Absent additional information, there is no way to disprove validity of the game’s pRNG. The fact that an outcome is statistically possible no matter how rare is enough to assert the pRNG engine works correctly.
you expect to open 25-30 crystals and be guaranteed the champ you want out of what 60 champs?
You have to admit the odds of getting the same champ 7 times in 30 rolls is pretty low compared to getting the one you want one time. The odds of getting the one you want from 30 crystals is something like 40%, which isn't a guarantee but it's still reasonable.
The odds of this thing happening basically round to zero. Like, a 0.00000049473% is theoretically possible, but I can understand OP's frustration when it happens.
The odds of getting the one you want is no where near 40%, if you want one the odds are 1.6%, if as this person claims he wanted 2, then it is 3.2%, because odds on each crystal are independent of each other not dependent.
You are still free to take the regular or featured 5* Crystals. Duals are just a nice addition, but not everything. I only chose them if I wanted specific ISO. But usually only rolling featured 5*
I have a cursed account that has probably opened 30 of these. I got two VTD and a Venom. No Corvus. No Spark, ghost, warlock or G2099. But if you need a Groot or Doc Ock with crazy sig, I’m your guy.
My other account pulled a bunch of trash/mediocrity, but then got Magik, Doom x2, and Cap (FINALLY).
Observation bias? Something else? At some point, it is fruitless to speculate because we will never see the code.
Well, yes and no. I mean, Kabam isn't going to show you the server code, full stop. But even if they did, it wouldn't help. I've seen lootbox code. Unless they made the horrible mistake of implementing their own rand, and we have enough crystal openings on record to be very certain they did not, all you're going to see is the code calling the library rand, probably the C++ or C# one. x=rand() is not going to convince anyone of anything.
God it's annoying seeing people complain about RNG. Fact is 6 dupes of the same champ over 30 crystals isn't unheard of.
As someone mentioned, it clearly doesn't happen often otherwise we'd see it all over forums from the conspiracy theorists.
Just because it happened to you doesnt suddenly mean the game is rigged and you have to see game code to prove otherwise. What about the bloke who's first 2 6* champs were both Corvus? What about me who has got Aegon in the only 2x 5* nexus I've opened?
If you can't handle a game with RNG when you get bad rolls, play something else.
someone would need to open a meaningful amount of crystals to show if the rng is actually random or not. Not 10 or 30 or 100 crystals, but a meaningful amount, at least 10k
Absent additional information, there is no way to disprove validity of the game’s pRNG. The fact that an outcome is statistically possible no matter how rare is enough to assert the pRNG engine works correctly.
Dr. Zola
Actually, that's not true. I've proved video game rands to be broken in the past. On three separate occasions, in fact. Once the problem was decided to be marginal, once the problem was acknowledged but then the devs decided that they would just change the objective rather than the rand, and once the devs found and fixed the problem because it was exploitable.
The notion that people have to take random generators on faith is false. The problem is that most people, as in 99.9% of all humans, don't understand randomness on any practical level, and thus their intuition leads them in directions that make it impossible for them to either analyze or criticize random generators in a meaningful way.
Let's tackle this one. Let's assume the anecdote is accurate (this is not a safe assumption when it comes to anecdotes about probability, but we'll make it here). There's somewhere around 60 champs in a dual class crystal, plus or minus. The odds of pulling the same champ seven times out of thirty pulls, assuming no other context, is about one in 23000. The math: assume the odds of pulling any particular champ is one in 60. The odds of pulling that one champ seven times in a row is (1/60)^7 = 3.5x10^13 or one in about 3 trillion. There are 2,035,800 ways to arrange those seven pulls within a set of 30; 30! / 23! 7!. That means the odds of this happening for a given champ is about 7.3x10^7 or about one in 1.38 million. However, there are 60 different champs this can happen for, which means the actual odds of this happening are 60 times higher than this, or about one in 22918. So assuming I've done the math correctly, that's about one in 23000.
