My Thoughts about RNG Manipulation.

"

Robert_Paulson wrote:

I continuously have good luck with linking.
This is obviously some server side setting on my account, not RNG.
Even on different accounts, so someone in the GGG office must have said "his name is Robert Paulson now, please set his account to 'easy link' asap".
It's not RNG, because it has been happening for months. For someone to keep getting lucky for months on end, that would be totally random, and RNG can't account for random events right?

Write it again, only this time just with flat, unemotional script, without inference or objective and without lies.

But is it lies though? If the post wasn't laden with heavy sarcasm and obvious insinuation, then maybe someone would believe you.

Let's believe you. You always get easy links. Cool, so you think you get non-random randomness? That, in itself, is quite random - some might say unbelievably so.

But if your belief is that you get non-random randomness as your dose of randomness, well, who can argue with that? It's just your opinion...

Now let's hear what other people have to say about their (honest) experiences...

"

Robert_Paulson wrote:

You missed my point Cronk.
Here it is again.

"

Robert_Paulson wrote:

RNG can't account for random events right?

The first line was truthful, the rest was a load of shit obviously.

I didn't miss your point. You just want to let RNG explain everything, while ignoring any other possible logical possibility.

Hence your posts are even worse than the OPs - because they don't even suggest at any factual actual gaming experiences.

"

Bukariin wrote:

Correlation does not make causality. If the Yankees win on the same night my house burns down, it does not follow that the Yankees winning made my house burn down, and if a streamer says they'd really like a particular drop a few minutes before that thing drops, it doesn't follow that the streamer's optimism caused that thing to drop.

Everybody claiming the citation of correlations counts as evidence is really bad at logic and should be ashamed of themselves for trying to argue at all.

At least he's providing actual evidence instead of talking about things not at all related to the game and claiming it as evidence.

"

Bukariin wrote:

It's not evidence. It's not actual evidence, it's not even make-believe evidence, it's correlation which is not the same as causality which WOULD count as evidence. Stop calling it evidence.

It is evidence. Some might consider it circumstantial evidence, but it's still evidence. Making reference to general principles from random philosophies is not counter-evidence.

Counter-evidence would be your experience of the game as opposed to the OP's experience of the game. The OP claims to have played 16 hours a day for a year. A 'good' counter-evidence would be someone with equivalent time experience.

Many people who have played the game to this level have encountered RNG anomalies. Enough to justify the very real possibility of there being actual issues - the most common of which is sudden influxes of the same item - there's a very big thread on that in a sub-forum.

I'm a great one for looking for anomalies in games. I made a thread very early in Open Beta about the realities of RNG, jam packed full of statistical data, but you still got morons piling in with "look at this wiki page about confirmation bias" look at that wiki page about "dice rolls over time" and, of course, "RNG is RNG".

All of which is complete crap, of course, because none of it actually relates to actual in-game experiences. Needless to say, my thread turned out to be wholly correct.

I have no doubt the main controversy in this post is the bit about individuals specifically manipulating results, where as this could just be some coding doing the job automatically, but that's why the OP would like more studies, because, anomalies or intent, he's noticed something which he finds to be off-putting about the game. It could well be a bug of some kind - and the loading screen does say "there will be bugs".

"

Bukariin wrote:

It's neither a bug nor a conspiracy, it's RNG. You roll 2d1000 and you can still get two 1 rolls, that doesn't mean the die are loaded.

EVE Online had an actual conspiracy in which CCP (the developer) had their employees playing the game and literally giving themselves and their alliances high-end item blueprints. This was exposed by uncovering emails and chatlogs, which is actual evidence supporting causality, and further, proof far beyond the reach of mere RNG.

I'll concede that it's possible (that devs may be handing out drops), but hardly supported by what you might call evidence.

I'll say it again for you. I'll use capitals so it's clearer:

YOU SAYING IT'S NOT EVIDENCE DOES NOT MAKE IT NOT EVIDENCE.

YOU QUOTING EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET EXCEPT ACTUAL IN-GAME EXPERIENCE IS NOT COUNTER-EVIDENCE.

how would you like it if I linked you to a website about God every time you started a thread? Desync? That's God that is, look a website says so. 1 reflect after using an Exalt? That's God that is, look a website says so. 4,000 fusings and no 6L? That's God that is, look a website says so.

GOD YOU'RE ANNOYING.