Guild Wars 2

Larynx.2453:

Jerus.4350:

Larynx.2453:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Gemenai.3807:

How about instead buffing healing power? So i finally has some meaning. As it stand in this game, if you trade raw power for toughness, healing power or anything other you always make a poor trade. The amount of defense gained in relation to the amount of power/dmg lost is in no relation. And i’m not taling about 1:1 translation.

By the way give guardian +400 healing power baseline ( why? that’s too much? as if it would have any meaningfull impact in it’s current state). After all, that`s the class most people would think of when they where ask, who the “healer” class ingame would be or who would benefit the most of it.

Healing power completely trivializes the hardest content in this game. It doesn’t need a buff.

Oh definitely. That’s why every single person who runs fractals, dungeons, and world bosses stacks healing power.

Not everyone seeks to trivialize content, instead they’d rather have fun, do it quicker, and find a little enjoyment in it.

Wow thanks for that tidbit of irrelevant information you felt was necessary. Maybe next time you can actually read context and then we won’t have these embarrassing accidents anymore.

I think he got the context just fine.

What do you want healing power to be? Invulnerability tier? It’s close to that already… You can facetank mossman or lupi if you want. Why do you want to make it stronger? Do you hate PvP or something?

Do you want to make group healing stronger so we can bring in trinity-lite to this game?

What do you actually want?

Gemenai.3807:

How about instead buffing healing power? So i finally has some meaning. As it stand in this game, if you trade raw power for toughness, healing power or anything other you always make a poor trade. The amount of defense gained in relation to the amount of power/dmg lost is in no relation. And i’m not taling about 1:1 translation.

By the way give guardian +400 healing power baseline ( why? that’s too much? as if it would have any meaningfull impact in it’s current state). After all, that`s the class most people would think of when they where ask, who the “healer” class ingame would be or who would benefit the most of it.

Healing power completely trivializes the hardest content in this game. It doesn’t need a buff.

Gav.1425:

They made it and even added a link code, but never put it in. As a player with almost all the FOTM skins over a million runs, mathematically, it’s probably my only chance to finish the set.

Please care about FOTM.

It’s in level 51+.

That’s why they nerfed everyone at FOTM level 80 back to 30. To torment you.

Never forget.

Something is bugged. If you really have 90 ar you shouldn’t be taking that much damage. Try reequipping everything as was mentioned above. Also, does 90 show up on your hero panel?

Lord Kuru.3685:

the reward chests at the end of each fractal.. if someone joins the party right before the boss dies, do they get the chest, or is it only for those who have participated in the boss fight?

It’s whoever is present when the chest normally spawns.

For example:

If I fight the boss then get disconnected while the chest is supposed to pop, I won’t get it.

If a group 4-mans the path and invites someone at the end or sells the last slot, as long as he or she is simply in the instance when the chest is supposed to pop, he or she will get the chest.

spoj.9672:

Yeah well ive never worried about time on that fractal

This is why your runs take 45 minutes instead of 20-25 on average.

.
.
.

filthy casual.

;)

Tentonhammr.7849:

Last night our 50 run was infiltrated by an unknown person who refused to ready up. We suspect C.C. Danicia involvement.

Did you cheese mossy?

insanemaniac.2456:

i will miss it while its gone, but i kinda wont cuz of its time gates

Gaile, you would be our new hero if you could get them to remove the time gate while it’s under reconstruction.

dlonie.6547:

J Eberle.9312:

I’m a little bit fuzzy off medications atm so excuse my typing , but I believe I have found the mother of all pug experiences. enjoy

http://imgur.com/a/nKcbb

Wow. You found the King of the Fricktards there…I just don’t understand how people can be so dense O.o

NPE designed for these people.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I have a purchased copy of SigmaPlot. Otherwise I linked the StatTrek binomial probability calculator on this thread somewhere I think. But what you want is a sample size estimator which estimates how many trials you’ll need to see a statistically significant difference between two groups at an expected alpha, power level, and difference between groups. When I ran it earlier it was fewer than 80 trials, which is what convinced me I had enough drops to be confident in my result.

See what I mean by not knowing which program to get? Does that StatTrek one have a sample size estimator? And simple enough that someone who hasn’t had a stats course in almost 10 years can figure out?

And when you ran it earlier, what were your settings? Would the settings be equivalent to 66%, 95%, or 99.99% level of confidence (exact percentages may be slightly off)?

Pity there isn’t a simulator that can access ANet’s RNG system and loot tables to simulate 100+ runs (to account for no ring runs). It would make testing hypotheses so much easier.

I don’t know the full range of StatTrek’s web resources – they’re free though!

SigmaPlot is kind of the industry standard besides Excel, but it does cost money.

My sample size estimator was run with an alpha of .05 (95% confidence) and a power of .8 (beta of .2).

Those are the “go-to” standards for most research.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

No, I see no sample size estimate in there at all.

But in either case I already admitted that different levels could affect drop rate of given rings as one possible explanation for so many doubles.

All your data shows, even if you had more samples with the same distribution of doubles to not doubles is that there is something odd with the system. It doesn’t show what it is.

As for why I’m not running simulations of my own, I’m not a super smart stat person so I wouldn’t know what a good stat simulator would be. And I don’t want to grab one that’s made by someone who just thinks they know stats. If you can give a link to a good one, I’ll be more than happy to start posting more numbers.

