So, I decided to test the RNG on ST's persistent charges 100 times.

*every one put on your tin foil hats*

First, these are my findings and, for all intents and purposes, probably don't mean squat.

ST's info says:
ab4n3k67nmld.jpg

One would infer from this that you have a 25% chance to roll one of the 4 numbers and a 75% chance to roll something other than 3.

I tested this under a controlled situation, so no one could say there was an outside source affecting it. I went against RoL Bucky 100 times with just ST in my party.

Here is what I found...


Percentages of my 100 rolls:
3 - 48%
4 - 34%
5 - 13%
6 - 5%

Video clip of the incredibly tedious process (warning: You can never get these 2 minutes of your life back).


Inside the spoiler tag are the sequence of rolls divided in groups of 10.
4
5
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
4

4
3
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
4

3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3

4
3
4
5
4
5
5
3
4
3

4
5
3
6
6
3
4
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
5

4
6
4
3
5
3
4
3
4
3

3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
3

4
4
6
5
4
6
3
4
4
3

3
3
3
3
5
4
4
3
4
3
«13456

Comments

  • Yeah I tried something similar once. There was a path that I was planning on using ST a lot on and it was only a few energy to my first fight. I thought I'd just keep starting over until I got 5 or 6 charges. About 100 energy later I got a 5. A majority of the rolls we're 3. I'm guessing 3 and 4 are more likely to drop than a 6.
  • HaminHamin Posts: 2,231
    edited January 30
    In fairness, the numbers the rolls landed on were random... just the percentages were different.
  • hope4tghope4tg Posts: 118
    edited January 30
    Hamin wrote: »
    In fairness, the numbers the rolls landed on were random... just the percentages were different.

    Yes, technically speaking the description is absolutely correct. But without any more information, I would say that we are more inclined to think that ST would have an equal chance of landing on 3,4,5 or 6. Again, technically correct description but heavily lacks information and nuance.
  • ElrawwElraww Posts: 9
    You actually beat me to it OP. I was about to test the exact same thing over the weekend to see if I would r5 my ST.
    I just like how we plays, and together with Void/KM he can make hell of a team.

    @Kabam Miike or any other mod: As you guys are working to improve some descriptions in the game (i.e. descriptions for the Courage and Assassin mastery), can you also please address this to the team? Or maybe get in contact with the devs to check with them and report the percentages over here? Would appreciate any feedback!
  • Strikerrx8Strikerrx8 Posts: 630
    The only thing i found bad about st he should not lose those fury stacks
  • AleorAleor Posts: 774
    edited January 30
    maybe they inverse % when st is on D, so on average it would be 25/25/25/25? I'd test it as well if there was st as first enemy on some map
  • LoPrestiLoPresti Posts: 1,008
    Nice factual data, and good test along with data point entries. 100 times is enough to be able to draw a sensible conclusion.

    This is rigged.
  • "Random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."

    If there was a method; i.e. 3-50% 4-30% 5-15% 6-5% then it wouldn't be random.
  • HaminHamin Posts: 2,231
    "Random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."

    If there was a method; i.e. 3-50% 4-30% 5-15% 6-5% then it wouldn't be random.

    That is a good point.
  • Strikerrx8Strikerrx8 Posts: 630
    Y u get ban @Hamin
  • ShrimkinsShrimkins Posts: 1,213
    "Random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."

    If there was a method; i.e. 3-50% 4-30% 5-15% 6-5% then it wouldn't be random.

    That doesn't describe a method. A % by definition describes a fraction, or in this case, a probability of some random act occurring. Not a selection method.

    If you roll 2 dice you have a greater chance of rolling 7 than you do 12. You wouldn't say the dice were rigged would you? Of course not. There are just different probabilities for different random events to occur.

    However, I agree it seems that some more transparency in the description is warranted. There is nothing that says all outcomes are equal but nothings that says they aren't so it's pretty ambiguous.
  • IsItthoughIsItthough Posts: 200
    I was reading that Online Casinos, and mobile gambling games have an outside certification process for RNG like Technical Systems Testing (TST), that go to great lengths to check that the Algorithm used in there application is legit. So Im wonder if there are other certifications for games such as MCOC, that test a true RNG.
  • CharnutzCharnutz Posts: 49
    Strikerrx8 wrote: »
    Y u get ban @Hamin

    Yeah, why?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 7,044
    Hamin wrote: »
    hope4tg wrote: »
    Hamin wrote: »
    In fairness, the numbers the rolls landed on were random... just the percentages were different.

    Yes, technically speaking the description is absolutely correct. But without any more information, I would say that we are more inclined to think that ST would have an equal chance of landing on 3,4,5 or 6. Again, technically correct description but heavily lacks information and nuance.

    Yeah, I wish they would put the roll percentages in the info... like you said, as it's worded, it's not technically wrong.

    If there are hard percentages coded in, based on my rolls, I would say they are:

    3 - 50%
    4 - 30%
    5 - 15%
    6 - 5%

    Interesting experiment. It does roughly agree with my observations, insofar as three and four come up overwhelmingly often in my experience. If I had to take a guess at what the percentages actually are, I would guess: 50% / 33% / 12% / 5%, but your guess is also within the margins of error. In my experience game developers tend to like round numbers and simple fractions, so I'm guessing someone might have been thinking that 3 should come up half the time, 4 about one third the time, and 5 and 6 split the remaining seventeen percentage points roughly two to one, and 6 landing on five percentage points.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 7,044
    "Random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."

    If there was a method; i.e. 3-50% 4-30% 5-15% 6-5% then it wouldn't be random.

    False. Craps, for example, presumes random dice rolls but not every number has an equal chance of occurring because the combination of two dies generates a non-equal distribution. Two and Twelve only come up once every thirty six rolls on average while seven comes up six times more often.

    Also important to note that dictionaries are not the arbiter of the meanings of words, by their own mission statement. They document how words are used, they do not mandate how words must be used. The word "random" is used in a lot of contexts; in colloquial speech it might sometimes mean what you quote above, but when it comes to random number generation in computer systems that definition is entirely wrong.
  • HaminHamin Posts: 2,231
    Charnutz wrote: »
    Strikerrx8 wrote: »
    Y u get ban @Hamin

    Yeah, why?

    You can't talk about moderations.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 7,044
    borntohula wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but if understanding basic in-game descriptions, now requires a course in advanced semantics, I think something is a little off. I take it that most people would interpret 'random' as 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring.

    Then most people would be wrong. But most people don't actually believe this unless it is convenient to believe. Randomness and equal distribution are orthogonal ideas. People colloquially describe things as random that are most definitely not equally distributed. Usually, the colloquial meaning of "random" is "unpredictable" not "all possibilities equally likely." Someone might say the weather in sixty days will be is random, but no one who says that believes that all weather possibilities are equally likely.
Sign In or Register to comment.