So, I decided to test the RNG on ST's persistent charges 100 times.
Hamin
Member Posts: 2,444 ★★★★★
*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:
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...
https://youtu.be/XgniTzdiw_0
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).
https://youtu.be/P70VyUOLpRk
Inside the spoiler tag are the sequence of rolls divided in groups of 10.
First, these are my findings and, for all intents and purposes, probably don't mean squat.
ST's info says:
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...
https://youtu.be/XgniTzdiw_0Percentages 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).
https://youtu.be/P70VyUOLpRkInside 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
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
28
Comments
A lot of chars are RNG Based now because they can blame your bad char rolls, bad character info, alliance boosts missing for over a month and then reappearing after uproar.. RNG is an easy excuse..
It’s funny because no matter how many times I tried testing it myself... 5 and 6 charges were never the highest % roll.. so it’s definitely not random.
If you think RNG... Try this for yourself, see if you ever get 5-6 over a good sample size of 3and 4.. if it was truly random. You should get 5-6 over 3-4 50% of the time
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%
PS have you checked Joe Fixit "random" gamble ability?
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!
The results are very similar to what I've experienced. I would like to see a comment from Kabam on this subject, but I don't imagine we'll get one.
To all those who are hesitant to rank up Sabretooth, I wouldn't worry much about this. Even at 3 charges, he's strong enough to tear through even the hardest content. Mine was my 2nd rank 5 and I've had zero regrets. He was my go-to for a lot of the Champion content starting a few months back. Sabretooth tears through the Champion and I'm now the designated AW boss killer whenever Champion is there. I never have to worry about Iceman that many are complaining about in the Trials right now. Plus, even starting from scratch, he can solo LOL Rulk. The guy is a beast no matter how many persistent charges you have.
The game team should expect more threads like this the more the game hinges on pRNG results for basic gameplay (random buffs, random charges, buff/node interactions, etc.). Here’s to hoping we get something other than a version of “who are you going to believe, Kabam or your lying eyes?”
Dr. Zola
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. If the odds per occurrence vary, that wouldn't be in line with the connotation of the word 'random'. By the same token, when, for instance, an online poker room claims they use an RNG, I expect they refer to a random number generator. Not some version that has been tinkered with. There are even regulatory bodies that validate the 'randomness' of RNG's. If I may interpret the 'R' in that term to mean 'random' as in 'an equal and not-predetermined chance at A, B, C, D (et cetera) occurring' (which it does), I take it the same should apply here.
Kabam addressing this topic would be good for MCOC. Lack of transparency can lead to things like how Belgium responded to EA’s video game currency.
This is rigged.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't talk about moderations.
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.