27 replies to this topic

[Random Carnage]

6 hours of games and I got Caustic once. Once. Then I dropped with *******. Assaults dropped on the left, which I called. Everyone begind to Nascar. Reds roll around and I call them. Whole damn "team" ignores the call. Scratch one Dire.

Fu*k this.

[Obadiah333]

Granted, as someone stated, this is a pretty small sample size. Even playing as many matches as I did over the course of the tournament, it's still a pretty small sample size for averaging map drops. I get it. However, when I start thinking about the probability of not getting the map when I look at the number of drops on the other maps, my skepticism increases. The real thing is that I am not alone in this. The forum is full of peeps who played 40+ hours of drops, probably over hundreds of matches and didn't see the map they needed once, or maybe only once. The odds of these things happening are so astronomically low that it leads me to believe that something is amiss.

I would have more faith that PGI actually had their RNG map program working if it weren't for the myriad of other things in this game that are effed up. Let me cite one example of absolute ineptitude: Ignore feature. I have been playing this game since closed beta, may of 2012. PGI has YET to fix the ignore feature. You have to friend request a player, have them accept, and then you can put them on ignore. Its been 3 ******* years! That is the most asinine ignore feature in the history of ignore features! Good grief. I have a list of other things that are outrageous and will gladly procure it for you if you want.

tl;dr - small sample size might lead to inaccurate assessment of the RNG for maps - I still call BS because of the actual odds of the current drop ratio are beyond comprehension.

[Decadre]

Sjorpha, on 22 September 2015 - 12:47 AM, said:

Random numbers don't guarantee a distribution within a limited deviation at all, especially not over a time as short as this.

That is the main problem with the event, the RNG is guaranteed to generate a number of uneven results where many players will not ever get certain maps. I'm sure that a few unlucky players saw things like getting the same two maps all weekend etc, which is to be expected with any random system.

Something I posted yesterday. Excel spreadsheet with random numbers generated to indicate maps generated in groups of 25, 50, 100, and 200.



I'd estimate you'd need to play somewhere near 75 matches to start to see a normilization of map drops. That's probably going to be at least 12 hours of game play.

Edited by Decadre, 22 September 2015 - 08:28 AM.

[Deathlike]

RNG is working.

I suggest people consider charting their matches over the playspan any day they play MWO.

You will find that you end up NEVER playing certain maps at a given time frame... and have repeatedly played certain maps.

The problem is that you'll find that after a week that you may have not played a certain map the entire time.

That's what makes the system so frustrating.

[LordNothing]

i put my heuristic map selection idea up on the suggestions bored. anyone who didnt flunk intro to computer science should be able to figure it out.

[Deathlike]

LordNothing, on 22 September 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

i put my heuristic map selection idea up on the suggestions bored. anyone who didnt flunk intro to computer science should be able to figure it out.

I dunno... I see enough newbies to Computer Science that forget to seed the RNG.

[Roadkill]

Amsro, on 21 September 2015 - 09:34 PM, said:

yeah still have yet to see a match on mining collective. Literally 4 days, ~100 some odd matches. Not Once.

I saw Mining Collective twice on Thursday night before I realized that the event had started earlier than usual, so was still goofing off while leveling up a Cicada. I didn't see it again until last night (Monday), when I saw it 3 times but of course each time was a loss where I simply couldn't carry hard enough. I managed 225, 250 and 275 pts in those 3 games but there just wasn't any way I was going to pull a 300 in those matches. The 250 and 275 were both high score on my team, just to put things in perspective. 300 wasn't happening for me. It's frustrating when 475 damage, 2 kills, 4 assists isn't good enough because your team was just bad. (No one else had multiple kills, only 1 other person topped 300 damage.) At least I was lucky in that the game's 2 discos were 1 per team, though we also had an intentional suicide on our team so it was really 10 vs 11.

Thurs-Sat was fine. People played and the games seemed good. But then things started going downhill, and by last night it seemed like I was averaging 2-3 disconnects per game. In one game we had 5 discos and 2 guys who intentionally suicided (one of whom bragged that he was going to do it). There were multiple 10 vs 12 games... those just aren't fun for either team.

Poorly thought out event, PGI. You should feel bad.

[LordNothing]

Deathlike, on 22 September 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

I dunno... I see enough newbies to Computer Science that forget to seed the RNG.

that too. i also dont recall the last time i used a library for a game that can make any guarantees about the randomness of values returned.

im sure their are scientific maths libraries out there than have much superior rngs, i also think most cpus have hardware to do it too. but still there are limitations. ive seen some things on hacking blogs about using geiger tubes as a source of entropy or any number of quantum phenomena. but thats going a bit far for a freemium game.