Do you think should Infallible trophy be removed/altered?

[janzor88]

6 hours ago, ryanofx92 said:

The average player wins one in 60 games, and therefore has a 777.6m to one chance of winning five in a row. It's simple statistics.

 

No, it's simplified nonsense and has nothing with practical statistics to do.

 

6 hours ago, ryanofx92 said:

 

My assumption allowed for the exact average player and that was being used as the basis for comparison. It's not difficult to understand.

 

You are the one making baseless assumptions here.

Are you still questioning the numbers I presented? Have you ever sat a statistics class?

 

I didn't say everyone has an equal chance of winning.... So yes, your whole comment is irrelevant and wrong.

 

 

 

lmao it's funny seeing your stubbornness invalidate your arguments more and more.

Since you have problems comprehending logic and math, let me try explaining it for you again.
 

There is nothing called average player or average player skill. It is not a numerical value, and no game has a playerbase which is equally good.
You are making false assumptions based on nothing, which you use to make an irrelevant and wrong calculation.
You can't assume something completely wrong, do the calculation and then use it as a valid argument.

A big percentage of the playerbase are small children, which is demostrated every game in the first 1-2 rounds by people not being able to jump past the first few obstacles. There are hundred of other factors as well, which affect skewness.
The real statistical calculation has almost infinite variables, and has nothing to do with your rather ignorant model.

 

6 hours ago, ryanofx92 said:

You have no idea how many are still going for this trophy and no way of knowing. Your numbers are pure speculation. You also conveniently ignored what YOU brought up to use against me (the 20-player mode making it easier) then claimed you were bending the numbers in MY favour.

 

Yes, I do have an idea how many are still going for this trophy since you can see data on PSNProfiles and Steam Charts.
As for the last part, I can see that you have problems comprehending text and that you are mixing two seperate posts - which have nothing to do with each other.

 

The hexagone mode was available in less than a week, but the Infallible achievers have been stable as I stated in the post.

Edited January 14, 2021 by janzor88

[ryanofx92]

10 hours ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

In this case, it is irrelevant. Not everyone has the same skill, thus they don't have the same chances of winning. Or does a 10yo kid that just picked the game up for the first time have the same chance of winning as a guy who has played since the game launched?

 

Of course not everyone has the same chance of winning. That's what I'm saying. You don't even disagree; you don't even know what you're trying to say anymore.

 

10 hours ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

 

The point is it still doesn't make sense. Again, for example, does someone who's lagging severely have the same chance of winning as someone with really smooth gameplay?

 

Oh my god. The exact same I said last time to you applies here. The exact probability will also vary to an extent depending on latency. Sure. That doesn't counter my point at all. Use your brain!

 

10 hours ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

 

As someone said above, these maths would only make sense if each player was exactly the same, under the same conditions. Which is clearly not the case.

 

The average player still exists and still has that probability. Even if it the exact figure fluctuates, it is still in the 100s of millions to one so my point still stands.

[ryanofx92]

7 hours ago, janzor88 said:

 

No, it's simplified nonsense and has nothing with practical statistics to do.

 

There is no limit to the application of statistics. You are clearly not educated in the field.

 

Quote

 

 

lmao it's funny seeing your stubbornness invalidate your arguments more and more.

Since you have problems comprehending logic and math, let me try explaining it for you again.
 

There is nothing called average player or average player skill. It is not a numerical value, and no game has a playerbase which is equally good.
You are making false assumptions based on nothing, which you use to make an irrelevant and wrong calculation.
You can't assume something completely wrong, do the calculation and then use it as a valid argument.

A big percentage of the playerbase are small children, which is demostrated every game in the first 1-2 rounds by people not being able to jump past the first few obstacles. There are hundred of other factors as well, which affect skewness.
The real statistical calculation has almost infinite variables, and has nothing to do with your rather ignorant model.

