There is no "scam mechanic" going on in this situation.
There is simply a lack of information. As aforementioned, the word usage in the description is technically correct albeit vague.
We are simply asking if Kabam could put things like this in champ descriptions to avoid any suspicion of foul play and/or to help players make better informed decisions.
I disagree with this.
Random applies a random number between 3 to 6. I’m yet to see someone who has stated they get 5 or 6 charges comsistenly. If this were working as intended, you would be seeing a range of people stating they get mostly 6s and the other end of the spectrum.
It seems to me there is some sort of weighting association to the charges, so weighting is a lot higher on 3 and 4 compared to the higher end. I believe this is also the case with most crystals too.
Getting them to change the description will work in there favour of course. It’s not equally random.
There is no such thing as "equally random." Different events have different probabilities to occur. When a series of events occur, it can either be systematic or random.
Systematic would be something like: gain 3 charges, then 4, then 5, then 6, then 3, ect. Or it could be 3, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 4, 3, 5, 6. As long as there is a predictable pattern then it has a method of selection and not random.
Random is just that, random. There is no method for selecting which number of charges you will get other than random number generation. In a random series of events, we have to look at the probability of that event occuring. The probabilities may differ for each outcome, but the selection method is still random.
The best example is rolling 2 dice. There is a 1/6 or 16.7% chance to roll a 7 but only a 1/36 or 2.8% chance to roll a 12. Rolling either a 7 or 12 or any other number is completely random, but some outcomes have a greater probability to occur.
There is no "scam mechanic" going on in this situation.
There is simply a lack of information. As aforementioned, the word usage in the description is technically correct albeit vague.
We are simply asking if Kabam could put things like this in champ descriptions to avoid any suspicion of foul play and/or to help players make better informed decisions.
I disagree with this.
Random applies a random number between 3 to 6. I’m yet to see someone who has stated they get 5 or 6 charges comsistenly. If this were working as intended, you would be seeing a range of people stating they get mostly 6s and the other end of the spectrum.
It seems to me there is some sort of weighting association to the charges, so weighting is a lot higher on 3 and 4 compared to the higher end. I believe this is also the case with most crystals too.
Getting them to change the description will work in there favour of course. It’s not equally random.
There is no such thing as "equally random." Different events have different probabilities to occur. When a series of events occur, it can either be systematic or random.
Systematic would be something like: gain 3 charges, then 4, then 5, then 6, then 3, ect. Or it could be 3, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 4, 3, 5, 6. As long as there is a predictable pattern then it has a method of selection and not random.
Random is just that, random. There is no method for selecting which number of charges you will get other than random number generation. In a random series of events, we have to look at the probability of that event occuring. The probabilities may differ for each outcome, but the selection method is still random.
The best example is rolling 2 dice. There is a 1/6 or 16.7% chance to roll a 7 but only a 1/36 or 2.8% chance to roll a 12. Rolling either a 7 or 12 or any other number is completely random, but some outcomes have a greater probability to occur.
So you’re telling me Domino is like rolling snake eyes and Groot is like a “7,” “8” and a “9”? And Gamblers Fate rolling “regen” is like a “3” while degen or poison is more like “10” and “11”?
Totally kidding here. Just making a point that it’s time for a little guidance from our Kabam Overlords. Just help us out a bit. And don’t shut the thread down.
Well no matter how anyone spins it Sabertooths description is misleading at best. Any normal person reading his description would infer he has an equal chance of getting 6 charges or 3, clearly this is not the case. We know Kabam can tweak randomness due to how SW has been changed post 12.0. Kabam stated her random regen was reduced in 12.0, so we know random can mean whatever Kabam wants it to be. Things like this just add to the mistrust players feel towards Kabam, the silence doesn't help either.
There is no "scam mechanic" going on in this situation.
There is simply a lack of information. As aforementioned, the word usage in the description is technically correct albeit vague.
We are simply asking if Kabam could put things like this in champ descriptions to avoid any suspicion of foul play and/or to help players make better informed decisions.
I disagree with this.
