Exactly everyone can choose freely how they behave without conflicting with RL morals as it is a fictional setting with role play allowed.
3 Likes
Perhaps this time. She is relentless usually.
1 Like
You have all of the information required to make an informed choice. Itâs not CCPâs fault youâre bad at math and came to the forum to whine about how 1+1=3.
1 Like
Maybe they should have spend more ISK on buying more tickets?
Yeah people put a titan up for 75B then buy 25B of the tickets themselves.
If other people buy the rest they make back a fair price for the titan and then have 1/3rd chance of also winning the item back.
Hypernet is hyperdumb.
That being said I was very lucky and won two titans for not much nodes from these scammers and have made a nice profit selling them. I wonât waste another isk on hyperdeadnet after this and be happy with the quick isk I made.
So are most people using it. Except for those who make money, of course. The sole point is not to attract intellectuals. Smart people arenât required to make money. In fact, smart people usually care about their money. They think twice before spending it. Dumb people donât do that. Thatâs why the smart people are the ones who make money and the dumb people are the ones who spend it.
Protecting dumb people from doing dumb things is equally dumb. Educating them should be the goal, not restricting and changing mechanics for everyone just because dumb people do what dumb people do. Those will always exist, until they learn how not to be dumb anymore. Preventing them from doing dumb things is not going to change that at all. It will just keep them dumb, with everyone else paying for it.
2 Likes
I dont think people are dumb, only make dumb decisions sometimes, or often. ANd even educated people make bad decisions because intelligence and knowledge is not everything. Sometimes you dont know what you would like to know and even do not seek the knowledge in that field.
1 Like
not really. In a game of chance, being a winner or a loser does not say anything about the player.
Only smart poor people do that. Smart rich people think only once and a half.
(yeah you can be smart and poor - not related)
What if I make money and enjoy spending it in a video game ?
Assuming that there is a ladder of people worth, based on how smart you think they are, is a proof that you are a smart-ass - someone who is in deep need of recognition and for that needs to create a ladder in which he is at the top. You are equally as stupid as solretardproject, or DMC, when they project their own values on other people âminers are the cancer of eveâ or âgankers are the cancer of eveâ.
Avocading ( 
) a system that considers the weakness of people with the sole goal of abusing it, is a proof of you being completely dumb. Games donât grow because they are harsh. This game grew because it let people have a progression in a harsh world, where they need to learn, to adapt. A game that wants to screw people for the sole sake of screwing them is a stupid design ; and thatâs how the hypernet was designed.
When a system is designed to MAKE people do dumb things, then the system is flawed. You call them dumb because you learnt to live with the inherent stupidity of the system, but in reality you are the one who became dumb, by accepting to do with stupid mechanisms.
Well, thank you for demonstrating my point about people who donât understand math. This is NOT a scam. It doesnât change the odds of your ticket winning the titan, and it results in the seller making less money than if theyâd just run a normal âhonestâ lottery. Instead of whining about the âscamâ you should be laughing at the idiots who are clueless enough to do it.
1 Like
Youâre not wrong, of course. 
1 Like
I think thatâs the crux, as some people ran examples and believe (maybe with valid experiments) the system is biased towards people who have more tickets.
1 Like
I would be interested to see an experiment with a sufficiently large sample size to be valid, if the RNG in the lottery is not actually random then thatâs a major problem. And itâs a major problem for CCP to be lying about it.
Of course from the point of the âscammerâ itâs probably still a bad idea. I canât imagine the bias is strong enough to make the tickets have a positive expected value, so every ticket bought by the seller instead of the victims makes the lottery less profitable than just selling all of the tickets legitimately.
1 Like
Without a correct evaluation of it we canât say. Itâs totally possible people made too little experiment and have no idea how to calculate the error, so are drawing wrong conclusions about things (the same exact way idiots are claiming âCCP proved that killing people increases retentionâ while CCP claimed the opposite). However if such a bias is proven correct, then itâs possible that the gain of buying back several tickets is superior to the gain of buying back no ticket and letting the offer be complete by other players only.
as I wrote
if p (the chance to win the auction) is not equal to n/m (number of tickets you buy, divided by total number of tickets), then you have a different equation.
