I take issue with randomness of pulls, please prove me wrong

simonsez

mohio wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to say pulls aren't random, but there's been a lot of clumping from everyone i've talked to or heard from

That's the thing... excessive clumping means it's not random. And to the "people don't understand what random is supposed to look like" crowd, please note and understand the word "excessive".

mohio wrote:

I tracked my first 24 pulls since those are the ones I hoarded, and I remember quite a few of the ones since then, although I can't recall exactly how many more there were. From my first 24 pulls I had 5 4hor, 3 JG, 3 Mr F, 3 Ant-man

Your chances of getting 4 or more sets of 3+ characters in 24 pulls is 7.7%.

mohio wrote:

But overall, 8 4hor, 6 JG, 5 Elektra over about 40 tokens (and still just the 2 5*) is pretty absurd to me.

And your chances of getting three or more sets of 5+ in 40 pulls is less than 2%.

mohio wrote:

So - even if we accept that all of the token pulls are random (and I think they likely are, we just can't tell over 40-50 pulls)

2% is 2%, whether it was 40 pulls or 400. You can choose to believe that you were just unlucky, and maybe you were. But I feel like every day I'm posting messages like this, telling people that the probability of the token pull clumping they're seeing is less than 10%. Sure, maybe they're all unlucky, and maybe for every person who posts their token pulls, there are 150 other people who have pulled 40 tokens that show no odd clumping at all. But I'd prefer to believe what I'm seeing, rather than make assumptions about what I'm not seeing.

Berserk_Al

I may have opened too few to help find patterns, but I noticed something. Of the four legendaries that I opened, three of the pulls were of characters I already have in my roster.
Yellow, already had one purple cover.
Black. already had one black cover.
Yellow, already had one blue cover.
Red, had no X-Force Deadpool before this.
Hope this helps if someone is making a spreadsheet or something.

Eichen

I think they are random but not totally random, here is why.

Remember months ago when there was a problem with people that were using multiple devices. I was one of those guys. It basically only "memorized" the things that happened off one of my devices and whatever happened on my other device didn't exist for lack of a better description. At the time I had 11 unopened tokens (1 Real Steel Event token, 4 tacos, and 2 heroics, 4 Standard). It let me open all 11 on each device. My results were:

Device #1

Real Steel = 3* cover
Taco = 2*
Taco = 2*
Taco = 250 coins
Taco = 3*
Heroic = 2*
Heroic = 3*
Standard = 1*
Standard = 1*
Standard = 2*
Standard = 25 coins

I thought the rng gods were in my favor with three 3* covers and a bunch of coins until I opened the same tokens on my other device. Then I started to doubt the rhg gods.

Device #2

Real Steel = 3* cover (but different than the other device)
Taco = 2*
Taco = 2*
Taco = 250 coins
Taco = 3* (different cover than the other device)
Heroic = 2*
Heroic = 3* (again a different 3* than on the other device)
Standard = 1*
Standard = 1*
Standard = 2*
Standard = 50 coins (coins again but a different amount)

So with those results were the rng gods in my favor that day or is the random not so random after all? With every token I opened I got the same type off each device (1*, 2*, 3*, hp, etc). Since than I have been of the opinion that each token you receive is either coded as a certain type when you receive it or there is a set pattern to the type of token you receive.

simonsez

Eichen wrote:

I think they are random but not totally random

... and I think my girlfriend is pregnant, but not totally pregnant...

