Pulling for Captain America - a cautionary tale

KingDon

Had 17 LT's stashed so popped them as I was still missing GR, ended up with 2 x JJ (both Red to make her 3/0/0) but had 1 x GR as a bonus and then 1 x Cap so all good there

bluewolf

Quebbster said:

CharlieCroker said:

aesthetocyst said:

evade420 said:

this post makes me feel ill..
 375 pulls and no 5* champ is insanely bad ... like the worst
im so sorry for your loss

He's got a champ Reyes there, after swaps.

Which ironically is both the best to have (given he'll be next to leave Latest) and worst (given he's not boosted in PvP for the next 2 weeks and isn't as good as JJ).  But maybe I'll get the swaps through before he's next boosted in PVE if nothing else.

Many thanks to Hadronic and Orion for the great info/maths and to all expressing sympathy and potential fixes.

We just started a new Latest fivestar essential cycle in PvE, so Robbie should be essential next PvE. Can't see them running Cap as an essential Before him.

We should know later today, but the Latest tends to run in release order. JJ is current so Beardo could be the 5E on Thursday.

Quebbster

bluewolf said:

Quebbster said:

CharlieCroker said:

aesthetocyst said:

evade420 said:

this post makes me feel ill..
 375 pulls and no 5* champ is insanely bad ... like the worst
im so sorry for your loss

He's got a champ Reyes there, after swaps.

Which ironically is both the best to have (given he'll be next to leave Latest) and worst (given he's not boosted in PvP for the next 2 weeks and isn't as good as JJ).  But maybe I'll get the swaps through before he's next boosted in PVE if nothing else.

Many thanks to Hadronic and Orion for the great info/maths and to all expressing sympathy and potential fixes.

We just started a new Latest fivestar essential cycle in PvE, so Robbie should be essential next PvE. Can't see them running Cap as an essential Before him.

We should know later today, but the Latest tends to run in release order. JJ is current so Beardo could be the 5E on Thursday.

Last cycle was out of order too as I recall, it gets that way because they sometimes feature a fivestar about to leave Latest early in the cycle and then the character that's about to enter later in the same cycle. Anyway, since Archangel is no longer in Latest the current cycle should have Jessica, Robbie and LumberCap. Only question is if they do Robbie or Cap first, and I Think it will be Robbie.

T_REZ5000

Sagetopian said:

I think this is something where a simple fix can help with the 4 to 5 meta. They need to institute percentage protection. This is something which has been revealed as being used by larger companies when implementing these odd based systems. Each time you do not pull a 5 beyond the described rate it greatly increases your chance for a pull on subsequent pulls and once you do pull it resets back to normal. This is such a simple fix. It is technically possible right now for someone to get nothing over a, relative to gameplay time, large span. It helps reinforce the odds as dictated and prevents scenarios where a paying customer has massive buyers remorse. It needs to happen.

It is believed that this method is used by Blizzard in Hearthstone.  I’ve never seen a streamer nor have I ever went past 40 pulls without a legendary.  Iirc the odds of a legendary in that game are 1 in 20.  Been a few years since I’ve played though.

Sagetopian

T-REZ5000 said:

Sagetopian said:

I think this is something where a simple fix can help with the 4 to 5 meta. They need to institute percentage protection. This is something which has been revealed as being used by larger companies when implementing these odd based systems. Each time you do not pull a 5 beyond the described rate it greatly increases your chance for a pull on subsequent pulls and once you do pull it resets back to normal. This is such a simple fix. It is technically possible right now for someone to get nothing over a, relative to gameplay time, large span. It helps reinforce the odds as dictated and prevents scenarios where a paying customer has massive buyers remorse. It needs to happen.

It is believed that this method is used by Blizzard in Hearthstone.  I’ve never seen a streamer nor have I ever went past 40 pulls without a legendary.  Iirc the odds of a legendary in that game are 1 in 20.  Been a few years since I’ve played though.

