Extremely low chance on drawing 5* event heroes

[hazard]

Sure thing man, but also add:

And this is the best data available so we would be fools to ignore it, despite the inherent uncertainty.

[SpaakMeoW]

I went through some of the topics and you are THE village… fanboy hands down. Completely insulated against any reasonable argument. Passive aggressive too. I am sorry I didn’t know who I was interacting with.

@Brobb

I take it from your revised phrasing that you no longer claim that building times have been “draged [sic] out”? Seems like your new complaint, when you say “[i]t takes months for no reason”, is that it takes months? So you’d prefer it took weeks? Days? Hours? Perhaps you’d prefer that buildings be completed in minutes? That way we’d be able to finish the game off in a day or two - much better for everyone, right? Foolish talk.

What reverse phrasing? Building times are dragged out for no good reason. Its a lazy design and nothing else. Instead of content to keep us occupied we get timers. I know it has a certain OCD appeal to but not to me. Your rationalizations attempts are very sweet… and quite typical for a person who tries to justify and defends their choices. Its silly but it is your right to do as you please.

@Brobb

Nonsense. One of the reasons for the success of E&P is that it can be played over the long term - months or even years. It’s not a typical mobile game that loses players’ interest after two weeks. You’re welcome to dislike this philosophy, but SG has both the VC funding and the game cash flow to justify their approach. So if you don’t like the game, by all means go play something else.

Its a success of a lazy and in part abusive (gambling bit) design. The game is repetitive as f…, lacks new content, its the design that forces interaction rather than genuine player interest, its parades as completely random but I doubt its purely random. Its success is hooking people in by pretending to be sth else for the first weeks of playing. Then comes the progression paywall and lack of end game. Some people enjoy being part of such profit oriented system because they were lucky or have the cash and will try to justify their choice. Some see the big picture for what it is. Some buy DLCs, lootboxes and so on and support abusive business practices and some don’t.

@Brobb

But we’ve already established that you’re an ‘instant gratification’ type who wants a mobile game that can be completed in days, not years. You’re working from a faulty paradigm: this game is about long-term grinding, and it might not be for you. There are plenty of alternatives that provide the quick buzz you’re looking for. Go bet on a horse race or something.

No, we didn’t. You have conjured sth and pass it as a fact (in plural). I like grind, I don’t like gambling and I don’t like abusive mechanics. In this game grind is designed to give players enough time to make the “right decision” and spend money. Been gaming long enough to and see this game for what it is. I actually find this forum more fun than the game itself. Might stick around.

@Brobb

That’s errant nonsense (though I must now assume that you’re not rushing out to bet on that horse race, like I suggested). Gambling is an entertaining pastime enjoyed in most civilised societies, that needs to be carefully regulated so it is both fair and ethical. We’re not wowsers.

No buddy. You have a degree in behavioral psychology so you should know that introducing gambling mechanics to games can be very damaging to the young cause it normalizes such behavior. There is a known relationship between access and prevalence of associated disorders. Gambling fair and ethical - you must be having a laugh? There is no such thing as ethical gambling.

@Brobb

That is an excellent definition of what games are. If you don’t like playing your way around artificial obstructions (or paying your way, if you want to shell out the cash) then games are not your thing. Perhaps your time might be better spent picketing casinos?

Its an interesting way of looking at games but it lacks the fun factor imho. I like how you are concerned for me and my time. Thanks its very sweet <3.

@Brobb

But in the absence of any evidence supporting your contention, faced with apparently stable summoning and training rates, and knowing that ascension item drop rates are used to manage game progress very effectively, your guess can only be based on cynicism. Cynics have always seemed unhappy to me. I hope you’re happy.

Again, argument from ignorance. I am very happy. Are you? This forum seems to be important part of your life.

[Brobb]

@MikhailUlt

It is poor understanding of science. Occam’s razor isn’t a rule. Falsifiability is more important for this case. And as we can’t check any hypothesises we can’t use any of them.

No, Occam’s Razor isn’t a ‘rule’. It is, however, a very useful principle that is on point in this case. Perhaps more importantly, you are thoroughly wrong about our hypotheses not being falsifiable. I’ve already outlined what we would need to reject our primary hypothesis. If players choose not to collect that data, perhaps it’s because they don’t really doubt the hypothesis.

[SpaakMeoW]

You don’t know what you are talking about. Consider this a professional opinion.

[Elpis]

C’mon guys, my intent wasn’t to make this thread closed, too easy this way.

I really hope someone of the staff come here an answer to us, even a STFU.

I’m a simple guy, no need big stuff.