All your data shows, even if you had more samples with the same distribution of doubles to not doubles is that there is something odd with the system. It doesn’t show what it is.

Yes, I completely agree. Yay!

As for why I’m not running simulations of my own, I’m not a super smart stat person so I wouldn’t know what a good stat simulator would be. And I don’t want to grab one that’s made by someone who just thinks they know stats. If you can give a link to a good one, I’ll be more than happy to start posting more numbers.

I have a purchased copy of SigmaPlot. Otherwise I linked the StatTrek binomial probability calculator on this thread somewhere I think. But what you want is a sample size estimator which estimates how many trials you’ll need to see a statistically significant difference between two groups at an expected alpha, power level, and difference between groups. When I ran it earlier it was fewer than 80 trials, which is what convinced me I had enough drops to be confident in my result.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

you can’t say that doubles are anymore likely than singles.

You haven’t run a sample size estimator and have provided no numbers here to make that claim.

So wouldn’t experiments to show that doubles are more likely have to be done on the same level?

Yes, if you wanted to test the claim that different levels have different drop rates.

I don’t see how doing different levels that may very well have different drop rates of rings will prove that doubles are more likely.

Ring X may have a higher than average drop rate on Fractal Level A.

You do Fractal Level B first and get Ring X. You then do Fractal Level A and get Ring X. Is it because of the higher drop rate or is it because the RNG isn’t independent of the previous ring drop? And even if it isn’t independent, how do you know that it wasn’t the higher chance that caused it? Because it’s not 100% chance for doubles so there’s obviously something ELSE affecting the results. How do you that without the increased range that bias for Ring X would have been enough to get Ring X again?

Y = RNG

Where Y is the number of the RNG generator and S is the current seed.

X = (Y + X-1)/2

Where X is the number that they compare to the loot table, Y is the previous Y and Y-1 is the previous trial’s result. Rounded down.

Trial 1 – Running Fractal Level B
Y = RNG
Y = 10

X = (10+0)/2
X = 5

Trial 2 – Running Fractal Level A
Y = RNG
Y = 7

X = (9+5)/2
X = 7

Fractal Level B has a range of 1-5 for Ring X.
Fractal Level A has a range of 1-7 for Ring X.

Had you run the second trial on Fractal Level B, you would not have gotten a double. But since you ran on Fractal Level A, you got a double. But without the bias you wouldn’t have gotten Ring X at all.

See how differences in the loot table can affect whether you get a double or not?

You haven’t run enough trials on the SAME loot table to say with high accuracy that the number of doubles is due to a bias rather than a range difference on the loot table.

Enough numbers in my post this time?

No, I see no sample size estimate in there at all.

But in either case I already admitted that different levels could affect drop rate of given rings as one possible explanation for so many doubles.

Benson.9063:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

The intermediate drops shouldn’t matter if each “ring bag” draw is independent. That’s really the assumption I was testing – is each ring draw independent from the last.

sounds like you are assuming that which you are trying to prove.

I don’t know why i’m being contrarian. who knows,maybe you’re on to something. If you’re right then good – figure out the pattern and we’ll take advantage of it.

But the data tend to work AGAINST the assumptions. The idea is that 2 step process which people assumed drops work:

1. Reward = ring
2. Ring = X

Might not be the case.

The assumptions only hold if the data aren’t different from what would be expected. Since the data seem to be different from expected, that means the drops might NOT be independent, which is mildly interesting.

Benson.9063:

Just so we are clear, by “double” you don’t simply mean duplicate. so not just drawing a ring you already have – but furthermore you mean the exact ring you just got on your previous fractal run. I don’t think that is clear. Also, this does not account for the entire loot table. in between getting two of the same rings, you could’ve gotten a fractal skin, armor chest, weapon chest, absolutely nothing, a different quality ascended ring (ascended/not ascended).

And then to accept what you are saying you have to assume that Tim’s formula is accurate for this scenario, that the math is correct, and that your data is correct. i’m terrible at math so i’d question the 3rd: you really put your rings in the bank in the order that you received them and haven’t touched them since? have you ever used the rings you got from drops for your character? on your alts? are those all accounted for?

Yes, I mean drawing the same ring as the last time I drew a ring. The intermediate drops shouldn’t matter if each “ring bag” draw is independent. That’s really the assumption I was testing – is each ring draw independent from the last.

Yes, I really put my rings in the bank in the order I received them and haven’t touched them since. I had a number of rings which I used on my characters – but this was before I started keeping track. Once I decided to start collecting data, I put in ring after ring, right after the previous one, so that’s the data you see.

Edit: The other thing to note is in the first tab in the middle you see a rainbow looking ring which can no longer drop since the number of rings possible decreased from 34 to 26. So some of that earlier data DEFINITELY had a different probability than the latter data.

But look at the last tab in particular. 24 drops, 23 trials, 5 repeats. That’s 21%, which given the smaller sample size is probably not statistically different than the 18% which occurred overall. But it’s DEFINITELY bigger than the ~4% we’d expect. (Might not be statistically different)

deSade.9437:

/thinks about the fractal rings RNG thread

Yeah, “pedantic” is definitely the right word.
The things I read when I have a cold and feel miserable <.< now my headache got worse.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Berserker-Meta-Discussion

I’m back to dully staring at the screen.

Proudly pedantic.

