RnG is ruining this game

[Raoabolic]

Why don't we take the loot rng...
and move it to the battle mechanics!

Or is rng in fights/mechanics one of those things we can't talk about here?

[DragonFlyy]

RnG is ruining this game

Been RNG since the beginning, still hasn't killed the game.

[Absurdity]

Why don't we take the loot rng...
and move it to the battle mechanics!

Or is rng in fights/mechanics one of those things we can't talk about here?

According to what I've read in the DPS section, yes. Haven't you heard, rng procs, positionals, and more than 10 buttons is objectively bad game design and keeping new players away?

We've reached the point of parody becoming reality.

[Renalt]

Yeah the fish RNG is kinda butt

And I can not lie. All you other fishers can't deny when she walks in with a full inventory of bait and a relic rod in your face i get desynth into sand...

I'm not a rapper.

[DrWho2010]

If you roll on a 10% success rate 100 times and fail every time, it's statistically significant to suggest that there's probably something wrong with the RNG.

That's.... not how it works.

[Koros]

That's.... not how it works.

yes that's how it works... what do you think rejecting the null means

then again the average american can't even differentiate a basic polynomial

[Zodiar]

yes that's how it works... what do you think rejecting the null means

then again the average american can't even differentiate a basic polynomial

No, what you are doing is just gambler’s fallacy.

[Zeastria]

RNG is fine..
but when the % gets to low
- it's ***** and waste of time..

[Koros]

No, what you are doing is just gambler’s fallacy.

Gambler's fallacy is believing that P(X_n+1 | sum of X_1, X_2, X_3, ... X_n /n < some "small" number (i.e. unlucky)) > P(X)

What ijuakos is saying that P(sum of X_1, ... X_n / n = 0) is very very low, in fact it is 0.0000265614.

If you have a one-sided hypothesis test where H_0: p = 0.1 and H_A: p < 0.1, you will unequivocally reject the null (unless you're working in particle physics).

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.1

Please don't talk about statistics as a layman, thank you, it's incredibly embarrassing.

Although what ijuakos is saying is largely irrelevant to the conversation, it is really sad to see the failure of American education in action when people spout their mouth about "gambler's fallacy" or "correlation =/= causation" without knowing elementary probability theory that they teach in middle school in actual good countries.

statistically possible

Have you ever read any paper, research, ... anything at all? Do you realize every paper's result is statistically possible to be false? What is this pedantic nonsense

This is not a research paper mate. you did the math on a hypothetical for 1 persons rng experience. Where it is statistically possible for it to happen to 1 person, you would need more than 1 sample for this to mean anything on your end.

oh my god please stop i'm actually cringing so hard right now, (1): in that example there are actually 100 samples; (2): a high level of statistical significance can be achieved with low N, especially when the data is extreme compared to H_0.

please just look at how it's supposed to be done:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bhiksha/cour...Bernoulli.html
did you realize that you can be 98% confident with only 9 samples/trials if the data is that extreme? shocker!!!

literally please stop trying to argue with me until you get a phd in stats, you're lowering the ambient iq

FYI: I'm not saying that the RNG is wrong or biased. I'm just saying if such an example existed then there's a high chance something's off.

And if you continue to repeat the nonsense about "statistically possible" I want you to forget about literally everything you learned in chemistry, biology, economics, and really anything other than particle physics (since they go for 5 sigma) because almost all of them report results with p-values above 0.0000266

[Thurmnmurmn]

Gambler's fallacy is believing that P(X_n+1 | sum of X_1, X_2, X_3, ... X_n /n < some "small" number (i.e. unlucky)) > P(X)

What ijuakos is saying that P(sum of X_1, ... X_n / n = 0) is very very low, in fact it is 0.0000265614.

If you have a one-sided hypothesis test where H_0: p = 0.1 and H_A: p < 0.1, you will unequivocally reject the null (unless you're working in particle physics).

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.1

Please don't talk about statistics as a layman, thank you, it's incredibly embarrassing.

Although what ijuakos is saying is largely irrelevant to the conversation, it is really sad to see the failure of American education in action when people spout their mouth about "gambler's fallacy" or "correlation =/= causation" without knowing elementary probability theory that they teach in middle school in actual good countries.

Funny enough, you just proved this example to be statistically possible (I'll be it VERY unlikely).
But that example is also very bad when you consider a whole lot of big fish have an under 2 or 1% success rate (and that's using a much larger sample size via teamcraft)