It's 100 times more likely You'll Hit the Jackpot than Flare will Fix a Problem!

First off, @GalaMorgane!

I made a post asking if it was a bug getting back a Perk on the second re-roll after removing it.  The community and administrators agreed: no, that’s just a way Flare intentionally decided to f#ck with us. 

After realizing it was possible to get a perk back on the second try.  I found a new bug…  It is now very likely to fall into a cycle of perks: remove A get B, remove B get A, remove A get B, remove B get A, etc…  So I made a second post specifically about the cycle.  (Different post, different concept, different problem!)

Then it was “helpfully” shut down claiming it was the same thing! 

It’s not the first was a question.  (And it’s been resolved so that post can be shut down, I don’t care.)

But the second post specifically indicated the craziness of the cycle: Perk On, Perk Off, Perk Back On…

(Do I sound annoyed?  I’m sorry that my annoyance made me sound that way?)

 

So here’s what’s happening:

I had a Cape, I removed the Scream perk, got Gold, removed the Gold Perk, got Scream again, this cycle repeated 8 times…  I will write it out with the odds…

Scream    (It just was, so no probability assessment)
Gold     (17/50)
Scream     (50/83)
Gold     (17/50)
Scream     (50/83)
Gold     (17/50)
Scream     (50/83)
Gold     (17/50)

The probability:   (17/50)*(50/83)*(17/50)*(50/83)*(17/50)*(50/83)*(17/50) = 0.3%

Next I had a Ring, I removed Toxic Cloud and got Werewolf, removed that and got XP, removed that, and got Werewolf again…

Toxic Cloud    (originally)
Werewolf    (88/100)
XP    (82/94)
Werewolf    (6/82)
XP    (18/94)
Werewolf    (6/82)
XP    (18/94)
Werewolf    (6/82)

The probability: (88/100)*(82/94)*(6/82)*(18/92)*(6/82)*(18/92)*(6/82) = 0.0012%

The math is complicated.  So if you don’t understand probability you probably won’t be able to follow it. 

(I have a degree in Quantum physics and I screwed it up the first time I computed it.  In probability there are a lot of angles to consider, and this computation may still have a minor error in it, but it won’t effect the magnitude of the answer significantly.)

 

Anyway, when I had the first cycle happen to me: Gold, Scream, Gold, Scream…   (@Fourofjacks the … means that cycle continued, it doesn’t mean it happened exactly 4 times.)

I thought it was a fluke.

That was a simple cycle cause there were only 3 options and every time one was ruled out so the probabilities were small.  0.3% of the time that would happen, and that’s possible.

But when it happened to me again, immediately afterward, I knew something was up…

Maybe it’s just a bonus F#ck us from Flare. (That’s what we get for requesting a necessary feature!)

But the probability both those things happening back to back are: 0.3% * 0.0012% = 0.0000036%

The probably of hitting the jackpot on a standard Slot Machine is: 0.00038%

Meaning it’s 100 times more likely to hit the Jackpot on a Slot Machine than for this to happen!

 

So f#cking fix it Flare!

And give me my 15 X 50 gems back!  (750 gems! I’ll also settle for one pro-ticket, since the number is so convenient.)

Oh my…this is gonna be locked once again Maerique. You also need to be careful, this can also be called spamming if you keep making topics about the same thing. Especially after the Community Manager has told you why. I understand how frustrated you are, but just post this in your original topic

But he was wrong for locking it.

It’s not the same topic. 

It’s the same topic as the post which was locked which shouldn’t have been because it’s different.

If he likes, he can lock the first post which asked was a repeat possible.

It was a question that was asked and answered. 

This post is the statement of a new and different bug.  It has not been resolved!

If you’re this mad and annoyed because of a leadership perk, I can’t wait to see what happens when you’re trying to get a skull perk.

I’ve got great skull gear!  I made it long before this last update (which seems like it f#cked us).

Notice the above pattern. 

The probability of that happening if it’s truly random is: 0.0012%, you probably have a better chance of getting killed by a piano falling on your head while reading this post!

For the 3rd re-roll the the probability of getting anything but Werewolf was 93%!

And the 4th re-roll the probability of anything but XP was 81%!

And then again on the 5th 93% against!

6th 81% against!

This is not a complaint this is a mathematically provable flaw!

I truly believe the b@stards at Flare put a huge probability of giving you the original perk back on the second roll just so they could get more gems!

maths still wrong. better if you don’t try do the maths if you don’t know it, think you said you had arts degree or something before. But who knows you make a lot of stuff up.

Fully expect this thread to get locked too, hopefully Gala will keep it up and keep cleaning up the forums.

not sure if you know the story of the boy who cried wolf, but you’ve sprouted so much rubbish I’d be surprised many players believe your posts, or take your suggestions seriously.

I have a degree in quantum physics, and I work in film cause quantum physics is boring.  

I dare you to correct the math if you feel it’s wrong.

