Tarheelmax wrote: jobob wrote: Wooodd wrote: Whilst I sympathize with your recent poor 5 luck is it fair that you have been gifted a free (assuming you could choose your cover) whilst the rest of the player-base have not? Whilst RNG is not a fair way to distribute top end rewards, it is the system we all have to work with and unless it is changed it should be adhered to, particularly by CS. For them to give away a free cover to someone who's experience has not matched the listed odds on tokens seems like opening quite a can of worms to me. It may be a can of worms... but again, I have serious questions about how random the system actually is. You see too many streaks that are so statistically improbable, that it casts doubt on the system IMO. 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. edit: fixed typo
jobob wrote: Wooodd wrote: Whilst I sympathize with your recent poor 5 luck is it fair that you have been gifted a free (assuming you could choose your cover) whilst the rest of the player-base have not? Whilst RNG is not a fair way to distribute top end rewards, it is the system we all have to work with and unless it is changed it should be adhered to, particularly by CS. For them to give away a free cover to someone who's experience has not matched the listed odds on tokens seems like opening quite a can of worms to me. It may be a can of worms... but again, I have serious questions about how random the system actually is. You see too many streaks that are so statistically improbable, that it casts doubt on the system IMO.
Wooodd wrote: Whilst I sympathize with your recent poor 5 luck is it fair that you have been gifted a free (assuming you could choose your cover) whilst the rest of the player-base have not? Whilst RNG is not a fair way to distribute top end rewards, it is the system we all have to work with and unless it is changed it should be adhered to, particularly by CS. For them to give away a free cover to someone who's experience has not matched the listed odds on tokens seems like opening quite a can of worms to me.
chamber44 wrote: Tarheelmax wrote: jobob wrote: Wooodd wrote: Whilst I sympathize with your recent poor 5 luck is it fair that you have been gifted a free (assuming you could choose your cover) whilst the rest of the player-base have not? Whilst RNG is not a fair way to distribute top end rewards, it is the system we all have to work with and unless it is changed it should be adhered to, particularly by CS. For them to give away a free cover to someone who's experience has not matched the listed odds on tokens seems like opening quite a can of worms to me. It may be a can of worms... but again, I have serious questions about how random the system actually is. You see too many streaks that are so statistically improbable, that it casts doubt on the system IMO. 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. edit: fixed typo that's simply not true. RNG is not as random as it seems, because the multitude of stories of people pulling the exact same token 3, 4, 5 times in a row has to be statistically impossible (or improbable to a nearly unmeasurable degree). I'll ignore the recent screenshots of the person who drew four 5* JG greens in a row, because that's too crazy to comprehend and instead use a more common example. In cashing in multiple DDQ tokens, I've drawn 4 sets of healthpacks consecutively. Now, even given that each draw from the Vault increases the chance that i'll draw healthpacks slightly, what is the statistical probability that I'll actually draw 4 in a row? Now, what's the statistical probability that i'll do it again? (because I have - at least three times, to be exact, and that's not counting the times i'll draw 3-5 sets of healthpacks while cashing in 10-20 tokens at a time) I will admit 100% that I hate math with a passion, so maybe the odds are higher than I think. But I doubt it. I'm also not saying the solution is to rig the system so that you can't draw two of the same tokens consecutively, but it does just look like the system isn't even random but that for whatever reason, these crazy streaks are possible. To me, that's almost worse, because there's an entire class of player that will never be able to climb out of the hole that "random" forces them into (as evidenced by the fact that I have more Dumpster Fire Hulk covers than I have of Iceman and JG combined).
amusingfoo1 wrote: Tarheelmax wrote: jobob wrote: Wooodd wrote: Whilst I sympathize with your recent poor 5 luck is it fair that you have been gifted a free (assuming you could choose your cover) whilst the rest of the player-base have not? Whilst RNG is not a fair way to distribute top end rewards, it is the system we all have to work with and unless it is changed it should be adhered to, particularly by CS. For them to give away a free cover to someone who's experience has not matched the listed odds on tokens seems like opening quite a can of worms to me. It may be a can of worms... but again, I have serious questions about how random the system actually is. You see too many streaks that are so statistically improbable, that it casts doubt on the system IMO. 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. edit: fixed typo Well, sure, but there's forty ways of getting one 5*, so it's 40x as likely as getting none.
Wooodd wrote: if I reply that statistically you could pull 10 million and never hit one as each pull is its own gamble with its own statistics applied then I'll be hit with the "easy for you to say with your perfect 10% pull rate" responses.
Tarheelmax wrote: Yeah, if you literally pulled 1 million LTs and got none, then it would be reasonable to believe the odds aren't really 10%. But that is no where near anything that we are talking about. 40 is not the same thing as 1,000,000.
Tarheelmax wrote: Each legendary token has the same odds independant of each other.
simonsez wrote: Wooodd wrote: if I reply that statistically you could pull 10 million and never hit one as each pull is its own gamble with its own statistics applied then I'll be hit with the "easy for you to say with your perfect 10% pull rate" responses. No, no one would say that. They would say you have absolutely no understanding of probability and statistics whatsoever, and you refrain from ever speaking of them again, because it's tinykitty embarrassing.
Tarheelmax wrote: True, and I totally agree that it's not likely to make 40 pulls and not get a 5*, just that it isn't crazy that it happens. Or at least not really any crazier than any 40 pull string. I could post my last 40 pulls, but it happens to look random even though statistically it was improbable to pull those 40 covers, so people wouldn't ever say "wow, that's a crazy sequence."