Pylgrim

mohio wrote:

Just one last thing before I go - in regards to the progression issue argued over by scottee and pylgrim. *Maybe* Pylgrim could have done a little more to progress better. Asked for help getting to 1300, found some BC that would help weaker rosters get to 1300 with fewer shields, etc. But that still just means he's getting more LTs and relying yet again on luck for his progression. Certainly with more pulls we all would expect his luck to even out a little bit, but the whole point is that it shouldn't come down to so much luck in the first place. Also, the fact that it's all tied to luck/RNG token pulls, puts off people like Pylgrim, who might be able to hit 1300 every time, or on occasion, from even bothering to try, cause they've already gotten that gut-punch enough times, they don't want to have it happen even more. As a personal anecdote, I've been really wanting to build Iceman. I saved all my tokens until he was added, so every one of my 40-ish pulls have had him in there. I have pulled 0. He has been offered as rewards exactly twice. I'm not really one to get first in PvP, so I got my one cover during his release PvP and that's the single cover I've been sitting on ever since. So...progression on that front is completely non-existent. It's frustrating to say the least.

Definitely. I have said from the beginning that 1.3k should be possible. I'm just extremely wary of spending HP (and time and effort) in what could very well be another 1000 Iso. Sure, if I aimed for 1.3k every time, even if my awful luck had prevailed, by now I'd have at least a couple more 4*s than I have now. The question is, would that be worth it? What scottee doesn't seem to understand is that 20 Legendary Tokens have advanced my roster by 4 4*s instead of the expected 16. I literally worked 4 times as much for each notch of progression on my belt than anyone in a position similar to mine but with average luck, let's not mention those with good luck. It is a source of bafflement to me that he refuses to acknowledge that that is terribly unfair and keeps telling me that the solution is to work even harder... but is it really? The huge impact of luck in these pulls means that effort =/= reward. There's simply no guarantee other than the theoretical expectation of statistic self-correction, which is really, no guarantee at all.

I too, have 1 Iceman. Haven't opened a single one. Anyone who opened ONE token that contained Iceman (or really, of any other of my many 4*s that are sorely missing covers) while I was opening 16 tokens worth of chaff in almost a row, got a leg up on me by a fraction of the effort. Again, not fair under any light and no amount of additional effort is going to correct it in the long run. In fact, it could be said that all that previous effort was wasted and empirical evidence suggests that application of further effort is pointless. I /know/ that it is not true, but my point is, and always has been, that that defeating, dejected feeling is one that you don't want your players to experience, especially for arbitrary reasons.

scottee

Pylgrim wrote:

As I've said before quite a bit of times, I understand the role of chance in games. I seriously do. In your examples, it gives a casual player the chance to steal victories that he wouldn't be able to, from time to time, while rightfully, getting bashed most of the times by more hardcore players. A big difference between your example and MPQ is that those are individual matches in where victory itself is the whole goal. MPQ is a never ending progression and bad luck can severely impede it as I outlined in my previous post. Bad luck is not simply taking one victory from me, it is setting me back irremediably. I'll still eventually get somewhere, but I'll get there much, much later than people with good or even just normal luck.

Also I want to note that I may be a bit more "casual" than you, in the sense that I don't go for the 1.3k progression (more out of pure despair at the idea of spending HP into getting a LT and opening another IW, than lack of capability), but I'm not a casual player. I play a lot and I've been playing for two years.

So my claim has basically two parts to it:

-Diminish or change luck impact in ways that do not impede progression or unfairly allow extreme disparity of progression speeds between players with different luck (as explained in my previous post).

-Make it so luck doesn't have the power of screwing a loyal player over and over at the highest reward point in the game. No player in my position should feel like I do right now. It's like winning the World Cup and instead of earning a trophy, you are given a bunch of boxes that potentially contain a trophy but turn out to mostly contain a manure pie on a coiled spring that splats on your face when you open the box. You have already worked way too hard for your prize to have to eat... manure in its stead.

If you go back to my first posts on the topic, the suggestion I provide of a small, quickly rotating vault addresses both of my concerns without completely eliminating the luck factor. It merely gives the player an element of control. So if I see that my vault of 10 items has 5 IWs and 4 XFs, I'll just wait until a new vault rotates in. New vault has three HBs and three IWs? You can bet I'll be opening tokens from it and if I open IWs, I'd take it soberly as a calculated risk.

