- something rotten in Denmark?

how many legendary did u get out of curiosity?

 

Well that's a load of sheet.

 

you upset me

 

no no no, i was referring to Super71's little jab on the side - meaning i wasn't trying to foster any sort of "outrage" in general

sorry - i'm very tired (in ZZZZzzzz mode) - i probably could have worded that better. but that is why i qualified it with "not a fair argument on my part all things considered," but not necessarily for the reason you're thinking i suspect. you have it wrong insofar as it was 27 packs with zero hits... and then the following box (+ ten more packs) contained the two ex and two leg. i'll have to read back and see if i failed to communicate the fact, but i at least can clarify that now.

agreed - they're both pretty bad

agreed

inferring as much from the perspective of a single measurable event, yes, statistically. my inquiry was premised on two events, however: specifically the 27 packs (or three boxes to simplify it) before the 'complaint,' and then the 10 packs that immediately followed. maybe it's the business side of my subconscious but rate of change is something that always jumps out at me - even if it is random. moreover, if it is randomness presided over by a thing, let alone something other than my own person, i will look for signals to justify it however subtle or nuanced. in the case that it is pure genuine and unadulterated randomness, i then resort to voodoo or black magic. sometimes both.

i'm a little confused by this. unless i'm just tired and my brain isn't working properly in which case you'll have to excuse me

lol sorry - i don't think we're on the same page so much

well first there is a bit of disconnect in our conversation to begin with i think. but i think you're basically arguing it all comes around to randomness. what i was trying to do was vaguely (maybe not so vague) imply something different and then drew on that based on the nuances of what you've posted thus far with respect to outliers (or randomness, rather - but outliers are part of randomness) to ultimately illustrate a potential problem with consumer experience given the current pricing system.

in terms of consumer perspective - or PRINCIPLE (not probability) - imagine you're trapped in a room for a day (or days) and there are four identical cups of water in addition to one cup of pee. like clear pee (healthy pee). not an ideal situation to be in, obviously, but in the end you'd probably roll the dice and you'd get over it. now imagine the same scenario but in a desert with the five cups a mile in each direction. imagine you get the pee.

 

quick followup

sok i just want to make clear that either side of my speculation was to your (or whomever's) benefit. i don't know that i've implied any sort of direct conspiracy in what i've posted thus far

my crude "pee cup" scenario of course being analogous to packs and boxes, whether or not some physical human being saw my trend as an outlier's outlier and did something to correct it (which would have been a genuinely nice gesture of goodwill if it was the case), the point is that some people get the pee.

basically - on the desert side of that analogy - how many cups of pee before someone rolls over (EDIT: from a marketing perspective, this should concern you)

lol jesus crust (EDIT: jesus christ like oh wow i'm super tired hope i'm still making sense) - k bedtime for LoserSlick

 

@Sokolov I've had a quick look at the graph and my question is: does Pox's pack content distribution system have any sort of floor, where after X packs you're guaranteed to earn an exotic and a legendary? I know that Hearthstone, Spellweaver, Shadowverse, Faeria, HEX, Infinity Wars and the PC version of MTG all have a "failsafe" like that to keep users hooked to spending on the game.

 

I usually saved my gold for a box rather packs. I feels like the payout was always better. At least you are guarantee an exo.

 

last post- It* feels like... typo, not I feels like.


ya. when you buy in bulk right? economics 101.

 

lol nope - you still have it wrong my friend. so much of the disconnect that persists might stem from you not entirely seeing the argument from my perspective or the point i was trying to make - and the they are both perfectly rational. presently, the excerpts you mentioned in the above paragraph are meant to imply - if anything - that i might suspect the proverbial "man behind the curtain" did see my unfortunate run as an outlier and acted (to my benefit). but that is a wholesale departure from directly implying that any suspected intervention would have been predicated solely on the idea that i "caught" someone conspiring against me insofar as the anomaly in question would have then been a means to cover their tracks. lol at the same time, however, it is purely speculative but it's also something that i can't prove didn't happen (the first, nor the latter - lol or even neither scenario really). so there was never meant to be any implication of conspiracy one way or the other - only that, as a player, we simply cannot prove a negative. and we can't. so the mathematics of randomness do not apply to that conflict.

consider: the miscommunication arose when you met the argument (lol which wasn't technically an argument at the time!) with an explanation of how probability works and the mathematics of randomness. but you must realize i only used probability to rightly prove that i was in fact an outlier (and i was - 4 times, actually). so while it is not necessarily irrational for you to have responded that way at first glance, it does however fail to capture the full cadence of inquiry. lol and if there legitimately is no man behind the curtain (which, again, from the player perspective, one can neither prove nor disprove), then this is easily one of the most profound and utterly hilarious instances of both disconnect and coincidence i've ever experienced. that four random data samples would simultaneously vindicate two sides of an argument from their respective perspectives by way of four consecutive outliers. also i do want you to be clear that i do understand these models are predicated on delivering outliers to a degree in the first place. that is why i snapped back with the 'outlier's outlier' word play.

so not to be a debby downer here, but to bring this thing back around - this is what i was referring to when i implied it actually only strengthened my argument. that is to say, what is the probability of landing three sets of outliers in that 6% margin... raising an eyebrow... and then landing the fourth set in almost the exact 1% margin needed to bring the entire sample of 40 back to probable equilibrium with respect to individual units? i don't even want to think about how you'd go about calculating this but i'm sure it's possible. but it is because of the "raised eyebrow" portion of what happened here that i said there was no real way to explain it mathematically (once more, because it's speculation from our side and we cannot prove a negative). what i meant to imply was that it's not a mathematical situation so much as it is a situation that involves mathematics.

but this is all moot to the point i was actually trying to communicate. lol i only wanted to deconstruct this thing because i like arguing. plus i'm stubborn. especially when i know i'm right

so of the "no one likes to be gamed" fame in the op, this was meant to kind of lead you to that final summation of an ultimate "potentially problematic consumer experience."

having clarified sample sets from individual units (i think this might have been the snag?), we advance past the scenario's conflict and resolution to its actual moral. the pee cups

it's all about the pee cups man.

in an already niche game that demands so much time and brainpower... i can't imagine a new player sticking around if getting his or her feet wet involves three cups of piss

we are of the same mind my friend. cept the game designer part

lol you guys hiring?
(seriously tho)