I think the 'give away' is the recipes. Someone saying 'I like the idea of crafting but I find recipes boring' is a bit like saying 'I like the concept of hunting but I dont like shooting targets'. Its a pillar of the personality type that is attracted to it.
I disagree.
How are recipes handled? collect x of y and hit create. So for people who are creatives, that is basically the tedium (to them) without the creation and the actual "crafting".
Do you actually know creatives? My entire life is surrounded by them (including being one myself) and even the most trained/logical/disciplined of them still want to "create".
matching a spreadsheet of mats and hitting "create" x amount of times is not crafting in my book.
When I say 'recipes' i mean 'what ingredients are used to create X'. The very FACT that I have to describe it because you think I mean 'how it is handled' tells me that your personality is not a good fit for crafting peroid, end of story.
Being a crafter and not being interested in what elements are used to make X is like being a mixologist and not giving a shit about the recipe or a mathematician who doesn't like numbers. its a non-starter.
I am pretty sure we are never going to agree here, but I will keep repeating it all the same
I should not have to say this but 'recipe' is code independent.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you are an average oil painter, every painting you make has the exact same ingredients - a canvas and a standard paint set. At most you might use a different size or shape of canvas. So it would be hard to see this recipe as an interesting part of crafting a painting. On the other hand, if it's a game where you are crafting your paint yourself and can't use colors you can't gather ingredients for, the ingredients are more interesting. But if you buy the paint in the auction house instead of crafting it yourself, then it's not very interesting that you need to buy 2 units of blue and 3 of green, or whatever.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
If you are an average oil painter, every painting you make has the exact same ingredients - a canvas and a standard paint set. At most you might use a different size or shape of canvas. So it would be hard to see this recipe as an interesting part of crafting a painting. On the other hand, if it's a game where you are crafting your paint yourself and can't use colors you can't gather ingredients for, the ingredients are more interesting. But if you buy the paint in the auction house instead of crafting it yourself, then it's not very interesting that you need to buy 2 units of blue and 3 of green, or whatever.
first off painting is not crafting, experimenting is not crafting, alchemy is not either.
second off, I am sorry but if you are someone who claims to be interesting in crafting but also do not care about recpies as far as I am concerned you are a 'non-crafter' to use the OPs word and.....making a football game for non-football fans is a fail from the start.
now you can reply over and over and ove and over again but it not changing my stance. To me having a basic interest in recipes (and having a clue what I mean when I say that) is a fundamental requirement in demonstrating interest in crafting.
this thread wants to make football intresting for non-football fans and I think that is silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think the 'give away' is the recipes. Someone saying 'I like the idea of crafting but I find recipes boring' is a bit like saying 'I like the concept of hunting but I dont like shooting targets'. Its a pillar of the personality type that is attracted to it.
I disagree.
How are recipes handled? collect x of y and hit create. So for people who are creatives, that is basically the tedium (to them) without the creation and the actual "crafting".
Do you actually know creatives? My entire life is surrounded by them (including being one myself) and even the most trained/logical/disciplined of them still want to "create".
matching a spreadsheet of mats and hitting "create" x amount of times is not crafting in my book.
When I say 'recipes' i mean 'what ingredients are used to create X'. The very FACT that I have to describe it because you think I mean 'how it is handled' tells me that your personality is not a good fit for crafting peroid, end of story.
Being a crafter and not being interested in what elements are used to make X is like being a mixologist and not giving a shit about the recipe or a mathematician who doesn't like numbers. its a non-starter.
I am pretty sure we are never going to agree here, but I will keep repeating it all the same
I should not have to say this but 'recipe' is code independent.
We're not going to agree and I can take the same stance and say that "the fact you don't understand that crafting is more than recipes/plans and is the actual act of creating and having the crafter have some say in what they are creating means you are just not a crafter, end of story".
You seem like a bean counter, adding up things in spreadsheets, following the plans and pressing button on the assembly line.
Also, as I've said countless times before, actual creative people do know what they are putting in their creations. What they are not doing is making most of their tools.
The luthier will make molds but not their saws or wire cutters. While they will pick their wood they don't go out and cut it down and plank it.
Same goes with furniture makers.
I worked on construction sites for houses and no one made any tools nor did they make the "glass".
I think it's great that you love the nitty gritty but you miss the essence of what creation really is.
edit: I'll add that I apologize if that seems rude, it's not meant to be.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
We're not going to agree and I can take the same stance and say that "the fact you don't understand that crafting is more than recipes/plans and is the actual act of creating and having the crafter have some say in what they are creating means you are just not a crafter, end of story".
You seem like a bean counter, adding up things in spreadsheets, following the plans and pressing button on the assembly line.
Also, as I've said countless times before, actual creative people do know what they are putting in their creations. What they are not doing is making most of their tools.
The luthier will make molds but not their saws or wire cutters. While they will pick their wood they don't go out and cut it down and plank it.
Same goes with furniture makers.
I worked on construction sites for houses and no one made any tools nor did they make the "glass".
I think it's great that you love the nitty gritty but you miss the essence of what creation really is.
Math is more than just numbers but its a foundation.
I am saying if you do not like numbers you are likely to not like physics which is more than about numbers but not liking numbers is a core problem.
how many different ways to I have to explain this?
crafting is about transforming a collection of items into something else and its NOT I repeat NOT about the 'discovery phase' of that. without having any intrest at all in what the colleciton of items is, is a problem very much similar to not liking numbers but what to do calculus
here maybe this will help
Statement 1:'I couldnt care less about recipes I find them boring'
Statement 2: 'I like recipes but I think crafting systems could be made better if they spent some time lookiing at the actions'
two RADICALLY different statements, statement 1 comes from someone who has no business in crafting because he doesnt even like recipes? what the fuck?, statement two is much more reasonable
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
We're not going to agree and I can take the same stance and say that "the fact you don't understand that crafting is more than recipes/plans and is the actual act of creating and having the crafter have some say in what they are creating means you are just not a crafter, end of story".
You seem like a bean counter, adding up things in spreadsheets, following the plans and pressing button on the assembly line.
Also, as I've said countless times before, actual creative people do know what they are putting in their creations. What they are not doing is making most of their tools.
The luthier will make molds but not their saws or wire cutters. While they will pick their wood they don't go out and cut it down and plank it.
Same goes with furniture makers.
I worked on construction sites for houses and no one made any tools nor did they make the "glass".
I think it's great that you love the nitty gritty but you miss the essence of what creation really is.
Math is more than just numbers but its a foundation.