I saw your ideas, and I saw your proposals. I'm proposing that the devs most likely aren't going to implement any forum suggestions (based on past history) so that the most reasonable path I see forward is to accept the current amount of luck and strategize taking it into account.

On a side note...

I also disagree that a bad run of luck sets someone's progress irreparably behind. In a given four week period, a player starting the 4* transition can readily acquire:
-12 set 4* covers (the 1000 progression, 3 PVP's per week)
-6 Legendary Tokens (from PVE, assuming 3/4 day and 7 day alterations)
-about 1 Legendary Token from random Command Points

Let's assume out of the 20 available 4*s, 5 are useless (IW, Elektra, Starlord, Mr F, Ant-Man), then in one month a player with...

...the worst luck in the world:
12 x .75 = 8
7 x 0 = 0
= total of 8 useful 4* covers

...average luck:
12 x .75 = 8
7 x .75 = 5.25
= total of 13.25 useful 4* covers

...the best luck in the world:
12 x .75 = 8
7 x 1.00 = 7
= total of 15 useful 4* covers

So in a given four-week period, the average person should expect 13.25 useful 4* covers from just the 1000 progression and the PVE Legendaries. A person with the worst luck ever will still be getting 8 useful 4*s. That's not impossibly behind. And the best luck ever only gets 1.75 more 4*s. (Actually, the luckiest would probably get all 5* covers, but the 5* transition is another story because it's based on 100% luck.

If you have the worst run of luck ever in a month and get zero useful 4* covers from LTs, you're still progressing at 8 covers a month, which is still more than half of the progress the luckiest person every would be getting.

Let's the unluckiest player ever has that horrible run over 3 months. You opened 21 tokens and every single one was from the useless 5 heros. That's first of all odds in the trillions, so I really feel for you. But you'd still have gained 24 useful 4* covers, and only be 16 covers being from the average expected value. Averaged out over the remaining useful heroes, you're only behind about 1 cover per hero, while gaining 1.6 covers per hero over that same period. And that's only for one out of over a trillion players.

People are worried about horrible luck devastating their expected value. In reality, winning one or two more Legendaries a month affects your expected number of useful covers more than MPQ completely changing the token system to normalize the bad luck runs.

scottee

Pylgrim wrote:

Definitely. I have said from the beginning that 1.3k should be possible. I'm just extremely wary of spending HP (and time and effort) in what could very well be another 1000 Iso. Sure, if I aimed for 1.3k every time, even if my awful luck had prevailed, by now I'd have at least a couple more 4*s than I have now. The question is, would that be worth it? What scottee doesn't seem to understand is that 20 Legendary Tokens have advanced my roster by 4 4*s instead of the expected 16. I literally worked 4 times as much for each notch of progression on my belt than anyone in a position similar to mine but with average luck, let's not mention those with good luck. It is a source of bafflement to me that he refuses to acknowledge that that is terribly unfair and keeps telling me that the solution is to work even harder... but is it really? The huge impact of luck in these pulls means that effort =/= reward. There's simply no guarantee other than the theoretical expectation of statistic self-correction, which is really, no guarantee at all.

I too, have 1 Iceman. Haven't opened a single one. Anyone who opened ONE token that contained Iceman (or really, of any other of my many 4*s that are sorely missing covers) while I was opening 16 tokens worth of chaff in almost a row, got a leg up on me by a fraction of the effort. Again, not fair under any light and no amount of additional effort is going to correct it in the long run. In fact, it could be said that all that previous effort was wasted and empirical evidence suggests that application of further effort is pointless. I /know/ that it is not true, but my point is, and always has been, that that defeating, dejected feeling is one that you don't want your players to experience, especially for arbitrary reasons.

You're right effort does not directly equal reward with tokens. Effort only equals better chance at reward.

