Tracking your Counter Resets

[hinnnny]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Got a Leg++ Reset in 36 clears, so happy.

[wuskillz]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Star++

23 Resets!

Tim Duncan for a dup!

[eVizions]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

I completely agree but since im curious to see if its even possible for us to solve I gotta throw out some hypotheticals and seeing what you guys think.
1.How much trust can we put into what CD has said. It may just be me and my skeptical personality but we have seen CD exaggerate in terms of what their abilities and modifications have done. The numbers suggest they are telling the truth buttttt what the numbers don't say is
2.The location in which the resets occur. It may be impossible to solve as every single pick would hve to be charted since your first game, but without more detail(location,pick number,time,picks since reset,etc) how accurate can our numbers really be.


The thing about numbers, whether it be on the court or in video game, you cannot argue against them as they hold definite value but pure numbers also don't show the whole picture

Yeah, I don't really have a lot of faith in what they tell us. While I don't think Danan has ever blatantly lied to us (he seems like a pretty stand-up guy), it's in CD's best interest to not be entirely transparent and I totally get that. Would I like a little more transparency and communication from them? Of course, I think we all would, but maybe that's what the new guy was brought in for. Either way, they'll never be completely transparent, especially about certain things. This is probably one of those things.

As for board clears and locations, we do know one thing: nothing is done client side. Everything is done server side (as it should be). I did a little preliminary sniffing around and found that their security measures are pretty tight. They don't leave much (if any) room to hijack their API. Anything we speculate about is just that: speculation. That being said, I can see 2 ways to go about doing it: 1) pre-generate a board and save the tiles, or 2) write a single function that gets called no matter what tile you select.

For the first one, it's entirely possible, but I think it's the less efficient way to go. First, you need to generate results for 25 tiles, which means you're creating a more resource intensive function than if you did it individually. While it wouldn't necessarily be 25x more, I don't think any savings you gain from it would be worth it because, on average, half of those tiles will never be used anyway and are discarded as soon as the clear card is selected or the user changes tiers. Also, you're using slightly more disk space, as you now have to store the board array (although they must store your board now, or at least the tiles that have been selected, so maybe not much more).

To me, the second one makes more sense. Write one function that has the following passed to it: tier, clear/reset count, tiles remaining and energy count. The first thing I'd do is check if it's a clear or not. If it's not a clear, randomly pull a common/uncommon/energy (add energy only if they have less than 20). If it IS a clear card, first determine if they are due for a reset. If not, run the weighted percentages to determine tier and then randomly select a card from that tier.

I just created a quick-and-dirty script that simulates this. I was able to run 10k simulations in between 10-15ms. Yes, that's milliseconds. Now, obviously that's not a real world example, but this can be done a lot more efficiently than I anticipated.

[eVizions]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Okay, so I've been having some fun with simulations (at the expense of the actual work I'm supposed to be doing). Here are the results from a test run of 100k simulations:

Reset for star++:260
Run Time: 79ms

Weights:

• rare: 70%
• super_rare: 10%
• ultra_rare: 5%
• epic: 2%
• legendary: 0.8%
• star: 0.2%
• boost: 6%
• enhancement: 6%

Simulation Totals:

• uncommon: 53559 (53.56%)
• common: 38421 (38.42%)
• ultra_rare: 391 (0.39%)
• rare: 5608 (5.61%)
• super_rare: 764 (0.76%)
• enhancement: 488 (0.49%)
• energy: 20 (0.02%)
• epic: 155 (0.15%)
• boost: 490 (0.49%)
• legendary: 66 (0.07%)
• star: 38 (0.04%)

Picks: 100000
Clears: 8000
Average Picks/Clear: 12.5

Resets (38 total/15 early): 260, 260, 10, 260, 260, 175, 260, 260, 260, 29, 137, 133, 126, 260, 260, 125, 260, 260, 20, 260, 260, 95, 113, 260, 80, 260, 260, 239, 175, 260, 211, 260, 149, 260, 260, 260, 260, 260

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Okay, so I've been having some fun with simulations (at the expense of the actual work I'm supposed to be doing). Here are the results from a test run of 100k simulations:

Reset for star++:260
Run Time: 79ms

Weights:

• rare: 70%
• super_rare: 10%
• ultra_rare: 5%
• epic: 2%
• legendary: 0.8%
• star: 0.2%
• boost: 6%
• enhancement: 6%

Simulation Totals:

• uncommon: 53559 (53.56%)
• common: 38421 (38.42%)
• ultra_rare: 391 (0.39%)
• rare: 5608 (5.61%)
• super_rare: 764 (0.76%)
• enhancement: 488 (0.49%)
• energy: 20 (0.02%)
• epic: 155 (0.15%)
• boost: 490 (0.49%)
• legendary: 66 (0.07%)
• star: 38 (0.04%)

Picks: 100000
Clears: 8000
Average Picks/Clear: 12.5

Resets (38 total/15 early): 260, 260, 10, 260, 260, 175, 260, 260, 260, 29, 137, 133, 126, 260, 260, 125, 260, 260, 20, 260, 260, 95, 113, 260, 80, 260, 260, 239, 175, 260, 211, 260, 149, 260, 260, 260, 260, 260

Im not a computer whiz so I have a couple questions


What is the percentage of an early reset? Didn't CD say around 5%? 3 picks within top 30 and 5 within top 100 is equivalent to a %13 chance at early reset. And your 15 out of 38 is equivalent to %39.5 at early reset.
Ive noticed that the Max clears for reset is scheduled at 260. How does this effect the rest of the numbers as you have proven 260 is not a fixed number
Is the equation of 12.5picks/board clear a controlled variable? I havnt tested it yet but is it possible that the number could be higher as 25pick clears seem to happen more frequently then first pick clears.