I am saying if you do not like numbers you are likely to not like physics which is more than about numbers but not liking numbers is a core problem.
how many different ways to I have to explain this?
crafting is about transforming a collection of items into something else and its NOT I repeat NOT about the 'discovery phase' of that. without having any intrest at all in what the colleciton of items is, is a problem very much similar to not liking numbers but what to do calculus
here maybe this will help
Statement 1:'I couldnt care less about recipes I find them boring'
Statement 2: 'I like recipes but I think crafting systems could be made better if they spent some time lookiing at the actions'
two RADICALLY different statements, statement 1 comes from someone who has no business in crafting because he doesnt even like recipes? what the fuck?, statement two is much more reasonable
Pretty much what Deivos said.
I bet those people who don't like "recipes" would like them a whole lot more if they could change out bits and alter them and by altering them they affect the final product. Whether it's cosmetic or what the item does, etc.
So I get your point but I think "recipes" are not engaging because they are just a list.
Also, I hated math but loved physics. What I learned in physics made the math part tolerable. Of course I didn't go into any advanced math or physics because I had greater loves.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
We're not going to agree and I can take the same stance and say that "the fact you don't understand that crafting is more than recipes/plans and is the actual act of creating and having the crafter have some say in what they are creating means you are just not a crafter, end of story".
You seem like a bean counter, adding up things in spreadsheets, following the plans and pressing button on the assembly line.
Also, as I've said countless times before, actual creative people do know what they are putting in their creations. What they are not doing is making most of their tools.
The luthier will make molds but not their saws or wire cutters. While they will pick their wood they don't go out and cut it down and plank it.
Same goes with furniture makers.
I worked on construction sites for houses and no one made any tools nor did they make the "glass".
I think it's great that you love the nitty gritty but you miss the essence of what creation really is.
Math is more than just numbers but its a foundation.
I am saying if you do not like numbers you are likely to not like physics which is more than about numbers but not liking numbers is a core problem.
how many different ways to I have to explain this?
crafting is about transforming a collection of items into something else and its NOT I repeat NOT about the 'discovery phase' of that. without having any intrest at all in what the colleciton of items is, is a problem very much similar to not liking numbers but what to do calculus
here maybe this will help
Statement 1:'I couldnt care less about recipes I find them boring'
Statement 2: 'I like recipes but I think crafting systems could be made better if they spent some time lookiing at the actions'
two RADICALLY different statements, statement 1 comes from someone who has no business in crafting because he doesnt even like recipes? what the fuck?, statement two is much more reasonable
Pretty much what Deivos said.
I bet those people who don't like "recipes" would like them a whole lot more if they could change out bits and alter them and by altering them they affect the final product. Whether it's cosmetic or what the item does, etc.
So I get your point but I think "recipes" are not engaging because they are just a list.
Also, I hated math but loved physics. What I learned in physics made the math part tolerable. Of course I didn't go into any advanced math or physics because I had greater loves.
goddamit.
recipes as an immutable concept seperate from gaming. and no i doubt very seriously they would
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you are an average oil painter, every painting you make has the exact same ingredients - a canvas and a standard paint set. At most you might use a different size or shape of canvas. So it would be hard to see this recipe as an interesting part of crafting a painting. On the other hand, if it's a game where you are crafting your paint yourself and can't use colors you can't gather ingredients for, the ingredients are more interesting. But if you buy the paint in the auction house instead of crafting it yourself, then it's not very interesting that you need to buy 2 units of blue and 3 of green, or whatever.
first off painting is not crafting, experimenting is not crafting, alchemy is not either.
second off, I am sorry but if you are someone who claims to be interesting in crafting but also do not care about recpies as far as I am concerned you are a 'non-crafter' to use the OPs word and.....making a football game for non-football fans is a fail from the start.
now you can reply over and over and ove and over again but it not changing my stance. To me having a basic interest in recipes (and having a clue what I mean when I say that) is a fundamental requirement in demonstrating interest in crafting.
this thread wants to make football intresting for non-football fans and I think that is silly
WTH, painting is absolutely crafting. When you start there's a pile of materials, and when you end there's a painting. How could that possible not be crafting? Would you say sewing isn't crafting, even though making clothing is literally a crafting profession in many games? And alchemy, how is that not the same as cooking, which you yourself used as an example of real-life crafting???
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
recipes as an immutable concept seperate from gaming. and no i doubt very seriously they would
Once again, see Deivos' reply.
and "yes" they would be because they will be engaged in what goes into their crafting as opposed to "I have to, for the 30th, 300th time, collect the same ingredients to do the same thing".
In general I don't like recipes but as an example (and one I've used) I actually like Elder Scrolls online crafting as it not only asks me to choose various materials that will change what the item does and how good it does it, I can even pick a different look to the item.
It's simple and not optimum but I find myself more engaged. I can't guarantee they will be more engaged as I don't know the mind of everyone but if I'm more engaged and I usually don't like recipes it's very possible that they will also be engaged.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
recipes as an immutable concept seperate from gaming. and no i doubt very seriously they would
Once again, see Deivos' reply.
and "yes" they would be because they will be engaged in what goes into their crafting as opposed to "I have to, for the 30th, 300th time, collect the same ingredients to do the same thing".
In general I don't like recipes but as an example (and one I've used) I actually like Elder Scrolls online crafting as it not only asks me to choose various materials that will change what the item does and how good it does it, I can even pick a different look to the item.
It's simple and not optimum but I find myself more engaged. I can't guarantee they will be more engaged as I don't know the mind of everyone but if I'm more engaged and I usually don't like recipes it's very possible that they will also be engaged.
lets break this down a little.
you know when you want to build a house there is a guy who makes the house plans, the guy who knows all the stuff to build the house, the guy who gets the materials, the guy who organizes what comes first and second etc in the process , then there is the hired help uneducated worker who does what? hammers nails.
you are saying that if we can make hammering nails more intresting then crafting will be more intresting to those who do not like planning, recipes, organizing and planning. The key missed here is the uneducted labor guy.
yeah...umm..no
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you are an average oil painter, every painting you make has the exact same ingredients - a canvas and a standard paint set. At most you might use a different size or shape of canvas. So it would be hard to see this recipe as an interesting part of crafting a painting. On the other hand, if it's a game where you are crafting your paint yourself and can't use colors you can't gather ingredients for, the ingredients are more interesting. But if you buy the paint in the auction house instead of crafting it yourself, then it's not very interesting that you need to buy 2 units of blue and 3 of green, or whatever.
first off painting is not crafting, experimenting is not crafting, alchemy is not either.
second off, I am sorry but if you are someone who claims to be interesting in crafting but also do not care about recpies as far as I am concerned you are a 'non-crafter' to use the OPs word and.....making a football game for non-football fans is a fail from the start.
now you can reply over and over and ove and over again but it not changing my stance. To me having a basic interest in recipes (and having a clue what I mean when I say that) is a fundamental requirement in demonstrating interest in crafting.
this thread wants to make football intresting for non-football fans and I think that is silly
WTH, painting is absolutely crafting. When you start there's a pile of materials, and when you end there's a painting. How could that possible not be crafting? Would you say sewing isn't crafting, even though making clothing is literally a crafting profession in many games? And alchemy, how is that not the same as cooking, which you yourself used as an example of real-life crafting???