The only way to not make it "terribly unfair" that someone can have bad luck and do worse than someone who barely worked is to eliminate luck altogether. That would make it fair under a meritocracy system, where effort 100% equals reward. In a luck based system, which the devs have permanently put into place, it'll be impossible to have results that every thinks is fair.

The biggest poker pot I ever lost, I had the better hand and an 80% chance to win with only one card left to come out. The lady hits her flush and I lose the most money I've ever lost in a single hand. Some poker players in the same situation complain that it's unfair and curse everyone around them all the way home. Some poker players say, "That's poker," and move on to the next hand.

You keep saying the current system is unfair for some and that the devs should change it. That's you're prerogative. History shows it's not likely they'll change it. They usually only add new features, which are are soon, so maybe that will make progress seem more fair to you.

XandorXerxes

scottee wrote:

You're right effort does not directly equal reward with tokens. Effort only equals better chance at reward.

The only way to not make it "terribly unfair" that someone can have bad luck and do worse than someone who barely worked is to eliminate luck altogether. That would make it fair under a meritocracy system, where effort 100% equals reward. In a luck based system, which the devs have permanently put into place, it'll be impossible to have results that every thinks is fair.

The biggest poker pot I ever lost, I had the better hand and an 80% chance to win with only one card left to come out. The lady hits her flush and I lose the most money I've ever lost in a single hand. Some poker players in the same situation complain that it's unfair and curse everyone around them all the way home. Some poker players say, "That's poker," and move on to the next hand.

You keep saying the current system is unfair for some and that the devs should change it. That's you're prerogative. History shows it's not likely they'll change it. They usually only add new features, which are are soon, so maybe that will make progress seem more fair to you.

Your last paragraph makes me think you're not missing Pylgrim's point - that luck has too much influence over the 4*/5* progression - but I feel like you're saying we shouldn't even speak up at all, because nothing will change.

You also say that a 4* transitioner can get every 1K PvP and every legendary token in PvE over the course of 4 weeks. That may be true for the hardcore players, but not all of us spend that much time in the game (either out of a lack of wanting to or a lack of availability) - especially the Steam players. Let's suppose average luck over the long-run though, so you get 13 4*s a month. Not taking into account how your chance of getting the covers you need drops significantly as time progresses, a player who wants to start getting 4*s can get 1 character covered per month. With over 20 4*s out now, you're talking a progression time of over a year and a half assuming 75% of all legendary tokens are useful to you. Why is that acceptable?

Let's look at the 5* transitioner - let's say (s)he earns 12 tokens per month from PvP (season + 2 off seasons), 6 tokens per month from PvE, every single DDQ token (another 6), and we'll give him or her 2 from command points. 26 tokens a month. With average 5* pulls and perfect cover luck, that's 5 months to cover a single 5*. 1.25 years to get the 3 characters currently released. Assuming no more 4 or 5 stars, it would take a 3* player playing perfectly (every PvP, PvE) 3 years to go from a 1000-pvp-hitting 3* to a 5* player. That's nuts.

Bishop

I know **** is in the title but **** needs to stay thier.
I have all these colors already and this isn't the first time this has happened. Could use IW green or blue,haven't seen them. Could use PX purple haven't seen it,could use many more but I'm confidant I'll get these. I think there's better odds in Vegas. My last pulls..only the 5* was useful.

simonsez

Bishop wrote:

I know **** is in the title but **** needs to stay thier.
I have all these colors already and this isn't the first time this has happened. Could use IW green or blue,haven't seen them. Could use PX purple haven't seen it,could use many more but I'm confidant I'll get these. I think there's better odds in Vegas. My last pulls..only the 5* was useful.

I could point out that there's less than an 8% chance of getting 2 or more pairs out of 6 pulls, but this is getting repetitive, and I'm getting the feeling that no one who doesn't want to be convinced that pulls are clumped instead of random, is going to be convinced, no matter how many of these there are.

scottee

OJSP wrote:

There's one assumption that you're making in your calculation, that is: those useful covers you mentioned from the 15 non-useless 4*s are all still needed. Some covers might be extras that the player don't need, either the 6th cover or a cover that makes the character's spec non-optimal and still needing another cover of different colour.

