RNG

Curious*

DrZola

Short answer: It’s a version of random.

Longer answer: In 4 years of playing, the only consistent thread I’ve been able to tease out is that you pull (way more often than not) the thing you need least.

Final thoughts: If your happiness hinges on your pulls, you can bank on being unhappy a lot.

Dr. Zola

hephaestus

Sirius111 wrote: »

pulling **** for months on end like

^^^ I'd plan on that.

DrZola wrote: »

Short answer: It’s a version of random.

Longer answer: In 4 years of playing, the only consistent thread I’ve been able to tease out is that you pull (way more often than not) the thing you need least.

Final thoughts: If your happiness hinges on your pulls, you can bank on being unhappy a lot.

Dr. Zola

Thanks Dr. Zola! I’ll keep that in mind. I appreciate the helpful answer!

hephaestus wrote: »

Sirius111 wrote: »

pulling **** for months on end like

^^^ I'd plan on that.

It’s funny cause I typed out crp. I’m sure you’re 100% correct about that.

DrZola

Sirius111 wrote: »

DrZola wrote: »

Short answer: It’s a version of random.

Longer answer: In 4 years of playing, the only consistent thread I’ve been able to tease out is that you pull (way more often than not) the thing you need least.

Final thoughts: If your happiness hinges on your pulls, you can bank on being unhappy a lot.

Dr. Zola

Thanks Dr. Zola! I’ll keep that in mind. I appreciate the helpful answer!

Don’t be dismayed by my seemingly cynical reply...as a friend told me once, just rank what you have that’s good/enjoyable to play with and don’t worry too much about it. I spent a ton of time “waiting” and didn’t enjoy what was in my roster. That’s the wrong approach.

Dr. Zola

Sounds

DrZola wrote: »

Sirius111 wrote: »

DrZola wrote: »

Short answer: It’s a version of random.

Longer answer: In 4 years of playing, the only consistent thread I’ve been able to tease out is that you pull (way more often than not) the thing you need least.

Final thoughts: If your happiness hinges on your pulls, you can bank on being unhappy a lot.

Dr. Zola

Thanks Dr. Zola! I’ll keep that in mind. I appreciate the helpful answer!

Don’t be dismayed by my seemingly cynical reply...as a friend told me once, just rank what you have that’s good/enjoyable to play with and don’t worry too much about it. I spent a ton of time “waiting” and didn’t enjoy what was in my roster. That’s the wrong approach.

Dr. Zola

Much appreciated mate!

RNG is a lie

RNG may be real but when you're grouped in to certain pools of terrible champs it's a lie.

If you're designated into a pool with all available champs then RNG would mean you have an equal chance of any specific champ

But when you take spending behavior in to account and your available champ pool includes almost strictly dud champs, RNG goes out the window

V1PER1987

I’ve been pulling trash on my main since August. The fact you’ve had really good pulls in December which is only a week and a half ago and now your luck is going downhill is... obvious. You are not going to pull top tier every single crystal. Even then, 2 bad pulls (one of which is actually decent and useable) is not indicative of a bad streak. I’ve had a bad streak for 5 months. The sad thing is there’s people out there with worse streaks than that.

V1PER1987 wrote: »

I’ve been pulling trash on my main since August. The fact you’ve had really good pulls in December which is only a week and a half ago and now your luck is going downhill is... obvious. You are not going to pull top tier every single crystal. Even then, 2 bad pulls (one of which is actually decent and useable) is not indicative of a bad streak. I’ve had a bad streak for 5 months. The sad thing is there’s people out there with worse streaks than that.

Yea man I get what you are saying. I was just stating that my luck is probably going to get worse from there. Can’t wait for the wonderful streak again!

unknown

This content has been removed.

DalBot wrote: »

RNG is a lie

RNG may be real but when you're grouped in to certain pools of terrible champs it's a lie.

If you're designated into a pool with all available champs then RNG would mean you have an equal chance of any specific champ

But when you take spending behavior in to account and your available champ pool includes almost strictly dud champs, RNG goes out the window

Spending has no effect on pulls.
As for RNG, there's an equal chance at each Champ unless specified. That doesn't mean the results will show one of each. Each pull is a separately-generated outcome with the same odds. It doesn't alter that based on previous pulls.

Primmer79

For every person who pulls 50 5* champs and doesnt dupe a single one, there is a person with 5 5* champs and theyre all god tier and duped.

RNG means you have equal chance of pulling anything.