1. cooking is not alchemy. Alchemy is the experimentation of cooking (using that example) its not making something based on a known reciepe
2. painting is not crafting, its much more creative. and more importantly I dont want every single thing I craft to be some random exploration into the unknown. that doesnt represent reality. SOME of doing that is, but not all by a long shot. One would never be able to build a house if everything was exploration and random
3. there is a reason its called 'arts and crafts' and not all just 'crafts'
4. I have asked a few times and I will ask again, can someone please break down for me the process of making my carving knife in an ideal crafting game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
recipes as an immutable concept seperate from gaming. and no i doubt very seriously they would
Once again, see Deivos' reply.
and "yes" they would be because they will be engaged in what goes into their crafting as opposed to "I have to, for the 30th, 300th time, collect the same ingredients to do the same thing".
In general I don't like recipes but as an example (and one I've used) I actually like Elder Scrolls online crafting as it not only asks me to choose various materials that will change what the item does and how good it does it, I can even pick a different look to the item.
It's simple and not optimum but I find myself more engaged. I can't guarantee they will be more engaged as I don't know the mind of everyone but if I'm more engaged and I usually don't like recipes it's very possible that they will also be engaged.
lets break this down a little.
you know when you want to build a house there is a guy who makes the house plans, the guy who knows all the stuff to build the house, the guy who gets the materials, the guy who organizes what comes first and second etc in the process , then there is the hired help uneducated worker who does what? hammers nails.
you are saying that if we can make hammering nails more intresting then crafting will be more intresting to those who do not like planning, recipes, organizing and planning. The key missed here is the uneducted labor guy.
WTH, painting is absolutely crafting. When you start there's a pile of materials, and when you end there's a painting. How could that possible not be crafting? Would you say sewing isn't crafting, even though making clothing is literally a crafting profession in many games? And alchemy, how is that not the same as cooking, which you yourself used as an example of real-life crafting???
1. cooking is not alchemy. Alchemy is the experimentation of cooking (using that example) its not making something based on a known reciepe
2. painting is not crafting, its much more creative. and more importantly I dont want every single thing I craft to be some random exploration into the unknown. that doesnt represent reality. SOME of doing that is, but not all by a long shot. One would never be able to build a house if everything was exploration and random
3. there is a reason its called 'arts and crafts' and not all just 'crafts'
4. I have asked a few times and I will ask again, can someone please break down for me the process of making my carving knife in an ideal crafting game
You seriously don't experiment when you cook??? When I cook, it goes something like "okay the basic recipe is 2 fish fillets, broiled in the oven". Process: thaw the two fish fillets, still in their plastic pouches, in warm water and preheat the oven to 425. Experimental part: what herbs or sauces do I have available, and which do I feel like having on feel like eating today? Sometimes I use lemon juice and a bit of sugar, sometimes I use dill and a bit of mustard, sometimes I use bbq sauce and parsley, and this week I have a new honey teriyaki sauce to try. Process again: along with the herbs and sauces, I add enough hot water so the fish will broil rather then burn, and stick them in for 20 mins.
Another example, I have a box of brownie mix and it says that for a fluffy cake-like texture, use 2 eggs, while for a fudgy dense texture use only 1 egg. That's not even truly experimental, since the outcome is known (and I've made it both ways before) but it's clear evidence that the authoritative company that makes the brownie mix considers recipes as changable. They even have a little side-panel thing on the box that suggests adding 1 cup of nuts and/or marshmallows. Cooking can easily be an exploration into the unknown every time.
As far as painting, what if I'm painting a fence post white? That's surely not art, even though it's fundamentally the same technique used to pain the background of a portrait or landscape. What if I am painting a blue triangle on a white circle because that's my guild symbol and I want to make 20 to give to all my guild members to stick on their in-game housing? Again, churning out 20 of the same thing doesn't seem particularly creative to me. It's sure not more complicated that nailing things together.
What's the point of designing a whole minigame through which your hypothetical knife can be crafted just for you to say you don't like it?
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Just a point, there has been some discussion misusing the term Law of Inevitability. This law simply states that in a random trial one of the possible outcomes will occur. It does not state that any particular outcome will occur, nor that every outcome will occur if enough trials are generated.
Not sure which interpretation of the law you are speaking of as this...
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
...is the core principle of the law of inevitability.
It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers.
If you are referring to the law of inevitability as simply "in a random event, one of the possible outcomes within a set must occur", then you're not actually addressing the law of inevitability but simply the preface argument that establishes the law of inevitability. The law of inevitability does not apply only to the union, but the set itself.
Though in the instance for what I called it for (the inevitability of rare items becoming commonplace), this was addressing the fact that with the volume of production and amount of users, ultimately the full spectrum of potential items made via crafting would be made in duplicate. The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable.
Please don't misinform people.
Nope you have it wrong, badly wrong. What you are stating is a form of the Gambler's Fallacy. The dice has no memory, each time it is rolled the chance of rolling a six is the same. If you roll a dice ten times it is still possible to get no sixes, roll it 100 times it is still possible to get no sixes, this is a less likely event but still possible. Extend the test to a thousand, a miilion, a billion or beyond, the chance of geting no sixes in the series gets lower and lower but is still a possibility: and on the next throw the probabilty is still one in six.
As I said before in a random trial one of the possible outcomes wiil occur and that is all the law of inevitability is.
Just a point, there has been some discussion misusing the term Law of Inevitability. This law simply states that in a random trial one of the possible outcomes will occur. It does not state that any particular outcome will occur, nor that every outcome will occur if enough trials are generated.
Not sure which interpretation of the law you are speaking of as this...
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
...is the core principle of the law of inevitability.
It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers.
If you are referring to the law of inevitability as simply "in a random event, one of the possible outcomes within a set must occur", then you're not actually addressing the law of inevitability but simply the preface argument that establishes the law of inevitability. The law of inevitability does not apply only to the union, but the set itself.
Though in the instance for what I called it for (the inevitability of rare items becoming commonplace), this was addressing the fact that with the volume of production and amount of users, ultimately the full spectrum of potential items made via crafting would be made in duplicate. The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable.
