The LL algorithm

Bad

Well, this is my third official hoard of 250 pulls. I champed 2 characters with 246 pulls. I didn't calculate the odds(not being from the science branch studies makes me feel lazy about it).

However in this post I don't care much about the odds. 

Let's take a look at the bigger picture.

In detail. Let me introduce to you all the LL algorithm.

I will post all the results from all my pulls inserting the video proving it.

101 pulls results:

(Abbreviations: A for Abigail, E for Elektra, C for Crystal. 1, 2, 3 for first second and third power of that character)

11th C3

18th A1

33th E1

40th C3

42th A2

43th A3

44th E1

49 E3

52 A2

54 A1

57 E1

58 C2

95 E3

97 A1

101 E2

As a result I had:

C 0/1/2 

A 3/2/1

E 3/1/2

That long 37 dry spell really did hurt my hoard and will make this attempt longer than my previous ones.

https://youtu.be/v4I0oDtxbbQ

Bad

After claiming rewards and enjoying trophies I continued.

76 pulls results:

1th C2

5th E3

10th E1

19 A3

26 E2 

28 A2

30 E2

39 A2

45 E2

57 E1

65 C3

68 C1

76 E3

As a result then I had:

C: 1/2/3

A: 3/4/2

E: 5/4/4 champed

2 of them are clearly favored in a pattern pretty familiar to me.

When I pulled for SC, Electro and Odin, Odin was the last one who I could champ.

When I pulled for Gamora, Sersi and Big Wheel, he was the one with less covers 

When I pulled for Iceman PX and Carnage I champed the 2 first but I don't count that attempt because I did it with 180 pulls.

Obviously I can't prove that because I didn't recorded it.

https://youtu.be/MHtGxtWhla4

Bad

After claiming rewards I continued.

69 pulls results:

5th A3

20th C1

32 C2

46 C1

48 A2

60 A2

69 A3

As a result then I had:

C: 3/3/3

A: 3/6/4

E: 5/4/4

Yes! Here are the Crystal and Abigail I was missing.

Now, although science is not my forte I do like logic problems. I will set an example:

You have a black bag and 9 balls of identical shape and weight and you have to blindly take one and after that return the ball, shuffling it well and take another. Those balls have 3 colors and are numbered from 1 to 3.

What are the oddity of each color to appear? The answer is anything. It's perfectly possible to draw always the same color although with different numbers. 

In any case the oddity of draw always the complete set on a pattern of 3/5/5 for the 3 colors in limited pulls will be pretty low.

https://youtu.be/RtRnSf6cS74

Bad

Now we are going to take it up a notch. After exactly 2 days and half I continued pulling a bit more. It's possible to tell that on the CP and HP numbers and because I didn't touch favorited ghost rider.

10 pulls results:

10th A3. Champed(3/6/5). The one I was missing.

https://youtu.be/8PN3cewGCj0

Well, thanks to the shards I will level more AB and Elektra, and I will save the pulls for MK, Crystal and next one. And crystal is in optimal shape for to champ.

Conclusion: 

I have the feeling these results look more like scattered pieces of a puzzle rather than actually real statistic draws.

In other gacha games the player just need to get simple copies of a character. In this one needs a pattern of 4 copies on 3 powers in order to continue leveling that character, so my theory is that there is an algorithm that shuffles all characters covers in an aleatory order in order to champ the 3, with more or less luck for the player, until it gets refreshed again. Pulling small streaks it's not possible to predict anything, but on long hoards there are more possibilities to see the trend.

Vhailorx

I would say that the law of parsimony suggests that there is just one RNG system, and your experience was statistical noise.

Bad

Vhailorx said:

I would say that the law of parsimony suggests that there is just one RNG system, and your experience was statistical noise.

I have 3 more attempts plus the results that HoundofShadow shared some months ago( the only player who shared in high detail his pulls from his hoard).
Of course you are free to believe what you want. 
Or better, try to prove the opposite. 

Borstock

Bad said:

Vhailorx said:

I would say that the law of parsimony suggests that there is just one RNG system, and your experience was statistical noise.

