Question about so-called "Luck Accounts"

[kharmin.7683]

Is that how it works, though?  How does rolling 1-100 multiple times change the chance of rolling a specific number to more than 1%?

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

This is not true, unless you are broadly defining an "account" to include speed of the computer used on the account, the speed of the internet connection used on the account, and any latency/ping issues. 

Considering that the RNG calculations are server-based, not client-based, and that it's unlikely each player gets a separate RNG thread, those are unlikely to introduce any sort of bias.

Quote

It is a bit like increasing favorable roulette results based on the the speed of the ball, where it was released, and then selecting a block of numbers from the wheel where the ball is likely to stop. 

Except you can't do that, because you don't know where the ball is at any specific time.

Quote

In GW2, how accounts get queued up for a massive stack of PRNG results can put some accounts habitually in lucky zones in that stack and some accounts in unlucky zones in that stack. 

No, it can't. You seem to think that certain qualities of an account might impact the "queuing" and you're right - it might. You however also think, that this impact is some sort of a constant, a bias that will always be in place - and that part is completely wrong. The reality is that this "impact" you speak of will also be random.

Quote

If Harry and Ron both play GW2, but Ron's slow computer almost always gives him late results in the queue and Harry's fast Nimbus 2000 computer often gets him early results in the queue, then they can have completely different experiences from that queue.

There's no such thing as "late" and "fast" results in the queue. Harry and Ron's speed doesn't matter, because they do not start from the same point. And when they do, it also doesn't matter, because the rolls are made server-side, so their speed affects only how fast they get informed about roll results, not the results themselves.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Astralporing.1957]

46 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Is that how it works, though?  How does rolling 1-100 multiple times change the chance of rolling a specific number to more than 1%?

If you roll 1-100 a thousand times, what is the chance of you not getting "1" even once? Consequently, what is the chance of you getting "1" at least once?

 

[Random Wax Orc.7695]

30 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Considering that the RNG calculations are server-based, not client-based, and that it's unlikely each player gets a separate RNG thread, those are unlikely to introduce any sort of bias.

I didn't say or even imply each player would get a separate RNG thread.  If one account can make a dozen requests for RNG calls when another can't make half those requests in the same interval, then it will impact the nature of the results the two accounts get.  If one account can make multiple RNG requests before another account can make one, then it will impact the nature of the results the two accounts get.

 

30 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Except you can't do that, because you don't know where the ball is at any specific time.

Wrong.  Late bets after the wheel is spun and the ball has just been released.  At that point it is just a physics problem.

 

30 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No, it can't. You seem to think that certain qualities of an account might impact the "queuing" and you're right - it might. You however also think, that this impact is some sort of a constant, a bias that will always be in place - and that part is completely wrong. The reality is that this "impact" you speak of will also be random.

Incredulity is not an argument.  Strawmanning is not a good faith attempt to understand what someone is trying to communicate.  I never said it "will always be in place" or constant.  Emergent patterns in rare outcomes only need a small or rare bias.  The impact of which I speak is not random, and this "random" of which you speak of is just "beyond calculation" and not actually random.

 

30 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

There's no such thing as "late" and "fast" results in the queue.

Umm... try to understand what is being communicated and not adjudicate what is an acceptable meaning.  It is an overly simple example intended to illustrate a concept.  Try buying a lotto scratcher after all the jackpots have already been randomly won, and then tell me you can't be late in a queue.  Getting to the parade route or movie theater the night before to ensure a good seat can be both seen as early or fast.

 

Yet, as I said there is little to nothing to be done about all this.  The value in some small theoretical understanding is mostly psychological.  Sure nothing is or can be fair, but glimpsing the topology of the situation can be empowering, and help avoid the tendency to just feel like a victim of bad luck.

[Sobx.1758]

6 hours ago, Abyssisis.3971 said:

 I gave my opinion based on my experiences in game. If you don’t like it, I really don’t care so whatever floats your boat. 😂

Cool, I'm just explaining what you apparently don't understand, no need to be so defensive about it 😄 

[Astralporing.1957]

12 minutes ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

I didn't say or even imply each player would get a separate RNG thread.  If one account can make a dozen requests for RNG calls when another can't make half those requests in the same interval, then it will impact the nature of the results the two accounts get.  If one account can make multiple RNG requests before another account can make one, then it will impact the nature of the results the two accounts get.