Please don't misinform people.
Nope you have it wrong, badly wrong. What you are stating is a form of the Gambler's Fallacy. The dice has no memory, each time it is rolled the chance of rolling a six is the same. If you roll a dice ten times it is still possible to get no sixes, roll it 100 times it is still possible to get no sixes, this is a less likely event but still possible. Extend the test to a thousand, a miilion, a billion or beyond, the chance of geting no sixes in the series gets lower and lower but is still a possibility: and on the next throw the probabilty is still one in six.
As I said before in a random trial one of the possible outcomes wiil occur and that is all the law of inevitability is.
That's so far removed from the truth. Look up what the law of inevitability is before you post next time, I even quoted a line of it for you already.
The law of inevitability commonly plays off the law of truly large numbers (with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen). The law of inevitability itself though is the statement that all possible outcomes must eventually be realized. That is in itself probability.
IE, if a result never happens for one reason or another, then it's more than likely not actually a probability. Your argument is that because random chance can give off repeat integers in a finite sampling, then somehow inevitability doesn't work/exist.
The reality is that the law of truly large numbers is included in most cases for a reason. One person rolling a die 100 times might manage to get a one every time, but part of the point I made and part of the point inherent to the law of inevitability is sample size times repetition over time. Repeat that test with 100 people rolling a die 100 times and repeat the results. It's not an isolated sampling and the results are cumulative across each and every trial run. The more trials done the more inevitable an outcome is not because probability is shifting, but because probability exists in the first place.
Probability of a die being one in six is based specifically on the fact that on every roll you have a one in six chance for each given face to come up. Your counterexample is that absurd things can happen, which is as I said in my last post the pretext to what the law of inevitability and truly large numbers is describing.
My point is that the probability that each given thing comes up is the very reason a set is inevitable and the core principle of the law of inevitability. Probability exists at a given value because it can be calculated that the overall spread of results will offer an outcome with such a distribution.
As evidenced by you having to call on the most extreme edge case for a counterargument. The reality is that the average spread of any sample is going to cover the spectrum, and the larger that sample becomes the more complete and stable that distribution will become.
So in an isolated case as a subsection of the samples your claim can be held true, but it is logically false if we are to account for all other possible sample groups that result. Your argument doesn't work because you argue it from the perspective of an isolated incident, of one person doing a trial and that trial's results. The problem is that it's not how it works, and that one person is part of a cumulative result across every individual doing the same kind of trial.
So where they might get all ones, someone else might get all twos, and someone else might get all threes. Even if each person gets miraculously only one part of the entire set, the ultimate and inevitable result is that globally the set has still been completed. One person rolling one 100 times does not change the probability of the die, as the other five numbers each still have a one in six chance of showing up, and that probability is ultimately expressed across the greater spectrum of results outside of a finite sampling.
Which in turn leads by to this; "The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
That is the law of inevitability in action, and the principle of the law of inevitability.
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur." (David J Hand, The improbability Principle, 2014)
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Just a point, there has been some discussion misusing the term Law of Inevitability. This law simply states that in a random trial one of the possible outcomes will occur. It does not state that any particular outcome will occur, nor that every outcome will occur if enough trials are generated.
Not sure which interpretation of the law you are speaking of as this...
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
...is the core principle of the law of inevitability.
It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers.
If you are referring to the law of inevitability as simply "in a random event, one of the possible outcomes within a set must occur", then you're not actually addressing the law of inevitability but simply the preface argument that establishes the law of inevitability. The law of inevitability does not apply only to the union, but the set itself.
Though in the instance for what I called it for (the inevitability of rare items becoming commonplace), this was addressing the fact that with the volume of production and amount of users, ultimately the full spectrum of potential items made via crafting would be made in duplicate. The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable.
Please don't misinform people.
Nope you have it wrong, badly wrong. What you are stating is a form of the Gambler's Fallacy. The dice has no memory, each time it is rolled the chance of rolling a six is the same. If you roll a dice ten times it is still possible to get no sixes, roll it 100 times it is still possible to get no sixes, this is a less likely event but still possible. Extend the test to a thousand, a miilion, a billion or beyond, the chance of geting no sixes in the series gets lower and lower but is still a possibility: and on the next throw the probabilty is still one in six.
As I said before in a random trial one of the possible outcomes wiil occur and that is all the law of inevitability is.
That's so far removed from the truth. Look up what the law of inevitability is before you post next time, I even quoted a line of it for you already.
The law of inevitability commonly plays off the law of truly large numbers (with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen). The law of inevitability itself though is the statement that all possible outcomes must eventually be realized. That is in itself probability.
IE, if a result never happens for one reason or another, then it's more than likely not actually a probability. Your argument is that because random chance can give off integers in a finite sampling, then somehow inevitability doesn't work/exist.
The reality is that the law of truly large numbers is included in most cases for a reason. One person rolling a die 100 times might manage to get a 1 every time, but part of the point I made and part of the point inherent to the law of inevitability is sample size times repetition over time. Repeat that test with 100 people rolling a die 100 times and repeat the results.
Probability of a die being one in six is based specifically on the fact that on every roll you have a one in six chance for each given face to come up. Your counterexample is that absurd things can happen, my point is that the probability that each given thing comes up is the very reason a set is inevitable and the core principle of the law of inevitability.
Probability is weirder than either of you think it is.
If an event occurs with positive probability, then given an infinite sequence of i.i.d. trials, with probability 1, the event will eventually occur. What's more, with probability 1, it will occur infinitely often.
But just because an event occurs with probability 1 doesn't mean that it actually has to happen. We say that it "almost surely" happens, but that's not the same as absolutely needing to happen. For example, pick a number uniformly at random in [0, 1]. Let's call your number x.
For any e > 0, the probability that you would pick x is no greater than the probability that you'd pick a number somewhere in (x-e, x+e). The latter has probability 2e. Thus, the probability of picking x is less than 2e. But this must be true for all e > 0, so the probability of picking x is 0 ("less than epsilon"). Equivalently, the probability of not picking x is 1. But you just picked it anyway.
Now suppose that you have a countably infinite sequence of numbers to choose independently, again uniformly at random in [0, 1]. What is the probability that you will pick x eventually? For any e > 0, the probability of picking x on trial i is no greater than the probability of picking a number in (x - e/2^i, x + e/2^i). The latter probability is 2e/2^i.
The probability that you pick x at least once is no greater than the sum over i of the probabilities that you pick it on trial i. This sum over i of 2e/2^i is 2e. So again, the probability that you pick x at least once is no greater than 2e for all e > 0, which is to say, this probability must be zero.