I would also take into account that some people who can win the 1000 points reward regularly probably would already have some decently covered 4*s.. I appreciate we could do it with just the 3*s, but I'm quite sure that by that stage, some of us would've accumulated some 4*s in various non-usable stage.

I assumed no 6th covers for the calculations because I was assuming the person is starting the 4* transition with none, which is the easiest way to do calculations.

Yes, the %s go down when you don't need a certain color anymore. This has been true of every level of progression and I don't believe can be taken into the calculations. Those far into the 3* transition learn that you can't really rely on tokens anymore for progression. The same will go for those who get decently into the 4* transition. That's the downside of progress.

scottee

XandorXerxes wrote:

Your last paragraph makes me think you're not missing Pylgrim's point - that luck has too much influence over the 4*/5* progression - but I feel like you're saying we shouldn't even speak up at all, because nothing will change.

You also say that a 4* transitioner can get every 1K PvP and every legendary token in PvE over the course of 4 weeks. That may be true for the hardcore players, but not all of us spend that much time in the game (either out of a lack of wanting to or a lack of availability) - especially the Steam players. Let's suppose average luck over the long-run though, so you get 13 4*s a month. Not taking into account how your chance of getting the covers you need drops significantly as time progresses, a player who wants to start getting 4*s can get 1 character covered per month. With over 20 4*s out now, you're talking a progression time of over a year and a half assuming 75% of all legendary tokens are useful to you. Why is that acceptable?

Let's look at the 5* transitioner - let's say (s)he earns 12 tokens per month from PvP (season + 2 off seasons), 6 tokens per month from PvE, every single DDQ token (another 6), and we'll give him or her 2 from command points. 26 tokens a month. With average 5* pulls and perfect cover luck, that's 5 months to cover a single 5*. 1.25 years to get the 3 characters currently released. Assuming no more 4 or 5 stars, it would take a 3* player playing perfectly (every PvP, PvE) 3 years to go from a 1000-pvp-hitting 3* to a 5* player. That's nuts.

Unfortunately, there's currently no way for a casual player to make the 4* transition right now. You get maybe 25 command points a month from daily supply, and 1 legendary token from taco pulls once every blue moon. The first available 4*s are the 1000 in PVP or top progression LT in PVE. At that point, I wouldn't even consider it possible at all. People got used to it when they made 3* DDQ pretty easy to be casual, but I don't think that was they're intention. They've said a couple times that DDQ was always meant to be supplemental, not the main way of progression. But lots of people found they could log in for 15 min, do DDQ, and do the entire 3* transition. That's all my brother's been doing for like a year.

I also didn't count the 5* transition because that's a tiny cluster kitty right now in terms of transition. They essentially made 5*s trophy prizes in terms of availability, but trump cards in terms of power. I think they took a chance trying something new for the end game, but did a bad job implementing it. We'll probably see the effects of that in a few more months once a few more well covered 5*s show up in PVP and ruin the meta.

franckynight

the only thing that i know is that i didnt sacrifice enough chickens to the RNG gods.. over 110 LT pulls right now and only 6 5* covers to show for it..maybe i should change my luck charm and instead get a feather in my a..

moogles85

I opened 42 LT

"Useful" Covers:
Antman (Purple)
Cyclops (Red)
Cyclops (Red)
Fanatstic (Yellow)
Fantastic (Yellow)
Flaptain (Red)
Flaptain (Yellow)
Iceman (Green)
Iceman (green)
Jean Grey (Blue)
Jean Grey (Green)
Sam Wilson (Yellow)
Silver Surfer (Black)
Silver Surfer (black)
Silver Surfer (Blue)
Silver Surfer (blue)
Thing (Red)
X-23 (Red)
X-23 (Red)
X-Deadpool (Black)
Phoenix (Purple)
Phoenix (red)