How many people think that something that will only happen once out of every 23000 tries is something that is not happening at all, across all the players opening dual class crystals? Numbers like this are probably the most pernicious. When the odds are tens of thousands to one against, that's simultaneously very rare for any one person, but probably happening all the time across the entire game. So the odds of it happening to one person are low, but the odds of us hearing about it happening all the time are very high. This is probably the most non-intuitive situation for probability.
you expect to open 25-30 crystals and be guaranteed the champ you want out of what 60 champs?
To be honest, it's not that i EXPECT to get the champ i want, but I do not expect to get the same champ this many times in this way. It deflates motivation 100000%. And what can be done about it? Nothing. I'd love to see the actual game code showing ACTUAL RNG rather than the **** some of get
How is exactly is it not showing actual RNG? Just curious to know how your experience isn't RNG.
Sorry bro I actually agree with him that somethings not right,..maybe it’s bugged like everything else in this game,..it’s like it locks into this repetitive thing. Had the same experience with the last featured crystals where I pulled Emma frost like 5 times over,..and same with dual skill / mutant it’s like rouge rouge rouge rouge rouge,..what kinda RNG is that lol,..wouldn’t ever happen for winning lottery #s and that’s RNG. I’m a skeptic would love to see it cause I don’t believe it to be true,...these crystals remind me of the record player where the needle gets stuck and keeps flipping back to the spot it was before,..over and over and over again.
Do me a favor before you comment anymore about RNG. Look up the definition, come back here, re-read everything you just typed and learn from your mistakes.
I’ll comment what I want bro,..your not god here,..I know what RNG is,..I also said it is possible the crystals could be bugged,..for them to get on a streak of same champs over and over again,..whether good or bad seems odd to me,..and it seems to happen more often then not in this game. ..opinions : your entitled to yours and I am to my own.
It definitely doesn’t happen more often than not. Go ahead and save up like 20k 4* shards, open 5-10 at a time and if you get the same champion 3 or more times, screenshot it and show some real proof and then you can reach out to Kabam
you expect to open 25-30 crystals and be guaranteed the champ you want out of what 60 champs?
You have to admit the odds of getting the same champ 7 times in 30 rolls is pretty low compared to getting the one you want one time. The odds of getting the one you want from 30 crystals is something like 40%, which isn't a guarantee but it's still reasonable.
The odds of this thing happening basically round to zero. Like, a 0.00000049473% is theoretically possible, but I can understand OP's frustration when it happens.
The odds of getting the one you want is no where near 40%, if you want one the odds are 1.6%, if as this person claims he wanted 2, then it is 3.2%, because odds on each crystal are independent of each other not dependent.
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you trying to say that the probability doesn’t stack? Because if so, that’s correct, but if you want any champion out of a Crystal than it’s a 100% chance you’re gonna get a champion that you want.
you expect to open 25-30 crystals and be guaranteed the champ you want out of what 60 champs?
You have to admit the odds of getting the same champ 7 times in 30 rolls is pretty low compared to getting the one you want one time. The odds of getting the one you want from 30 crystals is something like 40%, which isn't a guarantee but it's still reasonable.
The odds of this thing happening basically round to zero. Like, a 0.00000049473% is theoretically possible, but I can understand OP's frustration when it happens.
The odds of getting the one you want is no where near 40%, if you want one the odds are 1.6%, if as this person claims he wanted 2, then it is 3.2%, because odds on each crystal are independent of each other not dependent.
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you trying to say that the probability doesn’t stack? Because if so, that’s correct, but if you want any champion out of a Crystal than it’s a 100% chance you’re gonna get a champion that you want.
What I mean is that the concept that the odds of a string of particular outcomes is different than the odds of a single outcome in the string is something that gets re-explained here a lot.
Observation bias? Something else? At some point, it is fruitless to speculate because we will never see the code.
Well, yes and no. I mean, Kabam isn't going to show you the server code, full stop. But even if they did, it wouldn't help. I've seen lootbox code. Unless they made the horrible mistake of implementing their own rand, and we have enough crystal openings on record to be very certain they did not, all you're going to see is the code calling the library rand, probably the C++ or C# one. x=rand() is not going to convince anyone of anything.
Absent additional information, there is no way to disprove validity of the game’s pRNG. The fact that an outcome is statistically possible no matter how rare is enough to assert the pRNG engine works correctly.