[SpaakMeoW]

@hazard

Sorry dude. You are simply incorrect. And I’m surprised that you seem so adamant on this. Nobody is claiming that the findings of the efforts are 100% accurate.

I am not but we will get to this later. I am also correct I will try to explain it better why. Finally I have never said that people claim this. This is an example of straw-man fallacy and reduction ad absurdum in one.

Sure you learn some useful information from this exercise but this information cannot reasonably quantified. People here assume that because they have what they think is a large enough sample it must offer some significance. Its fair logic but sadly its flawed.

Representative sampling:

• sample should be random (and it isn’t cause most people don’t bother with forums they just want to play the game, there is an over representation of seasoned gamers and their habits differ from general gamer population)
• sample should be sufficient in size to represent the population it studies within acceptable error (for basic system like an opinion poll we have 3% confidence on a 50/50 opinion for sample size of 1000 with a 100% return - but drop rate is not an binary opinion so it more complex system).

So we should have representative sample size for EACH state or drop value to estimate it reliably from player outcomes which is the end state. We don’t have this and we are likely not to have it in the future. Drop rates are adjusted and will be adjusted cause this is how the in game economy/revenue is regulated. There will be optimum drop range for the economy/revenue but we don’t know how narrow it is. We don’t know if selected player populations are not experiencing increased or reduced drop rates. We will likely never find out cause it would cause uproar if confirmed. Maybe on special occasions they increase/reduce drop rates? Maybe drop rates are tied to spending? These are valid questions we cannot be answered by the players through end outcome data grind.

Sure its better to know that drops are likely to be below certain percentage that not to know it but because this state can be changed without us knowing its a very crude estimate with a lot of uncertainty attached to it. For some it will be good enough and they will take it at the face value and its fine but what I take issue with is people say we KNOW. We don’t. There is a high risk associated with taking highly uncertain results as a accurate. The error could be easily multiple of the value ie drop of 5* from the gate is 3 +/- 5%. We don’t even know with certainty the population size to calculate a reasonable sample size… I mean for a million strong player base, confidence level of 95%, and error margin of 1% (as our estimate is as low as 3-5%) the desired sample size is ca 10k for a simple system.

@hazard

Finally, good job stacking your super high horse on top of other high horses. You look um…really cool up there.

Thanks. The view is magnificent.

[SpaakMeoW]

@Kerridoc

The answer to insufficient data is not to throw up one’s hands and walk away. It’s to collect more data, preferably in a way that allows refutation of a null hypothesis. A natural null hypothesis is that the odds of pulling the HotM are the same, small value for each pull. Let’s see if we can group-collect enough data to test that hypothesis.

I would say the answer is to eliminate the source of error and reduce uncertainty. But we can’t do that without devs help as they have the answers to some fundamental questions. What about the HOTM drop rate being adjusted, different during the event, different afterwards? How to account for this?

[Devil123]

The super frustrating thing about the RNG and not knowing what the rates are is that there is no way at all to hurry progress in AMs or heroes at all.

Everything that leads to gems or tokens or AMs has a frequency absolutely controlled by the game ( flags, titan spawns, quests, chest etc). That is why bad luck hurts so much , there is nothing you can do about it except wait until the next time , or spend more.

I think fewer would complain about not knowing the percentages if they could grind them out on some activity that was not limited , but took time and resulted in gems.People would play huge number of hours to get the result ( and the complaints on here would be about not being able to compete with get-a -life gamers , not big spenders ).

Anyway it would be nice if SG introduced some small elements like that into the game, here is some example off the top of my head

• Every million ore ( or whatever number) mined you get a bonus roll ’ Your mine produced 50-100 gemstones and something else 'mine related ’ this month.

• Your watchtower caught an enemy patrol ( get some troops).

• Your Tc found and exceptional hero, very small chance independent of tc level hero token ( kind of like ‘great people’ production in Civ).

• Introduce some difficult ( probably need battle items) ZERO flag provinces with chances of 3/4 * AMs and\or tokens at an extremely low rate ( and no bloody rope or potent herbs please !!!)

For anyone that thinks SG are small ( ok they are not large …) and don’t have resource to do some of the things we as customers ask the following,from February, is an interesting read

Finnish developer Small Giant Games raises $41 million

I’ll quote just one thing.

‘Despite such a large funding round, Soininen said the he remains a “big believer in small teams and talented individuals, as our company name suggests”.’

And for anyone too full of suggestions and dev skills -
https://www.smallgiantgames.com/senior-game-designer

[Brobb]

@SpaakMeoW

Completely insulated against any reasonable argument.

I’m not sure about this. Let’s test it: try to come up with a reasonable argument. I’ll wait.

