(Now 0 for 73) - Devs, is the system working as you intend?

jobob

Tarheelmax wrote:

jobob wrote:

This issue is, before you started pulling, you literally must make a string of pulls with that probability at some point. I don't know if that's 5 pulls, 10 pulls or 100 pulls. But at some point, the chances of pulling the string you pulled will be 0.000053%.

You are only skeptical about it if you don't like the results of whatever your string actually is.

If a guy at the **** table rolled 7 50 straight times, you think the Casino would be satisfied with "It was exactly as likely as me rolling any series of 50?" Or would they assume something is up?

jobob

Tarheelmax wrote:

But every single string of 40 pulls, no matter what it is, is just as improbable as a string of no 5*s. Most likely it's confirmation bias, because people aren't on here clamoring to comment on their 3-6 5* pulls from 40 tokens.

Actually, I did comment on my 5* token pull and that it seemed... off:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42251

So you don't think it's possible, maybe even more likely than a truly random draw, that this is some sort of wierdness going on with the server, the connection, etc?

Tarheelmax

jobob wrote:

Tarheelmax wrote:

jobob wrote:

This issue is, before you started pulling, you literally must make a string of pulls with that probability at some point. I don't know if that's 5 pulls, 10 pulls or 100 pulls. But at some point, the chances of pulling the string you pulled will be 0.000053%.

You are only skeptical about it if you don't like the results of whatever your string actually is.

If a guy at the **** table rolled 7 50 straight times, you think the Casino would be satisfied with "It was exactly as likely as me rolling any series of 50?" Or would they assume something is up?

But the odds you state there are totally different; that would be closer to pulling 50 straight 5*s. What people here are complaining about is rolling 50 straight NOT 7s.

Still not likely, but not all that crazy.

Tarheelmax

jobob wrote:

Tarheelmax wrote:

This isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you shuffle a deck of cards, draw the top card, place that card back, re-shuffle and repeat the process 3 times (4 draws total), then you have the exact same likelihood of doing the following:

Pull 4 Aces
Pull 4 Twos
Pull a 2, 7, Jack, Ace

Now, if you have 10,000 people do this, the only people that are likely to really speak up are the ones that had the horrible experience of pulling 4 Twos. And just because a small minority of people start yelling that they only pulled 2s, doesn't mean the deck was rigged. It means they were expecting a "random-looking" or a "lucky" outcome but didn't get it, so they complain about it.

Then you have people coming along and saying "hey look, that small minority of people must be representative of the entire 10,000; that deck of cards is RIGGED."

And what I am saying is that you can't put "pull a 2, 7, Jack, Ace" in the same list as pulling 4 aces or 2s, because no one cares about pulling a 2, 7, Jack, Ace. You need to replace that with basically ALL the combinations that include one Ace, because those are viewed as being about the same. And if you get people pulling a distinct set nearly as frequently as the sum of all the other possible sequences... something is very wrong.

And that's my point, we don't have the evidence to support that something absolutely wrong is happening. We only have a small subset complaining about our bad luck (or in your case good luck).

I do think it's enough to ask what the system is and if it's working properly, but if the devs says it's working as intended, I'm leaning toward believing them.

I also agree that your pulls of Green Phoenix in a row was very strange. And I am 100% willing to accept that as some type of server glitch. But it's also possible that it was just random being random (and not looking like it). Eventually someone wins the powerball. Crazy things happen.

jobob

Tarheelmax wrote:

But the odds you state there are totally different; that would be closer to pulling 50 straight 5*s. What people here are complaining about is rolling 50 straight NOT 7s.

Still not likely, but not all that crazy.

By your own logic:

"you literally must make a string of pulls with that probability at some point...

You are only skeptical about it if you don't like the results of whatever your string actually is."

What happened to your stance that it is just as likely as any other set of 50 rolls?

jobob

Tarheelmax wrote:

And that's my point, we don't have the evidence to support that something absolutely wrong is happening. We only have a small subset complaining about our bad luck (or in your case good luck).

I do think it's enough to ask what the system is and if it's working properly, but if the devs says it's working as intended, I'm leaning toward believing them.

I also agree that your pulls of Green Phoenix in a row was very strange. And I am 100% willing to accept that as some type of server glitch. But it's also possible that it was just random being random (and not looking like it). Eventually someone wins the powerball. Crazy things happen.