Tim.6450:

Well what we were trying to (dis)prove (I’m not sure whether this thread is on track anymore) was that the rng for rings is not an independant. Meaning a ring’s chances does not change depending on the result before. Nevets tries this by placing a counter example. His example has 15 occurences where the drawn ring was the same as the previous ring drawn in a batch of 84 rings. The chance of this or worse (more “doubles”) occurring is 1 in 1.6 million.

This. I haven’t made any claims as to WHY this occurs. There are various explanations.

It could be a poor RNG, it could be different tiers drop different types of rings at different rates, it could be that daily resets influence drops if you did a run before reset, it could be some rings have a higher chance at any tier.

All my data show is that only once in 1.6 million would you get the number of doubles I got IF any time the game draws from the “ring” bag, it draws randomly among the 26 possibilities.

The reason why I posted this in the first place is because so many people are like, “oh my gosh I got 3 spearguns in a row,” or “dude I got the same weapon box 5x in a row this week.”

I presented my data as I have it, and 84 rings is a large sample size, with high power, despite what people keep claiming here.

Seera.5916:

You asked me what experiments use several hundred trials. I answered. I could have been facetious and said phase 4. The keep an eye on the reported problems when the general population gets their hands on the drugs. But I decided to be serious.

And with the number of trials you’ve done and the varying variables that may affect the results, you can’t say that doubles are anymore likely than singles. We don’t know if the chances of a specific ring change from level to level or not. So wouldn’t experiments to show that doubles are more likely have to be done on the same level?

You asked me what experiments use several hundred trials

I never asked you that.

you can’t say that doubles are anymore likely than singles.

You haven’t run a sample size estimator and have provided no numbers here to make that claim.

So wouldn’t experiments to show that doubles are more likely have to be done on the same level?

Yes, if you wanted to test the claim that different levels have different drop rates.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Benson.9063:

The math sounds really bad to me. I’ve read through only the first thread.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with my friends after a gambling session. i believe we were palying roulette. Read about the Gambler’s Fallacy and see if that applies and helps you to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

. . .probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 1?2 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1?4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1?8 (one in eight).

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 1?32 (one in thirty-two), a person subject to the gambler’s fallacy might believe that this next flip was less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler’s fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of “first 4 heads, then a tails” are equally likely, each having probability 1?32.

While a run of five heads is only 1?32 = 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

Also there are other things to come into play. there are 26 outcomes but maybe they are not all weighted equally. If you really wanted to test this ask people to open up their banks and show their rings. I have some duplicates but otherwise a great variety. The OP has only gotten 5 rings………. they aren’t even all the same 5. i would also suggest to run more fractals and tell us what your next 5 rings are? next 10 rings are? etc.

I’d suggest reading the rest of the thread. Everyone dismissed the op so I sort of hijacked the thread with an ordered sample size of 84 rings, and multiple people have done the math on those to get odds of about 1 in 1.6 million.

And just because you’ve hit that 1 in 1.6 million chances doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the system.

As to studies that use several hundred trials: phase 3 drug testing. And I would imagine cheap, safe, and quick experiments in non-biology or non-biochemistry labs probably get a large trial size as well.

You said the trials were on the different fractal levels. And you haven’t given the data of what trials yielded no rings.

I would imagine the more uncontrolled variables you have the more trials you have to run to ensure that the uncontrolled, non-studied variables aren’t affecting the results. Levels 21-50 can give infused rings (you said all rings shown are infused, right? If so that’s another variable – non-infused rings). That’s 30 levels. That’s on average 2.8 trials per level. That’s not enough trials to ensure that the differences between their loot tables is not affecting the results. Average per level would be higher if you didn’t do specific levels but you didn’t mention which levels you did.

A few things.

Stage 3 clinical trials are used to show super rare adverse affects that don’t occur in the normal population. They are only permitted AFTER a trial with a few dozen subjects convinces people that the drug is safe.

Again, a sample size of a few dozen or even smaller is enough for an alpha of .05 and power of .8.

All my data purport to show is that if you roll a ring, you’re not equally likely to get any of the 26. For whatever reason.

As to the rest of your post, I still see a bunch of claims being made with no numbers

Benson.9063:

The math sounds really bad to me. I’ve read through only the first thread.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with my friends after a gambling session. i believe we were palying roulette. Read about the Gambler’s Fallacy and see if that applies and helps you to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

. . .probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 1?2 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1?4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1?8 (one in eight).

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 1?32 (one in thirty-two), a person subject to the gambler’s fallacy might believe that this next flip was less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler’s fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of “first 4 heads, then a tails” are equally likely, each having probability 1?32.

While a run of five heads is only 1?32 = 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

Also there are other things to come into play. there are 26 outcomes but maybe they are not all weighted equally. If you really wanted to test this ask people to open up their banks and show their rings. I have some duplicates but otherwise a great variety. The OP has only gotten 5 rings………. they aren’t even all the same 5. i would also suggest to run more fractals and tell us what your next 5 rings are? next 10 rings are? etc.

I’d suggest reading the rest of the thread. Everyone dismissed the op so I sort of hijacked the thread with an ordered sample size of 84 rings, and multiple people have done the math on those to get odds of about 1 in 1.6 million.

Halvorn, run your code until you see an output with 18% doubles. I’m curious to see how close to 1.6 million trials you’ll need.

