Mazey

That's nonsense too.
Many many people warn of spoilers before they give them. Some only do it for big things, others do it for anything that might spoil any plot point.

How can the request that people warn before they give spoilers be unrealistic when it has been explicitly realised numerous times on multiple different discussion boards by multiple different people?

You just basically can't be arsed, and want an excuse for your inconsiderate behaviour.

Bollocks.
Some people don't like spoilers and get upset by them.
If you post spoilers in a careless fashion, you are not considering those people.
That is, one-hundred percent, inconsiderate.

Being inconsiderate is casually dismissing how others feel, and that is precisely what your post was in its entirety.

Some people think facts about stories should be hidden, others feel they should be freely discussed.
Being considerate is a compromise where they're still discussed but a warning is given first.

You've forgotten about trading.
That automatically makes things in your scenario better than the Coupon Collector's Problem.
Even if you have to sell 3 duplicates to make enough to buy 1 new, that still lowers the expectation on the time to collect the full sets.

Take your scenario, and include trading, and you have a far better situation the Coupon Collector's Problem, and the difference between the two only grows the more sets you add.

How many people do you think had even heard the term "Coupon Collector's Problem" before it was brought up in regard to the super packs?

How exactly is using a term almost know-one knows, and using it inaccurately, "ease of communication"?

You seem to have cared quite a bit.

You can say I'm just "tilting at windmills" but, as I say, this is something I do actually care about. What's your excuse?

Okay, that's an entirely different issue.

Again, you misunderstand mathematics. In mathematics, contrary to the rest of the world, being stringent is a virtue, not a sin.

And? So what?
You can simulate the Coupon Collector's Problem, I suspect you can also simulate the super packs. That doesn't mean they are one and the same.

No, you're the only other person commenting. You can't claim to speak for everyone.
To you that illustration fits the super packs. To me it clearly has several deviations. No-one else has given their opinion.

Key deviations being that the boy in example never trades his cards, while trading enhancements is quite possible. And once the boy gets a card, he can always still get it again, while costume parts in the super packs can never be gotten more than once, which effects both costume parts and enhancements.

You say you can make a program to simulate this, so go ahead.
Make one that simulates a boy buying cards which can always duplicate, and where he never trades.
Then make one where the boy can trade, and where some of the cards never duplicate but some do, and further that the boy only wants a sub-set of the cards, not every single one.

And then come back and tell me with a straight face that you didn't have to add extra conditions to the second program.

I never said the Coupon Collector's Problem did have a real world example. The problem has always been a mathematical one. A problem created, not to be useful in the real world, but to illustrate probabilistic techniques.
When you were learning to program, were you never asked to program something that was essentially useless in the real world but taught a useful lesson? Well, even if you weren't, it's something that done quite often.

And, that said, it's not true that my precise definition has absolutely no real world applications. If the super packs only gave enhancements, and the enhancements were essentually useless unless you had the whole set, and you weren't allowed to trade them but they still duplicated. Then that would be the Coupon Collector's Problem. Sure, that example doesn't exists in the game, but it easily could do. Companies have set things up like that before.

The Coupon Collector's Problem can, and does, exist in the real world, it's rare, but it happens. But so what? It was always a theoretical problem anyway. Why are you so desperate to call this current issue "the Coupon Collector's Problem"? What do you gain from it?

No they don't.
They follow, as I've said several times now, a large generalisation of the problem. The exact opposite of a subset. And therein lies the issue.

No they can't, that's literally impossible. This is a probabilistic issue, the exact time taken can't be found other than actually trying it, and each trial will have a different result.
At best you can get an exact mean of the time taken, and yes, that's possible. But it's not possible with the tools given by the Coupon Collector's Problem.


I'm not sure why you felt the need to say any of that. As I said myself, that issue is rather pedantic. As, although the Coupon Collector's Problem itself does not explain how to do such problem, it can easily be extended, in this case, to answer that question too.

And what about the fact you're going on and on too?


No, I don't. I'm a mathematician, not a computer scientist.

I admit, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say there.

I suggest that you read that. Yes, trading cards are used as an example, but the issue of being able to trade them is implicitly ignored. It's simple, just work through the proof that's given for yourself. You'll see that trading is never considered, and the packs are all bought by the person in question.

It's just an example to illustrate the problem, it's not an attempt to rigorously analyse trading cards.

Again, I suggest you read that book for yourself, as it uses the exact same definition as me.
I suspect you didn't do any more than skim read that book, and assumed it would be to much for me to understand and so I'd just give up. As it happens though, I have to thank you for introducing it, as it supports my position quite nicely. I can never be bothered to find my own sources.

That's a very good point.
And it makes the situation even more complicated, and further divergent from a simple Coupon Collector's Problem.

No, I am not. This is just a subject that matters to me.

