The LL algorithm

JHawkInc

I have my LT data (Latest and Classic) back to.... when Okoye first came out. I'm really kinda curious what it looks like over time (some of my formulas got borked a ways back), but I absolutely don't have enough curiosity to overcome my laziness that simply doesn't want to do the work, haha.

Bad

bbigler said:

First, that’s not the same thing.  

Second, do you seriously disagree with known truths that are universally accepted and provable?
Third, I’m giving up trying to explain this to you

First. Like I said to you in another thread (which has been deleted, by the way), those rules could have some use if pulling in a row. But we rarely are pulling 5*s in a row, and usually after many 4*s. There is no way that those rules could be applied when pulling a 5* here and pulling another after 17 pulls.
Second. Those rules could be applied when rolling a dice. A dice is a phisical artefact and is suspectible to be afected by many factors.
A RNG in a game is not afected by any factor and just behaves in the way it has been programed.

helix72

I’m a glutton for punishment so let me try to give a simple example of what @bbigler is talking about.

Let’s say you draw a cover for a 5*. Each cover is equally likely, so 1/0/0, 0/1/0, and 0/0/1 are equally likely outcomes (1/3 chance of each).

Let’s say you draw a second cover for the same 5*. Again, each of the three covers are equally likely, but you’ve already drawn one before, so the distribution of possible outcomes after 2 pulls looks like this:

1/0/0 + 1/0/0 = 2/0/0
1/0/0 + 0/1/0 = 1/1/0
1/0/0 + 0/0/1 = 1/0/1
0/1/0 + 1/0/0 = 1/1/0
0/1/0 + 0/1/0 = 0/2/0
0/1/0 + 0/0/1 = 0/1/1

0/0/1 + 1/0/0 = 1/0/1

0/0/1 + 0/1/0 = 0/1/1
0/0/1 + 0/0/1 = 0/0/2

If the process is random, each of these outcomes is equally likely, and you can see the probability of getting 2 covers of the same color (3/9) is less than the probability of getting 1 cover in 2 different colors (6/9). Similarly, the probability of getting a 1/1/0 distribution is twice as likely as the probability of getting a 2/0/0 distribution. This is what bbigler was saying, that not every cover distribution outcome is equally likely.

Now, if you’re asserting that the process isn’t random, and that the devs have included logic that increases the likelihood of even cover distribution, that’s a different argument, but one that most would reject given the thousands of observations over years of drawing. But you can still try to make the argument. The prior logic if we assume draws are random is irrefutable mathematical fact.

Bad

And we can say the probability of getting any color when getting a 5* is 100%, 9/9. That's the only real probability. 
When you get a 5*, there is (supposedly) a 11.111111% of being of any of the 9 powers. Nothing more than that.
If you think that rule works like that, well it works like helll!, because the only better result I could got is one less abby and 1 more cristal. 
Could explain that rule why I champed exactly 2 characters? If it was a so evenly distribution I should had got 12 covers in the 3 characters, given that it was so probable of getting all the covers.
That is a pattern I saw in all my unhoards. Of course that is just my word here as the only sample I could present is this one.
Wouldn't you agree that if I present another sample with similar results then we would be talking about an extreme coincidence, another time?

bbigler

Bad said:

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. 

 Thanks @helix72, that’s a good explanation too.  @Bad ‘s misunderstanding is explained in the very first paragraph of this thread (quoted above).  

He’s purposely ignoring the odds (probability); it appears math is not his strength.  But I didn’t want other people lead astray, so I tried to explain how an RNG pull system would produce even distribution over time.  And that fact can explain everyone’s pull results too.  But not everyone is open to constructive criticism (which isn’t meant to offend). 

Bad

Yes, that can be easily explained: I don't care about maths because I know I'm right. 
If I was wrong, how could you explain that the other thread was deleted?(no theories, no guesses, the other thread got deleted. Think about it).
And actually I don't need to prove anything more. I don't have anything to gain here.
So believe what you want. 
And when you pull on other games like I do, without never getting an even distribution of characters, don't be too surprised.

Timemachinego

If you were right, don't you think this is the thread that would have been deleted? It's more likely that someone in that other thread was on to something

I wish I weren't so gerbil-brained and could recall it better!

HoundofShadow

I didn't know pulling LTs can be that complicated actually. I simply save up 260-280 pulls and pull them in one go, or if you could earn enough to pull every day to hit 280 pulls, then you should be able to champ all 3 latest 5*. If RNG doesn't favour you, there's alway 2 covers equivalent worth of 5* shards to right things. With shards as backup, I'm actually using only ~260-280 pulls to champ all 3 5*.

This applies to special stores, except that you need 7500 cps instead. If you are pulling 20-50 times or fewer, expect dry spell or Lady Luck. Expecting a perfect  2 to 7 5* could be frustrating.

bbigler

Timemachinego said:

If you were right, don't you think this is the thread that would have been deleted? It's more likely that someone in that other thread was on to something

I wish I weren't so gerbil-brained and could recall it better!