Whatâs more probable is, that CCP coded their CCP_rand poorly, typically a wrong pseudo random function that does not use entropy correctly, and as such the first tickets are a bit more likely to be winning.
My math skills are legendary! I came here to inform othersâŠnot myself dear. 
You came here to inform others of utter nonsense because you suck at understanding math. Now please go away, the adults are trying to have a productive discussion about potential flaws in the RNG.
Iâm not really sure where youâre going with this, and you seem to be overcomplicating things. The simple explanation is that every lottery ticket has a negative expected value, assuming two things are true:
- The total cost of all tickets is greater than the value of the item (if it isnât then the person running the lottery is an idiot and should just sell their item on the market and get more ISK).
and
- The RNG is a (mathematically) fair RNG, or a close enough pseudorandom function that any deviation from true randomness is of purely academic interest.
Given these two assumptions buying ANY lottery ticket is a poor decision and you should never do it, you will always lose money if you play sufficiently many times for your luck to average out. Buying your own lottery tickets is just a subset of the general principle of ânever buy lottery ticketsâ, other than the case where you need to buy the last tickets to avoid losing your F2P cash shop item for nothing.
As for trying to understand the broken RNG case I donât think thereâs any way to quantify it in equation form. The odds could be completely unknown, or even not function according to a RNG lottery draw at all. But I will say that, because of how inherently unfavorable buying a lottery ticket is to start with, the RNG deviation would have to be massive for it to justify buying your own tickets. And I mean something in the range of âif you buy 25% of the tickets you have a 50% chance to winâ still probably wouldnât be sufficient.
Just what I tried to explain whole time.
Overpriced goods that people try to sell (going with CCP dev blog vocabulary) piece by piece, at the same time not giving out any goods to anyone beside one person that may be even the one that put it there in the first place. 
Its such a bad deal for majority, I am surprised so many have fallen for it.
Itâs in the case of the seller who has already paid for setting up the offer.
Yes, thatâs what I wrote : S >0 (the scam value >0) means that E > V ( the effective cost of the item, ie number of tickets time ticket price, is higher than the market value of the item). S accounts for both CCP tax and the seller margin.
In that case, for the seller, the expected value of buying 25% of his own tickets is (1-0.25+0.5)ĂV + (1-0.25)ĂS = 1.25ĂV +0.75ĂS = E+0.25ĂV -0.25ĂS; while the expected value of NOT buying oneâs own tickets is E (the value other players bought his tickets for), so as long as the scam value S is lower than the market value V (that is, the effective value is lower than double the market value) itâs worth it for the seller to buy his own tickets.
The formula of gain for the seller POST TAX is G = (1-n/m+p)ĂV + (1-n/m)ĂS , with n the number of tickets he bought, m the total amount of tickets, p the probability to win the lottery with those n tickets out of the m, V the market value of the item, and S the scam value of the offer, that is the effective value minus market value.
If the lottery is not rigged, p should be equal to n/m .
There are however a lot of ways CCP could have screwed this (just look at the shitty scam UI) and so itâs possible itâs not done with all the seriousness we would expect from a gambling industry.
I think people may buy their own tickets to try and complete the put up Hypernet Offers. Because it will also give them chance to get the item back, alongside the money from sold tickets. And they not lose the put up costs.
Thatâs because you assume there is only the isk part in gambling. Some people like to drink a beer, some people like to go in a bar and meet people, some people like to go watch a bad movie for 10$, some people like to buy a 50th pair of shoes they wonât ever use ; and some people like to spend their money on gambling.
I agree that the naming of âfree tradeâ is a completely stupid move from CCP. They should have called it âgamblingâ.
However itâs important to note that people WILL want to gamble in the game, and that by not proposing a dedicated infrastructure CCP is not only encouraging 3rd party to do so, but also not taking its responsibility as to prevent RMT with this activities (since itâs not recognized). Therefore setting up a gambling system, for which they can control and monitor, was actually a very good move. Just they did it with so much hypocrisy, so much communication bullshite, and itâs implemented with such flaws that it actually became a scam in itself.
1 Like