Halvorn.9831:

Saint.5647:

I was going to chime in to say the same thing along the same lines as well. I’ve spent the last few years working in research and very rarely have I ever seen a study with an abnormally high amount of trials. I don’t know where you have seen hundreds of trials run outside of simulations. In most situations it’s simply not feasible.

That tells you something about the credibility of some research. This is a completely different topic though: there are some areas of “research” where there has to be a result, and if the sigma cannot be good enough, you just ignore it, rather than improving your sample numbers. There are lots of studies out there about the weaknesses of studies.

But that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is that, considering an even spread, the results presented as a proof of bad behavior are totally within the range of expectable and explainable results – given the small sample size.

I guess I am giving up on this topic. Conspiracy theories are successful because they appeal to weaknesses in our psyche. Secret rules in the code, the effects of PRNG, the aim to make more money through gem sales, it all makes sense suddenly…. not.

I look at MY code which shows me that the behavior is explainable without any dark secrets. That is my creed: it is all in the code.

Your code came up with zero examples of 18% doubles in hundreds of runs.

Halvorn.9831:

I am not giving up.

int run = 1;
int samples = 84;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < samples; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}

float percentage = doubles/(float)samples * 100f;
if (percentage > {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles percentage: %2.1f”, run, percentage));
}
run++;
} while (true);

This time the small program calculates the percentage of doubles on the whole sample and prints it out, if it is > 8 percent.

Output:
Run Nr: 4, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 18, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 40, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 88, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 116, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 125, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 148, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 151, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 196, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 211, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 228, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 232, Doubles percentage: 10,7
Run Nr: 234, Doubles percentage: 10,7
Run Nr: 259, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 267, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 279, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 339, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 412, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 422, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 430, Doubles percentage: 8,3

Now I am changing the sample size from 84 to 840.

Output:

Even after 10 minutes of looping not a single sample had more than 8% doubles. Because at this sample size the result is much closer to the expected average of 1/26, ca. 3.8%

Your sample size is at least factor 10 too small to contain any clues on anomalies in the RNG distribution. Even for an even distribution of random results (read: the RNG produces white noise when viewed as a frequency graph) your results are expectable because of your sample size.

Why 8%?

15 doubles in 83 trials is 18%.

Also, to the person who said most science trials have hundreds of trials, I’m going to have to beg to differ. As someone who is a biochemist by trade with a number of publications myself, who consistently reads scientifikittenerature, that’s not been my experience. Also, before you say you don’t believe me, if you really want to read my articles, please pm me.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Halvorn.9831:

I’d rather program this. It gives a better impression.

int run = 1;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < 84; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}
if (doubles >= 10) {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles: %d”, run, doubles));
}
run++;
} while (true);

Make 84 random number between 0 and 25 and count how many times the current one is the same as during the last draw (a “double”). Output whenever there is more than 9 doubles (together with the run nr to get a feeling for how often it happens) among the 84 random numbers. Repeat this forever.

Sample result:

Run Nr: 201, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1195, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1877, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 2336, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 2505, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3225, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3501, Doubles: 14
Run Nr: 3615, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4350, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 4380, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4672, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 6234, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 7821, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 9148, Doubles: 10

Can you see that? In the first 10000 runs I already have an attempt with 14 doubles.
The reason is that 84 is much too small as a sample size. There is still way too much fluctuation in that. If you choose a sample size of 10000, the number of doubles is much closer to 3.8% (1/26).

Thanks for doing this, but using this method of counting I had 15 doubles, which didn’t occur in your 10,000 samples, right?

But are 15 doubles just an outlier or statistically significant? THAT’s the question. And 84 trials is not a high enough sample size to say it is or that it is not with high confidence.

I’m going to ask you again. Can you please run a sample size estimator statistical test to show me that a sample size of 84 doesn’t have strong statistical power?

It doesnt. You dont even NEED to run a test to tell you that.

• For starters, you dont even know what the RNG formula is, so any test is FUBARed and false-premises to begin with.
• Second, you dont know what information is used to determine chances of what loot (aside from any statistical values of your account being irrelevant [as stated multiple times by people who know a hell of a lot more than people on the forums with tinfoil hats]).
• Third, your micro-sample size is just too small to start with to even give serious consideration to. Is it 84 runs period (nice RNG getting rings every run)? Or is it just the 84 runs that you got rings (out of how many runs? which also skews your ‘proof’)? Or is it just 84 convenient rings in your inventory/bank you’re using?

Finally, and hopefully this puts this thread out of it’s misery, RNG is functioning absolutely fine because it’s creating outliers as based on OP’s poor sample size, not because the OP’s results ARE an outlier (absent about another 900+ run results). No outliers? Something’s funky or anet actually lessened the odds of outliers occurring (something JS pursued a thread about for a while).

edit: @tim, the drops are fully independent regardless of situation. You could drop a zerker ring, followed by a rampager ring, then followed by a magi ring. One does not affect the previous or following result in any form. Mind you, this is assumed from simple logic and the fact that we dont know the internals of the RNG system

edit2: also, sample size is a massive issue that you really need to understand. What seems abnormal and an issue at <100 “tests” will be normal at >100,000 “tests.”

Yeah, because in the vast majority of science literature they have 100,000 samples.

/sarc

I mean if you want to play ball with stats here, please do. But if you’re just going to make things up, please go make your own thread.

Lolled the hardest at the end when he says “Look at that we won!”