I think the other thread was deleted for violating the forum rule of not discussing exploits.  Even though it was not specifically promoted or explained, I think it came too close and contained some true information that could be used to cheat.  

So, perhaps we should limit discussions to how many we pulled and what we got and not try to reverse engineer their system.  The only real usefulness of such discussions anyway is to give people the proper expectations when pulling Legendary tokens.  

I would love to see an end to posts like “I pulled X tokens, only got X 5* covers and now I’m angry and think the system is broken”.  

Timemachinego

I -think- all of this spun out of threads that were mad about 5* rates and yeah, as you state HoS, they can be really cruel! I've had a run of 60 with none and also a run of 40 and those both SUCKED. They DO seem to work out eventually though and we can see that in at least LL and Classics pulls. My curiosity on special/release stores is if maybe those are all the same pool and even out there too but we'd need everyone like me that draws until a new character or something like that to report our findings. If they're not the same pool, then they're disadvantageous for being so-short-lived to the point that they can't ever actually even out over time and sometimes you just get shat on, and that's bad design.

LavaManLee

I honestly have lost the point of this thread.

BlackBoltRocks

LavaManLee said:

I honestly have lost the point of this thread.

Don't think there was one in the first place.

I think the ultimate takeaway is that: this is a free-to-download mobile game, so treat it as such, yeah?

Bad

bbigler said:

I think the other thread was deleted for violating the forum rule of not discussing exploits.  Even though it was not specifically promoted or explained, I think it came too close and contained some true information that could be used to cheat.  

That's true.
However the purpose of that thread was just to compare pulls for to see if there was a link.
I can understand that standing in front the shadow of doubt of my theory it was needed to delete the post for the game's well being.
However there was no need of it, isn't it?
The RNG is flawless and everything works under yours predictability rules, isn't it?
It's so unfortunate that now I can use that fact as another element to support my theory...
If only that post wasn't been deleted... now I couldn't say this.

bbigler

Bad said:

bbigler said:

I think the other thread was deleted for violating the forum rule of not discussing exploits.  Even though it was not specifically promoted or explained, I think it came too close and contained some true information that could be used to cheat.  

That's true.
However the purpose of that thread was just to compare pulls for to see if there was a link.
I can understand that standing in front the shadow of doubt of my theory it was needed to delete the post for the game's well being.
However there was no need of it, isn't it?
The RNG is flawless and everything works under yours predictability rules, isn't it?
It's so unfortunate that now I can use that fact as another element to support my theory...
If only that post wasn't been deleted... now I couldn't say this.

You still don’t get it.  That thread was deleted because it did explain how the RNG works; not by you, but by the rest of us.  This thread has not been deleted, which indicates that your theory is not true.  Otherwise, the devs wouldn’t want people to know about it.  So you have it backwards.  

I know you think you’re right, but your explanation hasn’t changed anyone’s mind and every post I see disagrees with you.  But instead of admitting that you’re wrong, you’ve dug in deeper and put up a defensive wall of “I know I’m right and I don’t have to prove it” attitude.  So for your own well being, you should reconsider your theory, taking into account everything we’ve said about probability.  You won’t look bad for admitting that you’re wrong.  

I’m only saying this because I’m trying to help you.  But you’re not listening to any of us.  

Bad

This thread hasn't been deleted because I'm not asking for results for to compare it( and perhaps because there is a strong opposition).
But you know that it doesn't change the fact that in the other it happened, and there are other threads comparing and showing graphics of pulls(kgb shared the link before) but just I wasn't there exposing my idea.
Curious, isn't it? Other threads not and precisely that one yes.
Now you can phycologically reverse rhat evidence too, again. It's free. Lol.
And don't worry about me looking bad. I'm Bad.
Edit: of course if this thread was deleted that would be the golden proof that I am right.  Perhaps that could explain it, don't you agree?

Timemachinego

I admit I'm really terribly interested in what bit of arcane knowledge we may have dragged up to kill the other thread, but I guess if we want Bad to understand randomized spreads all we can do is shut up here. What a let-down!

DAZ0273

Somebody (who has the slightest idea what all this means) should re-create the thread and see if it gets deleted again! Then you will know who has the correct theory (although Helix72 example makes sense to me)

atomzed

DAZ0273 said:

Somebody (who has the slightest idea what all this means) should re-create the thread and see if it gets deleted again! Then you will know who has the correct theory (although Helix72 example makes sense to me)

I could recreate the thread since I still have the excel sheet but… I am not going to waste my time doing so…. 

DAZ0273

Looks like this is a mystery the Scooby Gang won't be solving any time soon, yoinks.

Bad

DAZ0273 said:

Looks like this is a mystery the Scooby Gang won't be solving any time soon, yoinks.

In this thread there is a party offering opinions and rules that could be true or not depending on the RNG nature, and another one presenting proofs and facts. So usually the balance goes for the final one.
I could present videos and videos of my future hoards but there is someone who has marked the path to follow in another thread, so I will let things as they are.
Nothing has changed officially, no one has seen nothing suspicious. And for many people a lot of things could change. 
It's the supreme beauty of these things, and of the verified-facts/officially-nonchalant-speculation.