P.S. My day job was a teacher before I went full time into film.

nice one ha ha

 

Lets start with this, that is wrong already. lets see how long it takes you to figure this one out.

 

 

 

 

I had remembered that Gold, Leadership, and Scream were all equally probable. 

And had attributed them all a 1/3 probability before beginning the computation. 

Albeit I see after double checking the probabilities are:

Gold 16%, Leadership 33%, and Scream 50%

(Note those numbers don’t add up to 100% which they must, so we’ll just call Leadership 17% because that looks like a rounding error.)
 

So I’ll correct the computation:

Scream    (It just was no probability assessment)
Gold     (17/50)
Scream     (50/83)
Gold     (17/50)
Scream     (50/83)
Gold     (17/50)
Scream     (50/83)
Gold     (17/50)

The probability:   (17/50)*(50/83)*(17/50)*(50/83)*(17/50)*(50/83)*(17/50) = 0.3%

So it’s actually about 5 times more impossible than my original computation. 

 

But as I said it’s not really effecting the logic of the argument.  It’s just making my case stronger.

Thank, @Fourofjacks!

 

Fix it, Flare! 

We’re now at 100 times more likely to win the Jackpot!

Oh now I recognize you :wink: Nice to meet you

 

You might like that skull gear, but It looks like it can be improved quite a bit.

Imo you would really benefit alot from a skull perk in a speed cape (maybe a pro one?) and preferably an aura ring (maybe cure or bomb kicking ring, but fear or damage auras would be nice as well). These items are not that easy to get, so chances are you’re going to get pretty mad trying to get that skull perk on them. :grinning:

The honest truth is I’m a General in an Alliance that I really like, but at the level they battle the opponents are no real challenge for me. 

So wherever possible I removed all bonuses relating to the actual battle and replaced them with bonus XP, bonus Luck, or Bonus Gold.

Yea I figured that out, but I wasn’t talking about those XP, Gold or Luck items.

I was solely talking about the cape and ring, which usually are the trickier ones to forge skull perk on.

When I upgrade the cape (which is on my to do list), it will be Gold/Skull. 
And when I get a second Lucky Rabbit headpiece I’ll make it Gold/Luck as well.
I personally don’t really care about speed in the Alliance Wars.  They are very easy for me.  I use speed in the Ninja Event, but my Skull Gear it’s not an issue.

But I don’t do Skull Perks by removing Perks.  That would cost crazy Gems!  And I certainly wouldn’t do it until they have this issue resolved!  The way I’ll get my new Skull cape is just by leveling up every Legendary Cape with the Gold Perk, once it’s Uber if I get the Skull Perk, I’ll chuck my old cape.

my case is that you usually sprout rubbish, so point was only that your maths is wrong, and pointed out the most basic part.
there’s more errors obviously, but I am not going to point them out for you  :grinning:

 

 

I’m a physicist (by education), the math we do is so large, small, and immeasurable all we really care about is ball park numbers.

Note: I’m ignoring you unless you have something constructive to say (like your comment 2 posts back.)  But if you want to just comment on my character; honestly, I don’t know you, and I have no reason to care.  Toodles.

sure thing flim arts guy.
engineers do ball park numbers, physicists would be ashamed of making such basic maths errors.

you also had originally ^6 for 7 re-rolls, at least that error is gone though you probably didn’t notice it given your high level maths skills.

anyway just waiting for thread to get locked again.
If it really is as you say there will be more people to post about it, and really you have debunked your own bug since you have said you have rolled out of the gold / scream cycle.

 

I’ll respond to the only part of your post that wasn’t a childish personal attack but simply an ignorant mistake.

I never claimed you couldn’t roll out of the cycle.  I claimed the two cycles I hit were improbable on an astronomical level: 0.0000036%

P.S.
(Guess I lied.)
I’m not an arithmetician, I don’t really care that much about the arithmetic.  I’m good at it, if you could get me to pay attention, but I told you I found it boring, and this is a game not homework.

Final note, I guess you’re out of mistakes to catch cause the only other one you found is one I already caught. 

no surprise there.

theres more errors in your maths, but you must be so good at maths you overlooked them.
i only pointed the other one out since its gone and you wouldn’t be able to find it anymore.

when you start the OP with a childish attack / rant, you can’t really expect the rest of the thread to get better can you?

its clear you can’t get stuck in a cycle as you have rolled out of it.

so all in all another useless Maerique thread, good job!

giphy.gif

Absolutely  nobody is claiming it’s an unbreakable cycle!  I’m claiming it’s a statistically improbably cycle with a probability in fact so low that it must be an error, and you have done NOTHING to argue that!  You actually proved it was more improbable than my original computation, and then you reaffirmed it noting I miss-computed to the power of 6 when it should have been 7!  Again you’re proving the point you’re trying to argue!  If you just need to be heard, just go ahead and talk!  We are listening!