I have 3 more attempts plus the results that HoundofShadow shared some months ago( the only player who shared in high detail his pulls from his hoard).
Of course you are free to believe what you want. 
Or better, try to prove the opposite.

There's literally nothing you can post that will statistically mean anything versus the infinite number of pulls by everyone that has played to date. Your singular experience will always be insignificant.

darkman84

I've used to hoard close to 300 and then try to pull to collect all three LL characters, but due to rng this method resulted in missing one character almost entirely (got only one cover). So I've changed my approach and do my pulls every month when the new character appears in LL. Each time I pull until the character that is about to leave LL is complete or at least 12/13 covers are collected. Usually the rng is ok, and I can cover all characters this way without much (if any) cover surplus. But once every couple of monts the rng would give me like 8/9 covers of one power, and only 2/3 for other. So personally I don't think there is any part in the algorithm, that would secure we always cover a character evenly and completely.

Bad

darkman84 said:

 So I've changed my approach and do my pulls every month when the new character appears in LL. Each time I pull until the character that is about to leave LL is complete or at least 12/13 covers are collected. Usually the rng is ok, and I can cover all characters this way without much (if any) cover surplus.

That info is pretty useful and actually supports my theory. 

What I want to see for me admitting I am wrong are videos showing 250 pulls on the same characters and drawing like 27 of a single character covers and like 5 covers for the other 2.
Isn't it perfectly possible according to real stadistics draws?

LavaManLee

If you don't want to believe in the mathematical law of statistics, I can't stop you.  That doesn't make you right, though, and certainly doesn't change that the odds of any one character are 1/7 and the odds of any one color for one character are 1/21.  Odds are absolutely NOT a guarantee.  They are simply odds and each pull is independent of the one before it.

Aweberman

HoundofShadow said:

I think one might be able to test this if they note down the number of 5* pulls per position, rather than per character. From there, you can see if the number of 5* pulls per position are close for every 1000 pulls made.

I have recorded all of my pulls since Captain America (Infinity War) left tokens.

The format I have used is based on what I heard around that time of the way the system worked, which was that there were set positions for the pulls but that they were tied to alphabetical order, rather than release order.  So, in the current batch, I would notate Abigail as "a", Crystal as "b", and Elektra as "c."

My primary reason for tracking this was to see whether I was actually getting the stated odds; I have long since been satisfied that I am, but I continue because I like to revel in my misery at times.  A secondary reason for tracking pulls was to see if there was a pattern; nothing obvious has jumped out to my eye.

The last time I fully hoarded was to pull for Okoye in the JJ/Cap/Okoye LT store, though I have had mini-hoards of up to a few weeks at times; the last time I did this was in the leadup to Deadpool rotating out for Yellowjacket. Otherwise, I have been pull-as-I-go for years now.

These pulls have simply been recorded in a note on my phone, rather than by video, if that matters.  But if anybody is willing to see this raw data, I'm happy to share it.

jp1

You know, confirmation bias and such aside, my dry streaks seem to end right around the time I spend money.

Im not even mad about it IF it’s true though. Seems fair. There should be some reward for supporting the game.

Overall, I used to max out around 470 or higher before the rotation removed a certain toon (on average) and now I’m lucky to hit 460 and sometimes lucky to champ them at all. Destiny I guess, predetermined and all…but I would like a little more transparency.

Yepyep

LavaManLee said:

If you don't want to believe in the mathematical law of statistics, I can't stop you.  That doesn't make you right, though, and certainly doesn't change that the odds of any one character are 1/7 and the odds of any one color for one character are 1/21.  Odds are absolutely NOT a guarantee.  They are simply odds and each pull is independent of the one before it.

This is certainly true -- but it also doesn't make him wrong. @Borstock is, of course, correct that any of our "singular experience[s] will always be insignificant" in the face of a vast sea of data that we have no access to.