And it turns out he didn’t win.

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I’m becoming more convinced that you’re correct, but for whatever reason I thought that you can’t use a single drop in two trials.

you are confusing the statiscal independance with independance.

independance means that you’re previous result will not influence the next one which it does in a way, if you got a zerker ring in your first test and a rampager in your second. you would not have a double. so that previous roll influenced your result so it’s not independant.

In statistics the only thing that matters are the probabilities; The definition (from wikipedia) is:
“Two events are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their probabilities.” Now let’s put this on my case:
What is the chance you get a double and the previous ring was a zerker? 1/26*1/26= chance previous ring a zerker*chance double. So the previous result and the chance of getting a double is independant.

On the other thread I finally understood what you guys were saying, and I completely agree with you. When I did the math using an online calculator I got results of 1 in 1.63 million which is basically what you said.

So there you guys have it.

The odds of my number of doubles are about 1 in 1.63 million, which COULD be due to chance, though I’m inclined to believe otherwise, due to others getting similar results.

Artemi.1437:

But if you do the counting that way don’t you violate the independence assumption for the trials?

No, because the first ring of the pair doesn’t matter. Meaning that when the first and the second ring aren’t a pair, it’s still a 1/26 chance that the second and the third ring could be.
The same is true if the first and second ring are the same: still a 1/26 chance that the second and third are also a pair (making the whole a tripple at least).

It would be a different story if you would do this with tripples. Then 1-2-3 and 2-3-4 wouldn’t be independent, because if 1-2-3 would be a tripple the chances would be higher that 2-3-4 would also be a tripple(1/26), then if 1-2-3 weren’t already a tripple(1/676). Because the information that 1-2-3 is a tripple already makes sure that 2 and 3 are the same ring and we could use that information to decrease the possibilities for 2-3-4.

Oh, I get it!

Thanks for the explanation.

SO! Final (I hope!) maths:

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Probability of success on a single trial: .0385
Number of trials: 83
Number of successes: 15
Cumulative Probability: P(X >/= 15): 6.12868871985306E-07

Total Odds of Getting Greater Than or Equal to 15 Successes in my 83 Trials: 1 in 1,631,670

I’m pretty sure that’s what Tim got on the other thread.

So, is that possibly just from random chance? Sure, there are 3.5 million accounts purchased. That said, I doubt even 1% of those have done that many fractals, and from what people have been saying, I’m not the only one who has received patterns of doubles like this.*

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I made the image and I initially highlighted each of the doubles and the one triple, but as an afterthought I was thinking it would be better to look at them as pairs because then each trial is independent. If a single drop is used as the second comparison drop AND as the first initial drop, the drop is no longer “independent.” One of the assumptions of using a binomial probability distribution is that each “trial” has to be independent. If you’re using the same ring in two trials, it’s no longer independent and the assumptions of your test are violated.

How is it not independant? Your chance of success is always 1/26.

I’m becoming more convinced that you’re correct, but for whatever reason I thought that you can’t use a single drop in two trials.

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Awesome, thank you so much.

So, if I’m reading this properly you’ve calculated the cumulative probability of getting 15 or more doubles out of 84, not just exactly total of 15.

Correct though I have the data for excact 15 as well in my chart (second collum).

Perhaps you can explain one more thing to me – why would this model be preferable to a model where you view 2 drops as a “trial” and count successes as 2 of the same rings (with odds of 1 in 26) and a failure as 2 different rings (25/26). Under this model you’d have 42 trials, 8 successes.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Under this model you get a kitten prob of 8 or more of 1 in about 6,000 which seems a lot more likely to be “RNG is RNG” than 1 in a 1.6 million.

Thoughts?

First thing in statistics is that how larger the sample how more accurate the result.
Secondly because that’s not how a player will experience it, he will not compare every set 2 of the same. He will look at his current ring and think about his previous ring evvery time he gets a ring. take a look at how it is highlighted, he didn’t took sets of two and compared them. He took every occurence of a double (even triple) and marked them.

I made the image and I initially highlighted each of the doubles and the one triple, but as an afterthought I was thinking it would be better to look at them as pairs because then each trial is independent. If a single drop is used as the second comparison drop AND as the first initial drop, the drop is no longer “independent.” One of the assumptions of using a binomial probability distribution is that each “trial” has to be independent. If you’re using the same ring in two trials, it’s no longer independent and the assumptions of your test are violated.

Saint.5647:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Derigar.7810:

Is this true? I only get the ones in said attached file.
I’m hoping to get a Berserker ring sometime soon, but it seems like prestine relics will be the way to buy it.

Pretty sure their RNG is complete crap because many times you’ll get doubles of the same ring even though the chances of that happening are really low statistically.

This. I only ever got a few Berserker rings. I did however have many, many multiples of Megellan’s Whorll, Rurik’s Signet Ring, Vassar’s Band, and Rallena’s Band…..like a lotttttt of those.

Fact is that they have admitted to their drop system and reward system being broken in Fractals before. Even modifiers like potions for dungeons were broken for a very long time. In theory it is all RNG but RNG has to be based on script yes? I’ve thought for a while that they might have some numbers wrong and either are not sure how to fix it or don’t care to.

Yeah, I remember when they released Fractured! the fractal weapon drop rate was borked for a long, long time. I’m sure if someone had posted about that, with a low sample size because weapons are much rarer than rings, the same people here would cry “RNG IS RNG.”