Dr. Zola
Actually, that's not true. I've proved video game rands to be broken in the past. On three separate occasions, in fact. Once the problem was decided to be marginal, once the problem was acknowledged but then the devs decided that they would just change the objective rather than the rand, and once the devs found and fixed the problem because it was exploitable.
The notion that people have to take random generators on faith is false. The problem is that most people, as in 99.9% of all humans, don't understand randomness on any practical level, and thus their intuition leads them in directions that make it impossible for them to either analyze or criticize random generators in a meaningful way.
Let's tackle this one. Let's assume the anecdote is accurate (this is not a safe assumption when it comes to anecdotes about probability, but we'll make it here). There's somewhere around 60 champs in a dual class crystal, plus or minus. The odds of pulling the same champ seven times out of thirty pulls, assuming no other context, is about one in 23000. The math: assume the odds of pulling any particular champ is one in 60. The odds of pulling that one champ seven times in a row is (1/60)^7 = 3.5x10^13 or one in about 3 trillion. There are 2,035,800 ways to arrange those seven pulls within a set of 30; 30! / 23! 7!. That means the odds of this happening for a given champ is about 7.3x10^7 or about one in 1.38 million. However, there are 60 different champs this can happen for, which means the actual odds of this happening are 60 times higher than this, or about one in 22918. So assuming I've done the math correctly, that's about one in 23000.
How many people think that something that will only happen once out of every 23000 tries is something that is not happening at all, across all the players opening dual class crystals? Numbers like this are probably the most pernicious. When the odds are tens of thousands to one against, that's simultaneously very rare for any one person, but probably happening all the time across the entire game. So the odds of it happening to one person are low, but the odds of us hearing about it happening all the time are very high. This is probably the most non-intuitive situation for probability.
Putting aside the calculations (which are fine and underscore the point that the OP’s anecdote can actually happen to someone at some time game-wide), are you saying you have sufficient information to confirm the game’s pRNG works correctly? Not other games, but this one?
I don’t think I have any grounds to argue against someone’s assertion that it functions correctly. I assume it does, but because my individual experiences in game are anecdotal at best I really don’t have a credible way to rebut the presumption it does.
I dont really get the frustration with them becoming a joke. Literally all Kabam did was give us something we were asking for and increasing the odds we can get what we want and you're complaining because you have bad luck? Sorry bud. I went through about 45 of them before I got NF. it happens. It sucks but its a gamble. If you don't like them, go buy the regular ones for the same price and hope you get even luckier. 😊
I'm pretty happy with the dual crystals atm lol. Not sure how many I've opened. I started out opening mutant/skill for Aegon and mystic/science for Doom. Went to the mutant/skill exclusively after a bit.
Observation bias? Something else? At some point, it is fruitless to speculate because we will never see the code.
Well, yes and no. I mean, Kabam isn't going to show you the server code, full stop. But even if they did, it wouldn't help. I've seen lootbox code. Unless they made the horrible mistake of implementing their own rand, and we have enough crystal openings on record to be very certain they did not, all you're going to see is the code calling the library rand, probably the C++ or C# one. x=rand() is not going to convince anyone of anything.
Absent additional information, there is no way to disprove validity of the game’s pRNG. The fact that an outcome is statistically possible no matter how rare is enough to assert the pRNG engine works correctly.
Dr. Zola
Actually, that's not true. I've proved video game rands to be broken in the past. On three separate occasions, in fact. Once the problem was decided to be marginal, once the problem was acknowledged but then the devs decided that they would just change the objective rather than the rand, and once the devs found and fixed the problem because it was exploitable.
The notion that people have to take random generators on faith is false. The problem is that most people, as in 99.9% of all humans, don't understand randomness on any practical level, and thus their intuition leads them in directions that make it impossible for them to either analyze or criticize random generators in a meaningful way.