[eVizions]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Im not a computer whiz so I have a couple questions


What is the percentage of an early reset? Didn't CD say around 5%? 3 picks within top 30 and 5 within top 100 is equivalent to a %13 chance at early reset. And your 15 out of 38 is equivalent to %39.5 at early reset.
Ive noticed that the Max clears for reset is scheduled at 260. How does this effect the rest of the numbers as you have proven 260 is not a fixed number
Is the equation of 12.5picks/board clear a controlled variable? I havnt tested it yet but is it possible that the number could be higher as 25pick clears seem to happen more frequently then first pick clears.

I should clarify that the weights were assigned by me. I tweaked them a little bit to be reasonable, but I haven't seen enough data to try to estimate anything close to exact. So if the early reset percentage is high, that would be why.

What I was trying to accomplish here was just to write something up that would take into account all of the factors that I could think of to try to simulate their process. I actually wanted to see how resource intensive it would be and I found that it's actually insanely lightweight and efficient.

[arrowspg5]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Does anyone know the estimate reset for star tier?

[eVizions]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Does anyone know the estimate reset for star tier?

300 Star
280 Star+
260 Star++

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

I should clarify that the weights were assigned by me. I tweaked them a little bit to be reasonable, but I haven't seen enough data to try to estimate anything close to exact. So if the early reset percentage is high, that would be why.

What I was trying to accomplish here was just to write something up that would take into account all of the factors that I could think of to try to simulate their process. I actually wanted to see how resource intensive it would be and I found that it's actually insanely lightweight and efficient.

Thought so. What changes are you planning to make?

[eVizions]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Thought so. What changes are you planning to make?

I'm open to suggestions

[Tortenheber]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Got some resets to add:

got Mitch Richmond when moving up to star,
after 267 boards drafted Jerry Lucas,
only 12 boards Alonzo Mourning and
99 boards later Paul Pressey.

Some more to add:

99 boards: Jerry West,
311 boards: Eddie Jones and
112 boards: John Williams

seems like im getting all the "old guys........"

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

I'm open to suggestions

Im not in the star tier yet so I cannot offer suggestions that would follow the same circumstances. Two small observations though are: Special drops like season boost drop more frequent then noted. Another one is about energy cards. I see out of 100k pick you still limited it to 20(the limit allowed for unused energy). Though they don't reset the board, they would still have to be accounted for if the board did run on a prescripted board like you suggested it might.

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Some more to add:

99 boards: Jerry West,
311 boards: Eddie Jones and
112 boards: John Williams

seems like im getting all the "old guys........"

Not exactly a bad thing

[eVizions]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Im not in the star tier yet so I cannot offer suggestions that would follow the same circumstances. Two small observations though are: Special drops like season boost drop more frequent then noted. Another one is about energy cards. I see out of 100k pick you still limited it to 20(the limit allowed for unused energy). Though they don't reset the board, they would still have to be accounted for if the board did run on a prescripted board like you suggested it might.

Yeah, originally I was running simulations in smaller segments, so I started with 0 energies and then carried them over, so once the count reached 20, it stopped giving them (which is why there are only 20). This wouldn't take into account the user actually using them, but I wanted to show that energies a) wouldn't drop once you maxed them, and b) weren't clear cards. Boosts, on the other hand, kept dropping no matter what and were clear cards. The goal here wasn't necessarily statistical accuracy, but rather procedural.

One of the interesting questions that was raised was the weighting of common, uncommon and energy. I don't know if these are actually weighted like clear cards, so I went another direction. What I did was simply combine the list of common and uncommon cards, then added an energy if the user wasn't maxed (energy count was one of the parameters that needed to be passed). What this means is that non-clear cards aren't actually weighted, but rather lumped together, where they simply have the odds of 1/n, with "n" being the total count of non-clear cards. So it might make more sense to look at common/uncommon/energy percentages on their own instead of within the context of everything. Without being weighted, they seem to actually distribute along the lines of what we'd actually find. Again, I'm not saying that's how they do it, that's just my guess and the numbers seem to work nicely.

As for clear cards, those are entirely dependent on the weighted percentages we give them. If they're off, it's because I was just guessing. If you want, try coming up with your own weights and I'll plug them in and run the simulation.

[Sir Master Tim]

Re: Tracking your Counter Resets

Yeah, originally I was running simulations in smaller segments, so I started with 0 energies and then carried them over, so once the count reached 20, it stopped giving them (which is why there are only 20). This wouldn't take into account the user actually using them, but I wanted to show that energies a) wouldn't drop once you maxed them, and b) weren't clear cards. Boosts, on the other hand, kept dropping no matter what and were clear cards. The goal here wasn't necessarily statistical accuracy, but rather procedural.

One of the interesting questions that was raised was the weighting of common, uncommon and energy. I don't know if these are actually weighted like clear cards, so I went another direction. What I did was simply combine the list of common and uncommon cards, then added an energy if the user wasn't maxed (energy count was one of the parameters that needed to be passed). What this means is that non-clear cards aren't actually weighted, but rather lumped together, where they simply have the odds of 1/n, with "n" being the total count of non-clear cards. So it might make more sense to look at common/uncommon/energy percentages on their own instead of within the context of everything. Without being weighted, they seem to actually distribute along the lines of what we'd actually find. Again, I'm not saying that's how they do it, that's just my guess and the numbers seem to work nicely.

As for clear cards, those are entirely dependent on the weighted percentages we give them. If they're off, it's because I was just guessing. If you want, try coming up with your own weights and I'll plug them in and run the simulation.

I find my self questioning what we are trying to solve. Are we trying to solve if they are prescripted functions that cater to certain circumstances or the overall random charichteristics?