately become invalid in a way that's unfortunately undetectable.
Great post. Brings a very interesting perspective. Doesnt make my % better, but gives a wider picture I had not thought of.
I still feel, though, that when someone posts with what they think is not working as intended in their opinion, people should repply with their own personal experience to prove them wrong rather than simply questioning what they are saying.
And, asking for some data sheet... well, I can make one for you right now with whichever data I would like to transmit, so it is not a valid option for me either.
Posting on the forum about something is not to be questioned or asked to prove (we can all proove what we want, since noone really knos if the proof we give is real or not), but rather to hear about other peoples personal experiences to see if it is a wider thing or just a personal or bad luck one.
So, I feel unlucky with mods. If 30 people comment to say that they do feel it is close to 25%, then I would feel that either I am unlucky or time will sort it out in the long run, because it is hard to make 30 people make up data when they probably dont even knoe each other.
I think that is all this post needed, istead of questioning what the person said at the beginning.
People's feelings are in no way an accurate indication of actual percentages, so if you want to make a case you basically have to track your drops/speed increases.
Lets say for example you slice 12 mods, the first 2 hit speed, the next 9 don't and the last one does. That's 1/4 hitting speed total, but for the last 10 it's only 1/10. Do you reckon that a player experiences that as "normal" or unlucky?
I still feel, though, that when someone posts with what they think is not working as intended in their opinion, people should repply with their own personal experience to prove them wrong rather than simply questioning what they are saying.
And, asking for some data sheet... well, I can make one for you right now with whichever data I would like to transmit, so it is not a valid option for me either.
Posting on the forum about something is not to be questioned or asked to prove (we can all proove what we want, since noone really knos if the proof we give is real or not), but rather to hear about other peoples personal experiences to see if it is a wider thing or just a personal or bad luck one.
So, I feel unlucky with mods. If 30 people comment to say that they do feel it is close to 25%, then I would feel that either I am unlucky or time will sort it out in the long run, because it is hard to make 30 people make up data when they probably dont even knoe each other.
I think that is all this post needed, istead of questioning what the person said at the beginning.
People's feelings are in no way an accurate indication of actual percentages, so if you want to make a case you basically have to track your drops/speed increases.
Lets say for example you slice 12 mods, the first 2 hit speed, the next 9 don't and the last one does. That's 1/4 hitting speed total, but for the last 10 it's only 1/10. Do you reckon that a player experiences that as "normal" or unlucky?
Hopefully as normal. As long as its a dedicated player, 12 slices will be done within a week, so its hard not to take all into consideration. Unlucky is when you go on 2 or 3 weeks of slicing with 0-2 speed going up. To even that out, you would need a very lucky week, and believe me, you would also remember that!
I still feel, though, that when someone posts with what they think is not working as intended in their opinion, people should repply with their own personal experience to prove them wrong rather than simply questioning what they are saying.
And, asking for some data sheet... well, I can make one for you right now with whichever data I would like to transmit, so it is not a valid option for me either.
Posting on the forum about something is not to be questioned or asked to prove (we can all proove what we want, since noone really knos if the proof we give is real or not), but rather to hear about other peoples personal experiences to see if it is a wider thing or just a personal or bad luck one.
So, I feel unlucky with mods. If 30 people comment to say that they do feel it is close to 25%, then I would feel that either I am unlucky or time will sort it out in the long run, because it is hard to make 30 people make up data when they probably dont even knoe each other.
I think that is all this post needed, istead of questioning what the person said at the beginning.
People's feelings are in no way an accurate indication of actual percentages, so if you want to make a case you basically have to track your drops/speed increases.
Lets say for example you slice 12 mods, the first 2 hit speed, the next 9 don't and the last one does. That's 1/4 hitting speed total, but for the last 10 it's only 1/10. Do you reckon that a player experiences that as "normal" or unlucky?
Hopefully as normal. As long as its a dedicated player, 12 slices will be done within a week, so its hard not to take all into consideration. Unlucky is when you go on 2 or 3 weeks of slicing with 0-2 speed going up. To even that out, you would need a very lucky week, and believe me, you would also remember that!
2 or 3 weeks of slicing is a duration.
0 to 2 speed going up is a quantity.
I'm not sure how to compare these. If you sliced 5 mods in 2-3 weeks then 0-2 going up is ok. If you sliced 200 mods in 2-3 weeks then it's pretty miserable.