Let's tackle this one. Let's assume the anecdote is accurate (this is not a safe assumption when it comes to anecdotes about probability, but we'll make it here). There's somewhere around 60 champs in a dual class crystal, plus or minus. The odds of pulling the same champ seven times out of thirty pulls, assuming no other context, is about one in 23000. The math: assume the odds of pulling any particular champ is one in 60. The odds of pulling that one champ seven times in a row is (1/60)^7 = 3.5x10^13 or one in about 3 trillion. There are 2,035,800 ways to arrange those seven pulls within a set of 30; 30! / 23! 7!. That means the odds of this happening for a given champ is about 7.3x10^7 or about one in 1.38 million. However, there are 60 different champs this can happen for, which means the actual odds of this happening are 60 times higher than this, or about one in 22918. So assuming I've done the math correctly, that's about one in 23000.
How many people think that something that will only happen once out of every 23000 tries is something that is not happening at all, across all the players opening dual class crystals? Numbers like this are probably the most pernicious. When the odds are tens of thousands to one against, that's simultaneously very rare for any one person, but probably happening all the time across the entire game. So the odds of it happening to one person are low, but the odds of us hearing about it happening all the time are very high. This is probably the most non-intuitive situation for probability.
Putting aside the calculations (which are fine and underscore the point that the OP’s anecdote can actually happen to someone at some time game-wide), are you saying you have sufficient information to confirm the game’s pRNG works correctly? Not other games, but this one?
I don’t think I have any grounds to argue against someone’s assertion that it functions correctly. I assume it does, but because my individual experiences in game are anecdotal at best I really don’t have a credible way to rebut the presumption it does.
Dr. Zola
You're actually on the right track here. For me to be able to detect a problem with the crystal RNG given the data I've looked at over time, the error would have to be somewhat large on a relative basis. More than one in a thousand, and probably more than one in two hundred. Anything smaller and I wouldn't see it. But those are also small enough that human beings can't see those kinds of deviations just off the top of their heads. Basically, if it is invisible to me, it is invisible to human anecdotal observation, unless it is a problem that is new, or only affects certain rare corner cases I haven't observed.
You can prove if something isn't random. You can't prove it is random. But you can prove that if it isn't random, the deviation from random must be smaller than some amount. As far as I can tell, RNG deviation if it exists has to be less than one part in two hundred, and probably less than one part in one thousand. And that's simply not something human beings can just see by watching crystals. The difference between sufficiently random and non-random would not be seeing something that should never happen, it would be seeing something happen slightly more often than it ought to. And humans simply aren't good at making that kind of judgments off the top of their heads.
I don't do this as much as I used to, because honestly I don't think it will come to anything and it takes too much work for the same negative result. But I haven't given up entirely. I'm focused on uncollected arena crystals now, looking to see if I can detect from mass data collection whether the RNG has a skew, whether the reward table selection algorithm has fencepost errors, whether there are weird round off anomalies, whether there is a correlation anomaly. I currently have 1300 individual openings. That's nowhere near enough to perform the kind of analysis I want to perform, but its a long term goal. I could have five times as many if I switched to standard arena crystals, but I think opening standard crystals every week one at a time would drive me insane.
Observation bias? Something else? At some point, it is fruitless to speculate because we will never see the code.
Well, yes and no. I mean, Kabam isn't going to show you the server code, full stop. But even if they did, it wouldn't help. I've seen lootbox code. Unless they made the horrible mistake of implementing their own rand, and we have enough crystal openings on record to be very certain they did not, all you're going to see is the code calling the library rand, probably the C++ or C# one. x=rand() is not going to convince anyone of anything.
Absent additional information, there is no way to disprove validity of the game’s pRNG. The fact that an outcome is statistically possible no matter how rare is enough to assert the pRNG engine works correctly.
Dr. Zola
Actually, that's not true. I've proved video game rands to be broken in the past. On three separate occasions, in fact. Once the problem was decided to be marginal, once the problem was acknowledged but then the devs decided that they would just change the objective rather than the rand, and once the devs found and fixed the problem because it was exploitable.
The notion that people have to take random generators on faith is false. The problem is that most people, as in 99.9% of all humans, don't understand randomness on any practical level, and thus their intuition leads them in directions that make it impossible for them to either analyze or criticize random generators in a meaningful way.
