"Ultrarare" part II

[Tuism]

They're as we'll counted as they can be, I'm not gonna go recount for a discrepancy of less than 10

So how many people's counts do we have now? I still wanna get the counts from the devs, they can get 1000 people's, whole we have... Well, a few.

[Ringel]

They do not need 1000 people. That statement is entirely incorrect.

[Tuism]

What if there are people whose collection is entirely skewed the other way? 10 people who has a 60 more media cards than any other colour? My point is really, we don't know everything.

[Ringel]

We know enough. That's how stats work. We have enough of a random sample (cards) to make very strong conclusions.

Of course, if lots of people are misadding their cards or intentionally posting false information, I can't help that.

[jefmajor]

This is turning into a player vs. developer argument. That isn't necessary. That is opinion; Ringel is working with numbers. Numbers don't have opinions.

[Ringel]

For comparison, If the process is truly random, with the numbers Tuism posted, fewer than 1 in 250 players will see a distribution of Templar cards further from the expected averages, and fewer than 1 in 10000 (much smaller, but stats calculators usually don't go more digits than that) would see Assassin cards that far from the expected averages.

How likely is it both will be that far from the expected averages?

Of course Tuism didn't give me accurate numbers.

I don't mean to be anti-dev! I think there is clearly enough evidence to make checking the code for bugs worthwhile.

[Tuism]

If my numbers are out by one or two or even 5 or whatever, it's not cos I've deviously statistically altered them to fit my theory. Or whatever. Implying that I'm giving "inaccurate numbers" to "my ends" is really unnecessary.

Thanks for the theory, it is only that. No amount of theorizing will change it to fact until you have fact, which is distributed among 100,000 players, and the closest to that will be the devs, not you, not me.

[Ringel]

I don't think you gave me innacurate numbers for any particular reason. I'm just pointing out your numbers might in fact be less peculiar than my analysis says.

(If you were trying to lie to me you would have given numbers closer to the averages, not further from the averages.)

[Ringel]

Mar 17, 2012 15:31:51 GMT -5 Tuism said:

Thanks for the theory, it is only that. No amount of theorizing will change it to fact until you have fact, which is distributed among 100,000 players, and the closest to that will be the devs, not you, not me.

It is not "Just theory" It is backed by actual data and statistical analysis. It is closer to fact than "just theory". We wont know for certain until they check their code, but the numbers I've presented are more convincing than anything posted anywhere on this or any other Assassin's Creed source. They are pretty damn close to what you can use in court, and far exceed the standards for publication in a scientific journal provided we could check that the numbers people are posting are correct.

[Tuism]

I am uninterested in escalating this discussion further from my end. Hope you find the results you want, good luck

[Ringel]

There are no results I "want". Well, now I want the devs to check their code, since the number clearly show there is something wrong.

You escalated when you said:

Implying that I'm giving "inaccurate numbers" to "my ends" is really unnecessary.

I never implied anything of the kind.

[jefmajor]

I agree there is no need for hostility, but, you DID say this:

Mar 17, 2012 14:26:26 GMT -5 Ringel said:

Of course Tuism didn't give me accurate numbers.

[Ringel]

Sorry, I didn't mean to claim Tuism was trying to manipulate things. Earlier he gave me two different sets of numbers which I chalk up to arithmetic errors.

I meant that his numbers showed very strong evidence that things aren't random, but the evidence might not be as strong if he doubled checked the numbers he posted, so don't rely on that evidence alone.

So sorry Tuism if it read like I was accusing you of something. I was not. Other than not double checking your arithmetic.

[Hurdler]

Mar 17, 2012 10:19:42 GMT -5 Ringel said:

Does it randomly pick a rare between 1 and 42 or is the algorithm more complex? Because the stats are suggesting something more complex.

It's just a little bit more complex because I think we try to distribute memories quite equally between expertises, so that you don't end up having more than 4 memories of the same expertise in the same booster pack.

Due to that and the fact there is more [rare, order] in the templars, you have less chance to have a particular order when purchasing a templar pack.
Same thing for the [rare, crime] in the assassins. And you have more chance to get a [rare, order] in the assassins packs and more [rare, crime] in the templars pack.

But other than that, no. We don't keep track of previous booster pack made for generating a new one for instance.

[Hurdler]

Mar 17, 2012 11:39:43 GMT -5 Ringel said:

Mar 17, 2012 11:36:39 GMT -5 Tuism said:

Listen to the devs, there's no point to them lying to us at all. Would this question even exist if you got all the cards you wanted instead of all the cards you didn't want?

Anyway I still don't care enough about how random the random is to really get into this. I rest my case

I don't think the devs are lying. I think they either made a mistake in the code, or there has been a miscommunication somewhere. The numbers are pretty solid evidence on my side.

Yes, it was rather a miscommunication on my side. When I was saying it's random, I suggested that we don't put an arbitrary weight on a particular memory, or that we don't try to give more of a memory to a particular player. But yes, the algorithm itself give a biased results for some memories (orders and crimes ones, like I said in my previous post)