Jump to content

RNG Experiment: Attack Coinflips


Sakura150612
 Share

Recommended Posts

Unless we get a chance to look at the RNG code itself, this conversation will go on and on.

Stuffing your fingers into your ears, shouting “LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALA”, while people provide you with valid data, isn't so much of a conversation, but rather a case study of delusion and denial.

 

Sorry that I can't find nicer words to express this, but this whole “conversation” has striking similarities to angry housewives with high school diplomas, debating against seasoned scientists with a PhD about the danger of vaccination.

 

Turning Sakura's experiment into godlike material that we should all bow down to and never question isn't the case.

 

This is a valid point. No, you shouldn't bow down to it and accept the data that Sakura provided as the ultimate truth.

 

What you should do instead, is seek said data yourself. Go ahead and record your coin flips and those of your opponent. Do this for a week, two weeks,a month. Note your opening hands down. How many times did you miss your supporter ? How many times did you start with a Shaymin, a Jirachi, or a Tapu Lele as your only Pokemon ? What are the odds of those scenarios in relation to your deck and how often did they occur ? Do those numbers match, or are they striking differences between the two ?

 

You are on the hot seat now. Provide us with trustworthy data. Show us that the RNG is flawed in some scenarios. Proof, that your agenda is based on something more than your gut feeling.

 

You said a short time ago “all opinions matter”. I have to disagree. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but that doesn't mean that each and every word you, I, or any other human being on this planet has to say is valid information, that should have any kind of influence, unless it is based on something.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuffing your fingers into your ears, shouting “LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALA”, while people provide you with valid data, isn't so much of a conversation, but rather a case study of delusion and denial.

 

Sorry that I can't find nicer words to express this, but this whole “conversation” has striking similarities to angry housewives with high school diplomas, debating against seasoned scientists with a PhD about the danger of vaccination.

 

 

This is a valid point. No, you shouldn't bow down to it and accept the data that Sakura provided as the ultimate truth.

 

What you should do instead, is seek said data yourself. Go ahead and record your coin flips and those of your opponent. Do this for a week, two weeks,a month. Note your opening hands down. How many times did you miss your supporter ? How many times did you start with a Shaymin, a Jirachi, or a Tapu Lele as your only Pokemon ? What are the odds of those scenarios in relation to your deck and how often did they occur ? Do those numbers match, or are they striking differences between the two ?

 

You are on the hot seat now. Provide us with trustworthy data. Show us that the RNG is flawed in some scenarios. Proof, that your agenda is based on something more than your gut feeling.

 

You said a short time ago “all opinions matter”. I have to disagree. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but that doesn't mean that each and every word you, I, or any other human being on this planet has to say is valid information, that should have any kind of influence, unless it is based on something.

I'm not delusional​ neither I'm in denial.

Plus I'm not the only one.

I'm just the most vocal of all those that think that the RNG is broken.

I don't enjoy winning or losing by the RNG, i enjoy winning or losing by a deck's consistency.

 

I don't have the nerves to record every coin flip/opening hand/whatsoever.

I do have the nerves to argue with those that think Sakura's experiment is the perfect example, because it's not.

 

If you or Sakura are the PhD scientists then I'm The Real Housewife of PTCGO.

Because I've been taking out the trash long time before Sakura's experiment ever happened.

 

On a final note, if "All Opinions Matter" doesn't apply to you then I'm sorry you feel that way because one day you'll happen to be on the receiving end of it and when you'll realize that it'll be too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not delusional​ neither I'm in denial.

Plus I'm not the only one.

I'm just the most vocal of all those that think that the RNG is broken.

I don't enjoy winning or losing by the RNG, i enjoy winning or losing by a deck's consistency.

 

I don't have the nerves to record every coin flip/opening hand/whatsoever.

I do have the nerves to argue with those that think Sakura's experiment is the perfect example, because it's not.

 

If you or Sakura are the PhD scientists then I'm The Real Housewife of PTCGO.

Because I've been taking out the trash long time before Sakura's experiment ever happened.

 

On a final note, if "All Opinions Matter" doesn't apply to you then I'm sorry you feel that way because one day you'll happen to be on the receiving end of it and when you'll realize that it'll be too late.

Well if you're unwilling to do the work to defend your opinion, do you really have a right to keep that opinion?

 

If you want anything to change, you're going to have to start by proving there's a problem.

 

And I will remind you that the majority of players don't think there's a problem.

