|
Post by Raphael Majere on Mar 23, 2012 11:34:29 GMT -5
So it's entirely possible for your rares to be skewed like Raphael's and for there to be nothing amiss with the distribution. Still sucks though I have 5000 in credit now. Not going buy any more packs but yeah; based on my stats (I think only bronto has bought more than me?), the proportion of certain rares is uneven in my case. As said, auction house coming soon so I guess this thread will die soon. However, it will be curious to see if there is a constant lack of certain rares at the auction house. My money's on pp and forced charity. Since both are assassin rares and every media or crime deck can do with 5 of them.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 23, 2012 12:09:01 GMT -5
See, even that's not an accurate way to predict if there is a lack of certain rares in the overall population of cards, as that will definitely depend on supply too. So even if a card is SUPER rare, if it's not a great card, it will still be in oversupply. Vice versa for super common cards with utility value. In any case, I really don't care if some cards are more rare than others, personally
|
|
mana
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by mana on Mar 23, 2012 14:47:30 GMT -5
yay guys go on and just push the price alot more with this thread today i opened some boosters... 7 in total outcome: 6 "ultrarares" and doomsday ( btw: i bought mixed packs. was feeling licky today )
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 23, 2012 14:57:00 GMT -5
Lol lets see what the auction house says about that, the market is much much bigger than the 100 people reading this thread even if we'd like to think otherwise
|
|
eev
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by eev on Mar 23, 2012 15:12:36 GMT -5
Tuismit's also not a question of agree or not, the description of boosters in shop says that it contains random cards what is not true actually. seems like devs dont give a f about it, so yeah nothing to discuss here.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Mar 23, 2012 15:20:21 GMT -5
On a small sample it will always appear biased, because of how most of us instinctivly misunderstand stats. If you ask most people: "if I have flipped a coin 49 times, and it has been heads everytime, what will happen when I flip it the 50th time," most people will say tails. But it's still a 50/50 chance, the previous results mean nothing. So it's entirely possible for your rares to be skewed like Raphael's and for there to be nothing amiss with the distribution. Still sucks though Or am I just stating the obvious everyone already knows? If a friend told me they flipped a coin 49 times and heads came up every time, I'd ask to see the coin. After 5 or 6 flips of all heads after that, I would have a large enough sample size to believe the coin is biased. No instincts involved, just math. Fortunately the people who installed the minigyroscopes inside the coin have owned up.
|
|
|
Post by jefmajor on Mar 23, 2012 15:22:58 GMT -5
TuismI do kind of like that some cards are more rare than others. I think that is the case with most TCGs and there is no reason for it to be like that with this one. I still wish I wasn't on the wrong END of that rarity, but, hey, that's life.
|
|
|
Post by jefmajor on Mar 23, 2012 15:25:10 GMT -5
Tuismit's also not a question of agree or not, the description of boosters in shop says that it contains random cards what is not true actually. seems like devs dont give a f about it, so yeah nothing to discuss here. They ARE random. There are just different scales of randomness involved. Certain cards operate under a different probability but it is still based on random chance. What would you like them to do, change the wording to say "Very random" ?
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 23, 2012 15:41:07 GMT -5
Lol, yeah maybe they should put the formula they use to calculate random into the market material. See random.org on how that would look.
|
|
eev
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by eev on Mar 23, 2012 16:05:33 GMT -5
jefmajorenglish is not my native language as everybody can see, but it seems like it is not yours too. and different scales of randomness is funny. so from oxford english dictionary: Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard. if you dont like oxford dictionary you can another dictionary, for example: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 23, 2012 16:30:39 GMT -5
Seeing as we're accepting sarcasm as a currency: So would you propose that they put "this pack contains a 12 cards, all of which are selected according to a complex probabality formula that favours a selection of cards which are listed in terms and conditions, subject to our code at the time of your clicking the buy button" Instead of "this pack contains 12 random cards"? In fact, they should clarify the concept of cards too, since I'm sure the dictionary definition of cards isn't "a virtual representative of a piece of cardboard that contains information that describes attributes that are meaningful within a certain rule set as determined by the game (see "game") that is agreed upon to e played by an arbitrary amount of players" Ok that's it for me on this subject, self-ejecting out of this. Noone has to agree with me I do think my paragraph was entertaining though
|
|
|
Post by jefmajor on Mar 23, 2012 16:45:32 GMT -5
Eev, what I meant was that there are two different random scales: Both are random. One is, just for example, 1/5, the other is 1/10. Those are both random. If you do a RND 1/10, and the result is 1,2,3,4, or 5, you do another 1/5 randomization, is that not random? The only alternative to random is pre-determined and they are most certainly not THAT. No need to be snotty or condescending about it.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Mar 23, 2012 17:42:07 GMT -5
I think it is reasonable to expect cards labeled with similar rarity to have similar rarity. So, it is reasonable to expect all Templar rares to be about the same rarity, all Templar commons to be about the same rarity and so on. In fact, it is so reasonable to assume that and so surprising that it would be anything different, I couldn't convince several of you that things were any different... It is too early to say whether the devs are going to take a look at this or not, since they are working on other aspects of the game right now.
|
|
|
Post by Hurdler on Mar 23, 2012 22:48:28 GMT -5
Tuismit's also not a question of agree or not, the description of boosters in shop says that it contains random cards what is not true actually. seems like devs dont give a f about it, so yeah nothing to discuss here. That's a bit unfair. I have said we have to wait Marc to come back. If that's really an issue for you, we might change it. More than that, it's still random, even if the randomness is biased by one of the rule. We don't lie or anything about it. All the rare memories are way rarer than uncommon. And that itself justify plently the category. If you find another english word to describe that, fine. But AFAIK, random is the one which fit the best.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 24, 2012 0:07:31 GMT -5
Tuismit's also not a question of agree or not, the description of boosters in shop says that it contains random cards what is not true actually. seems like devs dont give a f about it, so yeah nothing to discuss here. That's a bit unfair. I have said we have to wait Marc to come back. If that's really an issue for you, we might change it. More than that, it's still random, even if the randomness is biased by one of the rule. We don't lie or anything about it. All the rare memories are way rarer than uncommon. And that itself justify plently the category. If you find another english word to describe that, fine. But AFAIK, random is the one which fit the best. So my proposal above isn't going to be acceptable then?
|
|