Then ANET came out and said, “Lel woops guys we broked it.”

And then didn’t fix it fully to what it was before.

Wanze.8410:

Did Anet ever say that the drop chance for every ring is the same?

Maybe certain rings have a higher chance at certain fractal levels.

Definitely possible.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Artemi.1437:

Why can’t we model 2 drops as a “trial” where “successes” means 2 of the same ring, and “failure” means 2 different rings?

Thats what we do, but you are forgetting nearly half the trials you have with this method by only counting to 42.
To ellaborate: The first ring is the start of our first trial. The second ring is the second ring of our first trial but also the first ring of our second trial! The third ring that drops is the second ring to our second trial and the first for our third. And so on.

Because if you get a double ring you don’t dismiss it with the notion: Oh its the second and third ring, those don’t count.

But if you do the counting that way don’t you violate the independence assumption for the trials?

If you do the counting your way, you lose 6 of your doubles that you highlighted in your OP.

Yeah, I know, but I don’t violate the assumptions of the stats test which I think is more impt.

@Wanze

I know, I fixed it and changed the data later on:

“Ok, redid math.

99.9825172916403% chance that I’d get fewer than 8 doubles out of 42 trials. Definitely a lot more plausible that I just got unlucky, but with others seeing doubles too, with yellows dropping in pairs from world bosses etc. etc., I still think their RNG does a poor job giving a normal range of outputs on the INDIVIDUAL level."

^that’s with changed odds to 1/26

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Halvorn.9831:

I’d rather program this. It gives a better impression.

int run = 1;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < 84; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}
if (doubles >= 10) {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles: %d”, run, doubles));
}
run++;
} while (true);

Make 84 random number between 0 and 25 and count how many times the current one is the same as during the last draw (a “double”). Output whenever there is more than 9 doubles (together with the run nr to get a feeling for how often it happens) among the 84 random numbers. Repeat this forever.

Sample result:

Run Nr: 201, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1195, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1877, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 2336, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 2505, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3225, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3501, Doubles: 14
Run Nr: 3615, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4350, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 4380, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4672, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 6234, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 7821, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 9148, Doubles: 10

Can you see that? In the first 10000 runs I already have an attempt with 14 doubles.
The reason is that 84 is much too small as a sample size. There is still way too much fluctuation in that. If you choose a sample size of 10000, the number of doubles is much closer to 3.8% (1/26).

Thanks for doing this, but using this method of counting I had 15 doubles, which didn’t occur in your 10,000 samples, right?

But are 15 doubles just an outlier or statistically significant? THAT’s the question. And 84 trials is not a high enough sample size to say it is or that it is not with high confidence.

I’m going to ask you again. Can you please run a sample size estimator statistical test to show me that a sample size of 84 doesn’t have strong statistical power?

Artemi.1437:

Why can’t we model 2 drops as a “trial” where “successes” means 2 of the same ring, and “failure” means 2 different rings?

Thats what we do, but you are forgetting nearly half the trials you have with this method by only counting to 42.
To ellaborate: The first ring is the start of our first trial. The second ring is the second ring of our first trial but also the first ring of our second trial! The third ring that drops is the second ring to our second trial and the first for our third. And so on.

Because if you get a double ring you don’t dismiss it with the notion: Oh its the second and third ring, those don’t count.

But if you do the counting that way don’t you violate the independence assumption for the trials?

Halvorn.9831:

I’d rather program this. It gives a better impression.

int run = 1;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < 84; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}
if (doubles >= 10) {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles: %d”, run, doubles));
}
run++;
} while (true);

Make 84 random number between 0 and 25 and count how many times the current one is the same as during the last draw (a “double”). Output whenever there is more than 9 doubles (together with the run nr to get a feeling for how often it happens) among the 84 random numbers. Repeat this forever.

Sample result:

Run Nr: 201, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1195, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1877, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 2336, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 2505, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3225, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3501, Doubles: 14
Run Nr: 3615, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4350, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 4380, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4672, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 6234, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 7821, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 9148, Doubles: 10

Can you see that? In the first 10000 runs I already have an attempt with 14 doubles.
The reason is that 84 is much too small as a sample size. There is still way too much fluctuation in that. If you choose a sample size of 10000, the number of doubles is much closer to 3.8% (1/26).

Thanks for doing this, but using this method of counting I had 15 doubles, which didn’t occur in your 10,000 samples, right?

Artemi.1437:

99.9825172916403% chance that I’d get fewer than 8 doubles out of 42 trials.

You did 83 trials, because you did 84 runs.See the following sequence:
1-2-3-4-5-6-7

How much chances for doubles are in this?
6!
1-2, 2-3, 3-4, kitten -6, 6-7
You can’t just half the number of attempts because doubles obviuosly take up two attempts to reach^^

I have no idea what on earth makes the number combination a swear word. Can someone enlighten me of there harmfull nature?

Why can’t we model 2 drops as a “trial” where “successes” means 2 of the same ring, and “failure” means 2 different rings?

We’d have 42 trials, we know the odds of a success is 1/26, odds of failure is 25/26, and can calculate the odds using the above linked binomial probability calculator to see the odds of getting 8 or more successes out of 42 trials.

Also, 4 can be construed as an A, 5 can be construed as an S, so kitten could be a donkey.

Fixing forum bug again.

