Is Onslaught and Khora Blueprints Acquisition DE's worst move yet?

[Deimorne]

I think I'm officially done.

I've spent the past week farming for her, it's my second week attempting. And now, I'm still without her. I'm a tad closer, but still don't have all I need. I've been given rewards for things I don't want. I couldn't care less for focus right now, and I'm seriously just done... I'd be happier watching paint dry, grass grow... I'm seriously depressed...

 

I spent 11 hours on Saturday alone... 11 whole hours, and not a single part for her dropped. All I could see in my message box was,

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

And I had nothing but things I... really... didn't... want... or... need.

 

This is a failure. Simple as that. When something depresses you in a game, it's a problem.

 

I know it was my choice to grind it. It was my choice to do it. I could of done something else, easily, happily. But, when someone wants a new Frame, it's obvious there are going to be those like myself who are stubborn and will do everything to get it. But this time, I'm broken... Khora. Forget it. I'm sick of onslaught, sick of hearing Simaris say his repetitive lines, sick of the 18 or so minutes I have to do just to get to zone 8...

I'm done. I quit Warframe.

 

At least for a time. I just need a break... Though, I have no idea when I'll come back to it. I just don't want anything to do with it anymore right now.

 

If you love onslaught, then good. I'm happy you do. Enjoy it to your hearts content. I'm glad it's something good for at least someone. But for those of you who have been through what I've gone through, I feel for you. And for those of you who are still going, you have my sympathy and I wish you all the best.

 

I'm done...

[Buff00n]

7 hours ago, Ouch74 said:

you kidding me right  iv run it least 130 times now and still not seen her bp iv thrown the towel in now had enough of normal mode i got all her other parts but lack the bp  the frame is not worth the effort anymore for me its a frame i wont be getting

3 hours ago, Oreades said:

130 times, given my best pre-coffee early morning maths would mean you are telling me you've spent ~43 hours in Onslaught. You'll have to forgive me if I'm slightly skeptical. 

130 runs without getting both the Systems and BP is roughly a 1 in 1000 chance.  With hundreds of thousands of daily users, a 1 in 1000 chance is bound to happen to somebody.  

I'm sorry, man.  I've personally experienced 1 in 3000 bad luck in this game, I know it sucks.

 

11 hours ago, rune_me said:

Of course you can improve your odds. Just get more kuva and keep rerolling. The more times you roll, the greater the odds that you will get a good roll. 

4 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

I think he means that the likelihood of getting great stats increases as you roll.

As in, the likelihood you eventually roll a 12 on a pair of dice increases the more you do it.

This is the Gambler's Fallacy, and it's a subtle but important distinction when thinking about probability.  Your chances of having a long streak of runs without success is low.  However, with each individual run your chances are exactly the same.  You can look at a streak to give yourself an idea of how bad your luck *was*, after the fact.  But as you're doing it, for each individual run you can't use previous results to modifying future probability in any way.

In other words, your odds of rolling a pair of dice 100 times without getting a 12 are about 1 in 6000.  However, if you have *already rolled* 99 times with no 12, then the odds of rolling a 100th time with no 12 are exactly the same as if you had do no rolls, 1 in 36.  You had bad luck, but it does not change your current luck.

[Hypernaut1]

16 minutes ago, Buff00n said:

 Your chances of having a long streak of runs without success is low.  

This is all that in talking about. I understand the gamblers fallacy, I didn't say each individual chance increases. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[Flamingauss]

Luck and RNG...I literally got her in 5 tries. Only got 1 duplicate. I will say as for the vandals, I just out right bought them cause screw doing that for the drop rate that both the vandals have.

[rune_me]

2 hours ago, Buff00n said:

This is the Gambler's Fallacy, and it's a subtle but important distinction when thinking about probability.  Your chances of having a long streak of runs without success is low.  However, with each individual run your chances are exactly the same.  You can look at a streak to give yourself an idea of how bad your luck *was*, after the fact.  But as you're doing it, for each individual run you can't use previous results to modifying future probability in any way.

In other words, your odds of rolling a pair of dice 100 times without getting a 12 are about 1 in 6000.  However, if you have *already rolled* 99 times with no 12, then the odds of rolling a 100th time with no 12 are exactly the same as if you had do no rolls, 1 in 36.  You had bad luck, but it does not change your current luck.

I did not say that each previous roll increased your chances of getting a good roll. I said that you have a better chance of getting a good roll, the more rolls you make. 

As in, if you roll a pair of dice only twice, you are not very likely to get 2 sixes, but if you do it a thousand times you almost certainly will.