But it is also the case that any sequence of raw data could mirror the distribution within the whole. The chances that it does or not, however, is likewise unknowable to us. But from that uncertainty can arise a belief in god, no?

jp1 said:

You know, confirmation bias and such aside, my dry streaks seem to end right around the time I spend money.

Im not even mad about it IF it’s true though. Seems fair. There should be some reward for supporting the game.

Overall, I used to max out around 470 or higher before the rotation removed a certain toon (on average) and now I’m lucky to hit 460 and sometimes lucky to champ them at all. Destiny I guess, predetermined and all…but I would like a little more transparency.

I would, too. We have precisely no ability to determine whether D3's stated odds are accurate and/or honest. They could very well have some sort of algorithm guiding the process or none at all and it's just a grab from a Scrabble bag. 

I have my personal belief about this which is guided less by anecdotal datasets and more by my knowledge of how businesses are operated (1) by people (2) under a do-or-get-fired mandate to make money (3) in the absence of sunshine and third-party oversight.

bbigler

Clearly, there’s a lot of disagreement to Bad’s theory.  So, I’ll state the facts and then my opinions:  

Facts:
1. Your personal 5* results could fit into multiple theories, so just because a theory fits your results doesn’t make it true.

2. The best theory fits all results from all players, avoids confirmation bias and can be proven by others.  No data is excluded in order to “save” a theory and it also makes logical sense.  

3. It’s been discussed and agreed upon before that your personal string of 5* pulls are determined in advance (to some unknown number). 

4. The results from all players that track a large number of pulls show that it is always near 15%, but I have not seen any consensus that the RNG tries to give out “missing covers”. 

My Opinion:
1. I do not consider 300 pulls to be a large enough sample size to determine statistical averages.  3,000 pulls would be far more accurate, but still doable.  

2. I’m very confident as a software engineer that their algorithm hasn’t been touched in years.  (If it works, don’t change it). I’m also confident that they implemented this in the simplest way possible, unless player complaints had them change it.  Most likely, it’s a simple RNG system with each pull being independent.

bbigler

TLDR summary of my last post: 

I’m very confident that:
1. Each pull is independent of previous pulls, and is truly random, so anything can happen.  

2. Everyone’s 5* draw rates and color distribution approach the stated odds over time.  

3. Because the first two points conflict with each other, there’s a funny thing about probabilities: the further your actual results are from the stated odds, the higher your probability becomes of getting results to offset your previous results so that it approaches the stated odds.  

Or in other words, hot spells follow dry spells and your missing covers eventually come, not because the RNG is tracking it, but because of the nature of probabilities which always approaches the stated odds over time.  With enough pulls, it always happens, you just don’t know how many pulls it will take until it evens out.  

Bad

Borstock said:

There's literally nothing you can post that will statistically mean anything versus the infinite number of pulls by everyone that has played to date. Your singular experience will always be insignificant.

Congratulations! You just killed scientific research forever. Nobody should try to find a cancer cure because there are infinite numbers of attemps and nobody could.
However at one time there could be one person who hits the nail.

Still mostly of you didn't get my point. I'm not talking about oddity, that is certainly confirmed.
Read another time my firsts post.
And the algorithm is a thing which actually benefit us players.

The oddity on my pulls was'nt very high but really do you think those almost directed pulls for to be able to champ 2 characters perfectly in 35 hits is actually coincidence?

atomzed

Aweberman said:

These pulls have simply been recorded in a note on my phone, rather than by video, if that matters.  But if anybody is willing to see this raw data, I'm happy to share it.

I think it is awesome you track it to such an extent! Can you share it? I am curious to see. 

Some of the interesting things that we can see include 
(1) what are the dry spells and hot spells of pulls? 

(2) assuming someone pull as they go along, whether they can cover who they want
(3) how much LL pulls the person would need to keep up. 

Yepyep

Bad said:

Borstock said:

There's literally nothing you can post that will statistically mean anything versus the infinite number of pulls by everyone that has played to date. Your singular experience will always be insignificant.

Congratulations! You just killed scientific research forever. Nobody should try to find a cancer cure because there are infinite numbers of attemps and nobody could.
However at one time there could be one person who hits the nail.