Blizzard is a big proponent of this. They also use it in Overwatch and HotS packs. A pull rate is enforced without having to really on a "true" random which statistically will screw certain people over as can be seen in this example. Changing the model of pull calculation for individuals will raise the average pull rate. This can be offset two ways. Either lower the pack odds very slightly to compensate because there was an over reliance on bad luck (bad pr) or be okay with the cumulative pull rate of all accounts increasing due to loss of "bad outliers". If you do the rate increase properly, which should be relatively simple algorithm work, we are talking maybe a small percent increase cumulatively but on an individual level terrible luck, especially over 300 pulls, will be much less common. Plus it is a huge good will move for players, even if they are unaware of the change as it will have positive impact on feedback in gameplay.

thedarkphoenix

Kind of why hording is pointless unless you are really trying to skip a character. The numbers are numbers and will catch up with you if you play long enough. 

And there is nothing worse than hording for months and going bust, its super depressing. 

Punisher5784

I have nearly 300 pulls hoarded through blood, sweat, and tears.. this post makes me not want to open them in fear of further MPQ depression

CyberVenom2001

Not to be a killjoy, but I opened 350 CP and got 2 IW Caps, a JJ, with a bonus Hawkeye (that wasn't needed). 

professorplum9

I had a small hoard built up waiting for AA to leave. With 70 pulls I went in optimistic because I've been averaging 10% over the last several hundred and thought I was due for an upswing. I don't know what I was thinking. I ended up going barely over 10%. As if progress wasn't slow enough at the 5* level.

The sad truth is while I've been averaging 10% for my last 300 pulls in the close to 1000 Latest Legend pulls I've tracked it is still coming out close to 15%. I really wish they'd just give out one 5* every 6th or 7th pull. Once you know how it works you don't even get excited when you pull 3 5* in a row because you know it means an 0-for-40 streak is in your future.

DD-The-Mighty

(hate) to break it to you, but the devs and this game are not your friend. The worse you do, the better for them. They give you just enough to keep you spinning on that treadmill. It's basic pavlovian gambling 101. 

CharlieCroker

CyberVenom2001 said:

Not to be a killjoy, but I opened 350 CP and got 2 IW Caps, a JJ, with a bonus Hawkeye (that wasn't needed). 

I truly do not begrudge anyone that has had lucky pulls.  Within my own alliance there have been people pulling at 20% for samples that are much lower but not negligible.  A RL friend has gone 14/67 since Cap entered packs and I am genuinely pleased for him (despite threatening Chicken Bro stickers on LINE suggesting otherwise :-)).

But this also demonstrates how inequitable the whole RNG process is.  Why should people at pretty much the same level in the game have such a widely different experience as a result of whichever one is on the verge of quitting the game whereas the other is understandably over the moon with his good fortune.

And for anyone saying the numbers will catch up, this may be true, but unfortunately I don't have an infinite number of pulls to make up for this barren run.  For example having gone 34/372 I'd have to get 24(?) straight 5* pulls to catch up immediately, or run at 21% for my next 372 pulls before another new 5* enter packs and short of joining every buy club running for the next 6 weeks there is no chance of my getting that many more pulls.

ZeroKarma

To add to the cacophony, I got an itch and decided to open some classics after opening LT's to get some Cap covers for PvE and finish covering Ghost Rider. 

I opened 30 classic tokens. I got 0 5* covers. 

Let's think about how absolutely frustrating and downright agonizing that is. Other games at least give you paths to guarantee 5* or 6* covers (we aren't there yet). Here all we get is RNG, which apparently people enjoy? 

@Brigby You've heard a load of anger around supports, and a number of mentions about things that people actually WANT FIXED! Here is a nice, easy example of something that I would guess most on the forum would agree is MORE important to add/fix and MORE likely to get them to spend money and LESS likely to have them delete the game in frustration. And the best part is that the amount of time it would take to institute a streak breaker fix would be a fraction of what it took to make supports. 

Please pass it along. 

ZeroKarma

In case you're wondering, I kept pulling in part because of Charlie's post and I just had to follow the rabbit hole 

bigdgaff

T-REZ5000 said:

Sagetopian said:

I think this is something where a simple fix can help with the 4 to 5 meta. They need to institute percentage protection. This is something which has been revealed as being used by larger companies when implementing these odd based systems. Each time you do not pull a 5 beyond the described rate it greatly increases your chance for a pull on subsequent pulls and once you do pull it resets back to normal. This is such a simple fix. It is technically possible right now for someone to get nothing over a, relative to gameplay time, large span. It helps reinforce the odds as dictated and prevents scenarios where a paying customer has massive buyers remorse. It needs to happen.