[Mach25]

3 hours ago, Saratheia said:

I think I'm officially done.

I've spent the past week farming for her, it's my second week attempting. And now, I'm still without her. I'm a tad closer, but still don't have all I need. I've been given rewards for things I don't want. I couldn't care less for focus right now, and I'm seriously just done... I'd be happier watching paint dry, grass grow... I'm seriously depressed...

 

I spent 11 hours on Saturday alone... 11 whole hours, and not a single part for her dropped. All I could see in my message box was,

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

"You have been playing for over an hour. Please don't forget to take a break."

And I had nothing but things I... really... didn't... want... or... need.

 

This is a failure. Simple as that. When something depresses you in a game, it's a problem.

 

I know it was my choice to grind it. It was my choice to do it. I could of done something else, easily, happily. But, when someone wants a new Frame, it's obvious there are going to be those like myself who are stubborn and will do everything to get it. But this time, I'm broken... Khora. Forget it. I'm sick of onslaught, sick of hearing Simaris say his repetitive lines, sick of the 18 or so minutes I have to do just to get to zone 8...

I'm done. I quit Warframe.

 

At least for a time. I just need a break... Though, I have no idea when I'll come back to it. I just don't want anything to do with it anymore right now.

 

If you love onslaught, then good. I'm happy you do. Enjoy it to your hearts content. I'm glad it's something good for at least someone. But for those of you who have been through what I've gone through, I feel for you. And for those of you who are still going, you have my sympathy and I wish you all the best.

 

I'm done...

Time for me to step in. Contact me via pm.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Mach25

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

13 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

I think he means that the likelihood of getting great stats increases as you roll.

As in, the likelihood you eventually roll a 12 on a pair of dice increases the more you do it.

The chance of a specific roll occurring is just as large on the first as it is on the billionth roll and it doesn't increase with how many rolls you have. If out of the selection table a specific roll has a 2.5% chance...than that is the chance it has. With each roll. The law of averages which is being referred to here is largely a fallacy. 

Which then means that he means the law of large numbers which dictates that when you roll enough times the results will increasingly reflect the true probability. But since this is about statistics and chance it isn't a guarantee and the infinite reflection will then be that the chance of it actually occurring is the 2.5% from the example. But reality can mean that you will be rolling practically an indefinite number of rolls to get that outcome since the sequence of occurrance is not guaranteed. 

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

7 hours ago, rune_me said:

I did not say that each previous roll increased your chances of getting a good roll. I said that you have a better chance of getting a good roll, the more rolls you make. 

As in, if you roll a pair of dice only twice, you are not very likely to get 2 sixes, but if you do it a thousand times you almost certainly will.

No...you didn't say that. You may have meant to say that...but what you actually said was:

Of course you can improve your odds. Just get more kuva and keep rerolling. The more times you roll, the greater the odds that you will get a good roll.

And this is a fallacy. The same fallacy as the Gambling Fallacy: it is called the Law of Averages. And it isn't actually true. At all. Not even in your rephrase. 

The chance of rolling 2 sixes is exactly the same on your first roll as it is on your thousand and second roll. The frequency of it occurring is exactly the same as the frequency of any other combination...regardless the number of rolls assuming there is no bias. 

What you are looking for is the Law of large numbers. And that law of large numbers dictates that the more rolls you take the more the outcome will reflect the true probability. This is not a guaranteed sequence. So that means that you can roll indefinitely or practically indefinitely for that to happen. And the outcome will be the approximation of the exact chance it theoretically has.   

 

[Hypernaut1]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)BOSS_TPH76 said:

 

The chance of a specific roll occurring is just as large on the first as it is on the billionth roll and it doesn't increase with how many rolls you have. If out of the selection table a specific roll has a 2.5% chance...than that is the chance it has. With each roll. The law of averages which is being referred to here is largely a fallacy. 

Which then means that he means the law of large numbers which dictates that when you roll enough times the results will increasingly reflect the true probability. But since this is about statistics and chance it isn't a guarantee and the infinite reflection will then be that the chance of it actually occurring is the 2.5% from the example. But reality can mean that you will be rolling practically an indefinite number of rolls to get that outcome since the sequence of occurrance is not guaranteed. 

ok. youre talking in circles. its not hard to understand what i mean. If you've ever rolled a riven more than once, 2 or 3x, then you clearly understand what i mean. We ALL know the percent chance for stats don't increase with each roll, no need for a pointless lesson in probability.  The LIKELIHOOD of getting a good roll increases the more you roll. This is why most people don't roll once, crap out and delete a riven. 

