Isn't this just the same misunderstanding people ALWAYS have when it comes to this game? It's 50% on EACH one turned in, not 50% OVERALL. This means you could roll that 50% that you'll get a colored on way less than 50% of what you turn in. It's all a matter of luck, and you people are just darn unlucky. :\
You're talking to a math teaching major here, and it's apparent you're the one that doesn't understand the math.
50% EACH ONE should AVERAGE OUT to 50% OVERALL, over time.
IF one gets 100 BODs, at 50% chance each, one should have somewhere between 40 & 60 Exceptional BODs, most of the time.
If one is consistantly getting 30% or less exceptionals, especially over large sampling amounts, there is something wrong with the "fairness" of the randomization process.
Note: a 30% Exceptional rate, over a 100-pull example that is supposed to be 50/50, has a z score of 3.9 standard deviations. that SHOULD be an outlier, not the norm. it should occur about 0.002% of the time - yet for me, it's about 95% of the time.
***
For example, since the
Smith BOD changes, I kept a tally for the BODs I got with my 120 smith, to see if the fixes concerning the misplaced ")" actually fixed the issues we had before.
Over time and
Smith BOD requests (now have about 2200 tallied), the numbers have gotten closer and closer to the expected numbers, based on the chance for each type.
While any given trip for multiple (20-100) new
Smith BODs might be high or low for certain types, once you add them all together over the length of my sampling, the numbers come out to within 0.5% of the expected return after 2000+ samples.
***
Going through a sample size of 250 tailor BODs I have on hand (without sorting) from 5 runners over several weeks, it's quite obvious there is a disparity somewhere, and the "dice" are not "fair" in the Probablilty meanings of the words.
Either there is some issue in the RNG, the numbers for the calculation, or both.