Also, to extend leef's example. Someone that goes 2/2 then 0/10 is much more likely to remember the 0/10 than the combined 2/12. They're also unlikely to notice/remember the following 1/5, 0/5, 2/5, 2/5 stretch that is combined 5/20 or 25%. That's why people are asking for data. Because the human brain is very selective in what it remembers.
Replies
For the most part yes. But to the human brain it's effectively random. Where random vs. pseudorandom really comes into play is cryptography. You want something as close to random as possible so that it's nearly impossible (will take an exorbitant amount of time) for a computer to decrypt the cipher.
We're not dealing with cryptography here. Random vs. Psuedorandom is a non topic in this context.
I looked it up and the article I read claims that it's just my perception of random, meaning I want even distribution not randomness. I refuse to admit I'm the problem though.
https://boallen.com/random-numbers.html
Computers use algorithms to generate a "random number", but given the same seed, always generate the same random number. Here's one that goes a little deeper.
https://hackaday.com/2017/11/02/what-is-entropy-and-how-do-i-get-more-of-it/
@cannonfodder_iv
And look at that. I am enriched. Thanks!
The hackaday article is really interesting.
I actually always perceive you to be the solution, not the problem.
This is actually true... there is no way to make a program generate truly random numbers, but since we all use the same algorithm any bias will be felt equally by us all.
For the purposes of education, a software pseudo-random number generator (RNG) performs a series of predictable, repeatable operations each time it is called. It is seeded with an arbitrary value, usually system time in milliseconds and thereafter will use the previous result as input to generate the next one.
The resulting number sequence may appear random if you don't analyze it too closely but is in fact predictable and repeatable - if you use the same RNG code and the same seed value, you will get the same output sequence every time.
I do. My own data. I am quite sure you also have very relevant data to prove otherwise. I still havent seen data proving otherwise from anyone saying it is 25% chance...
Sad, because if the are lying, its just goes on to prove how low humanity can fall, by defending the injustices (in this case a million dolar company against the time and/or money of many average people). Sure, what we face it´s a first world problem, so not that big of a deal anyway over "mods" not upgrading speed at 25% average rate. But really, wouldnt like people who go out of their way to defend this by lying around me in any circumstances,
And it is also sad if they are actually telling the truth, because that would mean I am just very unlucky and, actually, falling behind quite fast in the game compared to other people who I will have to play against and will end up much better modded than I will.
Anyway, like I said, I have seen many people questioning the 25% chance of speed increasing on slicing, yet have seen none actually saying they do have such or better rate of speed increases, being it a small sample or a big one. All I see when someone brings this up is people not contributing with their own data, but only questioning what the other person said.
So really, Go on, tell yourself it is a 25% chance on average. At the end of the day, your win or your lose depending on wether you are telling the truth or not.
Since CG has come out and said that all secondaries have an equal chance to roll it's not surprising you're being asked for proof to back up your claim to the contrary. All the folks that feel that they "do have such or better rate of speed increases" can just point at SBCrumbs comments on Reddit as their proof.
I find it far more likely that people are wrong/exegurating/straight up lying than that ea/cg are lying about this.
I also don't know why a lower than 25% chance on speed is an "injustice" of any kind seeying as we all have the same chance.
And why are people who think it's 25% defending a million dollar company, but people who think it's lower are fighting against injustice? So everyone should always side with the player eventhough they think the player is wrong simply because the other party is a million dollar company? That's just silly.
Either it is 25% or it isn't.
That is the main problem. Since the day I was actually capable of constructive and critic thinking "because I was told so" was no longer a valid reason for me. I like to experiment and find out things for myself and then make my own opinion. In this case, my own personal opinion is that it doest add to a 25% for me. If me, or someone else for that matter, points that out, "but they said it is a 25% chance" aint enough evidence for me to prove me wrong or simply unlucky.
Totally I agree with you. I didnt make my point correctly. Injustice is not defending a million dollar company. The injustice part is lying to do it.
Million dollar companies are what actually feed many families around the world and, as such, are often more critisied than they should. So, no, that was not what I was trying to say. Sorry.
Thank you for corrrecting me.
Yeah CG has a program on their single computer to turn the speed chances down specifically for you. Congratulations
Hope not
But please, if you ever find evidence to back that statement, please let me know
Why would you believe some random person on a forum, but don't you believe some other random person on the forum?