Eh, fair enough. I never said the system was rigged or not rigged, I just said there is enough oddity going on that makes me question it.

carrion_pigeons

Question: If 1600 people play your game, and each of them pulls 70 legendary tokens, what are the odds that one or more of them gets no 5*s?

Answer: just a bit better than 50%. The average case is that it will happen to one person. If 20000 people do it, ~12 of them will open no legendaries.

Question: If someone opens 70 legendary tokens, and doesn't pull a 5*, what are the odds of them complaining about it on the forums?

Answer: 100%, obviously.

So by statistics, I'm either grossly overestimating the number of people who have opened 70 legendary tokens, or else we're missing a whole bunch more threads about people who opened no 5*s after 70+ tokens. Either way, looks to me like we're doing better than average.

billsrule7

Either way, looks to me like the system sucks and is broken. Now 0 for 73.

Unknown

turul wrote:

One thing is the luck based on ingame random pulls.

Another problem is the Customer Service using that random function when deciding who to compensate and who to not. Or even worse, they are discriminating.

Unfortunately, I got the not-compensating end 2 times while other players got a cover of choice or other compensation, while I got nothing.

How much do you spend?

SnowcaTT

turul wrote:

Another problem is the Customer Service using that random function when deciding who to compensate and who to not. Or even worse, they are discriminating.

Unfortunately, I got the not-compensating end 2 times while other players got a cover of choice or other compensation, while I got nothing.

I'm right there with you turul. Either my draw percentage was high....or (my suspicion) my pay percentage was low....

I also am pretty upset with the CS granting a whole bunch of folks an OML cover (honestly, how many of these have you heard of that are -not- OML's?) and then denying vets who have pulled none (or almost none) of them. The CS "handing out of covers" to some but not others was widely whispered about and is starting to get widely talked openly about because it is such a disaster - especially in a world where you can't get covers except by RNG.

wirius

Good lord people. You don't intuitively understand odds. The system is working. You're unlucky. You HATE that. It violates every single part of you that thinks you're special. Doesn't change anything. You are powerless before luck. Don't come on here hurling unwarrented accusations and blame. Accept it like an adult, then decide to keep playing or quit.

wolverineclaws

HaywireII wrote:

We need the math guys to come in here now. If you are 0 for 70 what percentile does that put you in when it's a 10% pull rate. And what is the matching percentile at the other end of the spectrum? 35 out of 70? 55 out of 70? I'm curious if there's one person out there pulling mostly 5*'s from legendary tokens and not complaining at all.

I play everyday and have opened about 20 LT (max 25) and pulled a total of 9 5*. Not trying to make it worse but on my last 7 draws I pulled 4 5* covers.

Dauthi

SnowcaTT wrote:

I also am pretty upset with the CS granting a whole bunch of folks an OML cover (honestly, how many of these have you heard of that are -not- OML's?) and then denying vets who have pulled none (or almost none) of them. The CS "handing out of covers" to some but not others was widely whispered about and is starting to get widely talked openly about because it is such a disaster - especially in a world where you can't get covers except by RNG.

Really? It shouldn't be surprising at all. This is the same customer service that pardoned (paying) players that heavily exploited the game to the point they had a newly released 5* maxed within a few days. That wasn't ever heard of in any game I have ever played either.

The only thing you can do is try not to worry what goes on behind their closed doors. It's like finding out how sausage is made, if you want to keep playing MPQ you have to stop coming to the forums so much

AtlasAxe

I decided to build this spreadsheet to show the probability of getting from 0-10 tokens based on the number of tokens opened: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SThqR6JRle3s-L0oX9snlnZjnCJFMY4wHB6bhH_LaVY/edit?usp=sharing. The first table is the percent chance, the second table is the 1:x odds. The cumulative probability is the chance you'd end up with between 1-10 tokens for the given number of tokens opened. I didn't make it editable but will if that's desired.

Let me know if you have any comments.

Argon Flame

You forgot to double barrel the question.
1) is it working the way you intended?
2) do you care?

Raffoon

carrion pigeons wrote:

Question: If 1600 people play your game, and each of them pulls 70 legendary tokens, what are the odds that one or more of them gets no 5*s?

Answer: just a bit better than 50%. The average case is that it will happen to one person. If 20000 people do it, ~12 of them will open no legendaries.

