WTF
-
@MetalDoc17 said in WTF:
The problem with pack odds in most of these games is that there’s more to it than just luck per pack or luck per box. There are algorithms that factor in what you’ve pulled, what you already own, how long you’ve played, and likely how much money you’ve spent. No algorithms other than simple odds should ever be allowed to exist in these games. I also think that if you spend $100, you should be guaranteed to get something worth something. The other kicker is that they put other “player items” in packs that can be diamond level and ruin your chances of getting an actual diamond player. I used to praise The Show because at least they let buy stubs that you could actually use to just buy a player you want, but when you do the math about how much you are actually spending for a certain player it hurts your brain and wallet. I get it, it’s a business but it’s also a shady business.
None of this is true
-
@DaboiNoah said in WTF:
relatable. and yet, YouTubers are pulling diamond after diamond
Editing. It's called editing
-
@GixxerRyder750
man, that's cheap to record pack openings and then just edit just opening diamonds. -
I know you can but think about it if were turning those silvers into golds we cannot sell them ( Silvers) meaning we have to either work harder at flipping and/or maybe break down to buy stubs. This is why my idea will NEVER EVER happen and might not be the devs we see on the streams but on the higher exec levels when all they care about is $$$ and how they can get it from us.
Also FYI to these execs -- when were happy we tend to WANT to spend money on your game but when we are not then were like screw this game and your not getting another red cent out of us. It's just something to keep in mind SDS execs like I was going to buy 20 buck Stubs pack but since game is broken in places then -- NOPE.
-
The chart above displays the cumulative odds of finding at least one item of each tier (Diamond, Gold, and Silver) as the number of packs opened increases from 1 to 50. As shown, the probability of finding at least one Diamond (rare item) increases gradually due to its lower chance per pack, whereas the odds of finding Gold and Silver items rise more steeply due to their higher probabilities per pack. This visualization illustrates how your chances improve with each additional pack you open for each item tier.
-
Assuming that ChatGPt gets the math correct
Further Analysis
YOU: At what point does the cumulative odd of finding a diamond reach 100%
ChatGPTCHAT GPT: The concept of cumulative odds reaching 100% is theoretically tricky because, in a scenario involving probabilities less than 1 (or 100%), the cumulative probability of an event occurring approaches, but never exactly reaches, 100% as the number of trials approaches infinity. For events with a probability that is not absolute (meaning anything less than 100% certainty per individual event), there's always a non-zero chance, however small, of the event not occurring.
However, in practical terms, when dealing with probabilities, we often consider a threshold close to 100% (such as 99.99%) to effectively mean "certain" for most intents and purposes.
Given the probability of finding a diamond in a pack is 1 in 50, or 2%, let's calculate how many packs you'd need to open to reach a cumulative probability of 99.99% of finding at least one diamond.
To reach a cumulative probability of 99.99% for finding at least one diamond, you would need to open approximately 456 packs. This calculation demonstrates the concept of diminishing returns, where each additional pack opened contributes less to the cumulative probability of finding a diamond, requiring a significantly large number of packs to approach certainty very closely.
-
@Dolenz, perfect. I like that I now know the formula though from my colleague in the Math department. But that graph does the trick. And as much as I consider AI my enemy (I'm an English teacher), that's a spot-on explanation.
Another angle -- it takes about 150 packs to approach 95% probability.
That's 225,000 stubs if you buy 50 packs...
-
The only reason I put that second explanation in is due to those who believe that a 1:50 chance means that they should be guaranteed a diamond in every 50 pack bundle.
I can understand your opinion of AI but man can it come in handy.
For another topic I had it summarize the whole DD Feature premiere video (2 hours and 30 minutes) which also let me ask questions about the specifics regarding wild cards. It also was able to pull the exact quote and gave me a rough timestamp where I could find it.
-
in 23, it was like 1:20 to get a diamond or something
-
@Dolenz said in WTF:
Assuming that ChatGPt gets the math correct
Further Analysis
YOU: At what point does the cumulative odd of finding a diamond reach 100%
ChatGPTCHAT GPT: The concept of cumulative odds reaching 100% is theoretically tricky because, in a scenario involving probabilities less than 1 (or 100%), the cumulative probability of an event occurring approaches, but never exactly reaches, 100% as the number of trials approaches infinity. For events with a probability that is not absolute (meaning anything less than 100% certainty per individual event), there's always a non-zero chance, however small, of the event not occurring.
However, in practical terms, when dealing with probabilities, we often consider a threshold close to 100% (such as 99.99%) to effectively mean "certain" for most intents and purposes.
Given the probability of finding a diamond in a pack is 1 in 50, or 2%, let's calculate how many packs you'd need to open to reach a cumulative probability of 99.99% of finding at least one diamond.
To reach a cumulative probability of 99.99% for finding at least one diamond, you would need to open approximately 456 packs. This calculation demonstrates the concept of diminishing returns, where each additional pack opened contributes less to the cumulative probability of finding a diamond, requiring a significantly large number of packs to approach certainty very closely.
Sorry for being that guy, but the odds are 1:50 which actually means 1 in 51 so it's slightly worse than this. I only mention it for the packs that show way better odds because it may say 1:3 but that's 25% not 33% etc. Only being that guy to help people not get tricked.
-
@Thongypu that's not true though. The game lists packs that are 100% guaranteed as 1:1 odds. The chance of getting a diamond player from a regular show pack is 2% and the 1:3 ones are 33%
-
https://journalfeed.org/article-a-day/2018/idiots-guide-to-odds-ratios/
1:1 is an exception not the rule and that stems from not being able to divide by 0.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Mathematical_relations
Should be 1:0 for 100% guaranteed.
-
Good Lord how many times does this need to be said every year? STOP BUYING PACKS!! They give you packs for free just for playing the game. Ive pulled 6 diamonds since Friday and you know how many of those were from packs i bought? Zero.
-
@Thongypu fair enough. I've never had to work with something expressed as odds, so I definitely defer to the actual math there. I'll stick to my decimals from now on and stay in my lane.
Even though showing 100% probability in terms of odds probably isn't very useful, it just doesn't make sense to me that there isn't a better, consistent way to represent it though.
And I'm curious, other than tricking the people who don't know how to interpret the x:y format, what practical benefits are there to using it vs giving the percentage chance? There must be some, I just can't come up with them.
-
@kapandykap said in WTF:
I just grinded for 4 days thought it would be cool to pack a 50. I got one gold card out of all 50 packs. One gold!!!!!!!!!! I couldn’t be more demoralized. Thanks SDS.
Yes it’s their fault. I bet you got to casinos lose and blame the casino
-
@SuntLacrimae50 Pretty sure it’s actually even less. It’s not 1/50 it’s 1:50 So it’s actually a 1/51 chance lol
-
@MAM8A-245300
They literally use the odds system from across the pond in the UK to trick people lol.
-
@DaboiNoah No, it was 1:50. Just as it has been since I started DD (2018).
-
@Thongypu I’ve always taken this as bad representation, but not the actual odds. I do believe they mean “1-in-50 chance” as opposed to “1-to-50 odds”. But I could be wrong, and god knows the video game industry has been extremely and purposely misleading about this stuff for years. Lawsuits have been filed and settled many times so to this.
Somewhere, the exact probability is listed because I believe by law it has to be. But again… I could be wrong.
-
@JDHalfrack said in WTF:
I do believe they mean “1-in-50 chance” as opposed to “1-to-50 odds”.
That is how I have always read it.
