Do you think playing sparsely can improve your chances of an uber hof?

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by falkao

and we still don't know how many are not globalling at all.

If everything is random, then the rel. freq. of an ATH should be the same for both groups. The observations are however biased, since the not globalling ones are not included.

True falkao, its a pretty hard test to do well for sure. Maybe result wouldn't even be the same - possibly the 1-50 group hunts smaller mobs than the 50+ group on average, and maybe different size mobs have different rates of uber per global.

My point was just that picking five avatars that happen to support your hypothesis and drawing conclusions from those five avatars alone, is, well, nonsense at best. [EDIT: OK that's a bit harsh sorry, but I think thread starter knows enough to know better...]

[Immortal]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

My point was just that picking five avatars that happen to support your hypothesis and drawing conclusions from those five avatars alone, is, well, nonsense at best.

Well I could have picked all 100 avatars, no? And averaged the loot out? The result would be the same, those avatars would have 20000 globals with what 1/2000 big hits per global? Less?

And how, might I ask, would I go about finding every avatar that had been inactive for a month? And comparing.

1/2000? Well inactive avatars who had globalled once at least <2900 (or N_avatar_globals-N_avatar_globals>100

Pulling "2 out of the top 6 have had..." Is just as nonsense. 3/13?
We are using globals as signifier of activity.
Let's take your example 2/4100
Compare to the globally-inactive avatars
2/50

So I would need..... another .... .... 4050 globals among inactive avatars
average lets be kind say 25
So to be statistically significant argument, find me 162 avatars who were inactive for a month that globaled on average 25 (to fill global quota) over those two months. and count the ubermegahofs. (ofc the definition of ubermega is open to interpretation....10k? 20k? 20PED*HP? 50*random_factor/ore_rarity_function?)

The hypothesis of inactivity-triggering-globals still has significance in that you cannot disprove it (yet)

NB: Another plausible explanation is they were skilling coloring+texturing and building up their reserve... if you support the theory of ped_out=f(g(ped_in)), no matter what input function g(x) is.

Another valid argument is we don't have a large enough data set.

But maybe I should wait until I have 2k globals

[Naifas Anaconda]

Fun analysis, but it doesn't prove anything as you have so few results to fundament your hypothesis.
Avatars 1 and 2 were lucky, that's all.

[Harvest]

Global or Hoff is like winning a little mini lottery, every body plays the same game and buys the same amount of tickets, every bodyies chances are the same. You buy 10k tickets and your chances go up a good bit.

Now if you looked at the tracker and it said that their highest global was 120ped and their total earned ped was 60K, then I would start wondering wtf this person knows that I dont.

[Immortal]

Originally Posted by Harvest

Now if you looked at the tracker and it said that their highest global was 120ped and their total earned ped was 60K, then I would start wondering wtf this person knows that I dont.

I might start another thread along these lines.. for the battlers

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by Immortal

The hypothesis of inactivity-triggering-globals still has significance in that you cannot disprove it (yet)

Invisible pink unicorns...

But anyway, yeah carry on, interesting discussion. I was just making sure no-one thought the evidence in the first post suggested in any way that playing sparsely improves your chances of an uber hof.

[Witte]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

Invisible pink unicorns...

Hmm yeh I thought a hypothesis is only interesting (at least in a scientific sense) when it can be falsified.