 

That still doesn't mean there's no average. There is always an average. It is incredible that one clearly so passionate about this believes otherwise.

 

Quote

 

 

Yes, I do have an idea how many are still going for this trophy since you can see data on PSNProfiles and Steam Charts.

 

You have how many have earned a trophy recently vs how many have earned the plat in the same period of time. You have already been told why this is flawed and it's embarrassing that it wasn't obvious to you in the first place.

 

Quote

 

As for the last part, I can see that you have problems comprehending text and that you are mixing two seperate posts - which have nothing to do with each other.

 

The hexagone mode was available in less than a week, but the Infallible achievers have been stable as I stated in the post.

 

 

You used the hex-a-gone mode against me to say the trophy's much easier to achieve than I'm saying it is because of that mode, but you weren't taking that into account when calculating the percentage of recent players to plat achievers, which was clearly going to be higher than usual. A stat also flawed due to your not having any idea how many are still going for it as alluded to above.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by DaivRules

[Eagle]

22 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

The average player still exists and still has that probability.

What defines an "average player," then? There are a lot of people who play this, from kids to probably elders, how are you going to define an exact average?

 

25 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

Of course not everyone has the same chance of winning.

See? That already invalidates maths, since it assumes everyone has the exact same chance of winning, with the exact same level of skill and exact same conditions applied to all of those players, which, sure, could be done on a smaller scale as an experiment of sorts, but doesn't apply to regular gameplay.

 

(Also, I like how you try to invalidate the guy's point because he spelled "a lot" wrong, but you also use "your" where you should have used "you're". Your = possession, you're = you are. Next time you use ad hominem, at least do it right.)

[ryanofx92]

26 minutes ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

What defines an "average player," then? There are a lot of people who play this, from kids to probably elders, how are you going to define an exact average?

 

An average player wins one in 60 games. It's very simple.

 

26 minutes ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

 

See? That already invalidates maths, since it assumes everyone has the exact same chance of winning, with the exact same level of skill and exact same conditions applied to all of those players, which, sure, could be done on a smaller scale as an experiment of sorts, but doesn't apply to regular gameplay.

 

You don't understand how maths works. I don't know how to break it down any simpler for you.

 

26 minutes ago, BRKs_Eagle said:

 

(Also, I like how you try to invalidate the guy's point because he spelled "a lot" wrong, but you also use "your" where you should have used "you're". Your = possession, you're = you are. Next time you use ad hominem, at least do it right.)

 

"A stat also flawed due to your not having any idea how many are still going for it as alluded to above."

 

^Are you referring to this?

 

If so, you also don't understand how English works. Look up 'possessive gerund' and thank me later.

[DaivRules]

20 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

 

An average player wins one in 60 games. It's very simple.

 

 

You don't understand how maths works. I don't know how to break it down any simpler for you.

 

 

"A stat also flawed due to your not having any idea how many are still going for it as alluded to above."

 

^Are you referring to this?

 

If so, you also don't understand how English works. Look up 'possessive gerund' and thank me later.

Your statistics are an exercise in finding numbers and doing math. You have to make too many assumptions for your results to be applicable to anything in reality. 
 

You’re doing math to do math. Because all of the parameters of playing any game can’t be boiled down to simple numbers, the statistic has no value to anyone playing the game. 

[ryanofx92]

2 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Your statistics are an exercise in finding numbers and doing math. You have to make too many assumptions for your results to be applicable to anything in reality. 
 

You’re doing math to do math. Because all of the parameters of playing any game can’t be boiled down to simple numbers, the statistic has no value to anyone playing the game. 

 

Its value is in demonstrating the difficulty of earning this trophy.

[Eagle]

38 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

"A stat also flawed due to your not having any idea how many are still going for it as alluded to above."

 

^Are you referring to this?

 

If so, you also don't understand how English works. Look up 'possessive gerund' and thank me later.