 

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

1 minute ago, Hypernaut1 said:

ok. youre talking in circles. its not hard to understand what i mean. If you've ever rolled a riven more than once, 2 or 3x, then you clearly understand what i mean. We ALL know the percent chance for stats don't increase with each roll, no need for a pointless lesson in probability.  The LIKELIHOOD of getting a good roll increases the more you roll. This is why most people don't roll once, crap out and delete a riven. 

 

Explain to me how you view the term likelihood as opposed to probability.

Because as it stands now...the likelihood of a good roll happening doesn't really increase since it isn't a guaranteed outcome. In other words...the more you do not throw a good roll does nothing for the chance of the next roll being a good roll. And increasing the frequency of the rolls will only ever result in approximating its true probability with absolutely no guarantee on how many rolls you need for that to happen. 
.

[Hypernaut1]

24 minutes ago, (PS4)BOSS_TPH76 said:

Explain to me how you view the term likelihood as opposed to probability.

Because as it stands now...the likelihood of a good roll happening doesn't really increase since it isn't a guaranteed outcome. In other words...the more you do not throw a good roll does nothing for the chance of the next roll being a good roll. And increasing the frequency of the rolls will only ever result in approximating its true probability with absolutely no guarantee on how many rolls you need for that to happen. 
.

Likelihood and probability are not the same thing.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[(XBOX)mickeyjuiceman]

2 hours ago, (PS4)BOSS_TPH76 said:

And this is a fallacy. The same fallacy as the Gambling Fallacy: it is called the Law of Averages. And it isn't actually true. At all. Not even in your rephrase. 

+10000000

How's that wall you're banging your head against going?

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

1 hour ago, Hypernaut1 said:

Likelihood and probability are not the same thing.

You know the likelihood function is based on observed data...more or less the things that already happened? If we talk about what is going to happen then we are talking about probability.

[Buff00n]

1 hour ago, Hypernaut1 said:

ok. youre talking in circles. its not hard to understand what i mean. If you've ever rolled a riven more than once, 2 or 3x, then you clearly understand what i mean. We ALL know the percent chance for stats don't increase with each roll, no need for a pointless lesson in probability.  The LIKELIHOOD of getting a good roll increases the more you roll. This is why most people don't roll once, crap out and delete a riven. 

I think you probably have the correct idea but are just phrasing it badly.  You're describing the Binomial Distribution like it was the Bernoulli Distribution.

The Bernouli Distribution applies to a single trial with two outcomes (success or failure).  This distribution tells you the probability of success for a single drop, Riven roll, etc.  It is independent of all previous trials.  This is the distribution you are referencing, indirectly, when you say things like "if I run a mission then this is the probability of getting the drop I want" or "if I give this Riven a roll then this is the probability of getting the stats I want."

The Binomial Distribution applies to a fixed number of trials, each of which has a success or failure outcome.  The key is that the number of trials is fixed, and must be determined before you can make any calculations about probability.  This is the distribution you are using when you say things like "I ran Onslaught 60 times to get the blueprint, which was a 6% chance", and "if I'm prepare to burn 350,000 Kuva on this Riven then this is the probability that I will get the stats I want in 100 rolls".  

When you say something like "The LIKELIHOOD of getting a good roll increases the more you roll", it's mixing those two up.  The first half of that sentence is about a single trial but the second half is about multiple trials.  It's ambiguous and this is why people are getting on your case :)

I think a more accurate phrasing would be, "If you are prepared to do a certain number of rolls, then then the probability of one of those rolls being a success is greater the higher that number is."

 

2 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

Likelihood and probability are not the same thing.

(snip)

Maybe this is the difference you were trying to convey with these?  "Probability" = Bernoulli and "Likelihood" = Binomial?  Although, if so, the graphs are confusing and wrong.  The first one adds up to more than 1.0, and the second one does not accurately depict a cumulative Binomial Distribution.

[rune_me]

Guys it is not that complicated. The more times you iterate an experiment, the more likely you are to get the most likely outcome. There is no assurances that you will get get a roll of two 6's if you roll two dice 36 times. Or you could get several. But if you rolled two dice 10 billion times and then compared your result, you will always, in every case, see that two sixes showed up very close to once every 36 rolls. Simply because the probability of you NOT getting that result, over so many iterations, is so astronomically unlikely that it won't ever happen anywhere outside of theory.