 

Especially the good ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make things a bit clearer here:

 

There is an old fable of Aesop about The Boy Who Cried Wolf. If you haven't read it, it is a good time to do so now (and thank me later) :)

 

*spoilers below*

 

Anyway, what we have here is the boy (TRB) who thinks there is a wolf coming (RNG is broken) but has no evidence about that, only some signs. So he shouts to everyone else "The Wolf is Coming"! (The difference with the fable is that TRB is not joking)

 

On the other hand, there are people that since they've seen no wolf and there is a person (Sakura) that has proven to them with evidence that there is no wolf (RNG is fine) they decide to never again believe the boy and they desert him.

 

As we know, the wolf comes after all and eats the sheep. But that is the conclusion of the fable. Personally, I don't know if that's the case with the RNG.

 

What I can't do though, is to ignore the signs that a wolf might exist. I think that's what TRB is trying to say, although he is overreacting a bit. But that's TRB :)

 

Since the game is not developed by the players themselves, the only thing we can do is to suggest, to complain and to discuss.

 

On this matter, we have a valid, strong point made by Sakura's experiment. On the opposite side there are people and their experience.

 

You don't have to choose a side. And even if you are on a side, you don't have to force the other side to join you.

 

Be polite. Be constructive.

 

Thanks for reading me.

Edited by Rainbow-XN
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you're unwilling to do the work to defend your opinion, do you really have a right to keep that opinion?

 

If you want anything to change, you're going to have to start by proving there's a problem.

 

And I will remind you that the majority of players don't think there's a problem.

 

Especially the good ones.

 

I've seen a lot of things with my very eyes.

For myself i know i'm right.

If you think i'm that 0.01% of the community that constantly complains, then just let me be and ignore me.

But i'm not going to withdraw from my entitled opinion.

 

Either show us the code publicly or no experiment will ever be enough to satisfy either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a lot of things with my very eyes.

For myself i know i'm right.

If you think i'm that 0.01% of the community that constantly complains, then just let me be and ignore me.

But i'm not going to withdraw from my entitled opinion.

 

Either show us the code publicly or no experiment will ever be enough to satisfy either side.

But how can you know you're right if you refuse to check?  That's kinda like thinking the capital of Australia is Sydney.  That's a common misconception, but the truth is it's Canberra.  But if you refuse to check, you only ensure you stay wrong forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how can you know you're right if you refuse to check?  That's kinda like thinking the capital of Australia is Sydney.  That's a common misconception, but the truth is it's Canberra.  But if you refuse to check, you only ensure you stay wrong forever.

 

I'm not ignorant neither illiterate.

I'm just standing by the things i've witnessed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you're unwilling to do the work to defend your opinion, do you really have a right to keep that opinion?

 

If you want anything to change, you're going to have to start by proving there's a problem.

Personally, I think that everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

With that said, and talking about 'willingness to defend ones opinion' and 'proving there's a problem', what comes to mind for me is: Russell's teapot, which is a thought experiment used in order to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

 

That story goes like this:

 

There is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. It is impossible to see with any telescope or satellite or by any man made technology. It also can phase through matter, so you can't knock it out of orbit if you wanted to. If you can't prove that I am wrong, then, I am right and the teapot does in fact exist.

 

The lesson here is: If you make a claim (and you are well within your rights to do so, everyone can have their own opinions and the right to be wrong about stuff), nobody has to take you seriously or believe you unless you back up that claim with evidence. If your evidence for a claim being true relies on someone else to disprove your assertion, especially when that assertion is unfalsifiable or not backed by any reasonable evidence, then the claim can rightly be dismissed out of hand.

 

The ability for a test/experiment/observation to be falsifiable, is a key component and at the heart of the scientific method.

 

Or at least, that's my opinion on the subject of who has the burden of proof when someone is making a claim.

 

With all that said, and more specifically to PTCGO, to my knowledge RNG has been looked into extensively and is working as expected. Even with that being the case, I personally welcome anyone to do any tests they wish to determine if RNG is working as well as one would hope, especially if they use fair sample sizes while doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally fine with being called a "ghost-chaser" as i'm totally not into becoming a "myth-buster".

With that being said, my claims may be invalid but they are things that i've seen them happening more than just a few times and they are totally not parts of my

imagination.

If the only way of proving that my claims are correct is by performing an experiment similar to Sakura's, then it seems that i'm out of luck as i'm totally not into such dedicated procedure.