Still mostly of you didn't get my point. I'm not talking about oddity, that is certainly confirmed.
Read another time my firsts post.
And the algorithm is a thing which actually benefit us players.

The oddity on my pulls was'nt very high but really do you think those almost directed pulls for to be able to champ 2 characters perfectly in 35 hits is actually coincidence?

Haha that's an amusing but inapt analogy. As far as we know, there is no invisible hand of the market overseeing cancer outcomes with an eye to profit. Even less is there an owner of the entire cancer game who created the game for fun (us, and cancer isn't fun; my partner is in chemo and I am NOT making light of this) and profit (them, though cancer is massively profitable for at least hundreds of billionaires and the companies they own). In our little game, here, we have one owner who built (or bought) our game ecosystem and controls it, start to finish.

The best you can do here is reverse-engineer this engineered system. It is NOT an organic system susceptible to a scientific method of question formation, hypothesis, data observation, testing and analysis, and theory propagation. We are living in a closed terrarium, an entirely manipulated system; we are nothing more than kids at a carnival throwing balls into a net hoping to win stuffed animals. You cannot reach a valid, scientific result. It's an embarrassing foolishness naiveté to propose that you can.

Bad

Yepyep said:

Haha that's an amusing but inapt analogy. As far as we know, there is no invisible hand of the market overseeing cancer outcomes with an eye to profit. Even less is there an owner of the entire cancer game who created the game for fun (us, and cancer isn't fun; my partner is in chemo and I am NOT making light of this) and profit (them, though cancer is massively profitable.

Was I making light of this? Because I don't remember. Like you said it was just an analogy.
Altought not related to this game and fyi there is already an innovative process called car-t and it's already saving lives and less hurting than chimio but still is expensive and there are logistic issues.

Bad

Yepyep said:

The best you can do here is reverse-engineer this engineered system. It is NOT an organic system susceptible to a scientific method of question formation, hypothesis, data observation, testing and analysis, and theory propagation. We are living in a closed terrarium, an entirely manipulated system; we are nothing more than kids at a carnival throwing balls into a net hoping to win stuffed animals. You cannot reach a valid, scientific result. It's an embarrassing foolishness naiveté to propose that you can.

And I'm totally against that .
You should agree that there is a great inequality between the work I did in this thread (videos, experience on hoards and theories)and to come here empty-handed saying that I'm wrong because others already were trying it.
Like I said before, come here presenting the same proofs I presented here in order to convince me of that.

Vhailorx

bbigler said:

Clearly, there’s a lot of disagreement to Bad’s theory.  So, I’ll state the facts and then my opinions:  

Facts:
1. Your personal 5* results could fit into multiple theories, so just because a theory fits your results doesn’t make it true.

2. The best theory fits all results from all players, avoids confirmation bias and can be proven by others.  No data is excluded in order to “save” a theory and it also makes logical sense.  

3. It’s been discussed and agreed upon before that your personal string of 5* pulls are determined in advance (to some unknown number). 

4. The results from all players that track a large number of pulls show that it is always near 15%, but I have not seen any consensus that the RNG tries to give out “missing covers”. 

My Opinion:
1. I do not consider 300 pulls to be a large enough sample size to determine statistical averages.  3,000 pulls would be far more accurate, but still doable.  

2. I’m very confident as a software engineer that their algorithm hasn’t been touched in years.  (If it works, don’t change it). I’m also confident that they implemented this in the simplest way possible, unless player complaints had them change it.  Most likely, it’s a simple RNG system with each pull being independent.

As I said, we should remember the law of parsimony.  If the two options we are considering are (1) there is one algorithm and it's 15% (5+5+5) and all the anecdotes about unusual hoard cracking results are noise, or (2) there is a baseline algorithm + multiple hidden algorithms that adjust outcomes based on real $ spending or which 5* will leave the LT pool next or some other factor, then we should always rely on (1) just because it is so much simpler and explains all the observed data just as well.