Zero 5* in 29 pulls?

bbigler

People would be happier in life if they had the proper expectations.  Many things that go wrong can be expected, which makes it easier to deal with and prepare for.  Getting your hopes up for something out of your control is very risky. 

I had a great run of 5* covers in the beginning, followed by an almost equally bad run afterwards. My current rate is around 17% after 213 pulls, so I’ve still been a little lucky despite some droughts as bad as the OP.  Anyone with large CP hoards and pulls have seen droughts (even far worse than the OP). 

The funny thing about probabilities is that it evens out with more and more pulls.  This is mathematically true and I’ve seen it firsthand as well. So, good pull rates will follow bad pull rates - even though it’s random.  There’s no guarantee, just an increased probability of reaching 15% with more and more pulls.  If you have patience and keep pulling, I bet you’ll see. 

entrailbucket

Actually the best metaphor for these kinds of games is a casino.  Casinos make billions of dollars because gambling is fun and humans aren't very good at probability.  If you expect to win a lot of money playing a slot machine, you're going to be very disappointed.  If you expect to be entertained briefly while losing all your money, then you'll probably be happy. 

Can you imagine putting $29 into a slot machine, then complaining to casino management because you lost all your money?  I guess people probably do that but I can't imagine how they'd resolve it -- probably a coupon for $1 off the buffet.


Interestingly, the biggest MPQ spenders I've known (and I've known some of the biggest MPQ spenders) tend to be high-dollar casino gambling whales as well.  I guess it scratches the same itch for them.

Wonko33

it's about 7% chance of getting 0 out of 29 tries - I did 100,000 trials 

sorry i misread the math tool , its 1.195%  like a previous poster said

Rhipf

Bad said:

For 29 pulls you could got 3 5*s at the very most. 
I don't understand why people pulls with that low hoard, and get angry so much.
You can contact CS and they can throw you in 2 covers. Not a game breaker anyway.
If the system was off people who pulls a lot more than you would start complaining.
My experience pulling says totally the opposite.

Actually, with 29 pulls the most you could get is 29 5*s. The likelihood of this is extremely low though.  

sinnerjfl

Sekilicious said:

See if you’re saying using an rng system to determine rewards is a faulty  business practice then I agree. That is one of the main problems with video games today. I’m not entirely sure why we gravitate to these games so much but it seems to be working as a strategy to separate most of us from our money. 

A lot of people love gambling (it is fun, with real or fake money), dopamine hits are fun too when you get what you want even though that can lead to problems like addiction.

F2P or freemium games make so much more money than the old single-player or multi-player games, that's the reason why its the dominant trend in gaming for like 10 years now. 

Sekilicious

sinnerjfl said:

Sekilicious said:

See if you’re saying using an rng system to determine rewards is a faulty  business practice then I agree. That is one of the main problems with video games today. I’m not entirely sure why we gravitate to these games so much but it seems to be working as a strategy to separate most of us from our money. 

A lot of people love gambling (it is fun, with real or fake money), dopamine hits are fun too when you get what you want even though that can lead to problem like addiction.

F2P or freemium games make so much more money than the old single-player or multi-player games, that's the reason why its the dominant trend in gaming for like 10 years now. 

Yeah. I remember when Diablo 1 came out and I was introduced to the rng drop system. I played that game far more than any other before, in spite of how repetitive and, eventually, brutally easy it became. Just because I wanted a certain op build. Most games have that element now. It still feels exploitive when I think about it. 

Siv75

HoundofShadow said:

Please update everyone here the result of your appeal.

Still awaiting a response. They said 24 hours... it's been slightly longer. Will update if a response is given. 

Siv75

Bad said:

The dices are loaded but with great odds.
Rng loads a number of 5*s in a number of pulls and in a close to similar distribution, and on 2 times I champed the 3 LL with 230 pulls.
When there is a empty streak, it's possible than a bit further there will come many 5 together.
But it must be pulled on the same store characters.
You can believe it or not, it's fine for me.
But I find really funny that with 29 pulls you start an uprage so big.
What did you expect, to get 20 5*s with 29 pulls?
Quit the game, or be interested in to know how to advance and ask how.
Decisions, decisions.

Not sure what was meant by 29 pulls start an upgrade so big? I needed 2 BRB and 1 Apoc to champion them. Was hoping for some progress ... that's about it...even if it didn't mean I get to champion one right away. Isn't that the point of special stores? 

I know many mean well when they suggest 7500 cps...but again, especially for some players who do not spend hours playing every day or spend half a paycheck paying to progress, these experiences make us feel like progress is impossible. If what I say doesn't matter... then feedback has no value.

Siv75

Alfje17 said:

Statistics are always fun, but nothing beats some real data:

2189 Legendary pulls netted me 342 5* or 15.62% (1 in 7 is 14.29%, so I'm luckier than average).

I don't remember what my driest spell was, it was definitely long enough to get annoyed

Then again, my best pull was 7 5* out of 10 tokens (+ 1 Bonus 4*, so that was a lot of luck!).