Question: If someone opens 70 legendary tokens, and doesn't pull a 5*, what are the odds of them complaining about it on the forums?

Answer: 100%, obviously.

So by statistics, I'm either grossly overestimating the number of people who have opened 70 legendary tokens, or else we're missing a whole bunch more threads about people who opened no 5*s after 70+ tokens. Either way, looks to me like we're doing better than average.

I think you've got it about right. The percentage complaining about it on the forum is probably a bit less than 100%, though. Also, there have been a fair number of threads complaining about similar odds. Maybe not 12 of them.

This opens up a new question though.

Question: Why do the devs insist on implementing the system this way, knowing that it will almost certainly completely screw a certain number of people?

I don't know the answer, but here are a few that might be possible.
Answer: They don't care about the player experience.
Answer: They do care, but feel it's much more important to keep making new characters, instead of fixing broken systems.
Answer: They're lazy and don't feel like implementing the changes needed to introduce a streakbreaker to the system.
Answer: They're bad at coding and can't implement a streakbreaker.
Answer: They'd like to implement a different system but don't have the time.
Answer: They'd like to implement a different system but can't think of one.
Answer: They don't actually realize it's a problem because they don't read the forums
Answer: They're rolling in money from buy clubs and are willing to sacrifice the experience of a certain number of people in order to keep doing that.

I don't know which of those would be the answer, but I sure wish I knew. Almost as annoying as going 70 pulls without a legendary is the complete lack of communication on the subject.

Xenoberyll

Raffoon wrote:

Answer: They'd like to implement a different system but don't have the time.
Answer: They'd like to implement a different system but can't think of one.
Answer: They're rolling in money from buy clubs and are willing to sacrifice the experience of a certain number of people in order to keep doing that.

My bet is on a combination of those 3, and probably trending towards the last of those.
From what they do tell however they seem to have more schedule than hours in a day but i think priorities would be different if the cash wasn't flowing as it is.

simonsez

wirius wrote:

Good lord people. You don't intuitively understand odds.

It took a while, but you finally posted something I agree with.

But then you kept typing...

carrion_pigeons

simonsez wrote:

wirius wrote:

Good lord people. You don't intuitively understand odds.

It took a while, but you finally posted something I agree with.

But then you kept typing...

Do you believe that, given the size of the MPQ playerbase, it's within reason to expect some person to go 0 for 70 if the pulls are genuinely random? Because you can spend 2 minutes with a calculator and come up with an indisputable, factual yes to that question, no belief required.

You might then ask, how big a losing streak would there need to be in order to suggest something fishy going on? That is also a calculatable question. The answer, given a population of 20k players* and a threshold for "unusual" of 5% odds, is a streak of 123 failures. When somebody hits that level of unluckiness, then we can officially start reasonably claiming that something is wrong with their random number generator, or that the communicated odds are incorrect.

*I don't actually know how many people play MPQ, this number seems like a reasonable guess to me. If someone has a better number, I'll spend another 30 seconds to improve my calculation.

mr_X

SnowcaTT wrote:

turul wrote:

Another problem is the Customer Service using that random function when deciding who to compensate and who to not. Or even worse, they are discriminating.

Unfortunately, I got the not-compensating end 2 times while other players got a cover of choice or other compensation, while I got nothing.

I'm right there with you turul. Either my draw percentage was high....or (my suspicion) my pay percentage was low....

I also am pretty upset with the CS granting a whole bunch of folks an OML cover (honestly, how many of these have you heard of that are -not- OML's?) and then denying vets who have pulled none (or almost none) of them. The CS "handing out of covers" to some but not others was widely whispered about and is starting to get widely talked openly about because it is such a disaster - especially in a world where you can't get covers except by RNG.

Yeah the unevenness of customer service treatment of players regarding this is broken. My alliance has a quite a few guys who got the cover of their choice response and others who got token pulls are random response. The top half of the email is actually the same. ( we have our own linechat rooms so have read each other replys)

Just yesterday a member got the more positive outcome who has actually spent less and not played as long as others who did not get it. So go figure.

FYI. unfortunately I am one of those who got the get on your bike response despite being a vet and having spent quite a bit on this game. There really is no excuse for having such an arbitrary and inconsistent response to an already contentious issue. If your gonna compensate people it should be based on objective criteria.