Not all relics are equal.

[ChuckMaverick]

6 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:

Say you do 20 rounds of a mission and get 15 gold.

Then do 20 rounds of another mission and get all bronze.

Compleatly ignoring the fact that you've altered the latter to have statistically higher chance to get gold...

What would be the statistical conclusion you would have to come to?

Because that's what I'm looking at.

You've not given enough information for anyone to make a valid statistical conclusion.

Were you running solo, public or pre-made?

If not solo, what were the relics the others were running (intact, radiant, etc.)?

[Jeoxz]

9 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:

Say you do 20 rounds of a mission and get 15 gold.

Then do 20 rounds of another mission and get all bronze.

Compleatly ignoring the fact that you've altered the latter to have statistically higher chance to get gold...

What would be the statistical conclusion you would have to come to?

Because that's what I'm looking at.

Have you heard of sample size?

40 rounds are nothing to make conclusions.

[Daktaro]

23 hours ago, LycanPT said:

I notice this and I do long runs for a long time, if is about the party and relic combination, to a point it is RNG, but it is not per run but rather per session. this happens way too often: get nothing for rads and rares for intacts, rares for intacts usualy come in a 3-5 streak. Also if you start doing radshares and it drops like 2 gold in a row, STICK TO THE PARTY, you will get rares every round. Last day I had always 2 rares per radshare staying in the same party (always 2) and sometimes I have 5 radshare runs with the same rewards in the same order with the same people, I will start to screenshot to expose it is not as RNG as people think

oh my goodness at first i did not believe you but now might be able to back this up o_o
was just in a neo excavation and a gold dropped, then another gold. so we stayed. and i remembered this comment and also someone else's but forgot who or where - they said if someone gets a gold then it will take turns for each of the others in the party so 4 golds will go one after the other for each person. and this actually happened just now. each member of the party got a gold drop one after the other. not even rad just intacts. what the heckkkk

first 4 in the list all golds:

[Carnage2K4]

20 hours ago, ChuckMaverick said:

You've not given enough information for anyone to make a valid statistical conclusion.

Were you running solo, public or pre-made?

If not solo, what were the relics the others were running (intact, radiant, etc.)?

 

17 hours ago, Jeoxz said:

Have you heard of sample size?

40 rounds are nothing to make conclusions.

With the sheer amount of gold produced in this one mission (3 runs, same people same fissure) a larger sample size will mean little, it would actually emphasis that specific missions have a higher chance to get gold for whatever reason given that there would be this extreme anomaly in one section that going with a generous 5% drop rate is a 4-6 fold outlier, I also said ignore the relic upgrade and assume the Rad runs where intact ... but you know what lets do the opposite, and assume that there was a 10% (Rad) chance on the run that got mostly gold, and a 2% chance on the run that got mostly bronze, if it's taking an average of about 3 missions to get one gold drop that survival was the equivalent of 45 rounds of 100% Rad sharing... but of course there was no Rad sharing and it was about 20 rounds plus I'm not even counting the few 2-3 gold rolls in a single round that happened..

Even if you heavily bias the mechanics to favour gold drops it's still more than 225% of what is expected... which is insane given that the runs that got all this gold were heavily biased towards bronze, we were literally just tossing in random crap for the tracers...

I'm not saying there is no RNG going on in general, but there is no way it's "pure" RNG, there is without a doubt another mechanism that alters the possibility of getting gold, maybe it's past results, maybe it's squad make-up, maybe it's just "that" mission that for whatever reason has landed on a high gold roll number, I don't know, but just saying RNG over and over, is about as convincing as pointing at a rabbit and insisting it's a unicorn at this point, judgement and evidence indicates it's not just RNG.

Someone also said it should be happening all the time to others... well it kinda does, this is the most extreme example I've had, but this is not the 1st time this has happened to me, to others in my clan and going by other posters, other players...

Edited June 4, 2017 by Carnage2K4

[ChuckMaverick]

1 hour ago, Carnage2K4 said:

Someone also said it should be happening all the time to others... well it kinda does, this is the most extreme example I've had, but this is not the 1st time this has happened to me, to others in my clan and going by other posters, other players...

That's the point that others have been making and you seem to be failing to understand, your situation is an extreme example, and there will often be extreme examples in any random distribution. That doesn't disprove its true (pseudo)randomness.

There will be literally hundreds of thousands of players running the new relics at the moment, of course in a sample size that large some people will be having extreme bad luck.

You can't use forum posts as any sort of measure, do you expect players to make posts saying "my drops are roughly what I expected them to be"?

Extreme examples will always be the most visible, and that's even without taking confirmation bias into account.

[Arrectius]

I had to run like 25 relics for the banshee neuroptics and that was a common part, i was cursing everyone. But i got oberon all parts in one run except one that took 2. So rng is rng.

[DanujCZ]

Duh RNG.