Thus, an event that can occur (but almost surely does not), can still have probability 0 of occurring eventually even with infinitely many i.i.d. trials.
Not refuting what you just said Quiz, but the point here is the law of inevitability itself and how it's been applied to the completion of a set in gaming.
I used it in reference to pointing out that rare items losing their rare status is an inevitability because it is a positive probability event within a finite set and is consequently subject to volume production based on number of concurrent events times frequency over time.
Basically my statement was that "due to the law of inevitability, rare items produced by a random number generator will never remain rare".
Craft's dispute being that "that's not how the law of inevitability works".
To which I have given my last two responses.
To be fair, my argument was built on truly large numbers and inevitability, but the contention here was that the law of inevitability (one of a complete set of all random outcomes must occur).
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Just a point, there has been some discussion misusing the term Law of Inevitability. This law simply states that in a random trial one of the possible outcomes will occur. It does not state that any particular outcome will occur, nor that every outcome will occur if enough trials are generated.
Not sure which interpretation of the law you are speaking of as this...
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
...is the core principle of the law of inevitability.
It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers.
If you are referring to the law of inevitability as simply "in a random event, one of the possible outcomes within a set must occur", then you're not actually addressing the law of inevitability but simply the preface argument that establishes the law of inevitability. The law of inevitability does not apply only to the union, but the set itself.
Though in the instance for what I called it for (the inevitability of rare items becoming commonplace), this was addressing the fact that with the volume of production and amount of users, ultimately the full spectrum of potential items made via crafting would be made in duplicate. The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable.
Please don't misinform people.
Nope you have it wrong, badly wrong. What you are stating is a form of the Gambler's Fallacy. The dice has no memory, each time it is rolled the chance of rolling a six is the same. If you roll a dice ten times it is still possible to get no sixes, roll it 100 times it is still possible to get no sixes, this is a less likely event but still possible. Extend the test to a thousand, a miilion, a billion or beyond, the chance of geting no sixes in the series gets lower and lower but is still a possibility: and on the next throw the probabilty is still one in six.
As I said before in a random trial one of the possible outcomes wiil occur and that is all the law of inevitability is.
That's so far removed from the truth. Look up what the law of inevitability is before you post next time, I even quoted a line of it for you already.
The law of inevitability commonly plays off the law of truly large numbers (with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen). The law of inevitability itself though is the statement that all possible outcomes must eventually be realized. That is in itself probability.
IE, if a result never happens for one reason or another, then it's more than likely not actually a probability. Your argument is that because random chance can give off repeat integers in a finite sampling, then somehow inevitability doesn't work/exist.
The reality is that the law of truly large numbers is included in most cases for a reason. One person rolling a die 100 times might manage to get a one every time, but part of the point I made and part of the point inherent to the law of inevitability is sample size times repetition over time. Repeat that test with 100 people rolling a die 100 times and repeat the results. It's not an isolated sampling and the results are cumulative across each and every trial run. The more trials done the more inevitable an outcome is not because probability is shifting, but because probability exists in the first place.
Probability of a die being one in six is based specifically on the fact that on every roll you have a one in six chance for each given face to come up. Your counterexample is that absurd things can happen, which is as I said in my last post the pretext to what the law of inevitability and truly large numbers is describing.
My point is that the probability that each given thing comes up is the very reason a set is inevitable and the core principle of the law of inevitability. Probability exists at a given value because it can be calculated that the overall spread of results will offer an outcome with such a distribution.
As evidenced by you having to call on the most extreme edge case for a counterargument. The reality is that the average spread of any sample is going to cover the spectrum, and the larger that sample becomes the more complete and stable that distribution will become.
So in an isolated case as a subsection of the samples your claim can be held true, but it is logically false if we are to account for all other possible sample groups that result. Your argument doesn't work because you argue it from the perspective of an isolated incident, of one person doing a trial and that trial's results. The problem is that it's not how it works, and that one person is part of a cumulative result across every individual doing the same kind of trial.
So where they might get all ones, someone else might get all twos, and someone else might get all threes. Even if each person gets miraculously only one part of the entire set, the ultimate and inevitable result is that globally the set has still been completed. One person rolling one 100 times does not change the probability of the die, as the other five numbers each still have a one in six chance of showing up, and that probability is ultimately expressed across the greater spectrum of results outside of a finite sampling.
Which in turn leads by to this; "The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
That is the law of inevitability in action, and the principle of the law of inevitability.
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur." (David J Hand, The improbability Principle, 2014)
Lots more BS here. The law of large numbers, which you have now twisted towards, even in its strong form uses words like: likely, tends to, etc. It does not use inevitable and for a good reason that in a string of random events nothing is inevitable. Misquoting Hand in that Oprah show way does not help your argument, Hand (a contemporary of mine) actually argues that unlikely events occur all the time not that all outcomes are inevitable.
Not going to argue this further with you as this keyboard does not support equations very well and I doubt you have the math to understand it anyway.
Not sure which interpretation of the law you are speaking of as this...
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
...is the core principle of the law of inevitability.
Nope you...
That's so far removed from the truth.
Lots more...
Wow you are wrong all over the place.
I referred to the Law of Truly Large Numbers, which is this;
"With a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen."
Coupled with the Law of Inevitability, which is this;
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
I pulled the quote from his book and you can even go to his own web page to see the expanded context he wrote for the definition.
It's rather disingenuous for you to call him your contemporary when you can't even refer to the right laws (law of large numbers is not the same as law of truly large numbers) and you repeatedly call the definitions of the laws wrong when I am quoting the literal description of the laws as they are stated within the book in which Hand defined them.
If you would wish to read back to the post of mine you quoted you can even see my statement;
"The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
I should thank you for making these mistakes though as it lets me strengthen my argument by also referencing the law of large numbers alongside the other two. Since the law of large numbers states this; "The average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Which exactly plays into the statement I made of seeking sets;
"The reality is that the average spread of any sample is going to cover the spectrum, and the larger that sample becomes the more complete and stable that distribution will become."
Nowhere did I ever say all outcomes are inevitable, that's a false argument you dredged up from god knows where, especially given in the posts you've quoted from me people can read every time what I actually said (that being the already quoted segment that the duplication and devaluation of rare items is inevitable in an RNG system).
Even looking at the early statements evoking the law of inevitability we have this;
"The law of inevitability comes into play when you've picked a system where finite percentages exist and the only thing one is looking for is a duplicate result to render something non-unique. "
"That is the law of inevitability. With such a small set of variables as is present in most any game, and the sheer volume of users and times items get crafted, there is no such thing as a "rare" or "unique" crafted item, especially in RNG."
