Yeah, yeah, there are no black swans and all that jazz.
But a larger dataset had more inductive force than a handful of observations
If I flip a coin 1000 times and record a 50/50 result (a la the dataset collected by @garanwyn) it inspires considerably more confidence than a handful of unrecorded observations.
This seems like a rather flawed logic
P1 - the boards appear easier than in a different environment
P2 - my ability to mentally analyse the difficulty of game play is sufficiently high as to deduce such a change within a number of attempts equal to X (10?)
C - Having played X number of attempts, without recording the results, I deduce that the game is easier
Wow just found this topic and have to say, the conspirationists in this game will never cease to amaze me with their new ideas.
Before you blame it on SG, please bear in mind that they only mess with your boards because they are mind controlled by reptillian government via the chip they got injected during Finnish mandatory baby vaccination programme.
It is experimentally observed facts that support a theory. That would also in some circles be known as âscienceâ. No one has seen the chicken being killed so there is no expectation for that. If it ever happens (ie data showing non-random boards) then the theory will be disproved. But for now, this is what we have. All experimentally observed data indicates a randomness to the boards.
Oh good grief! Are you now trying to argue âhow big is bigâ? Doubly big data gives you doubly big proof? Not do much data means not so much proof?
And yet- one simple line of Java showing tile selection as an un factored implementation of Math.random would be sufficient- obviating the need for any âreally big datasetsâ for my âreally big proofâ. One line of Java ⌠hardly a âtrade secretsâ giveaway, right?
I think itâs pretty well established that the larger the dataset, the higher the confidence.
I donât see many medical trials getting approval with a handful of patients.
So, yes. Exactly that.
Would you advocate rolling a dice twice as a sufficient test of itâs fairness?
I would love to share the code from the game but itâs not in my power and at this point many people are so down the rabbit hole that theyâd refuse to believe it anyway.
Which I do accept is a product of SGs poor communication policy.
I would be more than happy to see the tile selection method implementing a simple un factored random call. No need for large datasets ârabbit holesâ you think?
And here lies the problem of the world today. For some reason there are always some that believe (rightly or wrongly) that a stated fact is untrue.
E & P state the boards are random, a large portion of us through the matches we have and data we see believe this.
Others chose not to believe this and no amount of facts or datasets or evidence will convince them otherwise.
If thatâs the side of the fence you sit on then there is literally nothing that can be provided to you that will satisfy. Even if you were shown the code (and I assume you could understand it) you could just say âwell, thatâs not the code they actually use, Iâve just been shown that to shut me upâ
Fake news and misinformation is now a tool employed by intelligence agencies in the Worldâs biggest superpowers so its hardly surprising that there are trust issues I grant that.
But not everything is a conspiracy unless you choose to see it this way.
Well⌠for what itâs worth I did not notice any difference in the boards than normal. I got my azz whooped my first 2 friendlies due to horrendous boards.
You know, just like normal. I think itâs just variance⌠why would they tinker with boards? It just doesnât make senseâŚ
Yup, and thing is, to make that manipulation they would have to introduce so much alghorytms, so much underlying science and analysis, so many dependiencies to make it matter but not make it obvious etc. literally tons of code and greatest minds of planet employed, risk of reputation, risk of client credibility loss etc, and all of that for what, just to annoy some guy sitting on the toilet on his Sunday morning.
Sure I would. Why not? Itâs a safe request- asking whether tile selection implementation is un adjusted random or- eg something else like random * factor in which factor adjusts according to a rule set (eg success causes factor to decrease thus lowering the probability of specific tiles being selected).
A line of code seems more convincing than a subjective data set. Whatever you observe- code dictates behavior
Imagine if I used that as a counter argument for probability based reasoning? I wonât share my observations because you wouldnât believe it anyway?
If the code is shown for random selection- and shown to be un adjusted random- great- the debate is settled- which, is what you want also?
Unless of course, a factor is present that skews random selection. Oooops!
Why would you lie about code fragments? We talk of the implementation using a standard math library- either itâs a native call to random or- itâs random with factor applied. This can be shared very easily without giving away any so called secrets.
Have faith- if the method is shown- for me it ends the debate.
Youâre missing the point sadly. There was an observation that friendly battles are easier than regular raids. I agree with that observation. Then the validity was challenged on basis of statistics- which I feel is just too subjective. Then I would offer that a code fragment would conclude that the observation is either an outlier or has something of greater significance. Thatâs it, really.
Oh, and by the way- having a factored / skewed random is still random. So you can skew tiles and still legally call it ârandomâ.
Only you not believing what we have been told.