 

But can someone explain me these:

* Why every time you edit a deck, your opening hands always end up being "bad shuffles" (1 basic and 6 non-shuffling cards)

* Why every time a card like Corsola or Pyukumuku ends up with scoring the exact amount of heads needed to score a KO instead of flipping head beyond it? (8 heads instead of 9/10/11 etc)

* Why deck's consistency is being thrown out the window when you need it the most (RNG over consistency)

 

In my opinion the above situations that i've described indicate cracks on the RNG.

If anyone is interested, i would like to hear some replies.

Edited by The_Real_Bug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally fine with being called a "ghost-chaser" as i'm totally not into becoming a "myth-buster".

With that being said, my claims may be invalid but they are things that i've seen them happening more than just a few times and they are totally not parts of my

imagination.

If the only way of proving that my claims are correct is by performing an experiment similar to Sakura's, then it seems that i'm out of luck as i'm totally not into such dedicated procedure.

 

But can someone explain me these:

* Why every time you edit a deck, your opening hands always end up being "bad shuffles" (1 basic and 6 non-shuffling cards)

* Why every time a card like Corsola or Pyukumuku ends up with scoring the exact amount of heads needed to score a KO instead of flipping head beyond it? (8 heads instead of 9/10/11 etc)

* Why deck's consistency is being thrown out the window when you need it the most (RNG over consistency)

 

In my opinion the above situations that i've described indicate cracks on the RNG.

If anyone is interested, i would like to hear some replies.

As well when you create a deck, your first hands will always be bad shuffling. It's as if the game doesn't know what it is doing. It then realises that it should be doing something, so the next few times you play the deck, the cards will be properly shuffled. (Though no always, because, well.... RNG)

 

I'm not really choosing a side, not saying the RNG isn't working properly, but how can anybody explain this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well when you create a deck, your first hands will always be bad shuffling. It's as if the game doesn't know what it is doing. It then realises that it should be doing something, so the next few times you play the deck, the cards will be properly shuffled. (Though no always, because, well.... RNG)

 

I'm not really choosing a side, not saying the RNG isn't working properly, but how can anybody explain this?

Sure. I just made a deck the other day, and lost three times. I edited it, and immediately after editing, I got a perfect hand. Then I won 5 more times, before losing three more.

 

So, explanation: The deck did not fail after editing, and claims that you always get bad shuffling after an edit are just more confirmation bias. Any instance of good shuffling after an edit disproves the absolute.

 

Explain why they would save a shuffle status in the deck file and update it after playing each match, rather than the simple and obvious deck list that gets randomized only when played, and is stored as nothing more than the deck list.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I just made a deck the other day, and lost three times. I edited it, and immediately after editing, I got a perfect hand. Then I won 5 more times, before losing three more.

 

So, explanation: The deck did not fail after editing, and claims that you always get bad shuffling after an edit are just more confirmation bias. Any instance of good shuffling after an edit disproves the absolute.

 

Explain why they would save a shuffle status in the deck file and update it after playing each match, rather than the simple and obvious deck list that gets randomized only when played, and is stored as nothing more than the deck list.

After editing or creating a deck there is a common pattern that you get first hands of the same cards (as though the deck hasn't been shuffled enough). For example, getting all 4 VS Seekers or 3 M Mewtwo. The chances of getting the same card 4 times out of the 60 is extremely low. If you divide it by how many battles you play with a deck those chances diminish even more.

 

I am not claiming that the "bad shuffling" happens always after edit/create but it does happen much more frequently than in a deck used for a while.

 

That's why I, and I suggest that to everyone, never play with a newly created or edited deck in events. First, give it a try in Versus, play a handful of matches and then head to the events.

Edited by Rainbow-XN
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After editing or creating a deck there is a common pattern that you get first hands of the same cards (as though the deck hasn't been shuffled enough). For example, getting all 4 VS Seekers or 3 M Mewtwo. The chances of getting the same card 4 times out of the 60 is extremely low. If you divide it by how many battles you play with a deck those chances diminish even more.

 

I am not claiming that the "bad shuffling" happens always after edit/create but it does happen much more frequently than in a deck used for a while.

 

That's why I, and I suggest that to everyone, never play with a newly created or edited deck in events. First, give it a try in Versus, play a handful of matches and then head to the events.

Again, explain why the coders would go to the extra effort of creating a deliberately bad system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, explain why the coders would go to the extra effort of creating a deliberately bad system.

They didn't create a deliberately bad system in purpose.

 

We, the RNG's integrity deniers if that suits you best, are stating that the code appears to have some cracks.

 

If the only argument against us is Sakura's experiment (an experiment performed by a player and with that being said even the result's integrity is questionable) then your argument is as much invalid as ours is considered to be, because at the end of the day none of us is trust-worthy enough to prove anything and we all are just acting like annoyed dogs barking at the moon at night.