Let's tackle this one. Let's assume the anecdote is accurate (this is not a safe assumption when it comes to anecdotes about probability, but we'll make it here). There's somewhere around 60 champs in a dual class crystal, plus or minus. The odds of pulling the same champ seven times out of thirty pulls, assuming no other context, is about one in 23000. The math: assume the odds of pulling any particular champ is one in 60. The odds of pulling that one champ seven times in a row is (1/60)^7 = 3.5x10^13 or one in about 3 trillion. There are 2,035,800 ways to arrange those seven pulls within a set of 30; 30! / 23! 7!. That means the odds of this happening for a given champ is about 7.3x10^7 or about one in 1.38 million. However, there are 60 different champs this can happen for, which means the actual odds of this happening are 60 times higher than this, or about one in 22918. So assuming I've done the math correctly, that's about one in 23000.
How many people think that something that will only happen once out of every 23000 tries is something that is not happening at all, across all the players opening dual class crystals? Numbers like this are probably the most pernicious. When the odds are tens of thousands to one against, that's simultaneously very rare for any one person, but probably happening all the time across the entire game. So the odds of it happening to one person are low, but the odds of us hearing about it happening all the time are very high. This is probably the most non-intuitive situation for probability.
Putting aside the calculations (which are fine and underscore the point that the OP’s anecdote can actually happen to someone at some time game-wide), are you saying you have sufficient information to confirm the game’s pRNG works correctly? Not other games, but this one?
I don’t think I have any grounds to argue against someone’s assertion that it functions correctly. I assume it does, but because my individual experiences in game are anecdotal at best I really don’t have a credible way to rebut the presumption it does.
Dr. Zola
You're actually on the right track here. For me to be able to detect a problem with the crystal RNG given the data I've looked at over time, the error would have to be somewhat large on a relative basis. More than one in a thousand, and probably more than one in two hundred. Anything smaller and I wouldn't see it. But those are also small enough that human beings can't see those kinds of deviations just off the top of their heads. Basically, if it is invisible to me, it is invisible to human anecdotal observation, unless it is a problem that is new, or only affects certain rare corner cases I haven't observed.
You can prove if something isn't random. You can't prove it is random. But you can prove that if it isn't random, the deviation from random must be smaller than some amount. As far as I can tell, RNG deviation if it exists has to be less than one part in two hundred, and probably less than one part in one thousand. And that's simply not something human beings can just see by watching crystals. The difference between sufficiently random and non-random would not be seeing something that should never happen, it would be seeing something happen slightly more often than it ought to. And humans simply aren't good at making that kind of judgments off the top of their heads.
I don't do this as much as I used to, because honestly I don't think it will come to anything and it takes too much work for the same negative result. But I haven't given up entirely. I'm focused on uncollected arena crystals now, looking to see if I can detect from mass data collection whether the RNG has a skew, whether the reward table selection algorithm has fencepost errors, whether there are weird round off anomalies, whether there is a correlation anomaly. I currently have 1300 individual openings. That's nowhere near enough to perform the kind of analysis I want to perform, but its a long term goal. I could have five times as many if I switched to standard arena crystals, but I think opening standard crystals every week one at a time would drive me insane.
You realize, of course, that some might call the UC arena crystal project a touch mad as well, right?
Observation bias? Something else? At some point, it is fruitless to speculate because we will never see the code.
Well, yes and no. I mean, Kabam isn't going to show you the server code, full stop. But even if they did, it wouldn't help. I've seen lootbox code. Unless they made the horrible mistake of implementing their own rand, and we have enough crystal openings on record to be very certain they did not, all you're going to see is the code calling the library rand, probably the C++ or C# one. x=rand() is not going to convince anyone of anything.
Absent additional information, there is no way to disprove validity of the game’s pRNG. The fact that an outcome is statistically possible no matter how rare is enough to assert the pRNG engine works correctly.
Dr. Zola
Actually, that's not true. I've proved video game rands to be broken in the past. On three separate occasions, in fact. Once the problem was decided to be marginal, once the problem was acknowledged but then the devs decided that they would just change the objective rather than the rand, and once the devs found and fixed the problem because it was exploitable.