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

For those of you saying that 84 isn’t enough, can you please give me your statistical power analysis? Do you have any statistical data at all, or are you just making up numbers?

Like I said you’re 1 in 1652159 to get 15 or more doubles in a 84 test case with 26 rings. GW2 sold in it’s first year more then 3500000 copies. So it’s not that impossibleto happen if you think about it. The fact that it is you, well that’s just bad luck.

Can you show your math? I used a binomial probability calculator with 42 trials and 8 repeats to get odds of 99.98% chance I should get less than 8 repeats.

Also, the fact that other people tend to get repeats too indicate it’s not just me.

Sure:
consider P_n: the probality that you get for getting exactly n doubles in a test with 84 draws and 26 rings to choose from.
now your first draw is unimportant since we talk about doubles so that may be anything. After that you have a 1/26(D for short) chance to get a double and 25/26(U for short) to not get a double. This goes for every draw after the first one. Since we want to calculate the chance of getting n doubles. We want to add the chances of all situations with exactly n D’s.
So P_n = DDDDDDD….UUUUUUU+ UDDDDDD……UUUUU+ … + DDUDUUDUDDUDDDUUD…. + ….. .
Since the multiplication is abelian we can rewrite P_n= (#amount situation with n doubles)* D^n*L^(83-n).
The only thing that we need to calculate is (#amount situation with n doubles) and this can be calculated as 83!/n!/((83-n)!).
Now that we have a formula for P_n we can calculate the probality that you have n or more doubles is P_83+P_82+…+ P_(n+1) + P_n.

That is my mathematical basis for my formula.
For my calculations , I can’t send them since they are made in excell and I can’t post excell files.
That being said I have a screen shot of the results for 1 to 27, the first collum is n, the second P_n, the third is ‘the probality that you have n or more doubles’, and the fourth is ’ you’re 1 in to get n or more doubles’.

Awesome, thank you so much.

So, if I’m reading this properly you’ve calculated the cumulative probability of getting 15 or more doubles out of 84, not just exactly total of 15.

Perhaps you can explain one more thing to me – why would this model be preferable to a model where you view 2 drops as a “trial” and count successes as 2 of the same rings (with odds of 1 in 26) and a failure as 2 different rings (25/26). Under this model you’d have 42 trials, 8 successes.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Under this model you get a kitten prob of 8 or more of 1 in about 6,000 which seems a lot more likely to be “RNG is RNG” than 1 in a 1.6 million.

Thoughts?

Tim.6450:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

For those of you saying that 84 isn’t enough, can you please give me your statistical power analysis? Do you have any statistical data at all, or are you just making up numbers?

Like I said you’re 1 in 1652159 to get 15 or more doubles in a 84 test case with 26 rings. GW2 sold in it’s first year more then 3500000 copies. So it’s not that impossibleto happen if you think about it. The fact that it is you, well that’s just bad luck.

Can you show your math? I used a binomial probability calculator with 42 trials and 8 repeats to get odds of 99.98% chance I should get less than 8 repeats.

Also, the fact that other people tend to get repeats too indicates it’s not just me.

GummiBear.2756:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Miku.6297:

I didn’t see a single non-thinking post like the one you mentioned. People saying it’s RNG isn’t saying or acting how you are depicting it. However RNG loot is the correct term, language does matter, and the term RNG loot is the correct language and usage for this type of loot system.

A system which is primarily determined by random number generation is a RNG loot system.

Half the posts on here are “RNG IS RNG.” Non-thinking, mystical, hand-waving.

RNG loot may be the term in common parlance. It’s a bad term, doesn’t convey the whole picture, and the loot in this game is weighted based on tables, not primarily based on a RNG.

Well on that logic every single one of your posts pretty much is “RNG in this game is wrong”

Sure, if you ignore my math.

Miku.6297:

I didn’t see a single non-thinking post like the one you mentioned. People saying it’s RNG isn’t saying or acting how you are depicting it. However RNG loot is the correct term, language does matter, and the term RNG loot is the correct language and usage for this type of loot system.

A system which is primarily determined by random number generation is a RNG loot system.

Half the posts on here are “RNG IS RNG.” Non-thinking, mystical, hand-waving.

RNG loot may be the term in common parlance. It’s a bad term, doesn’t convey the whole picture, and the loot in this game is weighted based on tables, not primarily based on a RNG.

Once again infracted. Let’s try a third time.

For those of you saying that 84 isn’t enough, can you please give me your statistical power analysis? Do you have any statistical data at all, or are you just making up numbers?

@Andred – there is good reason to believe RNG isn’t working correctly. My data.

@Gummi – Doesn’t matter if we assume “ring rolls” as a subset of drops.

@Miku – As I said before, language matters and “RNG loot” doesn’t give the whole picture and leads to non-thinking posts like “RNG IS RNG LEL U CAN GIT NETHING NE NUMBER OF TIMES NE TIME TRENDS MEAN NOTHING” that we see throughout this thread.

Aidan Savage.2078:

RNG is RNG, and less than 50 runs is in no way in hell a sample size big enough to legitimize a complaint about RNG being broken.

If OP cant understand that despite the numerous posts otherwise, oh well.

Head on desk, beating a dead horse etc. etc.

Look at MY sample please. I have many more than 50 runs.

Ok, redid math.

