Over 36 RL hours farming my last Atma and counting

[kukurumei]

You're referring to frequentist/empirical probability there. But classical probability states that each individual event has the same chance of occuring, always. Which is what I assume what the system is built upon. Saying that "to get odds in your favor" you need to fail 28 times in a row is stupid, plenty of people have gone WAY over 200 consecutive FATEs without a single atma drop; and please don't tell me that these people have NOT gotten their Atma (with an 8% chance of failure, which is constantly decreasing according to empirical probability) 100 FATEs after the first hundred.

I'm just going assume that the Atma drop works this way: You have a certain chance (say 5%) of getting an Atma after finishing a fate with gold rating. If you got it, then that means that the 5% worked in your favor. If you didn't, then that means that the 95% chance of failure made you not get the drop. Also, previously completed FATEs, with unsuccessful results, DON'T affect in any way your overall chance of getting an Atma drop in the future.

Very unlikely because assuming all atma's are equal and not subject to theories like birthdays. Then you are in fact doing this 12 times( of each set of atma). Statistically, it becomes even more impossible to "get lucky" or get "unlucky". Because you have a better chance at lottery when you combine both types of dice rolls in this case

Many people are using "hours" which is bad because we can only count on fates. There are times it's fast, times it's slow, and times you're not fating at all (or does not meet theoretical requirements, bronze?)

Trying to sound smart is saying " there's always a chance you'll fail at .00001%" is like saying there's a chance that the your dead ancestor will come back and give you a cookie.

People will fall into a statistical average whether they want to or not.

Thus back to old flipping tails 20 times in a row. You can do it if you try really really really really really hard to prove me wrong, but the world doesn't care you tried so hard to prove me wrong. The fact is, the math is math. you know that old bell curve you learned as a child.

The gist here is that not all fates are equal in terms of time. If you get lucky on a really bad area, and really unluck in a really good area, your duration is skewed. Or time of day, or even amount of people.

In the end the only way we can do this is count fates.

[MagicJohnson]

Very unlikely because assuming all atma's are equal and not subject to theories like birthdays. Then you are in fact doing this 12 times( of each set of atma). Statistically, it becomes even more impossible to "get lucky" or get "unlucky". Because you have a better chance at lottery when you combine both types of dice rolls in this case

Many people are using "hours" which is bad because we can only count on fates. There are times it's fast, times it's slow, and times you're not fating at all (or does not meet theoretical requirements, bronze?)

Trying to sound smart is saying " there's always a chance you'll fail at .00001%" is like saying there's a chance that the your dead ancestor will come back and give you a cookie.

People will fall into a statistical average whether they want to or not.

Thus back to old flipping tails 20 times in a row. You can do it if you try really really really really really hard to prove me wrong, but the world doesn't care you tried so hard to prove me wrong. The fact is, the math is math. you know that old bell curve you learned as a child.

The gist here is that not all fates are equal in terms of time. If you get lucky on a really bad area, and really unluck in a really good area, your duration is skewed. Or time of day, or even amount of people.

In the end the only way we can do this is count fates.

I agree on the fact that most people will end up falling into a statistical average, because that's how it works in the end. What I disagree with is when people state things like:

"In order to get odds in your favor, you need to fail 28 times in a row."

Because saying that, after 100 FATEs without a drop, you have an 8% chance for the next FATE not to drop an ATMA, is completely wrong. It should be more like: Just 8% of the people should not be getting an Atma after 100 consecutive FATEs (assuming all Atma have the same chance / requirements for dropping).

Statistically you're very unlikely to not get an Atma to drop in the timespan of 200 FATEs (If the drop rate is indeed 5%), but It's completely possible because every time you finish a FATE it applies that 5% drop rate independently of any FATE you had done previously; this also means that you have a 95% chance to fail every time you finish a FATE.

People are confusing the actual chance of you getting an Atma after consecutive FATEs and the percentile they belong to, depending on their luck.

[L-D-Omlette]

Trying to sound smart is saying " there's always a chance you'll fail at .00001%" is like saying there's a chance that the your dead ancestor will come back and give you a cookie.

I was merely pointing out that nothing is guaranteed. Things happen in the real world where the odds of occurrence are that low, and even lower. The odds of getting struck by lightning are smaller than that, and yet it still happens.

Because saying that, after 100 FATEs without a drop, you have an 8% chance for the next FATE not to drop an ATMA, is completely wrong.

I provided an example of frequency estimates with an assumed number, and tried to keep things simple for those following at home. I didn't claim that you are guaranteed an item after X number of drops. That's simply not true, and I think anyone can see that. Any estimates we try to come up with will be completely wrong because we have mostly anecdotal evidence to go on, and anything outside of that doesn't provide a large enough sample size of reliable data to accurately estimate anything.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my previous post that it was merely an example.

[kukurumei]

I was merely pointing out that nothing is guaranteed. Things happen in the real world where the odds of occurrence are that low, and even lower. The odds of getting struck by lightning are smaller than that, and yet it still happens.

Bad bad bad example. Since you're not chasing lightning and lightning isn't chasing you. You have unlimited number of retries, this along makes them not the same category.

It is no where close to being struck by lightning because all it takes is another chance to yet increase your odds. And in this case the cap is insanely low 200-300 fates on average is easily to get statistically accurate.

In fact since this is a 12 atma set, you are statistically "smoothing out" the curve. instead of "_____--____" it becomes "_-------_".

Sayng it's depending on luck is saying the universe will explode. Because everything has a chance of happening. But only looney bin people will consider that low low chance.

Luck is luck but this is not blind luck. It's weighted average, much like a loaded dice. It's not a problem because by definition it's "loaded".

By 300 or so fate, you're more or less on the next phase. and then there's 301, 302, 303. It is nearly impossible to be that special emo wallflower, simply because of math.

This is why it's call dice theory you are not limited by the max number of tries.