 

I suggest that we terminate this conversation as it doesn't lead anywhere and neither side will ever back down.

 

TRB, out.

Edited by The_Real_Bug
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, explain why the coders would go to the extra effort of creating a deliberately bad system.

I'm not suggesting that at all.

 

I'm just implying that the code might have some flaws. I wasn't expecting something that tricky as a RNG in a game to be perfect. I'm not complaining about it. I just point out some things that can be annoying, when to expect them and how to avoid them if possible.

 

I trust the developers are doing whatever they can to ensure a fair and enjoyable playground for everyone (or at least for the vast majority of the players).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After editing or creating a deck there is a common pattern that you get first hands of the same cards (as though the deck hasn't been shuffled enough). For example, getting all 4 VS Seekers or 3 M Mewtwo. The chances of getting the same card 4 times out of the 60 is extremely low. If you divide it by how many battles you play with a deck those chances diminish even more.

 

I am not claiming that the "bad shuffling" happens always after edit/create but it does happen much more frequently than in a deck used for a while.

 

That's why I, and I suggest that to everyone, never play with a newly created or edited deck in events. First, give it a try in Versus, play a handful of matches and then head to the events.

 

I got all 4 trevenants prized once. Does that count? xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got all 4 trevenants prized once. Does that count? xD

Trevenant is a ghost type Pokemon, it's absolutely normal to lurk somewhere in the prize cards :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread isn't becoming the best thing in the world, not what it was intended to propose in the first place. If it wasn't for Mod_Elderberry like this thread, then I'm positive he would've locked it by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread isn't becoming the best thing in the world, not what it was intended to propose in the first place. If it wasn't for Mod_Elderberry like this thread, then I'm positive he would've locked it by now.

Don't worry, everything is ok.

I'm sure Mod_Elderberry has everything under control.

You can sleep safe and sound tonight.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, everything is ok.

I'm sure Mod_Elderberry has everything under control.

You can sleep safe and sound tonight.

Well.... I'll be watching.....

 

*slowly exits room*

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, you ARE suggesting a deliberately bad system.

Either:

1) The sort order of the cards is retained from the last time they were used and acts as a seed for a shuffling simulation

or

2) There's a list of cards that is randomized into an ordered deck each time there's a shuffle, and is only a simple list (4x Shaymin-EX RS###, 3x N...) when a game is not underway.

 

Saving a sort order other than the simple list that we have access to would require extra resources and be bad. Saving just the list is simple, and makes it impossible for the last action done to the deck to matter.

 

When people want to know what's in the code of a game, they don't demand that the developer reveal the game's code, because there are very few developers that will ever publish their code, since it makes hacking it exponentially easier. They disassemble the code themselves, or find someone who has already done that. There's likely someone out there who has done it, but equally likely they won't say so on the official forums.

(No, I'm not saying I know of such a person or place. I don't.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevenant is a ghost type Pokemon, it's absolutely normal to lurk somewhere in the prize cards :P

Very true :D The prize cards are Hauntered :o

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'll say is: beware of bias. Our brains are wired to look for patterns where none exist.

I got matched in R1 with two Burning Heat theme decks in a row in tournaments, both of whom got T3 Incineroar and took apart my helpless Steel Sun deck. Does that mean a broken RNG? NO. The reverse happened to me in my next Burning Heat matchup: I got 2 Hau in my opening hand, and was able to set up a T3/4 Solegleo and snipe his Litten off the Bench. Memories of minor bad events stay in our brains long after good ones of comparable scale have been forgotten.

When I tested out my RayEelTwo deck's setup for the first time against the AI, I ended up with a hand of 2 Sycamore and 4 VS Seekers. But that was on my third test run. I can't remember any other hands I got, on that run or any other runs. Which means?

QED.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got all 4 trevenants prized once. Does that count? xD

About all this discussion and all, that's already annoying me because no one that's unhappy with the RNG proves any reason for that to happen, i have something to say, that i recalled due to this 4 Trevenants prized:

 

SOME MONTHS AGO IN SOME REAL LIFE REGIONALS FINAL, IN THE SECOND GAME, ONE OF THE FINALISTS HAD 3 ROWLET PRIZED, FACT THAT LOST HIM THE SECOND GAME. IS THE 'HUMAN RNG' BROKEN??? AND WE'RE TALKING AN EVENT THAT INVOLVED MONEY EITHER TO PLAY OR BY WINNING, UNLIKE PTCGO.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...