OK, here I admit I was wrong. I was reading over it by skimming and interpreted it incorrectly. However, there are a few other mistakes I found by reading more closely and the whole point is that ad hominem is bad and you should avoid it if you're really trying to have a serious discussion.

 

40 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

An average player wins one in 60 games. It's very simple.

You still haven't said what defines an "average player."

[ryanofx92]

Just now, BRKs_Eagle said:

OK, here I admit I was wrong. I was reading over it by skimming and interpreted it incorrectly. However, there are a few other mistakes I found by reading more closely and the whole point is that ad hominem is bad and you should avoid it if you're really trying to have a serious discussion.

 

Other mistakes you've conveniently failed to point out. Sure.

 

There is a strong correlation between those who misspell one and three letter words and those who are unable to grasp more complicated topics such as mathematics and statistics. I prefer to weed those individuals out and only deal with adult brains.

 

Just now, BRKs_Eagle said:

 

You still haven't said what defines an "average player."

 

Okay. You must be trolling at this point. I'm out.

[Eagle]

Just now, ryanofx92 said:

Other mistakes you've conveniently failed to point out. Sure.

OK, let's see.

- "Oh my god! [...]" You are referring to the Catholic entity, so it is God; god is used when it's a generic term.

- "There's a strong correlation between those who misspell one and three letter words [...]" Since "three-letter" is being used to describe a quality of the words, it has a hyphen.

- "You used the hex-a-gone mode against me [...]" It's a title, so it should be Hex-a-Gone.

- "Even if it the exact figure escalates [...]" What's that "it" doing there?

 

Among others. Sure, you may be thinking that those are nitpicks, and you are right. But that's the point. If you really feel the need to complain about other people's writing even if it's perfectly legible, well, I expect you to be perfect yourself.

[DaivRules]

31 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

 

Its value is in demonstrating the difficulty of earning this trophy.

Difficulty isn’t expressed in odds when playing video games. That’s trying to assign numerical values to things that doesn’t have measurements. 

[ryanofx92]

2 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Difficulty isn’t expressed in odds when playing video games. That’s trying to assign numerical values to things that doesn’t have measurements. 

 

That's absurd.

[ThatMuttGuy]

23 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

 

That's absurd.

 

The only thing absurd here is you assuming everyone has 1 in 60 odds to win a fucking round. The more you play, the better chances you have of winning. Thus, the more you play the easier the trophy will be. 

 

But go on with how low the odds are ?

Edited January 14, 2021 by ThatMuttGuy
.

[DaivRules]

26 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

 

That's absurd.

 

Please explain how that's absurd.

[ryanofx92]

43 minutes ago, ThatMuttGuy said:

The only thing absurd here is you assuming everyone has 1 in 60 odds to win a fucking round.

Never said that.

43 minutes ago, ThatMuttGuy said:

The more you play, the better chances you have of winning. Thus, the more you play the easier the trophy will be.

Correct. That's what I said.

43 minutes ago, ThatMuttGuy said:

But go on with how low the odds are

The odds are low. Do you think otherwise?

32 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Please explain how that's absurd.

Why are video games exempt from the rules of probability?

[DaivRules]

2 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

Why are video games exempt from the rules of probability?

 

I didn't say that and that's not an explanation why what I said was absurd. I'll quote it again so we don't have to derail:

 

Quote

Difficulty isn’t expressed in odds when playing video games. That’s trying to assign numerical values to things that don’t have measurements. 

 

Quote

That's absurd.

 

Please go ahead and explain why what I said was absurd.

[ryanofx92]

Judging by some other comments you've made, MuttGuy, it's pretty obvious you go out your way to put down those who haven't earned the trophy. "Suck it up and earn it" being something you told someone. Does it make you feel good? Is this all you have in life? Showing off because you earned a trophy others couldn't?

 

The funny thing about this is I actually have the trophy. I was merely pointing out how difficult it is. That actually makes you look better for having achieved it. Yet here you are, jumping all over me, being an asshole because you think I'm making excuses. You sensed weakness and went on the attack.

