but then I faced that card 3 times today, and it actually ate the biggest, all 3 times. (1st: 33%, 2nd: 16%, 3rd time: 50% chance)
1/3 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/36
Rare, but not unrealistic.
true, hope its just a misconception tho.
but I'm doubtful now because this game had some issues with rng in the past. remember Nat the Darkfisher bug? it was activating 95% of the time instead of 50% :D
Confirmation bias, notice if you win three coinflips where it eats the smaller minion e.g. 50%, 50%, 50% = 0.125 you wouldn't bat an eye and think that it's normal and deserved. any event over 0% can and will occur
Probably just seems that way, It feels like that with a lot of cards sometimes. Like Hysteria for example, I swear I probably encountered an enemy using it like 10 times in a row where it never targeted one of his own minions but would completely clear my side. /shrug
Show us on the doll where an 8 cost 3/5 minion that rarely ever sees play hurt you
You completely missed the point. I assume this was on purpose, being the internet alpha male and stuff, but still, don't be embarrassing like that, it's a public space, there are people around here.
If the card effect is bugged and does not represent the card text, it needs to be fixed, period.
If it's confirmation bias, all the op needs is a screenshot/video of the card eating a minion that isn't the biggest on the board. This didn't happen yet, so the discussion is still valid and ungoing, and you sir need to participate in a meaningful way or leave.
Show us on the doll where an 8 cost 3/5 minion that rarely ever sees play hurt you
You completely missed the point. I assume this was on purpose, being the internet alpha male and stuff, but still, don't be embarrassing like that, it's a public space, there are people around here.
If the card effect is bugged and does not represent the card text, it needs to be fixed, period.
If it's confirmation bias, all the op needs is a screenshot/video of the card eating a minion that isn't the biggest on the board. This didn't happen yet, so the discussion is still valid and ungoing, and you sir need to participate in a meaningful way or leave.
I've seen enough footage of Abominable Lieutenant in NoHandsGamer's stream to know that it can snipe spectacularly or fall flat. I don't think there is any discussion, this forum is full of confirmation bias and there's nothing wrong in having a laugh. Let's not fall into the group of people who think the outcome of a game is decided before it even starts.
Show us on the doll where an 8 cost 3/5 minion that rarely ever sees play hurt you
You completely missed the point. I assume this was on purpose, being the internet alpha male and stuff, but still, don't be embarrassing like that, it's a public space, there are people around here.
If the card effect is bugged and does not represent the card text, it needs to be fixed, period.
If it's confirmation bias, all the op needs is a screenshot/video of the card eating a minion that isn't the biggest on the board. This didn't happen yet, so the discussion is still valid and ungoing, and you sir need to participate in a meaningful way or leave.
I've seen enough footage of Abominable Lieutenant in NoHandsGamer's stream to know that it can snipe spectacularly or fall flat. I don't think there is any discussion, this forum is full of confirmation bias and there's nothing wrong in having a laugh. Let's not fall into the group of people who think the outcome of a game is decided before it even starts.
Having a laugh at the expense of other people is only funny when said people aren't there to suffer it, or else it's not a laugh it's just humiliation. I agree that this forum is full of bias, but you never know with Hearthstone, i've seen some spectacular unintended shit over the years.
Show us on the doll where an 8 cost 3/5 minion that rarely ever sees play hurt you
You completely missed the point. I assume this was on purpose, being the internet alpha male and stuff, but still, don't be embarrassing like that, it's a public space, there are people around here.
If the card effect is bugged and does not represent the card text, it needs to be fixed, period.
If it's confirmation bias, all the op needs is a screenshot/video of the card eating a minion that isn't the biggest on the board. This didn't happen yet, so the discussion is still valid and ungoing, and you sir need to participate in a meaningful way or leave.
completely agree. some people are missing the point here. the point is, the rng element for the card might be broken, and all we can do is provide statistics and see the distibution of the results. if there is something unusual, like I said, such as Nat Darkfisher, we should see it.
I posted here, and read comments here to see whether other people are experiencing unusual stuff. after reading the post, I literally saw a small example of a "rare chance". of course, 1/36 chance does not mean much by itself. however, if this "rare" situation happens to many people enough, then there might be something off.
Stats are our worst enemy here. You cannot just multiply the chance of each event to happen if they're not linked.
Think of rolling a dice: whatever the number of 6 you rolled before, the probability of rolling a 6 on next roll is still 1/6....