99.9825172916403% chance that I’d get fewer than 8 doubles out of 42 trials. Definitely a lot more plausible that I just got unlucky, but with others seeing doubles too, with yellows dropping in pairs from world bosses etc. etc., I still think their RNG does a poor job giving a normal range of outputs on the INDIVIDUAL level.

Perhaps on the scale of the whole game their RNG system outputs a normal distribution of drops, but individuals tend to see duplicates. On the other thread people were talking about bad seeds and other things like this, which is quite beyond my level of knowledge, but there it is anyway.

Wait. You’re right, because in two flips of a coin you can also get two tails.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Sigh. RNG is used as this mystic catchall in this thread without a real understanding of what it means. People like Miku use the phrase without even thinking and it’s just used to wave away all patterns perceived by players, even when some are legitimate.

Sigh People like Nevets always come in with their tinfoil hat logic, and completely ignoring any other possible rationalizations. Using faulty calculations and miss information to explain their logic.

The term RNG loot or when someone says it’s just bad RNG doesn’t mean it’s 100% even chance for you to get any loot, it means it’s a random chance for you to get something.

Once again Miku is wrong.

You don’t have a random chance to get loot. That’s the problem with using RNG to describe a weighted loot system. Your drops aren’t random, some are more likely than others. It’s not ’I’ve got a random chance to get a precursor’ it’s instead, ’I’ve got a really low chance to get a precursor.’

eithinan.9841:

Derigar.7810:

So from 5 ring drops, I got only 2 types…

That’s pretty rare if you people are saying it’s “RNG”. From what I’m seeing, it’s not RNG. If my next ring will be either one of those two, then my account might just be glitched?

RNG is RNG. I hate fracs but when I decided to go get a pair of zerk rings I got a set in 2 runs and haven’t really been back. Some people have good luck and some dont.

sorry about your luck.

Sigh. RNG is used as this mystic catchall in this thread without a real understanding of what it means. People like Miku use the phrase without even thinking and it’s just used to wave away all patterns perceived by players, even when some are legitimate.

Artemi.1437:

There are 26 different Rings that can drop from the Fractalchest(in your bank are 27 different ones, because the Circle of Light is discontinued and no longer obtainable). Namely any that you can also buy from the Vendor.
Secondly the chance to get doublerings is, under evenly distribution of the rings, 1/26. Because whatever ring drops first, only the second ring decides if its a doublering or not(and the chance for getting a specific ring is 1/26). Chance of a Tripplering is 1/26² or 1/676

You had done 84 runs.
1 Tripplering (~1/8 would be expected)
12 Doublerings (~3,23 would be expected)

So yes, your amount of doublerings is a bit high, but nothing too unusual.

What’s the odds of getting two heads in a row in two flips of a coin?

It’s 1/4, not 1/2.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

And the language is stupid because the loot isn’t random and is weighted. RNG doesn’t tell the whole story.

The language is fine, many players understand that in an RNG loot system some items are common to get and others are rare. This is fairly common and widely excepted knowledge.

The only real exception to this is some algorithms have been proven to have issues when a certain range of account seeds are introduced. A-net has claimed that the RNG loot system does not have this issue.

An appeal to the majority is petty. Language matters, and if you just claim the loot is RNG, it doesn’t give the whole picture as the loot drops mimic a weighted number generator.

And besides, the whole point of this thread is that a subset of loot which should theoretically ACTUALLY be random (the rings) are probably not.

Miku.6297:

… A loot system that uses RNG as it’s basis for determining loot is a RNG loot system. Have you played any other games that you pick up loot from? They are all called RNG loot systems unless the drop rate of the item is 100%…

And the language is stupid because the loot isn’t random and is weighted. RNG doesn’t tell the whole story.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

The OUTCOME is the same. If, on a 5 sided dice, 1 represents whites, 2 represents blues, 3 represents greens, 4 represents yellows, 5 exotics, OBVIOUSLY the lower numbers will be weighted MORE.

The effect of assigning whites and blues MORE NUMBERS is functionally equivalent as giving them ONE NUMBER but WEIGHTING that number MORE.

Correct, how ever that has LITERALLY NO IMPACT on the fact that 1 is just as likely to come up as 6. I am talking strictly about the random number generated I am not talking about the rewards associated with the number.

So yes even if the odds are higher you will get a lower quality item because the lower quality item has more numbers assigned to it.

So lets use the d6 example, if 1-3 is the lowest teir reward, 4-5 average, 6 highest: This does not mean that the RNG is not random, it does not mean that you are more likely to roll 1 then you are a 6. It means that roughly half the time you will be likely to receive the lower teir reward, because you rolled a 1, a 2, or a 3. Your chance of rolling a 1 a 2 or a 3 are no different then rolling a 6, this IS how most rng loot systems work.

I’ve asked before, Nevets; do you believe that GW2 has literally no RNG loot system in place? According to what you have said it’s not random unless every outcome has the same chance, so if the RNG “worked” you should have the same chance of getting a precursor as you do a green. Is this what you are saying?

I’m saying language is important and saying the loot system is “RNG” does not provide an adequate picture of what is actually happening. Sure ANET might use a RNG, which corresponds to different drops in weighted loot tables, but that’s the same thing as assigning each item one number and simply weighting the numbers.

The loot system is not a RNG loot system, it’s a system that uses a RNG.

I’m also saying that I don’t think fractal rewards drop independently or randomly.