Useless Covers:
Antman (Yellow)
Carnage (Black)
Carnage (Red)
Elektra (black)
HB (blue)
HB (Red)
HB (Red)
Invisible Woman (yellow)
Jean Grey (Green)
Kingpin (purple)
Kingpin (Yellow)
Nick Fury (Yellow)
Nick Fury (yellow)
Nick Fury (Yellow)
Thor (Blue)
Thor (Yellow)
Thor (Yellow)
Thor (Yellow)
Thor (Yellow)
X-Deadpool (Black)

Pylgrim

I think that we are at least approaching the point where we'll be able to agree to disagree. A few points, though.

scottee wrote:

I also disagree that a bad run of luck sets someone's progress irreparably behind. In a given four week period, a player starting the 4* transition can readily acquire:
-12 set 4* covers (the 1000 progression, 3 PVP's per week)
-6 Legendary Tokens (from PVE, assuming 3/4 day and 7 day alterations)
-about 1 Legendary Token from random Command Points

(emphasis mine) That's absurd. No player in 4* transition needs any of the rewards of PVEs that are not releasing new characters. Grinding optimally through several days only to earn a chance at a 4* is madness.

Let's assume out of the 20 available 4*s, 5 are useless (IW, Elektra, Starlord, Mr F, Ant-Man), then in one month a player with...

...the worst luck in the world:
12 x .75 = 8
7 x 0 = 0
= total of 8 useful 4* covers

...average luck:
12 x .75 = 8
7 x .75 = 5.25
= total of 13.25 useful 4* covers

...the best luck in the world:
12 x .75 = 8
7 x 1.00 = 7
= total of 15 useful 4* covers

So in a given four-week period, the average person should expect 13.25 useful 4* covers from just the 1000 progression and the PVE Legendaries. A person with the worst luck ever will still be getting 8 useful 4*s. That's not impossibly behind. And the best luck ever only gets 1.75 more 4*s. (Actually, the luckiest would probably get all 5* covers, but the 5* transition is another story because it's based on 100% luck.

You ignore the fact of the repeated covers. Another poster called you on that and you said it is inconsequential, but it is, in fact, what screwed me. I really don't care about 4*s being useless, since I am a completionist. Moreover, having well covered an "useless" character will allow you to earn the 4* DDQ challenge.

If you have the worst run of luck ever in a month and get zero useful 4* covers from LTs, you're still progressing at 8 covers a month, which is still more than half of the progress the luckiest person every would be getting.

Wait, what? Why are you presupposing that the lucky players are not also doing their best to get those covers? More often than not, if they are in theory opening the same amount of tokens as I, they are playing just as much, so the unlucky player is really not catching up.

Let's the unluckiest player ever has that horrible run over 3 months. You opened 21 tokens and every single one was from the useless 5 heros. That's first of all odds in the trillions, so I really feel for you. But you'd still have gained 24 useful 4* covers, and only be 16 covers being from the average expected value. Averaged out over the remaining useful heroes, you're only behind about 1 cover per hero, while gaining 1.6 covers per hero over that same period. And that's only for one out of over a trillion players.

You are forgetting about the compound effect I talked about in the previous page. You keep insisting that good scores and positions are possible with lowly rosters, and you may be right, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that the person that opened tokens in such a way that they could make a JeanBuster, or an X-Pool-Thing combo is not having a much easier time of it, that often translates in better rewards, less effort or less resources needed. And as always, the capability of surviving a 4* DDQ challenge that is not possible for them who didn't open the right covers.

I'm not exactly sure what kind of maths wizardry you are making there to theoretically reduce the advantage of a lucky player over an unlucky player to 1. I only know that with 80+% chances of success, and failing 75% of times, someone in my exact position, but with an average luck, would have opened up to 12 more usable covers than me over that run of 20 draws. Someone with an excellent luck would have opened up to 16 more. But even pretending that it was only 1, the compounding effect would quickly increase the gap.