Multiplication is actually how independent statistical events are calculated. The next roll is 1/6 by itself, but rolling 2 6s in a row is 1/36, when considering both rolls.
A more complex formula is required when the events are linked (dependent) to each other.
Stats are our worst enemy here. You cannot just multiply the chance of each event to happen if they're not linked.
Think of rolling a dice: whatever the number of 6 you rolled before, the probability of rolling a 6 on next roll is still 1/6....
Not exactly. I mean yes while multiplying them won't tell you anything about the odds of the next event, it does let you know the overall probability of a event occuring x times.
Like rolling a dice while the probability of rolling a six on the next roll is still 1/6, the probability of rolling a 6 twice in a row is 1/36.
tl;dr multiplying gives the culmulative probability of the same event happening sequentially or in a range
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It says a random enemy minion. But then why does it ALWAYS eat the biggest one? Why does Blizzard print cards with FAKE random effect?
bruh
at first I was also like "bruh"
but then I faced that card 3 times today, and it actually ate the biggest, all 3 times. (1st: 33%, 2nd: 16%, 3rd time: 50% chance)
now I feel like:
1/3 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/36
Rare, but not unrealistic.
true, hope its just a misconception tho.
but I'm doubtful now because this game had some issues with rng in the past. remember Nat the Darkfisher bug? it was activating 95% of the time instead of 50% :D
Confirmation bias, notice if you win three coinflips where it eats the smaller minion e.g. 50%, 50%, 50% = 0.125 you wouldn't bat an eye and think that it's normal and deserved. any event over 0% can and will occur
Stats are our worst enemy here. You cannot just multiply the chance of each event to happen if they're not linked.
Think of rolling a dice: whatever the number of 6 you rolled before, the probability of rolling a 6 on next roll is still 1/6....
Show us on the doll where an 8 cost 3/5 minion that rarely ever sees play hurt you
yep very true, people always forget that, its always 1/6 for a dice
Ok, feel free to keep track of this card and post here
Probably just seems that way, It feels like that with a lot of cards sometimes. Like Hysteria for example, I swear I probably encountered an enemy using it like 10 times in a row where it never targeted one of his own minions but would completely clear my side. /shrug
You completely missed the point. I assume this was on purpose, being the internet alpha male and stuff, but still, don't be embarrassing like that, it's a public space, there are people around here.
If the card effect is bugged and does not represent the card text, it needs to be fixed, period.
If it's confirmation bias, all the op needs is a screenshot/video of the card eating a minion that isn't the biggest on the board.
This didn't happen yet, so the discussion is still valid and ungoing, and you sir need to participate in a meaningful way or leave.I've seen enough footage of Abominable Lieutenant in NoHandsGamer's stream to know that it can snipe spectacularly or fall flat. I don't think there is any discussion, this forum is full of confirmation bias and there's nothing wrong in having a laugh. Let's not fall into the group of people who think the outcome of a game is decided before it even starts.
Having a laugh at the expense of other people is only funny when said people aren't there to suffer it, or else it's not a laugh it's just humiliation. I agree that this forum is full of bias, but you never know with Hearthstone, i've seen some spectacular unintended shit over the years.
completely agree. some people are missing the point here. the point is, the rng element for the card might be broken, and all we can do is provide statistics and see the distibution of the results. if there is something unusual, like I said, such as Nat Darkfisher, we should see it.
I posted here, and read comments here to see whether other people are experiencing unusual stuff. after reading the post, I literally saw a small example of a "rare chance". of course, 1/36 chance does not mean much by itself. however, if this "rare" situation happens to many people enough, then there might be something off.
same thing just happened to me 4 straight turns it ate the biggest minion i had. never had less than 3 minions on the board at a time
Google search: Is Hearthstone free to play?
There is confirmation bias, and there are Blizzard's patents regarding their manipulation of RNG. You can find them online.
Take a walk on the wild side...
Oh Jaina's Ice, here we go again...
BuT tEh PaTenT!!1! Boy, sure haven't had this discussion before!
Multiplication is actually how independent statistical events are calculated. The next roll is 1/6 by itself, but rolling 2 6s in a row is 1/36, when considering both rolls.
A more complex formula is required when the events are linked (dependent) to each other.
Not exactly. I mean yes while multiplying them won't tell you anything about the odds of the next event, it does let you know the overall probability of a event occuring x times.
Like rolling a dice while the probability of rolling a six on the next roll is still 1/6, the probability of rolling a 6 twice in a row is 1/36.
tl;dr multiplying gives the culmulative probability of the same event happening sequentially or in a range