Board Thread:The Last Sovereign Discussion/@comment-27713488-20180114010136/@comment-31763506-20180312025259

The Fulminato wrote: DukeLeto7 wrote:<And the "every section of the game had always and only two swords" rule has few enough deviations to call it a clear pattern?

"not a random chance" isn't the same. can be a real pattern, or perhaps can be more like "two element tied to another (unknown) third making an impression of the first two related". the shining swords aren't place randomly in the game, and the pacing of collecting them is clear punctuated through the game.

Oh trust me, I understand the concept of statistical correlation. (I wish I didn't.)

Just in case I wasn't being clear, what I was in fact saying is that there seem to be just as many data points that are exceptions to your rule of "every section of the game has two shining swords" as there are to my rule of "one per update". Possibly more because you have not defined what a "section of the game" is in any detail, whereas the update list is at least clearly defined.

Given two hypotheses that fit the facts equally well (or badly, as is the case here), we should prefer the simpler explanation. That explanation would be that SL hasn't got a grand geometric plan for the distribution of Shining Swords and is just tossing them in on a whim at a rate of about two every three updates. (2/3 is close enough to 1 for physicists.)

But prove me wrong, make a list of all the shining swords and what update they appeared in vs. what "game section" they appear in and show the "game section" model fits better. And have a damn convincing explanation why your list of "game sections" isn't just drawing lines around sets of two shining swords after the fact, a la the famous "Texas sharpshooter".