Tempering data: Extremely unlikely to be weighted

Im not having confirmation bias. I know what I see. I did not mistake “damage to distant” with some other affix. I’m not blind, I am not stupid, I pay attention. There was no optical allusion or my brain telling me I seen something different.

I’d honestly rather you think I am lying to you then to hear this crap just because you want to think a computer games RNG is running perfect, with no problems, in something that probably has millions of lines of code and has all kinds of interconnected systems and methods etc.

It’s not like this hasn’t happened before in this game. It’s not like this game doesn’t have tons of other interactions bugs or anything. No it’s just me and my confirmation bias.

Again; I have outright stated multiple times that you might be right. It’s just not the most likely explanation. It’s also easily demonstrable by you.

The fact that you’d rather be a liar than fallible is… astounding, frankly.

Exactly. If this is a thing it’s because of a bug.

If you are so absolutely certain that it happens, why dont you come in here with data to proof it? No data means you are making sh it up.

I have not tempered thousands of pieces of gear. Probably not even hundreds. I am not neglecting all the times I have succeeded nor am I focusing on failures. This has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

Do you know the probability of even seeing this happen 1 time? 0.1%. That means it can happen but it’s very unlikely. To happen more than once? Thats broken.

So not only are you claiming that it happens to you regularly, but that you’ve seen it regularly in a very small sample size. Again; it gets more and more unlikely by the moment. If you’ve seen multiple occurance within the context of “probably not even hundreds” of items, there is absolutely no reason that you can’t repeat it.

1 Like

No, I’d rather you think I am a liar than to keep feeding me this bull about confirmation bias when I know what I seen.

How is it easily demonstratable by me? Just because it has happened multiple times doesn’t mean it will happen multiple times again. It’s not like it happens all the time. It just happens. I’m also not going to sit there and roll tempers all day like you did just to prove it. Kudos to you for doing so, and I do appreciate it, but I am not going to waste my time. My life is short at this point and it’s surely not going to be spent on that.

Sigh… again, I don’t care if you believe me or not. I have no way to prove the past to you and im not wasting the future on it.

Everyone with confirmation bias “knows what they seen”; thats the point.

That’s your choice, but equally so we should all take your claims with the voracity with which you are willing to evidence them.

I know what I saw, the earth is flat, just look to the horizon. There is no way the earth is not flat, I dont care about your data proofing that the earth is not flat, I am not fallible at all.

Thats what you sound like dude.

2 Likes

OMG here we go again. Dude stop. I know what I seen. DAMAGE TO DISTANT is easily distinguishable.

Yeah, I literally told you that I dont care if you believe me or not. This all started because I asked you to explain how this could happen. You have failed to do that.

Have a good day sir, I am done for the night.

You’ve said that before, so why should we take you at your word?

I explained how it could happen, multiple possible avenues. You are exceptionally unlucky, you are prone to confirmation bias, or your character is bugged in a way that the majority of players are not. That you don’t like the potential answers doesn’t make them any less the potential range of answers.

I don’t expect you to take my word. How many times do I need to tell you that I don’t care if you believe me or not?

You can say it another 100 times you like; in the same fashion as what you say vs what happens in game, what you say is meaningless when it is in contradiction to the available evidence. If you “dont care what I think”, your actions wouldn’t include replying back and forth for multiple hours, and continuing to reply after twice claiming you were leaving.

When evidence contradicts what you say, what you say is almost certainly wrong almost all of the time.

The next interesting part of this dance is whether or not you now continue to reply despite attention having been drawn to this discrepancy, or whether you decide that now is when you cut your losses and pretend like you’re actually gone in order to regain some continuity between your claims and actions.

My guy I just had a widow maker heart attack a week ago. It’s almost 4am here. The only reason I still chat is because I couldn’t sleep and I was going to try to goto bed but decided to get a drink of some juice first.

My life is short I seriously don’t give a rats behind about you believing me or not. I also am not disappearing shortly just to save some grace because idgaf. I’m simply disappearing to go to bed.

Yes, when I’m going to bed at 4am, I always think to myself as I’m getting a drink, “I best check what that guy whose opinion I don’t care about said on the forums one last time before I go to sleep!”

Claims < Actions

Anyway, I’m going to stop now, because it’s getting a little too “beat up on the old guy”-ish in here for me, I think the point is well and truly made. You’ll notice how I actually dont reply to you again, having said this!

2 Likes

Yeah, I have a phone. It’s connected to WiFi. There is a cool thing on the phone called safari. I click it and I am able to view these forums while I drink my juice. You were conversating with me and I was conversating back. Pretty neat huh?

Try not to psycho analyze me so much and realize that I’m just here having a freaking conversation while I’m bored and have insomnia. You think you are smarter than everyone else and try to act as such. You are not, so stop trying to be some superior know it all donkey.

Computer software uses pseudorandom number generators, they give an appearance of randomness when you look at thousands of numbers (its actually a deterministic algorithm).

However, in a small amount of generations they might not appear random and poor implementation can make it worse. So, it is possible to say on a d4 to get a 1 six times in a row but that would still wash out in 3000 rolls to around 25%.

This is a common issue with games (or other software) that use PRNGs and without knowing their implementation and which generator they are using its hard to say if it could be improved or not. But when you are the player watching the rolls its noticeable.

5 Likes

Ding ding ding. This guy understands computer game rng. Finally. Thank you.

Yeah, he is confirming what Pathologic is saying.

1 Like