Perhaps you got flabbergasted by the statement "the law of inevitability means any finite set will eventually be filled", but even then that is not a contradiction of the definition of the law of inevitability as perhaps you simply don't understands the use of the term "set" in statistics.
Never do I say every set has to be filled, but I did say any set could be. (Hint, there's a reason "set(s)" comes in both singular and plural.)
And these "laws" don't exist in isolation (semantically they are observations of mathematical principles any ways, not actual laws), They all act as components defining the different aspects of statistics, probability, and mathematics. For you to suggest that using the law of inevitability in tandem with the law of truly large numbers is somehow wrong, is complete nonsense at best. As per the first response to you;
"It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers."
The actual problem seems mostly that you didn't understand the terminology, since a "complete set" is not the same as "every/all possible outcome(s)". A set is just, well, a set of variables, one of any number of sets/variables with any variety of results therein. Even your counter examples have used sets in every one since you use sample groups of 100 results. That means each outcome is a complete set of 100 variables. Not every outcome and every set is the same however.
Hence to again why one uses these laws in tandem to explain a logical argument. The fact that one of these sets is inevitable doesn't specify which set is inevitable, just that one is. It's extended by applying the other laws such as the law of truly large numbers however to explain that since a set is inevitable, then certain sets given their positive probability will be seen in multiples as that is an "outrageous thing" in the context of the game's probability.
The fact that the RNG system of games offers a rather finite amount of options and they are all reasonably of the positive probability even if biased, means that getting multiple rares is in effect, inevitable. This is then expanded upon with the law of large number now to address the common principle that given the spread of percent chance each item has been given, we can predict the average distribution of the items generated by RNG to match the probability they have been ascribed.
All that is then coupled with the fact that people favor collecting the best equipment and often scrap/vendor the rest means that over time the distribution of items will favor the top tier of gear that is supposed to be "rare", rendering them no longer such.
The points made here stand the same as they already did, if not better for the corrections now made. You wanna shout "BS" without so much as a reference or logical statement? Fine, but don't pretend you're throwing out anything more than your unfounded opinion though when you can't even address the content you've responded to, are disproved by the the very posts you've quoted, incorrectly reference things you argue on, and finish it all with such a high horse.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Deivos said: "The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
..and to just quote one of you links:
"The law comes up in criticism of pseudoscience and is sometimes called the Jeane Dixon effect (see also Postdiction). It holds that the more predictions a psychic makes, the better the odds that one of them will "hit". Thus, if one comes true, the psychic expects us to forget the vast majority that did not happen.[2] Humans can be susceptible to this fallacy."
Like I pointed out to you before, precisely fallacy you are falling to - rares will be still rare, you are just forgetting the vast majority of common items that are made in the process of obtaining them.
Your argument that with increasing number of production cycles the rare items will become less rare is fallacious.
Deivos said: "The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
..and to just quote one of you links:
"The law comes up in criticism of pseudoscience and is sometimes called the Jeane Dixon effect (see also Postdiction). It holds that the more predictions a psychic makes, the better the odds that one of them will "hit". Thus, if one comes true, the psychic expects us to forget the vast majority that did not happen.[2] Humans can be susceptible to this fallacy."
Like I pointed out to you before, precisely fallacy you are falling to - rares will be still rare, you are just forgetting the vast majority of common items that are made in the process of obtaining them.
Your argument that with increasing number of production cycles the rare items will become less rare is fallacious.
Dude you just whiffed hard there.
You failed to disprove the argument at all, and now just tried using a (very wrong and misquoted) argument to try and defend your argument that has quite a large proof up now to reaffirm the rather obvious statement that rare items aren't rare when everyone has one.
The difference with games is that all those commons don't stay around;
"All that is then coupled with the fact that people favor collecting the best equipment and often scrap/vendor the rest means that over time the distribution of items will favor the top tier of gear that is supposed to be "rare", rendering them no longer such."
Besides which, the fact that a bunch of plain gear is crafted in the pursuit of "rares" does not change the nature of rarity being invalidated when the item in question is reproduced in multiple. You don't call trees "rare" because there's a lot of grass.
Before you get too far ahead of yourself screaming fire, make sure it's not you just blowing hot air next time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You failed to disprove the argument at all, and now just tried using a (very wrong and misquoted) argument to try and defend your argument that has quite a large proof up now to reaffirm the rather obvious statement that rare items aren't rare when everyone has one.
The difference with games is that all those commons don't stay around;
"All that is then coupled with the fact that people favor collecting the best equipment and often scrap/vendor the rest means that over time the distribution of items will favor the top tier of gear that is supposed to be "rare", rendering them no longer such."
Before you get too far ahead of yourself screaming fire, make sure it's not you just blowing hot air next time.
All that is irrelevant, they will be still rare - the chance to craft them is the same regardless.
What you are describing is market saturation and that is caused by lack of resource faucet(lack of item decay). Entirely different matter, something I pointed out to you before as well.
You are just repeating same fallacy over and over...you are hopeless...
Comments
When I say 'recipes' i mean 'what ingredients are used to create X'. The very FACT that I have to describe it because you think I mean 'how it is handled' tells me that your personality is not a good fit for crafting peroid, end of story.
Being a crafter and not being interested in what elements are used to make X is like being a mixologist and not giving a shit about the recipe or a mathematician who doesn't like numbers. its a non-starter.
I am pretty sure we are never going to agree here, but I will keep repeating it all the same
I should not have to say this but 'recipe' is code independent.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
second off, I am sorry but if you are someone who claims to be interesting in crafting but also do not care about recpies as far as I am concerned you are a 'non-crafter' to use the OPs word and.....making a football game for non-football fans is a fail from the start.
now you can reply over and over and ove and over again but it not changing my stance. To me having a basic interest in recipes (and having a clue what I mean when I say that) is a fundamental requirement in demonstrating interest in crafting.
this thread wants to make football intresting for non-football fans and I think that is silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You seem like a bean counter, adding up things in spreadsheets, following the plans and pressing button on the assembly line.
Also, as I've said countless times before, actual creative people do know what they are putting in their creations. What they are not doing is making most of their tools.
The luthier will make molds but not their saws or wire cutters. While they will pick their wood they don't go out and cut it down and plank it.
Same goes with furniture makers.
I worked on construction sites for houses and no one made any tools nor did they make the "glass".