Random applies a random number between 3 to 6. I’m yet to see someone who has stated they get 5 or 6 charges comsistenly. If this were working as intended, you would be seeing a range of people stating they get mostly 6s and the other end of the spectrum.
It seems to me there is some sort of weighting association to the charges, so weighting is a lot higher on 3 and 4 compared to the higher end. I believe this is also the case with most crystals too.
Getting them to change the description will work in there favour of course. It’s not equally random.
Again, all it says is they are chosen at random.
Think of it like this:
In a jar, there are 4 different colors of marbles: blue, red, white, black.
There are 100 marbles in the jar: 50 blues, 30 reds, 15 whites, 5 blacks.
If you reach in and choose one at random, the randomness doesn't affect the percentage. You have a 5% chance to randomly pull a black marble.
Actually, if there were 5 colors of marbles in the first jar, the % to get a black marble is the same in both jars. Was that what you meant?
There is no "scam mechanic" going on in this situation.
There is simply a lack of information. As aforementioned, the word usage in the description is technically correct albeit vague.
We are simply asking if Kabam could put things like this in champ descriptions to avoid any suspicion of foul play and/or to help players make better informed decisions.
I disagree with this.
Random applies a random number between 3 to 6. I’m yet to see someone who has stated they get 5 or 6 charges comsistenly. If this were working as intended, you would be seeing a range of people stating they get mostly 6s and the other end of the spectrum.
It seems to me there is some sort of weighting association to the charges, so weighting is a lot higher on 3 and 4 compared to the higher end. I believe this is also the case with most crystals too.
Getting them to change the description will work in there favour of course. It’s not equally random.
There is no such thing as "equally random." Different events have different probabilities to occur. When a series of events occur, it can either be systematic or random.
Systematic would be something like: gain 3 charges, then 4, then 5, then 6, then 3, ect. Or it could be 3, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 4, 3, 5, 6. As long as there is a predictable pattern then it has a method of selection and not random.
Random is just that, random. There is no method for selecting which number of charges you will get other than random number generation. In a random series of events, we have to look at the probability of that event occuring. The probabilities may differ for each outcome, but the selection method is still random.
The best example is rolling 2 dice. There is a 1/6 or 16.7% chance to roll a 7 but only a 1/36 or 2.8% chance to roll a 12. Rolling either a 7 or 12 or any other number is completely random, but some outcomes have a greater probability to occur.
Its all about assumptions.
I assume this to be a random number between 3-6 on how its worded.
If they did have 'weighted' method, whereby getting a 5 and 6 is rare, my question is why? It wouldn't make sense even if the changes where equal in obtaining a 6 as the others, as its not making this champ OP. At most, he hits as hard as the hardest hitters there are - nothing more (providing he gets the max number of furries you can get)
The craps example seems the best explanation to even begin to describe some of the whacky RNG mechanics in this game.
If you think about the MCoC RNG as a combination of two separate RNG "rolls", it goes to describe the results in a more understandable way.
In reality, there could be multiple RNG calculations that are combined to produce one final result (i.e. rolling three dice, rolling 4 dice or going full on Yahtzee style dice rolling).
If I think about pulling a 4* out of a PHC shard crystal to have the same odds as rolling a Yahtzee on the first roll of my Yahtzee turn, that probably has about the same frequency as what we actually see opening crystals.
I did a quick google search for Yahtzee odds:
"The probability of rolling five of a kind of any other number is also 1/7776. Since there are a total of six different numbers on a die, we multiply the above probability by 6. This means that the probability of a Yahtzee on the first roll is 6 x 1/7776 = 1/1296 = 0.08%."
And then when you think about the fact that you have to combine the odds of rolling a Yahtzee with the odds to pull a specific champ...
So the odds to actually get you to the special event need to be tempered another probability calculation making the odds of pulling an Omega Red is very, very small.
Well no matter how anyone spins it Sabertooths description is misleading at best. Any normal person reading his description would infer he has an equal chance of getting 6 charges or 3, clearly this is not the case. We know Kabam can tweak randomness due to how SW has been changed post 12.0. Kabam stated her random regen was reduced in 12.0, so we know random can mean whatever Kabam wants it to be. Things like this just add to the mistrust players feel towards Kabam, the silence doesn't help either.
