Anslem, Accuracy, and RNG bug.

[BlackEyedBee]

Instead of debating probability, theory and practice, let's focus on facts, shall we?
1. I have clearly described the suspected bug, its symptom, and a method to reliably reproduce it.
2. I have run 20 tests, resulting in all 20 occurrences of "1000 dmg". I have provided evidence for at least one of those occurrences.
3. Any single EVIDENCE to the contrary NEGATES my claim completely, it's really that easy.

From my own experience, this format of bug reporting is ideal.
On the other hand, more attempts at explaining probability - or one's interpretation of it - are not actually getting us anywhere.
And I don't really need the lecture myself, I already have the diplomas to prove it, thank you...

Edit: A note regarding expected result:
My "hidden assumption" which might need clarifying is:
I expect the (P)RNG result to NOT be 100% correlated with
(i) Using Anslem specifically,
(ii) Using exactly one Elite unit,
(iii) Attacking a specific camp.

ONLY if these 3 conditions are the sole inputs to the PRNG, then the observed results match the expected results.
However, I would expect this to be considered a bad implementation of the PRNG, because it is wide open for exploitation (e.g. find which attacks with which general produce consistent lower-than-expected losses, and keep using only those).

[SmurfAsH]

Same bug as it is with getting Manuscript recipe. They should investigate and fix this.

I'm pretty sure they are aware of this issue and won't really fix it, as they have been working on a Guaranteed loot mechanism.

Spoiler

tsotesting.com - Changelog 27/04/2017

Guaranteed loot: This mechanism will guarantee a drop of a rare item reward, if the item did not drop after a specific amount of rolls on the loot table. This mechanism will reduce the frustration among the community for being dependant on "luck". More info on affected game elements to follow.

Instead of debating probability, theory and practice, let's focus on facts, shall we?
1. I have clearly described the suspected bug, its symptom, and a method to reliably reproduce it.
2. I have run 20 tests, resulting in all 20 occurrences of "1000 dmg". I have provided evidence for at least one of those occurrences.
3. Any single EVIDENCE to the contrary NEGATES my claim completely, it's really that easy.

From my own experience, this format of bug reporting is ideal.
On the other hand, more attempts at explaining probability - or one's interpretation of it - are not actually getting us anywhere.
And I don't really need the lecture myself, I already have the diplomas to prove it, thank you...

Edit: A note regarding expected result:
My "hidden assumption" which might need clarifying is:
I expect the (P)RNG result to NOT be 100% correlated with
(i) Using Anslem specifically,
(ii) Using exactly one Elite unit,
(iii) Attacking a specific camp.

ONLY if these 3 conditions are the sole inputs to the PRNG, then the observed results match the expected results.
However, I would expect this to be considered a bad implementation of the PRNG, because it is wide open for exploitation (e.g. find which attacks with which general produce consistent lower-than-expected losses, and keep using only those).

Yes, my own experience and conclusion are quite similar; though I do agree it could be exploited this way, I don't think it's possible to "setup a(n enough) reliable system". The gain are not that great anyhow.