In the end it all evens out and your streak of (bad) luck will come to an end.

Wow. That's quite some data you shared. Thanks for that. 

This, and inputs from many others (sorry you guys had dry spells too) only prove that the dice is loaded. The fact that a large sample pool is required to hit the stated odds, is proof that the dice is loaded. Statistically, the pulls are loaded so it is more challenging to pull 5* tokens at the front of the distribution curve.  It means it will be easier to get 5* pulls when you hit 300 pulls to champion a 5* than getting that 1 illusive pull from 50 to get that last token to champ a 12-tokened charachter. 

If this was a casino, this would be illegal. And no one one would play that game knowing it is loaded in favour of the house. Problem is this is not a casino and we do not have a gaming commission. When you say 1 in 7 odds and you skew your distribution to give some numbers better chances at start, that is unethical. You are not delivering what you say, having people assume it is purely random, and make them believe you have bad luck when it is loaded. 

I also note, this happens in special stores. LL stores seems to have a different distribution curve. 

Siv75

entrailbucket said:

Actually the best metaphor for these kinds of games is a casino.  Casinos make billions of dollars because gambling is fun and humans aren't very good at probability.  If you expect to win a lot of money playing a slot machine, you're going to be very disappointed.  If you expect to be entertained briefly while losing all your money, then you'll probably be happy. 

Can you imagine putting $29 into a slot machine, then complaining to casino management because you lost all your money?  I guess people probably do that but I can't imagine how they'd resolve it -- probably a coupon for $1 off the buffet.


Interestingly, the biggest MPQ spenders I've known (and I've known some of the biggest MPQ spenders) tend to be high-dollar casino gambling whales as well.  I guess it scratches the same itch for them.

With slot machines... the expectations are not high that you would win. But a better comparison is with dice....because what the game developers communicate is in term of 1 to 7 odds. Imagine a 7 faced dice that never falls on 7 for 50 times in a row. Everyone playing would know the dice was loaded and would that be something everyone be okay with when the house claims it to not be loaded by stating the odds? When what you say is not what you do...is that okay? Some here seem to think it's ok which I find strange. 

Sekilicious

Siv75 said:

This, and inputs from many others (sorry you guys had dry spells too) only prove that the dice is loaded. The fact that a large sample pool is required to hit the stated odds, is proof that the dice is loaded. Statistically, the pulls are loaded so it is more challenging to pull 5* tokens at the front of the distribution curve.  

It doesn’t though.  This is a good example of confirmation bias since you are ignoring all the examples from here and Reddit where people are posting good to amazing pull results. Just like Bad did with his assertion that everyone can fully cover characters on 230 pulls or less because of his two successful results. Dry spells are normal with stochastic variables. So are hot spells. If they didn’t occur then that would be proof that the dice were loaded. One example and cherry picking like examples is evidence of nothing, statistically speaking. But you aren’t speaking about statistics here, just your own intuition of what the results should be. An intuition biased by wanting a very specific result and a willingness to be offended when you didn’t get that result. But hopefully you get your covers from CS. You will probably take it as evidence that you were correct all along, when it is more evidence that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as it were.

TheRiddler

I've been in this boat and IMO the sting here is magnified by it coming in such a good store where you know the characters would help your roster. The fact that you are likely to get a good string of luck somewhere down the road does little to make you feel better because you know that vault won't be as good as this one.

I know this because I done initial 63 pulls in the Fan Favorites vault that had Kitty, OML and Dr. Strange a few years back and only got a single OML cover. And It made me wanna quit as well.

It kinda makes me think of that "And its gone" episode from South Park.

But having played long enough and pulled alot bigger samples I can give you some counter examples.

The very first store that I pulled from was the fan favorites vault that had Okoye, Kitty and Thor. I only done 7 pulls and got 1 cover for each.

In the LL set that had Wanda and Colossus it only took me about 160 pulls to champ Wanda. I probably had a 1:4 or so pull rate on that run when you add in the others.

Bad

I did it 2 times with 230 pulls, and I'm not counting the first one that I had 180 pulls and I champed 2 of the 3, however it was exactly the same. 
There is an algorithm that shuffles the 5* covers in a given number of pulls.
If you have few pulls what you want is all to be on the initial pulls, that happens sometimes but obviously not always. 
If you had 100 pulls more the outcome would be a lot better. 
You can't blame the system because is doing exactly what is announcing as a lot of players are stating.
You can blame your bad luck and perhaps yourself for not having more pulls.

Siv75

Sekilicious said:

Siv75 said:

This, and inputs from many others (sorry you guys had dry spells too) only prove that the dice is loaded. The fact that a large sample pool is required to hit the stated odds, is proof that the dice is loaded. Statistically, the pulls are loaded so it is more challenging to pull 5* tokens at the front of the distribution curve.  