I agree it is ambiguous and can be misleading. I have no way of knowing if that was kabam's actual intentions here or not but I suspect it was an oversight.
What you are describing is probability, not randomness. Again, you can't "tweak randomness." Random describes how something happens. It is not a what happened. If someone asked you "what happened?" and you replied with "oh random happened." That would make no sense. Events happen. Getting 3 charges happened. How did getting 3 charges happen? Sometimes events happen randomly.
Do you think the Grey Boosts were missing for a month but are suddenly flooding every day is "Random"?
Watch YouTuber Prof Hoff video, one guy opened 10 feature 5* but none of them are recent new champs.
This company can change the weight on backend server anytime.
With a lot of complaints these days, Kabam made the RNG better these two weeks. I saw my alliance open decent champs recently. The RNG was suck after new year. We observed a lot of junk champs before.
"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.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
There's more possible combinations which can add up to 7 using 2 6 sided die which is why it comes up more often.
This is a single 4 sided die means there should be a 25% chance on any single throw of pulling up any of the numbers assuming there's an equal chance of each value.
"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.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
There's more possible combinations which can add up to 7 using 2 6 sided die which is why it comes up more often.
This is a single 4 sided die means there should be a 25% chance on any single throw of pulling up any of the numbers assuming there's an equal chance of each value.
There is nothing in the description that says it's equal chance of each value so it doesn't have to be a 4 sided die.
To the thread, not a surprise that the amount of Sabretooth’s persistent charges is less likely to proc the higher number, it can practically be assumed that when multiple chances are available for a ability based on a random factor that the strongest instances are the rarest.
@Werewrym Domino’s critical bleed chance is based on her critical chance/rate. This is described under her probability field passive. Lucky increases your crit rate while unlucky decreases the enemies crit resistance meaning crit bleed will have a higher chance under those conditions. This is part of why you are seing less crit bleeds when not running a lucky/unlucky based synergy team.
To the thread, not a surprise that the amount of Sabretooth’s persistent charges is less likely to proc the higher number, it can practically be assumed that when multiple chances are available for a ability based on a random factor that the strongest instances are the rarest.
@Werewrym Domino’s critical bleed chance is based on her critical chance/rate. This is described under her probability field passive. Lucky increases your crit rate while unlucky decreases the enemies crit resistance meaning crit bleed will have a higher chance under those conditions. This is part of why you are seing less crit bleeds when not running a lucky/unlucky based synergy team.
That may be true, but it isn’t phrased that way. When a champ has a chance to gain a random buff, does that mean there isn’t an even chance for each one? Take Venom for example—which random Genetic Memory buffs are more likely and which are less likely? What factors affect it? Is it craps or is it Yahtzee?
Lots of long time players on here speculating...congenial thread...simple question.
Calling all game team members—please drop by and have a chat. We won’t bite.
"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.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
No, it isn't. Hamin very conclusively proves that isn't what's happening, nor is it what the description is saying is happening.
Having worked with these kinds of implementations in the past, this sort of thing usually gets implemented in one of three ways. The first way is with a partition. You generate a random float from zero to one, and then you state in the ability design that 0 <= r < 0.5 is three, 0.5 <= r < 0.8 is four, 0.8 <= r < 0.95 is five, and 0.95 <= r <= 1 is six. The second way is with multiple random triggers. You design the ability so that there's a 100% chance to get three charges, and then there's a 30% chance to get one more, a 20% chance to get one more, and a 10% chance to get one more (for example: these numbers don't match Hamin's tests). So there would be four possibilities generated randomly: three, four, five, and six depending on how many of those triggers fire. The third way is computationally. You generate a random number and then you map that random range to the target range with a formula. For example, r = random(0,1); c = 3 + RoundUp(2.5 * (r ^4)) (note: also an example: doesn't fit data).
All of these are common ways for games to map random numbers to output ranges. All of them would be described by most games as "chosen randomly."