It is believed that this method is used by Blizzard in Hearthstone.  I’ve never seen a streamer nor have I ever went past 40 pulls without a legendary.  Iirc the odds of a legendary in that game are 1 in 20.  Been a few years since I’ve played though.

Valve operates a system very similar to this with the trading cards used to level up Steam user profiles. Every time a trading card booster pack is distributed, the people who don't get it receive a small cumulative boost to their odds next time. Once a user does receive a booster pack, he or she is reset to the base odds again.

There is a lot more to the algorithm specific to the trading card system on Steam not relevant to MPQ that I won't go into here. The basic concept is similar to your quoted posts though, to give all users a fair shout of receiving something eventually.

mega ghost

I'm not sure that noting that "in a random/luck-based system, luck isn't always on your side" qualifies as a cautionary tale, but it's certainly a tale of frustration and loss. My heart goes out.

I also second/third/fourth/etc. the idea of enforced pull rates.

Richyyy

If people were given a choice of:

a) the current Latest tokens with 5%/5%/5% odds as they are,

or b) 500CP for a pack that contained 17 4*s and 3 random latest 5*s,

I wonder which would be more popular? Theoretically, over infinite pulls, they should produce the same results. But obviously luck can produce much greater swings in either direction with the tokens. I feel like a lot of people would prefer option b), purely because you're never totally sure if you're getting the odds they tell you you are. And because it would avoid scenarios such as the one at the start of this thread, of course.

Sagetopian

Richyyy said:

If people were given a choice of:

a) the current Latest tokens with 5%/5%/5% odds as they are,

or b) 500CP for a pack that contained 17 4*s and 3 random latest 5*s,

I wonder which would be more popular? Theoretically, over infinite pulls, they should produce the same results. But obviously luck can produce much greater swings in either direction with the tokens. I feel like a lot of people would prefer option b), purely because you're never totally sure if you're getting the odds they tell you you are. And because it would avoid scenarios such as the one at the start of this thread, of course.

The pack idea I think would be the preferred approach if trading covers was supported. This is why Magic and other TCG use this format because it is condusive to maintaining an economy. I don't expect trading in-game as it would require a totally different approach to rewards and cover distribution. What I think would be best would be the backing of the pull rate along with intelligent cover rewards which prevent a "dead" cover as this is a relic of the pre-champion era in the game. This would also greatly reduce the customer service load as they could stop doing color swaps. And those two things combined greatly reduce friction in the 4 to 5 meta.

dr tinykittylove

Every single in game survey I complain on both my main and alt account about the reliance on RNG for progression above the 3* tier. 

bluewolf

I really, really wish that the idea of a streak breaker was being introduced now in this thread and that the devs might see it and think "Maybe we should try that".  But it's been suggested so many times over the past few years.  There is little incentive for the devs to do the work needed.  It helps the players complete characters more quickly and is a good will gesture - that's the entire upside for the devs.  Maybe a few less players quit in frustration?  The devs don't actually want to make it too easy to complete 5* characters, since they remain the ultimate prize in game.  That's why you only get 6 covers from feeders assuming you have a 4* that high.

Note:  I would hazard a guess that many players who get 5's champed - at some point after that - feel they've finished the game and move on, so it actually could have a downside for the devs to make it easer to get 5* covers.

My take on the swaps policy is that it is partly a way to address the lack of a streak breaker issue.  With color swaps, you know that every 5* you pull from Latest is useful and won't be wasted.  So I assume that if a streak breaker were implemented, the cover swap policy would truly end.  I'm not sure how players would feel about that trade off, but I'm sure that would be part of the deal.

None of this is to disregard the frustration of the OP and others (including myself in past runs), but it's probably best to not get one's hopes up.  It's just not a developer priority, it seems.

JackTenrec

thedarkphoenix said:

Kind of why hording is pointless unless you are really trying to skip a character. The numbers are numbers and will catch up with you if you play long enough. 

Emphasis on "if you play long enough".  I'm over day 1300 and have yet to get a 5* character to 13 covers, but I'm optimizing for 4* covers since I only pull classics.