Anyway, is kind of funny to realise that the chief reason why you are so adamant about resignation over the role of luck is a defeatist attitude towards the possibility of improvement. One of the main tenets of my remonstrance is that players experiencing such feelings is an undesirable thing for the health of the game. Besides, I'm not really that pessimistic about my chances. Devs have, in fact, improved or changed things that the playerbase contested in the past, as it's in their best interests to make players happy. Moreover, I am of the opinion that a vault implementation in this case would also be beneficial for their bottom line: After my experiences with Legendary Tokens you can bet I will never, ever buy one or many. I'd be to wary about spending real money in further IWs. But if I see that a vault still has a few things that I want and it's about to rotate, I'll be more willing to take the gamble.

Also, let me repeat that it's all good for you to disregard luck and be contented by doing your best at what you can control. This is a policy that, even if you won't acknowledge it, has been granted to you by a moderately good luck. I'm sure you'd still be doing your best if you were in my situation, and so do I. But I doubt that you'd be as contented. I doubt you'd fail to realise how much irreversibly ahead of you everybody else with an average luck or better got during those months of bad luck, and maybe, just maybe, you'd be more willing to take your chances at trying to change the system that arbitrarily screwed you. And so do I.

Peej13

In the past 3 weeks, I have sold five purple fury covers and three purple antman covers. I have 16 out of the 63 possible covers maxed. Why in god's name have I gotten so many effing dupes if it is actually random?

NighteyesGrisu

I just don't get how people keep going on about this.

Yes, randomness often does not feel random. But just think about it. Do you think the devs have spare time thinking up elaborate algorithms that make some guy get 10 moonstones in a row? And what for?

Way back in time there used to be a google spreadsheet somewhere where people could register their pulls. IIRC the pulls were pretty average..on average

I did keep such a list for mayself as well for some time (before the massive influx of 4*) just to see if I was lucky or the RNG was messing with me. The pulls I got sometimes strayed a bit (IIRC before I stopped I had above average luck on event pulls but below average luck on DDQ pulls) but there was nothing really exceptional about it.

OneLastGambit

Oh my Lord... This thread is still going?

simonsez

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

Yes, randomness often does not feel random.

I agree, I don't care how it feels to people. That's why every time someone happens to post the results of a bucket of token pulls, I'm posting the probability of getting whatever sort of clustering their results are showing. And despite consistently unlikely outcomes, most part people still prefer to believe in the RNG fairy.

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

But just think about it. Do you think the devs have spare time thinking up elaborate algorithms that make some guy get 10 moonstones in a row?

That's not what they're doing, no one said they are, so keep your strawman out of this.

Look, you're talking about a dev team that used to vault characters. Essentially, this is an extension of that: a rotating list of characters that get assigned high probabilities. Who knows, maybe they think they're doing us a favor. Or maybe not. Who cares? You can rationalize it either way.

And it hardly has to be an elaborate algorithm. I would have to assume that all the probabilities are stored in a table that the RNG hits up against. They just need to change the values in that table every few days.

Also, your comments make me think that some people are misunderstanding the "token pulls aren't random" argument. No one is saying they've constructed a fake-RNG that spits out biased outcomes. What they're doing is using a RNG against a table of probabilities that are skewed towards a rotating set of characters.

Malcrof

simonsez wrote:

Look, you're talking about a dev team that used to vault characters. Essentially, this is an extension of that: a rotating list of characters that get assigned high probabilities. Who knows, maybe they think they're doing us a favor. Or maybe not. Who cares? You can rationalize it either way.

Conspiracy of the day award goes to............

Honestly, that is the first (at least that i have noticed) new conspiracy in like a year.. time for some new threads!!!