"Cheat" is a loaded word. It doesn't "cheat" with AT enhancements, but it still doesn't fit what the Coupon Collector's Problem is.

The Coupon Collector's Problem is where you have n things, and you want to get every one of those n thing at least once.

With the super-packs, there are over 200 things, and yet you might only want 6 specific enhancements. That is not the Coupon Collector's Problem. The Coupon Collector's Problem is wanting 6 things out of 6, or 205 things out of 205. It is not wanting 6 things out of 205.

That is rather pedantic though. And if that was the only difference between it and the Coupon Collector's Problem, I probably wouldn't have said anything. There's more though.

As you say, the system fudges things with the costume parts, not the enhancements but, as the costume parts are in the same pool as the enhancements, they effect each other. On your first go, your chances are 6/205 for each card. Now lets say that first pack is all costume pieces. Unfortunate, as you don't want those, you only want those 6 enhancements but, as you cannot repeat costume pieces, the chance per card are now 6/200, not 6/205.
The Coupon Collector's Problem is simply not set up to deal with changes in probability like that. Further, the changes aren't even predicable, you might get two costume pieces in a pack, or you might get none. That makes for a much much more complicated probability issue than the Coupon Collector's Problem.

Lastly, lets assume the system is set up to be exactly like the Coupon Collector's Problem. We'll eliminate any deviations from it in the random system. We'll say that each pack only gives 1 card, and there are only 6 cards to get, each one is an enhancement from the set you want, and it is possible to duplicate a card each time.
That is exactly the n=6 Coupon Collector's Problem.
Now, with this set-up, you buy 6 packs and you get 4 unique enhancements and 2 duplicates.
"Oh no!" you think "Now I have to buy more packs, even though chances are they are just going to duplicate what I already have. Damn you Coupon Collector's Problem!!!" *shakes fist*
"Wait!" you have an idea "I'll just sell the extra ones on the market and use the profits to buy the two I don't have from the said same auction house." and you walk away happy with your full set with no loss other than a bit of time and 10% of the inf price.

So, even with the random system set-up exactly like the Coupon Collector's Problem, it still doesn't fit, as the Coupon Collector's Problem assume duplicates are worthless, whereas, with the super-packs, duplicates can be perfectly worthwhile, even if you don't personally want them.

And yes, the problem does care if you want duplicates. The probability space you use to derive your consideration of the problem has to take into account what is desired and what is not. Otherwise it isn't an accurate representation of the problem as it stands.
If the duplicates of a pack have value, then the packs themselves have greater value than if duplicates were worthless. Any probability analysis has to take that into account.

Defintions, and using them precisely, are the most important thing there is in maths. If you fail to do that, you are failing to do maths.

If you fudge a defintion, then you are doing a completely different problem. As you said, the game runs something similar to the set-up of the Coupon Collector's Problem but then fudges it. At the point it stops being the Coupon Collector's Problem and becomes something else

Not that it matters, because even if it didn't fudge it, it still wouldn't end up as the Coupon Collector's Problem. Or are you telling me you would never want more than one copy of an AT set?

As I said, you could consider it as a generalisation of the Coupon Collector's Problem, but that would not make it the Coupon Collector's Problem itself. Nor would it be a helpful statement to make unless you actually worked out the maths itself and found that the generalisation would have similar properties to the specific statement (and it wouldn't).

Maths is, and always will be, about being precise. Not just "kinda" precise, exactly precise.

You're both just essentually going "Nuh uh" without even bothering to address the points. That's borderline trolling.

Read the Wikipedia page which was given by the very person who made the original claim.

"It asks the following question: Suppose that there are n coupons, from which coupons are being collected with replacement. What is the probability that more than t sample trials are needed to collect all n coupons? An alternative statement is: Given n coupons, how many coupons do you expect you need to draw with replacement before having drawn each coupon at least once"

The packs do not fit that definition. They simply don't. For the two reasons I've already given twice. Not to mention other reasons I didn't bother to bring up.

This is a precise mathematical issue, you can't "almost" fit the Coupon Collector's Problem. Either it does, or it doesn't, and this doesn't. Even a slight deviation from the originial changes all the formulas, and this deviates more than slightly.

I can be argued that this is a generalisation of the Coupon Collector's Problem, but that doesn't mean anything, as the generalised result will be very different to the specific.

No it hasn't. It has never applied.

As I said:

"The "Coupon Collector's Problem" only applies when you can potentially collect the same piece twice, and further, that every piece is desired precisely once.

"Neither of those things are true of the super packs.
a) Costume pieces can never be repeated, if you get one, you will never get it again.
b) Other items in the packs may be desired more than once, or not at all."

Both of those facts were known at the original announcement, and they are still known now.
The "Coupon Collector's Problem" didn't apply then, and it still doesn't apply now, for precisely those two reasons, which were just as true then as they are now.