[Sasha-San]

It's weird... I almost never get a SINGLE rare drop from intact in shares. When rare drops it is followed by at least 2 or three friends. I call it a hot streak and I am almost convinced its programmed in. My thinking: chance of getting rare drop from intact = small, but much greater then the chance of getting 4 such drops in a row. For me the latter is more common for some reason. The funny thing is that people I'm doing shares with freak out when this happens, when I'm just wondering just how long the streak gonna be.

[phoenix1992]

But hey we don't have 1 hour Void survival that ends with 6 forma, 10 Cores and an orokin cell.
 

[(PSN)CrimsonAxure]

tbh i think you're just insanely lucky

[Ghogiel]

On 02/06/2017 at 7:15 PM, Andaius said:

I've had days where out of 120 waves over multiple mission only yielded commons and a few uncommons dispite using up 11 radiants over those 120 waves. Then the next day I pick up 3-4 rares over 5 waves.

 If that's not 11 rad shares, only using 11 rads is very close to average. A rare drop from a rad relic is iirc 12.5%. Seems to me you are pretty lucky to have had at worse only 11 rads to get a rare because that's still beating the odds

 

As for the OP. Probably every relic still has the same drop rates, even new ones, unless its a bug.  Once you get past +20 rad shares the odds of not getting your part starts to get into the thousands to 1 range.

[Ghogiel]

On 04/06/2017 at 9:42 AM, Carnage2K4 said:

I'm not saying there is no RNG going on in general, but there is no way it's "pure" RNG, there is without a doubt another mechanism that alters the possibility of getting gold, maybe it's past results, maybe it's squad make-up,

I suppose you remember there was an invisible seeding with void keys? and they had to fix the way the randomness of it worked because of the way it created streaks? And the showed the those noise jpgs to describe what it looked like visually.

So we do know for a fact that there was at least some invisible RNG assigned to I assume each session or lobby creation. I don't think anyone knows whats going on now.

 

^Basically at that time it was so fubar there were websites you could go to and put in your AABC rewards from a def or surv and it would be able to predict the loot for the subsequent drops.

It probably works like similar to that now, getting a "good seed" happens I expect but we can't predict the loot drops or in anyway increase our chances of getting into a good seed.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Ghogiel
extra info

[Andaius]

1 hour ago, Ghogiel said:

 If that's not 11 rad shares, only using 11 rads is very close to average. A rare drop from a rad relic is iirc 12.5%. Seems to me you are pretty lucky to have had at worse only 11 rads to get a rare because that's still beating the odds

 

As for the OP. Probably every relic still has the same drop rates, even new ones, unless its a bug.  Once you get past +20 rad shares the odds of not getting your part starts to get into the thousands to 1 range.

I usually run them with my brother and cousin so generally if we can we do 3-4 rads each if we have the relics. but usually for them newest stuff we can only manage maybe 1-3 over the normal run of 4 relics opened.

[Yagamilight123]

On 2/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, Carnage2K4 said:

 

It's not just RNG, There is absolutely an extra underlying mechanic going on, the "pure RNG" response is pure delusion. It's statistically very clear... I don't mean to sound rude, but given the results I just witnessed, "pure RNG" is not possible.

If I took those results in to my statistics lecturer and said it was pure randomness, I would be laughed at...

You dont sound rude , just dump . Its RNG , if your argument its "i did x runs and i think that" .... you have 0 idea how statistics work (if you "took those results in to my statistics lecturer" , people will must likely laught at you for believe that you can have a viable analisis with that amount of cases )  . Can be something more than RNG , yes , its always a posibility .... but its totally imposible with the amount of samples that a player can have to actually know that .... so , its just a tin hat conspiracy .

Edited September 9, 2017 by Yagamilight123

[Tesseract7777]

On 6/2/2017 at 1:30 PM, Carnage2K4 said:

If I took those results in to my statistics lecturer and said it was pure randomness, I would be laughed at...

If you walked into statistics class and tried to use just yourself as your sample size, your statistics professor would laugh at you, and probably give you an F on the spot. 

[Carnage2K4]

On 10/09/2017 at 3:56 AM, Yagamilight123 said:

You dont sound rude , just dump . Its RNG , if your argument its "i did x runs and i think that" .... you have 0 idea how statistics work (if you "took those results in to my statistics lecturer" , people will must likely laught at you for believe that you can have a viable analisis with that amount of cases )  . Can be something more than RNG , yes , its always a posibility .... but its totally imposible with the amount of samples that a player can have to actually know that .... so , its just a tin hat conspiracy .

 

On 10/09/2017 at 4:10 AM, Tesseract7777 said:

If you walked into statistics class and tried to use just yourself as your sample size, your statistics professor would laugh at you, and probably give you an F on the spot. 

Wow, 6 months late and with posts of stupidity...
Amazing.

We're not talking about the occasonal outlier here...

[Yagamilight123]

1 hour ago, Carnage2K4 said:

 

Wow, 6 months late and with posts of stupidity...
Amazing.

We're not talking about the occasonal outlier here...

I dint revive the thread ... i just pointed your lack of any knowledge in Statistics or the game (maybe in the 6 month you learn something in any of those topics).