We don't do this in other parts of the game. Either you get a critical hit or you don't, but we don't assume the game flips a coin. We know, or at least most game players know, that critical hits happen on a percentage chance basis, which normally means something similar to some specific chance out of 100 (or if we're playing a PnP game, usually some chance out of twenty).
To the thread, not a surprise that the amount of Sabretooth’s persistent charges is less likely to proc the higher number, it can practically be assumed that when multiple chances are available for a ability based on a random factor that the strongest instances are the rarest.
@Werewrym Domino’s critical bleed chance is based on her critical chance/rate. This is described under her probability field passive. Lucky increases your crit rate while unlucky decreases the enemies crit resistance meaning crit bleed will have a higher chance under those conditions. This is part of why you are seing less crit bleeds when not running a lucky/unlucky based synergy team.
Ok, so I see that now, however, that doesn't explain why with certain synergies active I'm seeing less critical bleeds from her sp3 when none of the synergies affect the crit rate. This isn't something that I've only experienced in one fight, I've noticed it over the course of many many fights, with the mutant special damage team I'm seeing far less critical bleeds to the point where I can't solo SL. Whereas with DPX and ST I see the critical bleeds trigger far more often and I've solod SL multiple times now. And I did mention that I am throwing her specials when she is lucky. I realize when she's not lucky she has a much smaller chance of activating critical bleeds.
"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.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
No, it isn't. Hamin very conclusively proves that isn't what's happening, nor is it what the description is saying is happening.
Having worked with these kinds of implementations in the past, this sort of thing usually gets implemented in one of three ways. The first way is with a partition. You generate a random float from zero to one, and then you state in the ability design that 0 <= r < 0.5 is three, 0.5 <= r < 0.8 is four, 0.8 <= r < 0.95 is five, and 0.95 <= r <= 1 is six. The second way is with multiple random triggers. You design the ability so that there's a 100% chance to get three charges, and then there's a 30% chance to get one more, a 20% chance to get one more, and a 10% chance to get one more (for example: these numbers don't match Hamin's tests). So there would be four possibilities generated randomly: three, four, five, and six depending on how many of those triggers fire. The third way is computationally. You generate a random number and then you map that random range to the target range with a formula. For example, r = random(0,1); c = 3 + RoundUp(2.5 * (r ^4)) (note: also an example: doesn't fit data).
All of these are common ways for games to map random numbers to output ranges. All of them would be described by most games as "chosen randomly."
We don't do this in other parts of the game. Either you get a critical hit or you don't, but we don't assume the game flips a coin. We know, or at least most game players know, that critical hits happen on a percentage chance basis, which normally means something similar to some specific chance out of 100 (or if we're playing a PnP game, usually some chance out of twenty).
I think what @mostlyharmlessn meant was that a reasonable person would conclude from the description that it’s a 4-sided die. In reality per @Hamin, it isn’t.
A few thoughts:
“Mapping random numbers to output ranges”—I like that phrase. It sounds like something like implementing “rarity” into the game, albeit “randomly.” Random rarity, maybe?
“We don’t do this in other parts of the game.” Not at all? Just processing individual buffs for Sabretooth? Or other champs? Or possibly determining which buffs process in Gamblers Fate? Are some buffs just “rarer” than others in certain contexts? In truth, we just don’t know.
@DrZola It can mean either equal or weighted, both fall into the definition of random. However the power of the abilities can give players a hint at what which is more likely. In the case of Venom I would be relatively safe to assume it is not wieghted; if i wanted to know for sure I would test it. Now is there a better word than random to showcase the difference without creating entire subsections for characters random abilities?
@Werewrym How many times have you soloed SL with each repsective synergy team? Also he’ll never be unlucky so the crit chance will be less in general so any comparison to a character other than tech will be skewed.
@DrZola It can mean either equal or weighted, both fall into the definition of random. However the power of the abilities can give players a hint at what which is more likely. In the case of Venom I would be relatively safe to assume it is not wieghted; if i wanted to know for sure I would test it. Now is there a better word than random to showcase the difference without creating entire subsections for characters random abilities?
@Werewrym How many times have you soloed SL with each repsective synergy team? Also he’ll never be unlucky so the crit chance will be less in general so any comparison to a character other than tech will be skewed.