Wooodd wrote: Is it impossible to not hit one out of 1 million or improbable?
simonsez wrote: Tarheelmax wrote: True, and I totally agree that it's not likely to make 40 pulls and not get a 5*, just that it isn't crazy that it happens. Or at least not really any crazier than any 40 pull string. I could post my last 40 pulls, but it happens to look random even though statistically it was improbable to pull those 40 covers, so people wouldn't ever say "wow, that's a crazy sequence." You people who make that kind of statement are missing the point. If you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, and Elektra, yes, that's a unique sequence, just as unique as any other. BUT BEFORE YOU MAKE THOSE PULLS, no one was entertaining the hypothesis, "I bet you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, Elektra". On the other hand, the notion that people's pulls cluster and show a preponderance of duuplication is something WE ALREADY SUSPECT PRIOR TO THE PULLS. It is not valid to look at the above sequence after the fact and claim it's an unlikely outcome. On the other hand, if you state beforehand, "I believe pull results cluster", and you end up with GT, GT, SL, SL, Thing, it is completely valid to point out the unlikely probability of drawing two pairs out of 5 pulls, because clustering was your stated hypothesis before any pulls happened. I hope this is helpful to someone.
simonsez wrote: Wooodd wrote: Is it impossible to not hit one out of 1 million or improbable? It depends on how you define "impossible". Most people with an ounce of common sense would consider a decimal point, followed by page full of zeroes and a 1 to be the same as "0", but you're always going to find a Lloyd who will look at that and insist, "So, you're saying there's a chance!".
Pongie wrote: Coltsjustwin wrote: I have seen some "top" players post their results from LT pulls and they seem to be incredibly lucky by getting a near 25-33% 5* pull rate Might have been just that day but damn...I don't hear anybody else getting that lucky. Random is random. With a 10% chance of hitting a token large winning streaks are very uncommon where large cold streaks are not. And people tend to overexaggerate adverse events and take for granted positive events. I have a theory about this. The vets and whales that open heaps of tokens immediately after a character release are close to, if not opening the majority of token pool. Eg they open 70 tokens, chances are its 70 out of 100 tokens being opening at the time. Therefore they get a more even distribution. For the rest who are opening 70 tokens over an extended period, this is just a fraction of how many tokens being opened. It could be in the thousands if not more. In this case the distribution is more random.
Coltsjustwin wrote: I have seen some "top" players post their results from LT pulls and they seem to be incredibly lucky by getting a near 25-33% 5* pull rate Might have been just that day but damn...I don't hear anybody else getting that lucky.
I have a theory about this. The vets and whales that open heaps of tokens immediately after a character release are close to, if not opening the majority of token pool. Eg they open 70 tokens, chances are its 70 out of 100 tokens being opening at the time. Therefore they get a more even distribution. For the rest who are opening 70 tokens over an extended period, this is just a fraction of how many tokens being opened. It could be in the thousands if not more. In this case the distribution is more random.
simonsez wrote: You people who make that kind of statement are missing the point. If you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, and Elektra, yes, that's a unique sequence, just as unique as any other. BUT BEFORE YOU MAKE THOSE PULLS, no one was entertaining the hypothesis, "I bet you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, Elektra". On the other hand, the notion that people's pulls cluster and show a preponderance of duuplication is something WE ALREADY SUSPECT PRIOR TO THE PULLS. It is not valid to look at the above sequence after the fact and claim it's an unlikely outcome. On the other hand, if you state beforehand, "I believe pull results cluster", and you end up with GT, GT, SL, SL, Thing, it is completely valid to point out the unlikely probability of drawing two pairs out of 5 pulls, because clustering was your stated hypothesis before any pulls happened. I hope this is helpful to someone.
jobob wrote: At some point, "mathematically possible" doesn't mean much, as you cross a line of "practically impossible." It is mathematically possible that I will hit the next 3 powerballs, buy my own island, and as I am swimming along the coast, be attacked by a shark and only be saved when the two of us are struck by lightning. All that has a >0% chance of happening... But is practically impossible. So when I make a pull that has a 0.000053% chance (if I calculated right) of occurring randomly, I am skeptical. It's Occam's razor... What's the simpler theory, that all these statistically improbable streaks are random, or that there is indeed something else that factors in sometimes.
jobob wrote: simonsez wrote: Tarheelmax wrote: True, and I totally agree that it's not likely to make 40 pulls and not get a 5*, just that it isn't crazy that it happens. Or at least not really any crazier than any 40 pull string. I could post my last 40 pulls, but it happens to look random even though statistically it was improbable to pull those 40 covers, so people wouldn't ever say "wow, that's a crazy sequence." You people who make that kind of statement are missing the point. If you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, and Elektra, yes, that's a unique sequence, just as unique as any other. BUT BEFORE YOU MAKE THOSE PULLS, no one was entertaining the hypothesis, "I bet you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, Elektra". On the other hand, the notion that people's pulls cluster and show a preponderance of duuplication is something WE ALREADY SUSPECT PRIOR TO THE PULLS. It is not valid to look at the above sequence after the fact and claim it's an unlikely outcome. On the other hand, if you state beforehand, "I believe pull results cluster", and you end up with GT, GT, SL, SL, Thing, it is completely valid to point out the unlikely probability of drawing two pairs out of 5 pulls, because clustering was your stated hypothesis before any pulls happened. I hope this is helpful to someone. Exactly. You are just as likely to shuffle a deck of cards into sequential order as any other specific combination. It's like saying everyone should hit the powerball, because my number was just as improbable as the winner's.
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."