@SpaakMeoW

What reverse phrasing? Building times are dragged out for no good reason. Its a lazy design and nothing else. Instead of content to keep us occupied we get timers.

So you don’t actually mean that building times have been “dragged out”, which implies some nefarious tweaking by the devs; you just mean that building times are longer than you would like. That’s perfectly fine, of course - de gustibus non est disputandum - but it’s also impatient and entitled. Not an ‘instant gratification’ type, huh?

@SpaakMeoW

The game is repetitive as f…, lacks new content, its the design that forces interaction rather than genuine player interest, its parades as completely random but I doubt its purely random.

That bitter little rant certainly makes it sound like you dislike the game. It might be nice to have the forum graced by the voice of someone who flat out dislikes E&P, just for the contrast. I know that I spend time playing and discussing it because I’m very fond of it; I get the impression that’s also the case for other contributors. Seems a bit masochistic to invest your time in something you hate, but hey - whatever floats your boat. Some people like clothes pegs, don’t they?

@SpaakMeoW

Then comes the progression paywall and lack of end game.

There’s no paywall. And no end game, because the game isn’t designed to end.

@SpaakMeoW

In this game grind is designed to give players enough time to make the “right decision” and spend money.

Just wrong. In this game, grinding allows you to assemble a team that can be competitive with players that spend. That’s unusual and it’s a good thing.

@SpaakMeoW

There is no such thing as ethical gambling.

When you say foolish things like that then you signal that you’re not rational. It’s good sense to recognise the dangers of gambling, the high susceptibility of some to its charms, and the possibility of an addictive relationship with the pastime developing. But to claim there’s no such thing as ethical gambling is puritanical rubbish. Gambling is harmless fun for millions.

@SpaakMeoW

I am very happy. Are you? This forum seems to be important part of your life.

I am as happy as a box of fluffy ducks. And while this forum isn’t exactly an important part of my life, I do like discussing the game with others who enjoy it. And if a hater or two also want to participate, then what the heck: all are welcome.

[hazard]

I agree with most of what you have presented.

Yes if we were conducting a study worthy of publication, we would need both a randomized data sample and a larger sample. However given the limited funding for this effort, some concessions had to be made. As a result the findings must be viewed with some healthy skepticism. Happy to concede that ‘we know that’ or ‘we have found that’ are inappropriate ways to present the outcomes. That said, I’m glad to accept that you concede that the current analysis of the limited data set has some utility.

Thanks for your cursory walk-through of determining the necessary sample size. Although your larger point seems to be that even if we had the entirety of the data set, we still wouldn’t know enough to ask the right questions since SG can change the rules at their whim without warning or announcement. But appreciated nonetheless since as I mentioned my math on this front is rusty and I’m lazy as well. Due to my laziness I will assume you have done the math correctly. Due to my confirmation bias, I’ll likely quickly change my tune if someone throws up conflicting math that leans towards my current beliefs

Just a quick final note on the fallacies you invoke. This deliberate attempt to embarrass ends up being a misapplication of some basic book learnin’ without acknowledging the clearly intended meaning behind my statement. My ‘100%’ remark was at worst hyperbole and more fairly simply a colloquialism. Careful when you use this stuff. You try to sound smart but look deliberately pedantic. In the end it dilutes the effectiveness when these fallacies can be used accurately. Of course if you did it just to get my goat, touche

[hazard]

hahaha in other words you agree with @Kerridoc that the appropriate response is to throw up your hands?

[Doggy1]

I agree …it’s legitime that developers should earn money but this is definitely greedy .I have spend around 300 euro and I am after nearly 1 year stacked with 3x5* heroes! Development of sg should rethink their sell strategy or people will end purchasing anything as they realise beeing ripped off. IT CAN’T be ALWAYS EXPLAINED it’s random then within 1 year getting always the same low rated heroes isn’t random anymore and not funny just frustrating and a step a way to deinstall .!! A request to SG development keep the game fair and giving more chance to purchase 5*heroes on recruitment or summon ;TY

[SpaakMeoW]

@Brobb

I’m not sure about this. Let’s test it: try to come up with a reasonable argument. I’ll wait.

There was already more than one presented on the usability of end state data. You were not interested. Besides this comment was referring to your rebuttals in other threads…

@Brobb

So you don’t actually mean that building times have been “dragged out”, which implies some nefarious tweaking by the devs; you just mean that building times are longer than you would like. That’s perfectly fine, of course - de gustibus non est disputandum - but it’s also impatient and entitled. Not an ‘instant gratification’ type, huh?