That is a result of player activity, not of some inherent account qualities. Sure, someone that kills a ton of mobs will get better drops than someone that AFKs in LA most of the time. That has nothing to do with RNG generator however.

12 minutes ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

Wrong.  Late bets after the wheel is spun and the ball has just been released.  At that point it is just a physics problem.

You don't see the ball. You don't know when it was released. You don't even know the order of the pockets on the wheel. You cannot predict the end result because the starting point is, in practice, pretty much random (oh, wait, "beyond calculation", is it?).

12 minutes ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

Incredulity is not an argument.  Strawmanning is not a good faith attempt to understand what someone is trying to communicate.  I never said it "will always be in place" or constant.  Emergent patterns in rare outcomes only need a small or rare bias.  The impact of which I speak is not random, and this "random" of which you speak of is just "beyond calculation" and not actually random.

If you want to go with this argument, then in the same way dice throws and roulette spins are not random, but simply beyond calculation.

12 minutes ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

Umm... try to understand what is being communicated and not adjudicate what is an acceptable meaning.  It is an overly simple example intended to illustrate a concept.  Try buying a lotto scratcher after all the jackpots have already been randomly won, and then tell me you can't be late in a queue.  Getting to the parade route or movie theater the night before to ensure a good seat can be both seen as early or fast.

In all those cases you brought up there are some unique "jackpots" only one person can get. This is very much not the case we're talking about. Notice, though, that even your (badly picked) example doesn't show what you want to show, because, it can easily go the other way - try buying a lotto scratcher when all the losing tickets have already been sold, and the winning one is still up for grabs. Being "early" or "late" does not influence whether you get better or worse results even in the situation with limited "wins", so it has even less of an impact in case where the number of "jackpots" is infinite.

[robertthebard.8150]

Well, what I heard was that they implemented a ritual, and you have to perform it every day for a week before you run content where you can get the rare drops.

The ritual entails stripping down at Noon and Midnight, and running around the outside of your house three times in a counter clockwise direction.  Of course, I've also heard this applied to enchanting items in Rappelz, and getting rare drops from instanced content in Aion and swtor...

 

/hide

[Random Wax Orc.7695]

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That is a result of player activity, not of some inherent account qualities. Sure, someone that kills a ton of mobs will get better drops than someone that AFKs in LA most of the time. That has nothing to do with RNG generator however.

You are deliberately misrepresenting and misinterpreting what I am describing.  Sorry, it is probably that the concepts are mostly just going over your head... but to attribute the speed and frequency a computer can make requests to a server over an internet connection to "player activity" is just disingenuous.

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

You don't see the ball. You don't know when it was released. You don't even know the order of the pockets on the wheel. You cannot predict the end result because the starting point is, in practice, pretty much random (oh, wait, "beyond calculation", is it?).

The trope of using a mobile phone app to calculate probable roulette outcomes is common... your objection assumes information to support your belief, instead of trying to understand the point.

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

If you want to go with this argument, then in the same way dice throws and roulette spins are not random, but simply beyond calculation.

Yes, dice rolled are ultimately not random, they are just functionally random enough for the purpose.  And completely irrelevant since craps is not a complex system, while an MMO server-client network is a complex system.  It is the complexity that results in not really random things to exhibit unexpected patterns and behaviors.

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

In all those cases you brought up there are some unique "jackpots" only one person can get. This is very much not the case we're talking about. Notice, though, that even your (badly picked) example doesn't show what you want to show, because, it can easily go the other way - try buying a lotto scratcher when all the losing tickets have already been sold, and the winning one is still up for grabs. Being "early" or "late" does not influence whether you get better or worse results even in the situation with limited "wins", so it has even less of an impact in case where the number of "jackpots" is infinite.

No, again this is an uncharitable if not disingenuous interpretation of what I said.  You objected to the use of words "late" and "fast", and those were examples of the usage of late and fast in a similar context.

 

It is simple.  A complex system with a pseudo-random element will exhibit behaviors that are increasingly less random as the complexity increases.  Patterns will emerge that are not dependent on the random element.  Find the "Game of Life" from back in the day, simple rules added to random element forms patterns.   Some of them self perpetuating.  Some of them exhibiting behaviors that weren't programmed into the game.  That is called Emergence... it is a whole field of science.