The only reason is probably because that one person confirms your beliefs/superstition while that other person doesn't. That's not constructive and critical thinking.
That's fine. You can claim it's not 25%. People are going to ask for proof though. An "opinion" is, by definition, not proof.
Also, almost nobody will see a 25% chance across the board. Some will be over and some under. Our own personal experiences are too small of a sample size.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out why you're being asked for data. Without data it has a high chance of being a spurious claim.
Well I mean I have a head and no tail so that checks out. Stupid anti-tail based reality.
As an initial assumption with no prior information even odds is not too unreasonable. I don't think anyone is making that assumption or just taking CG's word for it though. When mods first came out tracking was much more popular since no one knew the answer. Now it's rarer because we do know the answer (from that early tracking and latterly from Dev communication which would result in reputational damage if found to be misleading). Regardless there are recent datasets showing 25% rates for example this one https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/bqyw77/stupid_amount_of_mod_farming_stats/ where speed upgraded 289 times of the 1130 upgrades, a rate of 25.58%.
Even those that think they have the slam dunk of a "big" data set which shows a lower value are normally found to fail to reject the data driven hypothesis of a 25% rate (see the top comment on this persons post for example https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/bz9qn3/chance_to_roll_values_on_mods_and_slice_them_over/).
I personally think data like this with rates just under 25% is more often posted these days (and likely to be even more often posted) due to form of unintentional p-hacking. basically someone wonders what the drop rate is and if it really is 25% so tracks a few 10s of mods. If they see it's close to 25% they think "cool - it is 25% after all" stop tracking and go on with their lives without troubling the internet. If someone does a few 10s of upgrades and gets less than 25% - then if they don't think about it at all they jump straight online and moan about it. If they think about it a bit they'll think "people are just going to say my sample size isn't big enough" and go away and track more data. If they naively roll this new data into the old it'll be biased to a lower value than 25% and immediately become invalid in a way that's unfortunately undetectable.
I dont believe a random person over another. But you are right, I believe my own personal experience and thus, might have been too keen on defending the one that sustained my own beliefs. That was probably wrong.
I still feel, though, that when someone posts with what they think is not working as intended in their opinion, people should repply with their own personal experience to prove them wrong rather than simply questioning what they are saying.
And, asking for some data sheet... well, I can make one for you right now with whichever data I would like to transmit, so it is not a valid option for me either.
Posting on the forum about something is not to be questioned or asked to prove (we can all proove what we want, since noone really knos if the proof we give is real or not), but rather to hear about other peoples personal experiences to see if it is a wider thing or just a personal or bad luck one.
So, I feel unlucky with mods. If 30 people comment to say that they do feel it is close to 25%, then I would feel that either I am unlucky or time will sort it out in the long run, because it is hard to make 30 people make up data when they probably dont even knoe each other.
I think that is all this post needed, istead of questioning what the person said at the beginning.
Great. We both together make up a 25% average. So working as intended
Great post. Brings a very interesting perspective. Doesnt make my % better, but gives a wider picture I had not thought of.
People's feelings are in no way an accurate indication of actual percentages, so if you want to make a case you basically have to track your drops/speed increases.
Lets say for example you slice 12 mods, the first 2 hit speed, the next 9 don't and the last one does. That's 1/4 hitting speed total, but for the last 10 it's only 1/10. Do you reckon that a player experiences that as "normal" or unlucky?
Hopefully as normal. As long as its a dedicated player, 12 slices will be done within a week, so its hard not to take all into consideration. Unlucky is when you go on 2 or 3 weeks of slicing with 0-2 speed going up. To even that out, you would need a very lucky week, and believe me, you would also remember that!
So together we just proved that the rest of us are right and you are wrong. Science!
Since EA replaced every day with a Tuesday, this is correct.
2 or 3 weeks of slicing is a duration.
0 to 2 speed going up is a quantity.
I'm not sure how to compare these. If you sliced 5 mods in 2-3 weeks then 0-2 going up is ok. If you sliced 200 mods in 2-3 weeks then it's pretty miserable.
Also, to extend leef's example. Someone that goes 2/2 then 0/10 is much more likely to remember the 0/10 than the combined 2/12. They're also unlikely to notice/remember the following 1/5, 0/5, 2/5, 2/5 stretch that is combined 5/20 or 25%. That's why people are asking for data. Because the human brain is very selective in what it remembers.
Edit for typos