Yes. Too long for me and its a pretty common opinion since the collective moaning resulted with VIP passes being added. I am quite patient when I see a point. Here there is no point other than a lazy design. That’s my opinion. I am perfectly fine with the though that there are people who wake up, fire up the game and think “yes! only 6 days left! efing delighted. I achieved so much already.”. To me its the simplest and laziest solution there is. But just so its not just criticism, some alternatives:

• common enough strategy is to include other resources in the mix
• bind upgrades to quest
• bind upgrades to story line progress
  all more interesting and entertaining (imho) than the excitement of… waiting.

@Brobb

That bitter little rant certainly makes it sound like you dislike the game. It might be nice to have the forum graced by the voice of someone who flat out dislikes E&P, just for the contrast. I know that I spend time playing and discussing it because I’m very fond of it; I get the impression that’s also the case for other contributors. Seems a bit masochistic to invest your time in something you hate, but hey - whatever floats your boat. Some people like clothes pegs, don’t they?

I might be ranting a bit but at the same time its my diagnosis. Instead of focusing so much on sounding eloquent maybe address the criticism for once?

1. Is it repetitive? Yes it is. Grind of provinces fo AM. Raids with more or less the same meta teams. Titans are repetitive as well. Rare ones are some interesting direction but because they made slot machine out of them as well, they kind have a ambivalent feel to the atm. Is it a good thing? Its not in a mobile app imho.
2. Lack of new content? Surely. Generic quests, recycled events and one story.
3. Randomness thing is just my feeling. I don’t believe it is random. I think they constantly play with the rates, odds and so on to shape the outcomes to their desire.

@Brobb

There’s no paywall. And no end game, because the game isn’t designed to end.

@Brobb

Just wrong. In this game, grinding allows you to assemble a team that can be competitive with players that spend. That’s unusual and it’s a good thing.

There is one. Its a sort of a “soft paywall” and low odds are the gatekeepers. The game is designed to incentivise spending hence the daily offers, splash screens, sales and so on. You have alredy admitted this above so I am not sure why are you backtracking now? Obviously lack of end game in your mind is a good thing right? Good for whom? In principle grind is ok but too much grind to squeeze cash out is not.

@Brobb

When you say foolish things like that then you signal that you’re not rational. It’s good sense to recognise the dangers of gambling, the high susceptibility of some to its charms, and the possibility of an addictive relationship with the pastime developing. But to claim there’s no such thing as ethical gambling is puritanical rubbish. Gambling is harmless fun for millions.

Fair enough, this was a bit too broad. I was referring to certain types of gambling ie targeting minors not all games of chance. Obviously you know this but choose the easy score instead.

@Brobb

I am as happy as a box of fluffy ducks. And while this forum isn’t exactly an important part of my life, I do like discussing the game with others who enjoy it. And if a hater or two also want to participate, then what the heck: all are welcome.

I am delighted to learn this, that makes at least two of us. Lets hope it stays this way. Btw did you know that ducks despite their fluffiness are quite violent birds? Just a digression.

As my final remark I would like to propose we tone down the pleasantness. Lets keep it civil.

@hazard

Just a quick final note on the fallacies you invoke. This deliberate attempt to embarrass ends up being a misapplication of some basic book learnin’ without acknowledging the clearly intended meaning behind my statement. My ‘100%’ remark was at worst hyperbole and more fairly simply a colloquialism. Careful when you use this stuff. You try to sound smart but look deliberately pedantic. In the end it dilutes the effectiveness when these fallacies can be used accurately. Of course if you did it just to get my goat, touche

I am just ana*l this way. I can’t help it. I get a bit social awkward label because of this. And honestly I swear to G I don’t mean to embarrass anyone. Its more of rhetoric contest at best. If you or anyone else felt embarrassed my apologies. Peace.

[MikhailUlt]

@Brobb

I’ve already outlined what we would need to reject our primary hypothesis.

Our? Primary? Could you clarify this?

@Brobb

If players choose not to collect that data

Do you collect data? Can I see it?

In the era of big data is really strange to deny complex algorithms by referring to Occam’s razor.

[SpaakMeoW]

Currently the assumptions are:

• the rates were established during beta or so and were never adjusted hence what is reported over the long time frame from players is reflective of a unknown but constant rate - I find this assumption very frivolous.
• the data players report is accurate - equally unlikely
• there is no other temporal variability to the rates and rates are uniform across the entire population of players - this one is plausible but the opposite is equally possible given the poor record with the devs.

The data Brobb speaks of is in the thread TC20 results linked above.