Edited September 13, 2017 by Yagamilight123

[Kaotyke]

2 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:

 

Wow, 6 months late and with posts of stupidity...
Amazing.

We're not talking about the occasonal outlier here...

Its 3 months. Not 6.

Spoiler

 

[xXDeadsinxX]

2 minutes ago, Kaotyke said:

Its 3 months. Not 6.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

3 months and 11 days.

 

hahahaha ;-;

[Tesseract7777]

3 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:

 

Wow, 6 months late and with posts of stupidity...
Amazing.

We're not talking about the occasonal outlier here...

You are using yourself as a sample size. 

You have no data. 

Where is your spreadsheet with all these people who aren't occasional outliers? Where are your graphs and tables? You don't have any data at all. You just have your own anecdotal experience and the anecdotal experience you have heard from some other people, in a game played by millions, and you have no hard data. 

I will repeat: If you take the "evidence" you have to your statistics professor, and claim you have proof of something wrong with the games rng itself because of it, he would probably give you an F on the spot. He would need you to find a significant sample size of at least thousands in a game played by millions, then he would need to have you get those people to document their rng in spreadsheets for a while in order to get a large amount of data to go over. Then you have to actually use math to analyze it, because statistics is about using math, not your own gut feeling because you had bad or weird luck, or because "you heard that others did too". That's not how math works. Math requires doing math. You aren't doing math. You are doing with gut and anecdote -- math is about logic and formula. 

And I didn't revive the thread, lots of posts before mine that also weren't the original ones to revive the thread.  

Edited September 13, 2017 by Tesseract7777

[Carnage2K4]

12 hours ago, Tesseract7777 said:

You are using yourself as a sample size. 

You have no data. 

Where is your spreadsheet with all these people who aren't occasional outliers? Where are your graphs and tables? You don't have any data at all. You just have your own anecdotal experience and the anecdotal experience you have heard from some other people, in a game played by millions, and you have no hard data. 

I will repeat: If you take the "evidence" you have to your statistics professor, and claim you have proof of something wrong with the games rng itself because of it, he would probably give you an F on the spot. He would need you to find a significant sample size of at least thousands in a game played by millions, then he would need to have you get those people to document their rng in spreadsheets for a while in order to get a large amount of data to go over. Then you have to actually use math to analyze it, because statistics is about using math, not your own gut feeling because you had bad or weird luck, or because "you heard that others did too". That's not how math works. Math requires doing math. You aren't doing math. You are doing with gut and anecdote -- math is about logic and formula. 

And I didn't revive the thread, lots of posts before mine that also weren't the original ones to revive the thread.  

I'm already been through all this, and I don't care to go through it again, happens to me and every other person I ask, call it 'pure RNG' if you want, I couldn't give a S#&$.

[Helch0rn]

[fr4gb4ll]

5 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:

I'm already been through all this, and I don't care to go through it again, happens to me and every other person I ask, call it 'pure RNG' if you want, I couldn't give a S#&$.

and that is why all your statements are rather void - if you'd actually learn about how RNG's or randomizer-functions work, you wouldn't even be suprised about any "strange" outcome of your farming.

sure, it can be rigged - and the devil inside of the RNG is that (like the cartoon above stated) you cn never be sure about it until you know the code, all used outher functions and  values used for the "calculatio" of a randome value. in fact there are several cases in the "history" of computer science where those taken seemingly random values weren't quite so random at all or were the code/formula of the randomizer were faulty and produced not-so-random or predicable results.

if the whole thing is weighted, which i supose is the case in the WF-reward table, one can make mistakes even more easy. nevertheless, in all the new releases of the past 2 years, i never had results outside of what the "known" chances for relics or rewards said they would be - there where some relics, that were plainly far harder to come by, yes, and also there were (and still are) some rewards/drops that are outrageously low to get (like the blade and hilt needed to craft the broken war or some mods), but all those are still way in the distribution curve of the given chances.

so sad but true, youre only "blessed" with a temporary bad luck - nothing more sinister that can be proven is going on.

[Robolaser]

Always interesting to see how many people find more convenient to just answer "rng!" to everthing than consider that, maybe, a company making millions of dollars of profit out of customer's "bad luck", without the legal restrictions of a conventional casino, would find advantageous to subtly rig it's game (in a strictly lawful way).

I'm not saying the game IS rigged. I don't know. Do you? What i'm saying is that it would be foolish to completely dismiss the possibility.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Robolaser

[Helch0rn]

1 hour ago, Robolaser said:

Always interesting to see how many people find more convenient to just answer "rng!" to everthing than consider that, maybe, a company making millions of dollars of profit out of customer's "bad luck", without the legal restrictions of a conventional casino, would find advantageous to subtly rig it's game (in a strictly lawful way).

I'm not saying the game IS rigged. I don't know. Do you? What i'm saying is that it would be foolish to completely dismiss the possibility.

I tend to believe that the given stats for dropchances are legit because they match the datamined stats void_glitch used to publish