So I'm through 3 of my runs in LOL, and I've solod SL on both of the runs where he was on my path. Both times I was seeing critical bleeds on about every other special typically. I'm going to run the path with Electro next so I'm bringing AA. AA has two 12% mutant special damage synergies and Beast has one also so I thought I'd run those three to get more special damage out of Domino.
Much to my surprise, I was not able to solo SL, so I tried again, and also tried in ROL with both synergy teams. It is noticeably different. The hit count in ROL was about 100 with ST and DPX, 160 with the special damage synergies. In LOL I couldn't solo SL (only proced critical bleed 1-2 times throughout the whole fight). I threw my sp3 whenever Domino was lucky, but couldn't get the big bleeds to proc. Maybe I was just super unlucky in LOL, but after testing it out in ROL and in LOL again it was quite noticeably different.
I don't want to derail this thread, so if you have any more question feel free to PM me. I originally thought Domino's critical bleed was an unknown rate, which is why I mentioned it here.
@DrZola It can mean either equal or weighted, both fall into the definition of random. However the power of the abilities can give players a hint at what which is more likely. In the case of Venom I would be relatively safe to assume it is not wieghted; if i wanted to know for sure I would test it. Now is there a better word than random to showcase the difference without creating entire subsections for characters random abilities?
@Werewrym How many times have you soloed SL with each repsective synergy team? Also he’ll never be unlucky so the crit chance will be less in general so any comparison to a character other than tech will be skewed.
Fair enough—but players shouldn’t have to guess. Just pop the % in for each buff/charge—it isn’t like they’ve hewed to a word count limit in recent Champion descriptions anyway.
“We don’t do this in other parts of the game.” Not at all? Just processing individual buffs for Sabretooth? Or other champs? Or possibly determining which buffs process in Gamblers Fate? Are some buffs just “rarer” than others in certain contexts? In truth, we just don’t know.
I meant "we don't automatically assume that if there are N possibilities that they are all equally weighted." "We" meaning us, the players. We do know that there are other parts of the game where odds are weighted by the developers. For example, the Blade crystal coming up as a 20% chance to get Blade. Very obviously weighted.
"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.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
No, it isn't. Hamin very conclusively proves that isn't what's happening, nor is it what the description is saying is happening.
Having worked with these kinds of implementations in the past, this sort of thing usually gets implemented in one of three ways. The first way is with a partition. You generate a random float from zero to one, and then you state in the ability design that 0 <= r < 0.5 is three, 0.5 <= r < 0.8 is four, 0.8 <= r < 0.95 is five, and 0.95 <= r <= 1 is six. The second way is with multiple random triggers. You design the ability so that there's a 100% chance to get three charges, and then there's a 30% chance to get one more, a 20% chance to get one more, and a 10% chance to get one more (for example: these numbers don't match Hamin's tests). So there would be four possibilities generated randomly: three, four, five, and six depending on how many of those triggers fire. The third way is computationally. You generate a random number and then you map that random range to the target range with a formula. For example, r = random(0,1); c = 3 + RoundUp(2.5 * (r ^4)) (note: also an example: doesn't fit data).
All of these are common ways for games to map random numbers to output ranges. All of them would be described by most games as "chosen randomly."
We don't do this in other parts of the game. Either you get a critical hit or you don't, but we don't assume the game flips a coin. We know, or at least most game players know, that critical hits happen on a percentage chance basis, which normally means something similar to some specific chance out of 100 (or if we're playing a PnP game, usually some chance out of twenty).
Incidentally, there's actually another possibility besides "random, equidistributed" and "random, weighted." And that is "random, constrained." That possibility is exemplified by Void's debuffs. They come up randomly, but they are constrained by a cap of two on each type. So the game picks randomly, but only from the set of constrained possibilities that changes as the game progresses. The first two buffs are random and all equally likely. But if you get two of the same, that possibility becomes excluded.
That's also reasonably described as random, but with that constraint.