[GentiBida]

Hi Guys, I think that if you pay, you MUST be retribuited, I dont care about rules of who created the game, to pay and not have in exchange is done from criminals. I’d complain continuosly to this guys till they give back what is right. This is money, real money going from our pockets, and we enlarge their pockets with our money for nothing: NO! SOONEER OR LATER people will wake up and send to hell the game and who created it!

[Denys]

I think you guys are forgetting you are playing a free MOBILE game. Every single one of these games has a community that bit***es about the game 24/7 mostly because they have spent a ton of time and money on it. This game is no exception

If you want a fun game spend 20-70 dollars on a AAA title and never look back

[GentiBida]

You are Right! Thats correct! Stop paying dor those and this will hurt to them!

[MikhailUlt]

I also suppose we can’t use data from TC20 without confirmation of causation

[Brobb]

@SpaakMeoW

Sure you learn some useful information from this exercise but this information cannot reasonably quantified. People here assume that because they have what they think is a large enough sample it must offer some significance. Its fair logic but sadly its flawed.

Now I’m wondering if our “trained scientist” was “trained” in a high school ‘Introduction to Math with Statistics’ course, and if perhaps they didn’t pay very much attention. Shall we explore some of the failures to understand?

@SpaakMeoW

sample should be random

Samples need to be random to avoid systematic biases. If we can assume that the underlying training rate is fixed across the population (entirely reasonable, as discussed) and that any self-selection issues are offsetting (also perfectly reasonable), then a random sample is unnecessary. Given what we know and can assume of E&P, a data set comprised of just one player’s training outcomes would be entirely sufficient, if it were large enough.

And if we cannot assume that the training rate is fixed across the population, then there would be no point in collecting any sort of sample - random or otherwise. (It’s what used to be called a ‘schoolboy error’ to fail to recognise this. You might even fail your ‘Introduction to Math with Statistics’ course if you didn’t understand that.) We can reasonably assume that the training rate is fixed, of course - for the reasons discussed at length earlier in this thread. But the great thing about collecting a decent little data set is that if anyone really wants to test this assumption, they can just get to it. It’s noteworthy that despite a lot of noise, no one has even pretended to try.

@SpaakMeoW

there is an over representation of seasoned gamers and their habits differ from general gamer population

Which doesn’t matter a whit, of course, because we have no reason to suppose that having the habits of a ‘seasoned gamer’ in any way affects one’s training camp production rate.

@SpaakMeoW

sample should be sufficient in size to represent the population it studies within acceptable error

Spoken like a person who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. We’re estimating the underlying p value of a binomial distribution, not the true value of a population proportion. Oops.

@SpaakMeoW

for basic system like an opinion poll we have 3% confidence on a 50/50 opinion for sample size of 1000 with a 100% return - but drop rate is not an binary opinion so it more complex system).

Your high school teacher should fail you if you attempt to describe a confidence interval without referring to the confidence level - 95%, conventionally, but who knows, in your particular case? And of course, when we are estimating a true population proportion using a sample statistic, the underlying population characteristics (as well as the nature of the proportion in question) are going to be vital. Without specifying them, your assertion is meaningless. You failed twice in one sentence, which I suppose is some sort of an achievement.

To illustrate confidence intervals: back in January our sample produced a 95% Confidence Interval for the chance of training a 5* hero at TC20 of 4.6-7.6% using the Wilson Method, and 4.6-7.5% using the Adjusted Wald Method. See? It’s not hard.

@SpaakMeoW

So we should have representative sample size for EACH state or drop value to estimate it reliably from player outcomes which is the end state. We don’t have this and we are likely not to have it in the future. Drop rates are adjusted and will be adjusted cause this is how the in game economy/revenue is regulated.

We don’t need any of this, because we can reasonably assume that drop rates are fixed across states and time. And if any cynic should doubt this, they can pretty easily look to the data to test their case. If they’re capable of it, that is.

@SpaakMeoW

We don’t know if selected player populations are not experiencing increased or reduced drop rates. We will likely never find out cause it would cause uproar if confirmed. Maybe on special occasions they increase/reduce drop rates? Maybe drop rates are tied to spending? These are valid questions we cannot be answered by the players through end outcome data grind.

You’re right that we don’t know any of this. But we do know that it’s all very unlikely, as we’ve discussed. We also know that a bit of data collection and analysis would provide some nice clear signals to us, if any of this really was going on. Segregate the data and test for a difference in p value - very obvious and hardly rocket science.

Of course we don’t know for certain anything about true E&P drop or training rates. But your inability to distinguish between the analytical techniques used to determine the characteristics of a binomial distribution and those used to estimate a population proportion makes me suspect that your “training” has not prepared you to make any sensible assessments whatsoever about these issues.