Odds are you won't pull everything.

We as players also consider 75-80% of champions "trash" because we designate only ~20 (MAYBE) as god tier. (okay not everyone, but you get my point)

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Spending has no effect on pulls.
As for RNG, there's an equal chance at each Champ unless specified. That doesn't mean the results will show one of each. Each pull is a separately-generated outcome with the same odds. It doesn't alter that based on previous pulls.

so by saying this you're saying that you don't believe the patent for altering pulls based on spending behavior doesn't conveniently apply to Kabams most profitable game?

DalBot wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Spending has no effect on pulls.
As for RNG, there's an equal chance at each Champ unless specified. That doesn't mean the results will show one of each. Each pull is a separately-generated outcome with the same odds. It doesn't alter that based on previous pulls.

so by saying this you're saying that you don't believe the patent for altering pulls based on spending behavior doesn't conveniently apply to Kabams most profitable game?

I'm afriad you don't undertsand how starting a game works.
Many Patents are applied for in the development stage. That doesn't mean they're all employed. In fact, they've commented numerous times that there are many Patents that aren't used, that were filed. That Patent has been going around for over a year, and the conspiracy hasn't died, it seems. Using Google doesn't make concrete evidence.

If spending made a difference, I'd have a much better Roster.

DNA3000

DalBot wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Spending has no effect on pulls.
As for RNG, there's an equal chance at each Champ unless specified. That doesn't mean the results will show one of each. Each pull is a separately-generated outcome with the same odds. It doesn't alter that based on previous pulls.

so by saying this you're saying that you don't believe the patent for altering pulls based on spending behavior doesn't conveniently apply to Kabams most profitable game?

This again? How many times does it have to be said that the patent in question explicitly claims to an invention to improve random rewards for players whose spending drops to encourage them to spend more which is the exact opposite of what almost everyone claims Kabam does, and also that no one patents inventions they then try to secretly use because patents are published and have to be defended publicly. Secret inventions are made protected trade secrets which aren't patented. Furthermore, patent law requires claims to be explicit: you cannot "read between the lines" on a patent: any claim not stated isn't protected.

In other words, you don't understand how patents work, how patents are used, and what the specific patent in question even says. But you do seem to like talking about them.

The_Mighty_Toe

Its RNG... I have had **** pulls and then ridiculous pulls. Recently on 4* I seem to get mostly ridiculous. Got 4* domino from a 4* gem today. Got 4* massacre from one yesterday. Got 4* start from a PHC a few days back. Recently got 5* Morningstar and then my 5* luck failed with She Hulk and Iron man during the 2* tourney. In the last month though I picked up 5* IMIW, 5* iceman, duped 4* iceman, duped 4* void. I got a mystic AG for christmas I used on my 5* magik. It's just random and eventually it goes great then back to sour.

DNA3000 wrote: »

This again? How many times does it have to be said that the patent in question explicitly claims to an invention to improve random rewards for players whose spending drops to encourage them to spend more which is the exact opposite of what almost everyone claims Kabam does, and also that no one patents inventions they then try to secretly use because patents are published and have to be defended publicly. Secret inventions are made protected trade secrets which aren't patented. Furthermore, patent law requires claims to be explicit: you cannot "read between the lines" on a patent: any claim not stated isn't protected.

In other words, you don't understand how patents work, how patents are used, and what the specific patent in question even says. But you do seem to like talking about them.

lot of chatter there to defend something that clear as day completely rebuts everything you said. But kudos for trying...

Now if only every company with a profit motive acted in altruistic good faith as you seem to be thinking

Patent number: 10080972
Abstract: A system and method for varying the distribution probabilities of individual potential awards associated with probability item bundles depending on a purchase history of a user activating a probability item bundle.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

If spending made a difference, I'd have a much better Roster.

Except that's not how it works. I have friends in Mobile game development. The logic is if spenders are going to spend, probabilities can be altered so that they receive less reward in "free" content (see 5* crystals bought with shards) while altering the probability of them getting higher rewards based on paid content items (GMFCs and bundle deals).

Thinking companies don't look for ways to advantageously influence spending is consumer naievete at its finest.

DNA3000

DalBot wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

This again? How many times does it have to be said that the patent in question explicitly claims to an invention to improve random rewards for players whose spending drops to encourage them to spend more which is the exact opposite of what almost everyone claims Kabam does, and also that no one patents inventions they then try to secretly use because patents are published and have to be defended publicly. Secret inventions are made protected trade secrets which aren't patented. Furthermore, patent law requires claims to be explicit: you cannot "read between the lines" on a patent: any claim not stated isn't protected.