 

Get a life.

1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

 

I didn't say that and that's not an explanation why what I said was absurd. I'll quote it again so we don't have to derail:

 

 

 

Please go ahead and explain why what I said was absurd.

 

"Difficulty isn't expressed in odds when playing video games."

 

Do you not believe the average player wins one in 60 games? Do you believe that statement is false?

[DaivRules]

9 minutes ago, ryanofx92 said:

"Difficulty isn't expressed in odds when playing video games."

 

Do you not believe the average player wins one in 60 games? Do you believe that statement is false?

 

I can't even make that call because I don't even know what that's trying to say. What are the premises used to come to the conclusion that "the average player wins one in 60 games"?

 

If you're defining "average player" as "someone who wins one in 60 games" then you've already assumed your conclusion is true. And if you're saying "I'm defining an average player as someone who wins one in 60 games", you're oversimplifying circumstances to fit the math you want to state.

 

Applying "odds" works great if everything is pure randomness and it's a passive experience, which video games aren't. A raffle isn't considered "difficult" because buying a ticket doesn't have a high chance of winning and it's not considered "easy" if the ticket has a high chance of winning.

 

[ryanofx92]

23 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I can't even make that call because I don't even know what that's trying to say. What are the premises used to come to the conclusion that "the average player wins one in 60 games"?

 

If you're defining "average player" as "someone who wins one in 60 games" then you've already assumed your conclusion is true. And if you're saying "I'm defining an average player as someone who wins one in 60 games", you're oversimplifying circumstances to fit the math you want to state.

 

Applying "odds" works great if everything is pure randomness and it's a passive experience, which video games aren't. A raffle isn't considered "difficult" because buying a ticket doesn't have a high chance of winning and it's not considered "easy" if the ticket has a high chance of winning.

 

This is exasperating.

 

How would you define the average player if not by one win per 60 games?

[djb5f]

26 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I can't even make that call because I don't even know what that's trying to say. What are the premises used to come to the conclusion that "the average player wins one in 60 games"?

 

If you're defining "average player" as "someone who wins one in 60 games" then you've already assumed your conclusion is true. And if you're saying "I'm defining an average player as someone who wins one in 60 games", you're oversimplifying circumstances to fit the math you want to state.

 

Applying "odds" works great if everything is pure randomness and it's a passive experience, which video games aren't. A raffle isn't considered "difficult" because buying a ticket doesn't have a high chance of winning and it's not considered "easy" if the ticket has a high chance of winning.

 

Simply put, IF there are 60 people playing a round, and only 1 can win, the average is 1 win in 60 games.  Note, sometimes the episodes start with 50+ players and sometimes there are multiple winners like in Jump Showdown but that is just noise at the margins.

 

Really good players might win 1 in every 10 games, so their chance of winning Infallible legitimately would be (1/10)^5.  Feel free to put in whatever number is your win rate and calculate.  If you win on average every other episode (highly doubtful), odds would be (1/2)^5.  Still not great.
 

On the other hand, lousy players might win 1 in every 200 games.  But the average is 1 in every 60 games.
 

Of course the more you play, the better your odds.  Not only do you improve, but you have more and more chances to break through.  So if you play Fall Guys all the time, your odds improve by sheer volume of attempts.  
 

Still extremely low odds even for the elite 1) once the exploit was removed and 2) if there aren’t small 20-person events.

 

 

[DaScorpio_]

Guys, the trophy isn't meant to be earned by everyone. It stays at the current rarity because its actually difficult to do and your "average player" might not be skilled enough to do it, period. World doesn't work like we all would want to and we just have to accept that this game DOES and WILL continue to have a HARD trophy.

 

If your that desperate for more trophies/platinums, you can literally buy games that can be completed in minutes. Point being that this trophy is fine as it is - hard and not for everyone to be earned.