Incidentally, there's actually another possibility besides "random, equidistributed" and "random, weighted." And that is "random, constrained." That possibility is exemplified by Void's debuffs. They come up randomly, but they are constrained by a cap of two on each type. So the game picks randomly, but only from the set of constrained possibilities that changes as the game progresses. The first two buffs are random and all equally likely. But if you get two of the same, that possibility becomes excluded.
That's also reasonably described as random, but with that constraint.
Really all anyone here is asking for actual visibility into which calculations are used. Which pRNG method is actually implemented.
"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.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
No, it isn't. Hamin very conclusively proves that isn't what's happening, nor is it what the description is saying is happening.
Having worked with these kinds of implementations in the past, this sort of thing usually gets implemented in one of three ways. The first way is with a partition. You generate a random float from zero to one, and then you state in the ability design that 0 <= r < 0.5 is three, 0.5 <= r < 0.8 is four, 0.8 <= r < 0.95 is five, and 0.95 <= r <= 1 is six. The second way is with multiple random triggers. You design the ability so that there's a 100% chance to get three charges, and then there's a 30% chance to get one more, a 20% chance to get one more, and a 10% chance to get one more (for example: these numbers don't match Hamin's tests). So there would be four possibilities generated randomly: three, four, five, and six depending on how many of those triggers fire. The third way is computationally. You generate a random number and then you map that random range to the target range with a formula. For example, r = random(0,1); c = 3 + RoundUp(2.5 * (r ^4)) (note: also an example: doesn't fit data).
All of these are common ways for games to map random numbers to output ranges. All of them would be described by most games as "chosen randomly."
We don't do this in other parts of the game. Either you get a critical hit or you don't, but we don't assume the game flips a coin. We know, or at least most game players know, that critical hits happen on a percentage chance basis, which normally means something similar to some specific chance out of 100 (or if we're playing a PnP game, usually some chance out of twenty).
Based on the description, it is a 4 sided die.
No matter how many times people might say this, it simply isn't true. The description is there for all to see:
At the start of the fight, if Sabretooth has 0 persistent charges, he will randomly receive between 3 and 6 Persistent Charges.
That could be 1d4+2. That could also be three coin flips, essentially 3d2. It could also be any other method of partitioning, since the method isn't specified.
To repeat an example that shouldn't have to be repeated, but clearly it must be, in a game of craps the dice randomly generate a number between two and twelve. That is a true statement without qualification (provided you believe single dies are actually random).
"Random" is not synonymous with "equidistributed." Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong, and will find themselves being wrong over and over again in every other game they play, and in life in general.
Kabam can't even reliably get variable name to value substitution working right for in-game display. We're still seeing MS_ID_UI all over the place, so if that functionally isn't working correctly then how we can we trust other basic functions of the game are actually working right.
Comments
There is no such thing as "equally random." Different events have different probabilities to occur. When a series of events occur, it can either be systematic or random.
Systematic would be something like: gain 3 charges, then 4, then 5, then 6, then 3, ect. Or it could be 3, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 4, 3, 5, 6. As long as there is a predictable pattern then it has a method of selection and not random.
Random is just that, random. There is no method for selecting which number of charges you will get other than random number generation. In a random series of events, we have to look at the probability of that event occuring. The probabilities may differ for each outcome, but the selection method is still random.
The best example is rolling 2 dice. There is a 1/6 or 16.7% chance to roll a 7 but only a 1/36 or 2.8% chance to roll a 12. Rolling either a 7 or 12 or any other number is completely random, but some outcomes have a greater probability to occur.
So you’re telling me Domino is like rolling snake eyes and Groot is like a “7,” “8” and a “9”? And Gamblers Fate rolling “regen” is like a “3” while degen or poison is more like “10” and “11”?
Totally kidding here. Just making a point that it’s time for a little guidance from our Kabam Overlords. Just help us out a bit. And don’t shut the thread down.
Dr. Zola
Actually, if there were 5 colors of marbles in the first jar, the % to get a black marble is the same in both jars. Was that what you meant?
Dr. Zola
Its all about assumptions.
I assume this to be a random number between 3-6 on how its worded.