 

This is my last reply.  Either you are trolling or playing some forum alpha dog game.  Not interested.

 

 

[Sobx.1758]

25 minutes ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

The trope of using a mobile phone app to calculate probable roulette outcomes is common... your objection assumes information to support your belief, instead of trying to understand the point.

No, it's you trying to use one situation (roulette late bids) as a direct comparison to another (ingame "rng"), where the same rules simply don't apply.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[kharmin.7683]

4 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

If you roll 1-100 a thousand times, what is the chance of you not getting "1" even once? Consequently, what is the chance of you getting "1" at least once?

 

The way I understand it (and I am by no means any math or statistic expert!) is that every 1-100 roll has a 1% chance of rolling a particular number which is not influenced by how many times it's rolled.  Just like flipping a coin: it's always 50/50 regardless of the number of flips.

 

[mtpelion.4562]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

The way I understand it (and I am by no means any math or statistic expert!) is that every 1-100 roll has a 1% chance of rolling a particular number which is not influenced by how many times it's rolled.  Just like flipping a coin: it's always 50/50 regardless of the number of flips.

 

Every INDIVIDUAL roll has the same chance of getting a particular number.

However, when I roll a dice 100 times and you only roll it once, I have more chances than you do, so my odds of getting any particular number is higher. 

[Kurrilino.2706]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

The way I understand it (and I am by no means any math or statistic expert!) is that every 1-100 roll has a 1% chance of rolling a particular number which is not influenced by how many times it's rolled.  Just like flipping a coin: it's always 50/50 regardless of the number of flips.

 

 

You got that absolutely right.

Everything else needs tinfoil heads

[Sobx.1758]

3 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

You got that absolutely right.

Everything else needs tinfoil heads

Yes, he's right about the chances of individual rolls, but he's not right about the probability of getting desired outcome throughout repeated rolls. All of that is still just a chance, but they are also 2 different numbers.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Kurrilino.2706]

Just now, Sobx.1758 said:

Yes, he's right about the chances of individual rolls, but he's not right about the probability of getting desired outcome throughout repeated rolls.

 

At this point you would have to provide evidence that some accounts get more rolls than others

[mtpelion.4562]

Just now, Kurrilino.2706 said:

 

At this point you would have to provide evidence that some accounts get more rolls than others

If you kill 1 mob and I kill 100 mobs, I got 100 rolls while you got 1 roll.

[Sobx.1758]

3 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

 

At this point you would have to provide evidence that some accounts get more rolls than others

That wasn't the base claim in this comment chain. The base claim was that some people farm/spam relevant events (=get more rolls, since one event = 1 roll), while the ohers don't, for whatever reason (in this case: "I don't get the drop I want = I give up" = I don't roll anymore = I roll less than people that consistently farm the content).

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Kurrilino.2706]

1 minute ago, mtpelion.4562 said:

If you kill 1 mob and I kill 100 mobs, I got 100 rolls while you got 1 roll.

 

I absolutely agree here but i don't get the point.

What has this to do with "Luck accounts" ?

 

We still roll 100 times against the same odds

Edited November 23, 2021 by Kurrilino.2706

[Kurrilino.2706]

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

That wasn't the base claim, lol. The base claim was that some people farm/spam relevant events (=get more rolls, since one event = 1 roll), while the ohers don't, for whatever reason (in this case: "I don't get the drop I want = I give up" = I don't roll anymore).

 

I absolutely agree with everything you said.

Maybe i don't get the whole thread

 

It's the typical "It's unfair, i play lotto my whole life and every week someone else but me wins"

[mtpelion.4562]

2 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

 

I absolutely agree here but i don't get the point.

What has this to do with "Luck accounts" ?

 

We still roll 100 times against the same odds

I think the point is that all players who are commenting here are viewing their own "luck" through the lens of their total experience (meaning, the sum of all rolls) and comparing their results with other players who are also looking at the sum of all rolls. This means that when two people here think they are comparing a 1% chance with a 0.5% chance, they are most likely comparing a 1% chance times X rolls versus a 1% chance times Y rolls.

 

That is to say, it is impossible to determine if an account is "lucky" or "unlucky" without knowing exactly how many times they have actually pulled the lever. 