If you're going to respond to this post, please try and actually address those two points, rather than just going "Nuh uh, it did apply, it DID!"

What?

The "Coupon Collector's Problem" has never applied to this issue, nor has the value of $75. Yet that is precisely what you said a couple of post ago.

My point is exactly the same with the old information as it is with the new.

Er... yeah, that's precisely what I was saying.

Are yours?

The "Coupon Collector's Problem" only applies when you can potentially collect the same piece twice, and further, that every piece is desired precisely once.

Neither of those things are true of the super packs.
a) Costume pieces can never be repeated, if you get one, you will never get it again.
b) Other items in the packs may be desired more than once, or not at all.

This is a completely different issue to the "Coupon Collector's Problem" so I really don't understand why you brought it up.

Er... no.
The least is would take is $4. 20 costume pieces, 5 cards per pack, $1 per pack.
$1 * 20/5 = $4

I suspect what you mean is that the mean cost of collecting all the pieces would be $75. But that's completely unknowable without knowing the probabilities of each individual piece of the set. So even if you were claiming that, it would still be completely unfounded.

Why exactly?
Is female characters should have access to every type of option, why shouldn't male characters?

Is it wrong that someone can see a cool gunslinger costume on a male character, want it for their female gunslinger but find out they're stuck with a striped corset?
Yes, it is, horribly so.

But, by the exact same token, if someone sees a striped corset on a female character and wants it on their male hero, but finds out they're stuck with all the "cool" pieces that don't fit the concept, that's sexist too.

There's absolutely no reason any costume piece should be exclusive to either gender.

Oh please, you have no evidence of that. I find if far far more likely that the majority of people either don't care at all, or would like to take advantage of buying a bit of extra power. Especially when you can't buy any more power than can be earnt in game.

Oh yeah, someone's opinion is wrong, and you're justification for that is basically "Ner ner ner ner ner" and "ZOMG FARMVILLE". Good arguments you have there...

Yes, that's what I've been saying.

Except that $15 is current £9.72. Add 20% VAT and you get £11.66, not £10.20.

So it's a case of "we cannot change the rate of which we charge subscribers in terms of Sub fee, but instead we will over charge them for points?", apart from the fact they're still under charging us for points, just not as much as they're under charging us for subs.

You're completely missing my point.
The reason subs are £9 while points are £10.20 isn't because the points are prices higher than they'd like, but because the subs are priced lower than they'd like.

Subs were priced when exchange rates were much better, so they got priced at £8.99, if they were pricing subs today, then they'd be priced at £10.20, just like points are.

The difference is because we're getting a better deal on subs than we "should", not because we're being charged more for points than we "should".

As for why points are cost more here than in the USA? You said it yourself: Sales tax.

Obviously you can twist anything that they might sell on the market so that's it's bad for the game. "Oh no, not self rez powers! Now people won't have to care about dying and so will cause team wipes, it's harming the game!" "Oh no, not team inspirations! Now people can overpower their teams with them, making content too easy and causing people to get bored and quit, IT'S HARMING THE GAME!!!"

If you think selling a few IOs is anywhere near as bad as selling levels 1-50, then you need to get a sense of perspective.

No, as that could potentially cause an over-abundance. The only way it might not be a problem is if inf was in short supply. But I'm not sure that's possible in a game like this.

No, it's not, if it were then they wouldn't sell for the prices they do. Further, such a problem will balance itself out. If they do reach an over-abundance then they won't be worth buying from the Paragon Market, and so everyone will just get them at WW/BM

See what Emberly said, with the addition that people only get jealous of players who have bought things when a) That player is doing significantly better than themselves and b) They know that that player has bought something from the store.

This is not a problem here, as the same power can be reached with IOs earned in game, so there's no way of knowing if another player's bought their power, or earnt it. Unless they say outright.
Further, teams are chaotic enough that it's hard to tell who's the most effective. A player will stupid levels of IO slotting just keeps their team alive when they would have otherwise died. But it's rarely clear that it was down to that player.

No, because that would reduce the number of people who were levelling, which in turn would reduce the number of lower level teams which would ultimately harm the game.

No, because that would add extra currency to a game which desperately needs currency to be removed, not more added.

What I would be fine with is if the devs added sets of enhancements, which I could sell on the market, that had the approximate current value of 2 billion inf.
So I could buy my 2 billion, but no extra currency would be added to the game. The only thing that would be added was a few extra "loots".

The term "pay to win" gets used so much it is essentually meaningless. So what if I can pay to win? The question isn't "Does that guy get to win more than me?" but "Does selling it for real money harm the game in a significant way?"

From what I've heard, I deduce they're using "Black Friday" as an excuse to try out new prices on items that weren't selling and if they sell well with the cheap prices, they'll keep the prices low.