If there's a 1 in X chance of you getting the riven roll you want, same rule applies. If you rerolled the riven 10 billion times, you would get the riven you wanted (you would get it many times - 10.000.000.000/X times, roughly). No doubt about it. You could redo that experiment (reroll a riven 10 billion times) from now and until the day the universe ends and you will still get the riven you want every single time.

Edited May 8, 2018 by rune_me

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

33 minutes ago, rune_me said:

Guys it is not that complicated. The more times you iterate an experiment, the more likely you are to get the most likely outcome. There is no assurances that you will get get a roll of two 6's if you roll two dice 36 times. Or you could get several. But if you rolled two dice 10 billion times and then compared your result, you will always, in every case, see that two sixes showed up very close to once every 36 rolls. Simply because the probability of you NOT getting that result, over so many iterations, is so astronomically unlikely that it won't ever happen anywhere outside of theory.

If there's a 1 in X chance of you getting the riven roll you want, same rule applies. If you rerolled the riven 10 billion times, you would get the riven you wanted (you would get it many times - 10.000.000.000/X times, roughly). No doubt about it. You could redo that experiment (reroll a riven 10 billion times) from now and until the day the universe ends and you will still get the riven you want every single time.

This is the law of large numbers and it depends on infinity. The more you roll the more the results will resemble the true or theoretical probability as the rolls get closer to infinity....although it is equally true that they never become 100%. I think...but correct me if I am wrong...that in the previous mentioned Bernoulli theorem the observed probability starts to match the theoretical probability as frequency increases. And since the rolls necessary in order for this to be true are incredibly large and a sequence is not guaranteed to occur at any interval. When you translate that...then saying that you will eventually hit the sweet spot given infinite time is true but you can't really talk about increasing chances of it occurring in any meaningful way.  

[Hypernaut1]

6 hours ago, Buff00n said:

I think you probably have the correct idea but are just phrasing it badly.  You're describing the Binomial Distribution like it was the Bernoulli Distribution.

The Bernouli Distribution applies to a single trial with two outcomes (success or failure).  This distribution tells you the probability of success for a single drop, Riven roll, etc.  It is independent of all previous trials.  This is the distribution you are referencing, indirectly, when you say things like "if I run a mission then this is the probability of getting the drop I want" or "if I give this Riven a roll then this is the probability of getting the stats I want."

The Binomial Distribution applies to a fixed number of trials, each of which has a success or failure outcome.  The key is that the number of trials is fixed, and must be determined before you can make any calculations about probability.  This is the distribution you are using when you say things like "I ran Onslaught 60 times to get the blueprint, which was a 6% chance", and "if I'm prepare to burn 350,000 Kuva on this Riven then this is the probability that I will get the stats I want in 100 rolls".  

When you say something like "The LIKELIHOOD of getting a good roll increases the more you roll", it's mixing those two up.  The first half of that sentence is about a single trial but the second half is about multiple trials.  It's ambiguous and this is why people are getting on your case :)

I think a more accurate phrasing would be, "If you are prepared to do a certain number of rolls, then then the probability of one of those rolls being a success is greater the higher that number is."

 

Maybe this is the difference you were trying to convey with these?  "Probability" = Bernoulli and "Likelihood" = Binomial?  Although, if so, the graphs are confusing and wrong.  The first one adds up to more than 1.0, and the second one does not accurately depict a cumulative Binomial Distribution.

At this point, I think you're just trying to sound smart. 

You're taking a concept a child can understand and trying to make it complex

Edited May 8, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

3 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

At this point, I think you're just trying to sound smart. 

You're taking a concept a child can understand and trying to make it complex

Given the fact that entire book are being written about it and the theories we cite here illicit wide debate in the mathematical world...saying "concepts a child can understand" is vaguely weird especially in the light of the fact you can't really adequately describe it and mix up different principles.  

[Hypernaut1]

20 minutes ago, (PS4)BOSS_TPH76 said:

Given the fact that entire book are being written about it and the theories we cite here illicit wide debate in the mathematical world...saying "concepts a child can understand" is vaguely weird especially in the light of the fact you can't really adequately describe it and mix up different principles.  

Likelihood and probability are not the same thing. It's truly no more complex than that.... As much as you are determined to make it be. I'm not thing to post a bunch of Wikipedia articles on mathematical theory, that's just silly at this point. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[EvilDarknessAlien]

Never talk about problems in the game in forum people here doesnt like it.

[Zendadaist]

I'm wondering if a recent update broke the drop rates. I've been doing 2-3 regular OS a day with various clannies, most days since release specifically to farm Khora. BP, System and Chassis were absolutely no problem. I have multiples of each and that's even without going to zone 8 very often.