If they did have 'weighted' method, whereby getting a 5 and 6 is rare, my question is why? It wouldn't make sense even if the changes where equal in obtaining a 6 as the others, as its not making this champ OP. At most, he hits as hard as the hardest hitters there are - nothing more (providing he gets the max number of furries you can get)
If you think about the MCoC RNG as a combination of two separate RNG "rolls", it goes to describe the results in a more understandable way.
In reality, there could be multiple RNG calculations that are combined to produce one final result (i.e. rolling three dice, rolling 4 dice or going full on Yahtzee style dice rolling).
If I think about pulling a 4* out of a PHC shard crystal to have the same odds as rolling a Yahtzee on the first roll of my Yahtzee turn, that probably has about the same frequency as what we actually see opening crystals.
I did a quick google search for Yahtzee odds:
"The probability of rolling five of a kind of any other number is also 1/7776. Since there are a total of six different numbers on a die, we multiply the above probability by 6. This means that the probability of a Yahtzee on the first roll is 6 x 1/7776 = 1/1296 = 0.08%."
So the odds to actually get you to the special event need to be tempered another probability calculation making the odds of pulling an Omega Red is very, very small.
I agree it is ambiguous and can be misleading. I have no way of knowing if that was kabam's actual intentions here or not but I suspect it was an oversight.
What you are describing is probability, not randomness. Again, you can't "tweak randomness." Random describes how something happens. It is not a what happened. If someone asked you "what happened?" and you replied with "oh random happened." That would make no sense. Events happen. Getting 3 charges happened. How did getting 3 charges happen? Sometimes events happen randomly.
Watch YouTuber Prof Hoff video, one guy opened 10 feature 5* but none of them are recent new champs.
This company can change the weight on backend server anytime.
With a lot of complaints these days, Kabam made the RNG better these two weeks. I saw my alliance open decent champs recently. The RNG was suck after new year. We observed a lot of junk champs before.
Craps is a bad analogy here. This is a single 4 sided die being thrown.
There's more possible combinations which can add up to 7 using 2 6 sided die which is why it comes up more often.
This is a single 4 sided die means there should be a 25% chance on any single throw of pulling up any of the numbers assuming there's an equal chance of each value.
There is nothing in the description that says it's equal chance of each value so it doesn't have to be a 4 sided die.
@Werewrym Domino’s critical bleed chance is based on her critical chance/rate. This is described under her probability field passive. Lucky increases your crit rate while unlucky decreases the enemies crit resistance meaning crit bleed will have a higher chance under those conditions. This is part of why you are seing less crit bleeds when not running a lucky/unlucky based synergy team.
That may be true, but it isn’t phrased that way. When a champ has a chance to gain a random buff, does that mean there isn’t an even chance for each one? Take Venom for example—which random Genetic Memory buffs are more likely and which are less likely? What factors affect it? Is it craps or is it Yahtzee?
Lots of long time players on here speculating...congenial thread...simple question.
Calling all game team members—please drop by and have a chat. We won’t bite.
Dr. Zola
No, it isn't. Hamin very conclusively proves that isn't what's happening, nor is it what the description is saying is happening.
Having worked with these kinds of implementations in the past, this sort of thing usually gets implemented in one of three ways. The first way is with a partition. You generate a random float from zero to one, and then you state in the ability design that 0 <= r < 0.5 is three, 0.5 <= r < 0.8 is four, 0.8 <= r < 0.95 is five, and 0.95 <= r <= 1 is six. The second way is with multiple random triggers. You design the ability so that there's a 100% chance to get three charges, and then there's a 30% chance to get one more, a 20% chance to get one more, and a 10% chance to get one more (for example: these numbers don't match Hamin's tests). So there would be four possibilities generated randomly: three, four, five, and six depending on how many of those triggers fire. The third way is computationally. You generate a random number and then you map that random range to the target range with a formula. For example, r = random(0,1); c = 3 + RoundUp(2.5 * (r ^4)) (note: also an example: doesn't fit data).
All of these are common ways for games to map random numbers to output ranges. All of them would be described by most games as "chosen randomly."