I think it's great that you love the nitty gritty but you miss the essence of what creation really is.
edit: I'll add that I apologize if that seems rude, it's not meant to be.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I am saying if you do not like numbers you are likely to not like physics which is more than about numbers but not liking numbers is a core problem.
how many different ways to I have to explain this?
crafting is about transforming a collection of items into something else and its NOT I repeat NOT about the 'discovery phase' of that. without having any intrest at all in what the colleciton of items is, is a problem very much similar to not liking numbers but what to do calculus
here maybe this will help
Statement 1:'I couldnt care less about recipes I find them boring'
Statement 2: 'I like recipes but I think crafting systems could be made better if they spent some time lookiing at the actions'
two RADICALLY different statements, statement 1 comes from someone who has no business in crafting because he doesnt even like recipes? what the fuck?, statement two is much more reasonable
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You know, that thing where you do stuff. Crafting is the activity that's done once you have your resources in place.
Recipes themselves are not crafting, they are a grocery list.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I bet those people who don't like "recipes" would like them a whole lot more if they could change out bits and alter them and by altering them they affect the final product. Whether it's cosmetic or what the item does, etc.
So I get your point but I think "recipes" are not engaging because they are just a list.
Also, I hated math but loved physics. What I learned in physics made the math part tolerable. Of course I didn't go into any advanced math or physics because I had greater loves.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
recipes as an immutable concept seperate from gaming.
and no i doubt very seriously they would
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's only when you get into gaming that they suddenly become so rigid and narrow in their capacity.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
and "yes" they would be because they will be engaged in what goes into their crafting as opposed to "I have to, for the 30th, 300th time, collect the same ingredients to do the same thing".
In general I don't like recipes but as an example (and one I've used) I actually like Elder Scrolls online crafting as it not only asks me to choose various materials that will change what the item does and how good it does it, I can even pick a different look to the item.
It's simple and not optimum but I find myself more engaged. I can't guarantee they will be more engaged as I don't know the mind of everyone but if I'm more engaged and I usually don't like recipes it's very possible that they will also be engaged.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
you know when you want to build a house there is a guy who makes the house plans, the guy who knows all the stuff to build the house, the guy who gets the materials, the guy who organizes what comes first and second etc in the process , then there is the hired help uneducated worker who does what? hammers nails.
you are saying that if we can make hammering nails more intresting then crafting will be more intresting to those who do not like planning, recipes, organizing and planning. The key missed here is the uneducted labor guy.
yeah...umm..no
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. painting is not crafting, its much more creative. and more importantly I dont want every single thing I craft to be some random exploration into the unknown. that doesnt represent reality. SOME of doing that is, but not all by a long shot. One would never be able to build a house if everything was exploration and random
3. there is a reason its called 'arts and crafts' and not all just 'crafts'
4. I have asked a few times and I will ask again, can someone please break down for me the process of making my carving knife in an ideal crafting game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I hammer nails. Does that make me uneducated?
Another example, I have a box of brownie mix and it says that for a fluffy cake-like texture, use 2 eggs, while for a fudgy dense texture use only 1 egg. That's not even truly experimental, since the outcome is known (and I've made it both ways before) but it's clear evidence that the authoritative company that makes the brownie mix considers recipes as changable. They even have a little side-panel thing on the box that suggests adding 1 cup of nuts and/or marshmallows. Cooking can easily be an exploration into the unknown every time.
As far as painting, what if I'm painting a fence post white? That's surely not art, even though it's fundamentally the same technique used to pain the background of a portrait or landscape. What if I am painting a blue triangle on a white circle because that's my guild symbol and I want to make 20 to give to all my guild members to stick on their in-game housing? Again, churning out 20 of the same thing doesn't seem particularly creative to me. It's sure not more complicated that nailing things together.
What's the point of designing a whole minigame through which your hypothetical knife can be crafted just for you to say you don't like it?
As I said before in a random trial one of the possible outcomes wiil occur and that is all the law of inevitability is.
The law of inevitability commonly plays off the law of truly large numbers (with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen). The law of inevitability itself though is the statement that all possible outcomes must eventually be realized. That is in itself probability.
IE, if a result never happens for one reason or another, then it's more than likely not actually a probability. Your argument is that because random chance can give off repeat integers in a finite sampling, then somehow inevitability doesn't work/exist.
The reality is that the law of truly large numbers is included in most cases for a reason. One person rolling a die 100 times might manage to get a one every time, but part of the point I made and part of the point inherent to the law of inevitability is sample size times repetition over time. Repeat that test with 100 people rolling a die 100 times and repeat the results. It's not an isolated sampling and the results are cumulative across each and every trial run. The more trials done the more inevitable an outcome is not because probability is shifting, but because probability exists in the first place.
Probability of a die being one in six is based specifically on the fact that on every roll you have a one in six chance for each given face to come up. Your counterexample is that absurd things can happen, which is as I said in my last post the pretext to what the law of inevitability and truly large numbers is describing.
My point is that the probability that each given thing comes up is the very reason a set is inevitable and the core principle of the law of inevitability. Probability exists at a given value because it can be calculated that the overall spread of results will offer an outcome with such a distribution.
As evidenced by you having to call on the most extreme edge case for a counterargument. The reality is that the average spread of any sample is going to cover the spectrum, and the larger that sample becomes the more complete and stable that distribution will become.
So in an isolated case as a subsection of the samples your claim can be held true, but it is logically false if we are to account for all other possible sample groups that result. Your argument doesn't work because you argue it from the perspective of an isolated incident, of one person doing a trial and that trial's results. The problem is that it's not how it works, and that one person is part of a cumulative result across every individual doing the same kind of trial.
So where they might get all ones, someone else might get all twos, and someone else might get all threes. Even if each person gets miraculously only one part of the entire set, the ultimate and inevitable result is that globally the set has still been completed. One person rolling one 100 times does not change the probability of the die, as the other five numbers each still have a one in six chance of showing up, and that probability is ultimately expressed across the greater spectrum of results outside of a finite sampling.
Which in turn leads by to this;
"The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
That is the law of inevitability in action, and the principle of the law of inevitability.
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur." (David J Hand, The improbability Principle, 2014)
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If an event occurs with positive probability, then given an infinite sequence of i.i.d. trials, with probability 1, the event will eventually occur. What's more, with probability 1, it will occur infinitely often.
But just because an event occurs with probability 1 doesn't mean that it actually has to happen. We say that it "almost surely" happens, but that's not the same as absolutely needing to happen. For example, pick a number uniformly at random in [0, 1]. Let's call your number x.
For any e > 0, the probability that you would pick x is no greater than the probability that you'd pick a number somewhere in (x-e, x+e). The latter has probability 2e. Thus, the probability of picking x is less than 2e. But this must be true for all e > 0, so the probability of picking x is 0 ("less than epsilon"). Equivalently, the probability of not picking x is 1. But you just picked it anyway.