In other words, you don't understand how patents work, how patents are used, and what the specific patent in question even says. But you do seem to like talking about them.

lot of chatter there to defend something that clear as day completely rebuts everything you said. But kudos for trying...

Now if only every company with a profit motive acted in altruistic good faith as you seem to be thinking

Are you completely illiterate, or only partially illiterate? Nowhere do I state that or ascribe such motives to anyone. In fact, I imply the exact opposite, which is a vote for complete illiteracy. No company files patents assuming everyone else will act with good intentions. So they are always as complete as possible in listing claims to prevent someone from picking apart their patent with exceptions.

Patent number: 10080972
Abstract: A system and method for varying the distribution probabilities of individual potential awards associated with probability item bundles depending on a purchase history of a user activating a probability item bundle.

Another vote for complete illiteracy is the ability copy and paste a title, but not actually read the contents. The claims of that patent explicitly and clearly specify that it is a patent for an invention that implements increasing the probability of receiving a reward from a lootbox when the game system detects that overall spending by the player has decreased. It is very specific. If Kabam is doing anything else besides that then the patent doesn't cover it. And if the patent doesn't cover it, holding it up as evidence for behavior the patent doesn't actually cover is ridiculous.

Clearly you're not reading what I say and are just looking for reasons to ad hom, so good day to you sir. 😉

DalBot wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

If spending made a difference, I'd have a much better Roster.

Except that's not how it works. I have friends in Mobile game development. The logic is if spenders are going to spend, probabilities can be altered so that they receive less reward in "free" content (see 5* crystals bought with shards) while altering the probability of them getting higher rewards based on paid content items (GMFCs and bundle deals).

Thinking companies don't look for ways to advantageously influence spending is consumer naievete at its finest.

I'm fully capable of understanding the logic behind your conspiracy theory. That doesn't make it true. The pulls are the same for spenders and non-spenders alike. That's the whole point of having an RNG system. Please feel free to continue, though. You have the attention of The Illuminati.

*hint: there's nothing in the patent about spending decreasing, only "depending on a purchase history". Your attempts to imply meaning have failed*

Demonzfyre

DalBot wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Spending has no effect on pulls.
As for RNG, there's an equal chance at each Champ unless specified. That doesn't mean the results will show one of each. Each pull is a separately-generated outcome with the same odds. It doesn't alter that based on previous pulls.

so by saying this you're saying that you don't believe the patent for altering pulls based on spending behavior doesn't conveniently apply to Kabams most profitable game?

So the $380 I spent trying to get Thing today would mean i should have gotten him as a 5* right? The $1000's of dollars I spent over the course pf 4+ years means I should have every god tier champ in the game right? Well i can tell you that the statement you made is complete BS.

Yet people who have never spent a dime pull Featured Champs and God Tier Champs all the time. That's some fancy programming right there.

DNA3000

DalBot wrote: »

*hint: there's nothing in the patent about spending decreasing, only "depending on a purchase history". Your attempts to imply meaning have failed*

Claims

1. A system that delivers offers to users of an online game, the system comprising:

one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
[system details edited]
...

2. A system of claim 1, wherein the first set of potential awards includes a first potential award associated with a first distribution probability that increases as the first spending metric indicates a decrease in spending level.

3. A system of claim 2, wherein the decrease in spending level is determined by comparing, via the one or more physical processors, the first spending metric to a predetermined value.

4. A system of claim 2, wherein the decrease in spending level is determined by comparing, via the one or more physical processors, the first spending metric to a dynamically determined value.

...

DNA3000 wrote: »

DalBot wrote: »

*hint: there's nothing in the patent about spending decreasing, only "depending on a purchase history". Your attempts to imply meaning have failed*

Claims

1. A system that delivers offers to users of an online game, the system comprising:

one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
[system details edited]
...

2. A system of claim 1, wherein the first set of potential awards includes a first potential award associated with a first distribution probability that increases as the first spending metric indicates a decrease in spending level.

3. A system of claim 2, wherein the decrease in spending level is determined by comparing, via the one or more physical processors, the first spending metric to a predetermined value.

4. A system of claim 2, wherein the decrease in spending level is determined by comparing, via the one or more physical processors, the first spending metric to a dynamically determined value.

...

Cute of you to list 1-4 but not 5-9 which rebut your premise entirely...