 

The Neuroptics though? Not one. Not once. We usually leave after zone 6 and try again. At this point I've done close to 100 SO runs (including a bunch of elites before khora parts were removed from the drop table there) and nothing. When someone new pops up who hasn't got BP or systems, we do to zone 8 and usually have both those parts after a reasonable amount of time considering their officially-stated drop chances. Khora Chassis for a while became the new Harrow Chassis - except that now I think about it we haven't had one of those drop in a week either... Well either one of the recen hotfixes did something to the stated drop chances in normal SO or my clan's RNG luck is absolutely cursed.

 

At this point I'm willing to trade multiple spare sys BP and Khora parts for one Neuroptics BP! If only it was possible :(

 

 

[Buff00n]

14 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

Likelihood and probability are not the same thing. It's truly no more complex than that.

If you're talking about the Likelihood Function, then that's not related to a discussion about drop rates.  The Likelihood Function is a family of functions used for estimating the unknown parameters of a distribution given a fixed set of observed results.  In other words, if you had to guess what the drop rate for something is by simply keeping track of how often it drops, then "likelihood" measures the set of possible drop rates and how likely each one is. That does not apply here, because we know exactly what the drop rate is.  We can discuss its probability directly.  

There might be a case for using the Likelihood Function to analyze Riven god roll chances, which are still unpublished to my knowledge.  But that still has nothing to do with whether "increasing the number of rolls increases your chances."  That's ambiguous and a mix of probability metaphors.

If that's still not what you're talking about then I'm truly sorry, man, but I have no more guesses left.  I'm gonna need a citation, or we'll have to agree to disagree on whatever it is we're disagreeing on.

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

1 hour ago, Hypernaut1 said:

Likelihood and probability are not the same thing. It's truly no more complex than that.... As much as you are determined to make it be. I'm not thing to post a bunch of Wikipedia articles on mathematical theory, that's just silly at this point. 

I never said they were. I asked you to define it in the context of probability...because how you were actually explaining it up until that point and even after was...like Buff00n elaborately explained to you...ambiguous and mixing two different concepts in your definition and your graphs. Meaning you used, like I said, the wrong mathematical theory to differentiate between likelihood and probability because that theory is not actually usable in this case. 

Likelihood is based on observed data. Probability is based on future data.  

And if you really want to get technical....the likelihood that "specific roll A" will occur...in a specific collection...will increase the same amount with the frequency of rolls...as "Not roll A but specific B" assuming there is no bias. And because that is true...the only real thing you can say is in an infinite amount of rolls...you will, with no guarantee to order of occurrence is that eventually given enough rolls...the outcome of all your rolls will start to resemble its theoretical probability. 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by (PS4)BOSS_TPH76

[Deimorne]

53 minutes ago, (PS4)BOSS_TPH76 said:

I never said they were. I asked you to define it in the context of probability...because how you were actually explaining it up until that point and even after was...like Buff00n elaborately explained to you...ambiguous and mixing two different concepts in your definition and your graphs. Meaning you used, like I said, the wrong mathematical theory to differentiate between likelihood and probability because that theory is not actually usable in this case. 

Likelihood is based on observed data. Probability is based on future data.  

And if you really want to get technical....the likelihood that "specific roll A" will occur...in a specific collection...will increase the same amount with the frequency of rolls...as "Not roll A but specific B" assuming there is no bias. And because that is true...the only real thing you can say is in an infinite amount of rolls...you will, with no guarantee to order of occurrence is that eventually given enough rolls...the outcome of all your rolls will start to resemble its theoretical probability. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

At this point, I think you're just trying to sound smart. 

You're taking a concept a child can understand and trying to make it complex

I get the feeling this has gone far away from the original topic I made about the issues with onslaught and you two are just trying to upstage one another in a game of "Who's More Right". Try and keep it about the actual topic please, which has been about if onslaught is an issue, a failure, if the Khora blueprints drop rates are cruelly low, etc.

[(PSN)BOSS_TPH76]

3 hours ago, Saratheia said:

 

I get the feeling this has gone far away from the original topic I made about the issues with onslaught and you two are just trying to upstage one another in a game of "Who's More Right". Try and keep it about the actual topic please, which has been about if onslaught is an issue, a failure, if the Khora blueprints drop rates are cruelly low, etc.

I think that the discussion we are having about chance, probability and likelihood with respect to agency is exactly about the topic you brought up of whether the drop rates are problematic. But admittedly everything is getting a lot more technical than maybe necessary for the thread and that might not be entirely helpful.