[costepj.5120]

The only "evidence" of lucky/unlucky accounts is anecdotal. Someone says I played nine years and never had anything good drop, whereas my guildie gets 3 precursors a week. But unless two people are doing the exact same content every hour of every day, that doesn't tell you anything. Guildie might be throwing 100 exotics down the mystic toilet every day while the unlucky player spends their time RPing in DR.

[Kurrilino.2706]

21 hours ago, MarkoGold.7126 said:

the only thing i heard related to the op question is accounts having a hidden value that affect drops, supposedly created when you create the account and rng. but i have no idea if its true or not. 

 

I shouldn't even answer to this ridiculous claim.

But for the sake of arguing, let's say this is true.

 

Why on earth would A-Net even introduce a value like that?

 

[Kurrilino.2706]

7 minutes ago, mtpelion.4562 said:

I think the point is that all players who are commenting here are viewing their own "luck" through the lens of their total experience (meaning, the sum of all rolls) and comparing their results with other players who are also looking at the sum of all rolls. This means that when two people here think they are comparing a 1% chance with a 0.5% chance, they are most likely comparing a 1% chance times X rolls versus a 1% chance times Y rolls.

 

That is to say, it is impossible to determine if an account is "lucky" or "unlucky" without knowing exactly how many times they have actually pulled the lever. 

 

Well then let them do an experiment i guess.

2 people play Tequatl and i propose that even the blue and green items will differ between the those 2.

All this  has nothing to do with rigging accounts.

 

[Random Wax Orc.7695]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No, it's you trying to use one situation (roulette late bids) as a direct comparison to another (ingame "rng"), where the same rules simply don't apply.

Thanks for the mind reading, but that was not what I was trying.  You just took what I said out of context and then added your own context.  If you can't explain in good faith what I've been explaining in this thread, then you can't explain why you might disagree in good faith.  The topic is a lot deeper than either "it's just rng" or "it's unfair" make it out to be.  Why would anyone feel the need to argue against that.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

[Sobx.1758]

21 minutes ago, Random Wax Orc.7695 said:

Thanks for the mind reading, but that was not what I was trying.  You just took what I said out of context and then added your own context.  If you can't explain in good faith what I've been explaining in this thread, then you can't explain why you might disagree in good faith.  The topic is a lot deeper than either "it's just rng" or "it's unfair" make it out to be.  Why would anyone feel the need to argue against that.

You were using a comparison with no direct correlation to the discussed situation (due to not having the access to the same informations between the two). Astral responded with trying to explain to you exactly that, translating your example into the situation that's discussed here ("You don't see the ball. You don't know when it was released. You don't even know the order of the pockets on the wheel. You cannot predict the end result because the starting point is, in practice, pretty much random (oh, wait, "beyond calculation", is it?)."), to which you respond with "The trope of using a mobile phone app to calculate probable roulette outcomes is common", seemingly still stuck in discussing that literal roulette situation, which still doesn't have a direct translation to what's being discussed here.

If you don't understand what you're doing here, then not sure if you're in place of talking about discussing anything in good faith. And yes, I know what's the context of this comment chain -it's just that you're not discussing anything within the realms of the game, but instead took a hard turn into literally discussing literal late bets on literal physical roulette. And, agian, this just doesn't translate to what is being discussed here.

As a reminder, it more-or-less went on from the claim that having "late rolls due to hardware differences could meaningfully influence your chances of getting rare drop". But in reality it doesn't, because in the end you don't know when exactly you roll, you don't know what the potential roll queue is, you don't know what is the next outcome, nor do you know which "square" is the winning one. Even if it influences the results, it influencesthem without a direct possibility to meddle with said result, so you're just arguing aboout random shots being taken at random times and why that's unfair. It's not unfair, since you don't knowingly influence the chances with your hardware, you're just flowing with the current anyways.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[JustTrogdor.7892]

24 minutes ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

 

I shouldn't even answer to this ridiculous claim.

But for the sake of arguing, let's say this is true.

 

Why on earth would A-Net even introduce a value like that?

 

As I posted in this thread earlier and according to a former Anet employee it is not true.  Here is the link to my earlier post with quotes from the Anet employee:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/104687-question-about-so-called-luck-accounts/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1512603