Again, given that Paizo has requested/required of WizKids that these cases be packed so as to achieve as close to 100% set completion as possible, doesn't that throw the whole "random" bit out the window?
There's an actual human somewhere, putting specific minis into packages based on that request/requirement, and in order to achieve that, there has to be at least SOME non-random element going on here.
Also, as far as the "random" calculation goes, why is it 44*43*42 instead of 44*44*44? There's 44 commons, right? So it seems there's 85184 possible combinations of minis, including 3 of the same.
Chief Technical Officer
|
There's an actual human somewhere, putting specific minis into packages based on that request/requirement...
Yes, and that's actually another one of the limiting requirements I talked about a couple days ago: the distribution system needs to be understood by the factory workers who implement it. If it's too complex, more human error will result, diminishing the ability for the system to achieve the other goals.
Yes and loading that into boxes is a restriction if they were completely indpendent then the minis would cost a lot more because they would take almost forever to box since you have to pay the people boxing them.
Huh? They're paying people to box them right now.
I know they would have to pay them more to make it more random.
I know they would have to pay them more to make it more random.
How do you figure? If anything, it costs more to pack them in a way that ensures as close to 100% set completion as possible.
I know they would have to pay them more to make it more random.How do you figure? If anything, it costs more to pack them in a way that ensures as close to 100% set completion as possible.
Presumably he means that following an algorithm is quicker (and therefore cheaper) than trying to generate a truly random assortment. The problem of creating actual randomness is notoriously difficult.
Also, as far as the "random" calculation goes, why is it 44*43*42 instead of 44*44*44? There's 44 commons, right? So it seems there's 85184 possible combinations of minis, including 3 of the same.
This is very pertinent, I think. The calculation is assuming some restrictions on the allocation (i think everyone agrees that wizkids should ensure no booster has three identical medium figures). This highlights that we're merely debating degrees of randomness. Those willing to accept even this minor restriction are being inconsistent if they consider this random but not the method wizkids are actually using.
Ultimately, some people misunderstood the degree of randomisation involved (or perhaps the "level of randomisation" is a better term) and were unlucky enough to receive an allocation such that they noticed. The chance of that happening is pretty small so hopefully it didn't happen to many.
I don't think that's the purchasers' fault but I don't think the producer is under any obligation to change the well established practise of labelling sets like this "random". Unfortunately, life doesn't always turn out so that everyone is happy. That doesn't imply someone is to blame.
I'm buying the minis by the case, and I'm a forum member, so I'm versed on how these are being packed and sold, so I do want to stress that I obviously don't have so much of an issue such that I'm not buying these minis, but, I completely understand why people have an issue with the labeling of these as "random".
If a person is specifically picking and packing these boxes so that they can get as many cases as close to a "complete set" status as possible, that's NOT a random distribution. That's more a "after we get all 60 different minis in this pile, throw in another 60 at 'random' to fill out the total" distribution.
Additionally, as described here (and this isn't the first I've heard of it - folks from my local shop have commented on the same thing), when you get two bricks with an identical distribution, it's most assuredly not random.
"Semi-Random Assortment" would be much more accurate descriptor.
I couldn't tell you how the randomization or sorting of minis happened with D&D miniatures, but I own thousands of the things, and never once experienced such an issue with them. It's entirely possible that this same issue occurred with that product, but I never saw reports of it on any of the forums dedicated to it.
Not that I'm expecting a change on the Pathfinder Battles line, or necessarily advocating a change, just my thoughts on the matter.
I will say, tongue-in-cheek, that I take umbrage with the name "Pathfinder Battles" as it is a name far more suited to a minis line with a skirmish game than just minis themselves. What battles? There are no battles happening here! :)
I really don't think you guys are understanding what has been said... And it seems like you are twisting and drawing the conversation places it doesn't need to go...
Anyways, I've decided this intro to Paizo/Pathfinder and it's community has been a little to sour for my tastes. I was able to return the books today, and tomorrow I'll try Half-Price Books to see how much I can get for the beginner box.
Goodbye, and enjoy your gaming :)
What a shame. To allow a single thread in a forum to dictate what you can and can't enjoy in life. There are lots of people I have met in many forums and I rejoice I didn't let one of them chase me away from playing the games I love.
I would simply like to chime in and say I support Paizo and Wizkids on the distributin model.
Yes, I have purchased several boosters from RotRL that were identical. I have also had the same experience with the DDM line as well.
To me, the current method is far superior for many reasons, including the overall spread of single use figures vs army builders.
I for one, hope the current version of distribution model continues throughout the life of product line.
+1