It doesn’t though.  This is a good example of confirmation bias since you are ignoring all the examples from here and Reddit where people are posting good to amazing pull results. Just like Bad did with his assertion that everyone can fully cover characters on 230 pulls or less because of his two successful results. Dry spells are normal with stochastic variables. So are hot spells. If they didn’t occur then that would be proof that the dice were loaded. One example and cherry picking like examples is evidence of nothing, statistically speaking. But you aren’t speaking about statistics here, just your own intuition of what the results should be. An intuition biased by wanting a very specific result and a willingness to be offended when you didn’t get that result. But hopefully you get your covers from CS. You will probably take it as evidence that you were correct all along, when it is more evidence that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as it were.

Actually I don't mind being wrong if Im wrong. If anything mentioned here is helpful in me understanding this, I will be grateful and appreciative for it. Perhaps I could take your example here to explain further what my intuition is telling me. Yes. My intuition ... I used to design and write games so perhaps it is rooted from that experience. 

The random function I was referring to (not based on a graphic calculator) from either a C++ library or equivalent usually takes an input (typically PCU board time) to generate random numbers between a predefined range of numbers. Does the implementation of the code have issues when certain time interval is fed into the random function call? How would you know that? When you have some getting way different distribution on different occasions. Should that be looked into?

This function typically distributes numbers evenly over time throughout the distribution. It is unlikely that a number in a sequence gets left out after x number of calls. So let's take X as the minimum number of calls to call out a number. At what point does X become a problem when the value rises? When X = 50? X = 100? Is this being looked into? 

As a developer, I would want to know these things. Opposite is also true, what if due to an issue, I get 7 5* tokens in 7 pulls? 

Lastly, I do not want to downplay some players getting good pull rates for certain sessions. The right way to weigh this is how many good sessions vs. Bad sessions limited by the proposition of 50 pulls... 100 pulls etc. That way we also can view what is the actual median pull rate for a 5* and how close it is to the stated 1 in 7 pull rate claim. 
 
Otherwise one person says look I have a bad pull rate, another says I have a good pull rate... both are truthful but neither reality leads to clarity on what actually is happening and if there are actual issues. 

HoundofShadow

Rng is jst behaving like RNG. There will be outliers here and there. If you got 10 5* in 29 pulls, I'm sure you are not going email Support to tell them you have gotten too many 5*. Neither would you sell the extra 6 covers just to ensure that you have gotten 1:7 rate.

Anyway, 

It may take 24 – 72 business hours to receive a reply as Customer Support responds to tickets in the order they arrive. Customer Support is open 7 days a week (closed on major holidays) from 7:00AM – 4:00 PM PDT.

entrailbucket

C++?  Might as well be a graphing calculator!  Look into how random number generators (and online games development) are done today.

You gambled and you lost.  Gamblers accept that they had a run of bad luck and move on.

ThaRoadWarrior

It may or may not make for some interesting spelunking, but you can search the forum for the term “predetermined” and dig up a lot of old chatter about pseudo-random number generation.

Daredevil217

I think special stores are more like gambling than the LL store due to the time-limited nature of the former.

With special stores you could get 1 in every 7 exactly, some front-loaded luck and “cash-out”, or have all your good pulls be so far down the line that you’d need a LOT of pulls to hit the advertised rate and possibly never see them. The LL store goes forever so you will eventually gravitate to the mean. 

I started tracking just my LL pulls years ago. Out of 2199 pulls tracked I’ve nabbed 316 5* covers. So I’m actually below the 15% rate (14.37%). That’s only 14 5* covers I’m “missing” over years of pulling, so it’s not egregious, but the point is it might take me another year for the pulls to “even out”. You don’t have that kind of time with a special store. 29 pulls is not a lot at all so like others have stated, you really did gamble and lose. I also agree with the poster that said this is a great opportunity to teach your son (and perhaps yourself) about how to manage disappointment and deal with what is in your/his control.

As an aside, is it 15% and they say 1:7 because that’s the closest approximation or is it 14.28% (which is 1 in 7). I can’t remember what the actual pull rates are. If the latter, then I’m above the mean, if former I’m below. 

entrailbucket

ThaRoadWarrior said:

It may or may not make for some interesting spelunking, but you can search the forum for the term “predetermined” and dig up a lot of old chatter about pseudo-random number generation.

This comes up every once in awhile from the graphing calculator crowd.  Computers actually *can* generate true mathematical randomness now, but that's not generally necessary. 

Modern "pseudorandom" algorithms have advanced sufficiently that they are *indistinguishable* from true mathematical randomness, and those implementations are now available to anyone.  They're certified for government cryptological applications, which means they won't produce a predictable sequence before, like, the heat death of the sun.

We've come a very long way from the days when you called rand() 12 times and got the same sequence of 12 results in a row.

ThaRoadWarrior

That search is less about PRNG and more about when it is performed and how often, ie does every player get their RNG seeded one time, and then they are just redeeming along that string of pulls for the rest of their MPQ days, or was each pull a dip into the RNG uniquely. People used to speak on that topic with some authority but I haven’t located the source of that knowledge so I don’t really want to comment on it one way or the other.