[PMD_E1337Pete]

48 minutes ago, djb5f said:

Simply put, IF there are 60 people playing a round, and only 1 can win, the average is 1 win in 60 games.

This is the basis for a bunch of conclusions in comments and it simply isn’t true? Just because there’s 60 potential outcomes doesn’t mean that they’re all equally likely to occur. It’s not even true if we assume all players are identical skill levels (which is a ridiculous assumption anyway and trivializes any conclusions we make since they won’t be applicable to the real world at all).

 

This 1 in 60 number is just so useless for making any claim. If you just take it the next step and say “I never lose in the first round”, does that mean my odds are now 1 in 39-40?

 

And then you might say “ok that’s an above average player, there’s also a below average player in the lobby”. But we have no idea if that’s true, because what if like 70% of players in that lobby is above average?

 

Then we start looking at other factors like people being on a team. If you make it to Royal Fumble and you are 4 out of 4 people in the lobby, the person going for infallible has a 100% chance of getting the crown. It’s not as guaranteed but if you’re 4 out of 8-10 on Hexagone or Fall Mountain, the odds are insanely in your favor. This is one example of something I think is incredibly relevant that we’re ignoring.

 

We can’t even assume that all of this evens out over every game of fall guys because we have no reason to believe there’s a normal distribution of skill either. I would assume that most players are way worse than anything we would guess is the “average” player. But the “average player who is going for infallible” might be better? Idk I’m just guessing, we seem to be okay with that in this thread.

 

Yeah if we assume there’s 60 people and I pick one completely at random 5 times with absolutely nothing impacting my decision, this math holds. But it’s not relevant or useful to do that.

[djb5f]

7 minutes ago, PMD_E1337Pete said:

This is the basis for a bunch of conclusions in comments and it simply isn’t true? Just because there’s 60 potential outcomes doesn’t mean that they’re all equally likely to occur. It’s not even true if we assume all players are identical skill levels (which is a ridiculous assumption anyway and trivializes any conclusions we make since they won’t be applicable to the real world at all).

 

This 1 in 60 number is just so useless for making any claim. If you just take it the next step and say “I never lose in the first round”, does that mean my odds are now 1 in 39-40?

 

And then you might say “ok that’s an above average player, there’s also a below average player in the lobby”. But we have no idea if that’s true, because what if like 70% of players in that lobby is above average?

 

Then we start looking at other factors like people being on a team. If you make it to Royal Fumble and you are 4 out of 4 people in the lobby, the person going for infallible has a 100% chance of getting the crown. It’s not as guaranteed but if you’re 4 out of 8-10 on Hexagone or Fall Mountain, the odds are insanely in your favor. This is one example of something I think is incredibly relevant that we’re ignoring.

 

We can’t even assume that all of this evens out over every game of fall guys because we have no reason to believe there’s a normal distribution of skill either. I would assume that most players are way worse than anything we would guess is the “average” player. But the “average player who is going for infallible” might be better? Idk I’m just guessing, we seem to be okay with that in this thread.

 

Yeah if we assume there’s 60 people and I pick one completely at random 5 times with absolutely nothing impacting my decision, this math holds. But it’s not relevant or useful to do that.

Simply calculate the odds for yourself as (1/n)^5 where n is the average number of episodes it takes you to get a win.  60 is just the average.  Like I said, if you are really good you might win one of every 10 episodes.  Just plug in your norm.

[Exeshow678]

damn, reading all this is...FUN 

[PMD_E1337Pete]

5 minutes ago, djb5f said:

Simply calculate the odds for yourself as (1/n)^5 where n is the average number of episodes it takes you to get a win.  60 is just the average.  Like I said, if you are really good you might win one of every 10 episodes.  Just plug in your norm.

I’m not disagreeing with your math, because it’s right. I’m disagreeing with the premise that 60 is average and, even if it was, running the numbers on that gives a meaningless conclusion.