Now suppose that you have a countably infinite sequence of numbers to choose independently, again uniformly at random in [0, 1]. What is the probability that you will pick x eventually? For any e > 0, the probability of picking x on trial i is no greater than the probability of picking a number in (x - e/2^i, x + e/2^i). The latter probability is 2e/2^i.
The probability that you pick x at least once is no greater than the sum over i of the probabilities that you pick it on trial i. This sum over i of 2e/2^i is 2e. So again, the probability that you pick x at least once is no greater than 2e for all e > 0, which is to say, this probability must be zero.
Thus, an event that can occur (but almost surely does not), can still have probability 0 of occurring eventually even with infinitely many i.i.d. trials.
Not refuting what you just said Quiz, but the point here is the law of inevitability itself and how it's been applied to the completion of a set in gaming.
I used it in reference to pointing out that rare items losing their rare status is an inevitability because it is a positive probability event within a finite set and is consequently subject to volume production based on number of concurrent events times frequency over time.
Basically my statement was that "due to the law of inevitability, rare items produced by a random number generator will never remain rare".
Craft's dispute being that "that's not how the law of inevitability works".
To which I have given my last two responses.
To be fair, my argument was built on truly large numbers and inevitability, but the contention here was that the law of inevitability (one of a complete set of all random outcomes must occur).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Not going to argue this further with you as this keyboard does not support equations very well and I doubt you have the math to understand it anyway.
I referred to the Law of Truly Large Numbers, which is this;
"With a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen."
Coupled with the Law of Inevitability, which is this;
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
I pulled the quote from his book and you can even go to his own web page to see the expanded context he wrote for the definition.
It's rather disingenuous for you to call him your contemporary when you can't even refer to the right laws (law of large numbers is not the same as law of truly large numbers) and you repeatedly call the definitions of the laws wrong when I am quoting the literal description of the laws as they are stated within the book in which Hand defined them.
If you would wish to read back to the post of mine you quoted you can even see my statement;
"The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
I should thank you for making these mistakes though as it lets me strengthen my argument by also referencing the law of large numbers alongside the other two. Since the law of large numbers states this;
"The average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Which exactly plays into the statement I made of seeking sets;
"The reality is that the average spread of any sample is going to cover the spectrum, and the larger that sample becomes the more complete and stable that distribution will become."
Nowhere did I ever say all outcomes are inevitable, that's a false argument you dredged up from god knows where, especially given in the posts you've quoted from me people can read every time what I actually said (that being the already quoted segment that the duplication and devaluation of rare items is inevitable in an RNG system).
Even looking at the early statements evoking the law of inevitability we have this;
"The law of inevitability comes into play when you've picked a system where finite percentages exist and the only thing one is looking for is a duplicate result to render something non-unique. "
"That is the law of inevitability. With such a small set of variables as is present in most any game, and the sheer volume of users and times items get crafted, there is no such thing as a "rare" or "unique" crafted item, especially in RNG."
Perhaps you got flabbergasted by the statement "the law of inevitability means any finite set will eventually be filled", but even then that is not a contradiction of the definition of the law of inevitability as perhaps you simply don't understands the use of the term "set" in statistics.
Never do I say every set has to be filled, but I did say any set could be. (Hint, there's a reason "set(s)" comes in both singular and plural.)
And these "laws" don't exist in isolation (semantically they are observations of mathematical principles any ways, not actual laws), They all act as components defining the different aspects of statistics, probability, and mathematics. For you to suggest that using the law of inevitability in tandem with the law of truly large numbers is somehow wrong, is complete nonsense at best. As per the first response to you;
"It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers."
The actual problem seems mostly that you didn't understand the terminology, since a "complete set" is not the same as "every/all possible outcome(s)". A set is just, well, a set of variables, one of any number of sets/variables with any variety of results therein. Even your counter examples have used sets in every one since you use sample groups of 100 results. That means each outcome is a complete set of 100 variables. Not every outcome and every set is the same however.
Hence to again why one uses these laws in tandem to explain a logical argument. The fact that one of these sets is inevitable doesn't specify which set is inevitable, just that one is. It's extended by applying the other laws such as the law of truly large numbers however to explain that since a set is inevitable, then certain sets given their positive probability will be seen in multiples as that is an "outrageous thing" in the context of the game's probability.
The fact that the RNG system of games offers a rather finite amount of options and they are all reasonably of the positive probability even if biased, means that getting multiple rares is in effect, inevitable. This is then expanded upon with the law of large number now to address the common principle that given the spread of percent chance each item has been given, we can predict the average distribution of the items generated by RNG to match the probability they have been ascribed.
All that is then coupled with the fact that people favor collecting the best equipment and often scrap/vendor the rest means that over time the distribution of items will favor the top tier of gear that is supposed to be "rare", rendering them no longer such.
The points made here stand the same as they already did, if not better for the corrections now made. You wanna shout "BS" without so much as a reference or logical statement? Fine, but don't pretend you're throwing out anything more than your unfounded opinion though when you can't even address the content you've responded to, are disproved by the the very posts you've quoted, incorrectly reference things you argue on, and finish it all with such a high horse.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The law comes up in criticism of pseudoscience and is sometimes called the Jeane Dixon effect (see also Postdiction). It holds that the more predictions a psychic makes, the better the odds that one of them will "hit". Thus, if one comes true, the psychic expects us to forget the vast majority that did not happen.[2] Humans can be susceptible to this fallacy."
Like I pointed out to you before, precisely fallacy you are falling to - rares will be still rare, you are just forgetting the vast majority of common items that are made in the process of obtaining them.
Your argument that with increasing number of production cycles the rare items will become less rare is fallacious.
You failed to disprove the argument at all, and now just tried using a (very wrong and misquoted) argument to try and defend your argument that has quite a large proof up now to reaffirm the rather obvious statement that rare items aren't rare when everyone has one.
The difference with games is that all those commons don't stay around;
"All that is then coupled with the fact that people favor collecting the best equipment and often scrap/vendor the rest means that over time the distribution of items will favor the top tier of gear that is supposed to be "rare", rendering them no longer such."
Besides which, the fact that a bunch of plain gear is crafted in the pursuit of "rares" does not change the nature of rarity being invalidated when the item in question is reproduced in multiple. You don't call trees "rare" because there's a lot of grass.
Before you get too far ahead of yourself screaming fire, make sure it's not you just blowing hot air next time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What you are describing is market saturation and that is caused by lack of resource faucet(lack of item decay). Entirely different matter, something I pointed out to you before as well.
You are just repeating same fallacy over and over...you are hopeless...