Rostygold
Posts: 346
4/26/2017
|
I know that there are "frequencies" as such, but this in-game documentation is not exactly comprehensive.
I have made some observations, but I want to ask if there was any thread on this here.
edited by Rostygold on 4/26/2017
|
|
|
0
link
|
Siankan
Posts: 1048
4/27/2017
|
Optimatum wrote:
Your evidence is also incomplete. For example, when Mood cards were reenabled, I too drew one a couple days later. But that isn't evidence of weighted draw RNG because the pattern hasn't changed. My deck is pretty trimmed and I regularly draw one or two mood cards a week. What you mentioned isn't clear evidence because you've only given your impressions of card appearances at those times, but not during the earlier "sparse" period or the period after the frequency is no longer "behind".
It is also to be noted that Mood cards, particularly, are affected by deck size. When I was a new player, it was not uncommon for me to draw three or four a week, largely on the back of my restricted deck size. Now that I am much further into the game and have unlocked far more cards in my deck, I am lucky to get a tithe of that. Since most people's available deck pool gets larger over time (unless they are deliberately trimming, and even then there's only so much you can do), it is logical to assume that for the majority of players, mood cards will get rarer over time.
Also, when Mood cards reappeared, they were a new and exciting event. You are much more likely to remember them, and the memories have greater impact on your perception. Six months later, even if you've been drawing them with the same regularity, they are not likely to stick in your mind the same way, creating an illusion of scarcity. Differences in playing intensity and number of cards flipped can also affect drawing rates while being entirely unrelated to the card itself. In short, impressions are not reliable, and without hard numbers to crunch, a conclusion cannot be drawn.
--
Prof. Sian Kan, at your service.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
DrMoriviri
Posts: 67
4/27/2017
|
About the reddit thread: I’ve been thinking about it and I think there’s something wrong with the “experiment”. In particular, with this phrase ” For the scope of this experiment, I'm only comparing cards labeled "Standard" frequency that weren't affected (added to or removed from the deck) by any choices I made during the period in question. This left me with 78 relevant cards”. This means that there were far more “standard” cards drawn during the experiment, but omnilyx only considered the ones “not affected by any choices he made during the period in question”.
Point is, adding or removing a card in your deck affects the probabilities by which other cards are drawn, and if during the experiment card were added or removed this could have skewed the results.
Let’s say my qualities allow only 5 cards to be drawn (obviously impossible case): 3 standard, 1 infrequent (80%) and 1 unusual (20%). The odds of drawing a particular standard card are 100/400 = 25%; the odds for the infrequent are 80/400 = 20%; and the odds for the unusual are 20/400 = 5%.
Now, if I add another standard card (let’s say I buy a 3 card lodging), my new odds, for a particular standard card, lower to 20%; for infrequent 16% and for unusual 4%.
So, if omnilyx in the period of the experiment added or removed much cards from his deck, the result shown could be wrong.
Sorry for my English, not my first language
edited by DrMoriviri on 4/27/2017
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Rostygold
Posts: 346
4/26/2017
|
genesis wrote:
This is nothing official but the last time that I am aware of that we had a discussion about this was here
ETA: I see from the other thread that one of the things that Rostygold is getting at is the Infrequent Location specific cards that are coming up a lot more frequently than Standard. I don't have an answer to that. I've mulled it long and hard and I admit it stumps me.
Thanks for the link.
One of my theory of the card-drawing was that when a card is drawn, the "frequency" rating of the card is determined first via a weighted RNG roll, using only the listed scores of the weights of the card type. After that, a type of card in the selected frequency band is selected randomly from the range of cards in that band. This theory of mine is WRONG.
I arrived at that theory because I was seeing certain Infrequent frequency cards - namely the Clandestine Rendezvous-giving cards - appearing far more often than "standard" frequency cards. I thought that because the "standard" band was saturated with more cards than the other bands, the probability of a specific "standard" card being drawn is far lower than the probability of a specific card from a less saturated band. (Incidentally, the Infrequent band is the narrowest.)
Genesis, your theory is the other theory that I believed would have been likely, i.e. each card adding its own weightage to the deck and thus expanding the RNG roll range. (That's how I summarize your theory.)
I have recently done some shenanigans that I thought would make certain cards appear instead of other cards of the same frequency; in other words, I prevented those other cards from appearing. The cards that I wanted to appear more often did not seem to increase their appearance rate in order to compensate for the absence of the other cards, which is what I wanted to happen. Hence, my aforementioned theory is wrong, and I believed that your theory is likelier.
Yet, after those Clandestine Rendezvous cards have been removed, the Amanuensis card and Mr. Pages' card (both of which are Infrequent) are not appearing more often in order to compensate. In fact, in hindsight, the now nerfed/fixed Clandestine Rendezvous appeared far more often than either card. Neither theory applied to these cards.
Now, I don't think that the frequency rating of each and every card is reliable. I think that the Clandestine Rendezvous cards had far greater weightage than their ratings suggest.
genesis wrote:
The problem with that supposition is that from what I gather from FBG via support those cards *are* in fact listed as Infrequent in their database. So the labels are correct. Whatever is going wrong it seems to be with the dealing mechanism as it applies to location specific cards.
I don't think that it is due to the Clandestine Rendezvous cards' status as location-specific cards; "Call in Favours in the Flit" is just as difficult to draw as any other specific 'standard' card, for example. I think it was because they were gold-trimmed cards.
edited by Rostygold on 4/26/2017
|
|
|
+1
link
|