We don't do this in other parts of the game. Either you get a critical hit or you don't, but we don't assume the game flips a coin. We know, or at least most game players know, that critical hits happen on a percentage chance basis, which normally means something similar to some specific chance out of 100 (or if we're playing a PnP game, usually some chance out of twenty).
Ok, so I see that now, however, that doesn't explain why with certain synergies active I'm seeing less critical bleeds from her sp3 when none of the synergies affect the crit rate. This isn't something that I've only experienced in one fight, I've noticed it over the course of many many fights, with the mutant special damage team I'm seeing far less critical bleeds to the point where I can't solo SL. Whereas with DPX and ST I see the critical bleeds trigger far more often and I've solod SL multiple times now. And I did mention that I am throwing her specials when she is lucky. I realize when she's not lucky she has a much smaller chance of activating critical bleeds.
I think what @mostlyharmlessn meant was that a reasonable person would conclude from the description that it’s a 4-sided die. In reality per @Hamin, it isn’t.
A few thoughts:
“Mapping random numbers to output ranges”—I like that phrase. It sounds like something like implementing “rarity” into the game, albeit “randomly.” Random rarity, maybe?
“We don’t do this in other parts of the game.” Not at all? Just processing individual buffs for Sabretooth? Or other champs? Or possibly determining which buffs process in Gamblers Fate? Are some buffs just “rarer” than others in certain contexts? In truth, we just don’t know.
Official guidance still would be appreciated...
Dr. Zola
@Werewrym How many times have you soloed SL with each repsective synergy team? Also he’ll never be unlucky so the crit chance will be less in general so any comparison to a character other than tech will be skewed.
So I'm through 3 of my runs in LOL, and I've solod SL on both of the runs where he was on my path. Both times I was seeing critical bleeds on about every other special typically. I'm going to run the path with Electro next so I'm bringing AA. AA has two 12% mutant special damage synergies and Beast has one also so I thought I'd run those three to get more special damage out of Domino.
Much to my surprise, I was not able to solo SL, so I tried again, and also tried in ROL with both synergy teams. It is noticeably different. The hit count in ROL was about 100 with ST and DPX, 160 with the special damage synergies. In LOL I couldn't solo SL (only proced critical bleed 1-2 times throughout the whole fight). I threw my sp3 whenever Domino was lucky, but couldn't get the big bleeds to proc. Maybe I was just super unlucky in LOL, but after testing it out in ROL and in LOL again it was quite noticeably different.
I don't want to derail this thread, so if you have any more question feel free to PM me. I originally thought Domino's critical bleed was an unknown rate, which is why I mentioned it here.
No.
1 jar.
50 blue
30 red
15 White
5 black
You have a 5% chance to randomly pull a black.
Lol. Totally misread your post. Carry on.
Dr. Zola
Fair enough—but players shouldn’t have to guess. Just pop the % in for each buff/charge—it isn’t like they’ve hewed to a word count limit in recent Champion descriptions anyway.
Dr. Zola
I meant "we don't automatically assume that if there are N possibilities that they are all equally weighted." "We" meaning us, the players. We do know that there are other parts of the game where odds are weighted by the developers. For example, the Blade crystal coming up as a 20% chance to get Blade. Very obviously weighted.
Based on the description, it is a 4 sided die.
That's also reasonably described as random, but with that constraint.
Really all anyone here is asking for actual visibility into which calculations are used. Which pRNG method is actually implemented.
No matter how many times people might say this, it simply isn't true. The description is there for all to see:
That could be 1d4+2. That could also be three coin flips, essentially 3d2. It could also be any other method of partitioning, since the method isn't specified.
To repeat an example that shouldn't have to be repeated, but clearly it must be, in a game of craps the dice randomly generate a number between two and twelve. That is a true statement without qualification (provided you believe single dies are actually random).
"Random" is not synonymous with "equidistributed." Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong, and will find themselves being wrong over and over again in every other game they play, and in life in general.
Kabam can't even reliably get variable name to value substitution working right for in-game display. We're still seeing MS_ID_UI all over the place, so if that functionally isn't working correctly then how we can we trust other basic functions of the game are actually working right.