The notion that people have to take random generators on faith is false. The problem is that most people, as in 99.9% of all humans, don't understand randomness on any practical level, and thus their intuition leads them in directions that make it impossible for them to either analyze or criticize random generators in a meaningful way.
Let's tackle this one. Let's assume the anecdote is accurate (this is not a safe assumption when it comes to anecdotes about probability, but we'll make it here). There's somewhere around 60 champs in a dual class crystal, plus or minus. The odds of pulling the same champ seven times out of thirty pulls, assuming no other context, is about one in 23000. The math: assume the odds of pulling any particular champ is one in 60. The odds of pulling that one champ seven times in a row is (1/60)^7 = 3.5x10^13 or one in about 3 trillion. There are 2,035,800 ways to arrange those seven pulls within a set of 30; 30! / 23! 7!. That means the odds of this happening for a given champ is about 7.3x10^7 or about one in 1.38 million. However, there are 60 different champs this can happen for, which means the actual odds of this happening are 60 times higher than this, or about one in 22918. So assuming I've done the math correctly, that's about one in 23000.
How many people think that something that will only happen once out of every 23000 tries is something that is not happening at all, across all the players opening dual class crystals? Numbers like this are probably the most pernicious. When the odds are tens of thousands to one against, that's simultaneously very rare for any one person, but probably happening all the time across the entire game. So the odds of it happening to one person are low, but the odds of us hearing about it happening all the time are very high. This is probably the most non-intuitive situation for probability.
Putting aside the calculations (which are fine and underscore the point that the OP’s anecdote can actually happen to someone at some time game-wide), are you saying you have sufficient information to confirm the game’s pRNG works correctly? Not other games, but this one?
I don’t think I have any grounds to argue against someone’s assertion that it functions correctly. I assume it does, but because my individual experiences in game are anecdotal at best I really don’t have a credible way to rebut the presumption it does.
Dr. Zola
You're actually on the right track here. For me to be able to detect a problem with the crystal RNG given the data I've looked at over time, the error would have to be somewhat large on a relative basis. More than one in a thousand, and probably more than one in two hundred. Anything smaller and I wouldn't see it. But those are also small enough that human beings can't see those kinds of deviations just off the top of their heads. Basically, if it is invisible to me, it is invisible to human anecdotal observation, unless it is a problem that is new, or only affects certain rare corner cases I haven't observed.
You can prove if something isn't random. You can't prove it is random. But you can prove that if it isn't random, the deviation from random must be smaller than some amount. As far as I can tell, RNG deviation if it exists has to be less than one part in two hundred, and probably less than one part in one thousand. And that's simply not something human beings can just see by watching crystals. The difference between sufficiently random and non-random would not be seeing something that should never happen, it would be seeing something happen slightly more often than it ought to. And humans simply aren't good at making that kind of judgments off the top of their heads.
I don't do this as much as I used to, because honestly I don't think it will come to anything and it takes too much work for the same negative result. But I haven't given up entirely. I'm focused on uncollected arena crystals now, looking to see if I can detect from mass data collection whether the RNG has a skew, whether the reward table selection algorithm has fencepost errors, whether there are weird round off anomalies, whether there is a correlation anomaly. I currently have 1300 individual openings. That's nowhere near enough to perform the kind of analysis I want to perform, but its a long term goal. I could have five times as many if I switched to standard arena crystals, but I think opening standard crystals every week one at a time would drive me insane.
You realize, of course, that some might call the UC arena crystal project a touch mad as well, right?
Dr. Zola
The rest, I'm sure, have more creative things to call it.
Back of the envelope here, but assuming there are ~50 champs in the tech/cosmic dual pool, that means you have ~2% chance of pulling any one of them with each spin.
Across 25 dual class crystals, if you wanted just one of the champs, you’d have about a 40% chance of pulling him or her once over 25 crystals. If it was either of a pair of champs, your odds of pulling him or her once over 25 crystals improves to around 64%.
The calculation for pulling the same champ 6X over 25 dual crystal pulls is more complex, but it is fair to say that has a very, very low probability (I assume you mean 6X when you say your Goblin is now L120).
Repeated similar outcomes aren't impossible under pRNG systems. In fact, they may occur more so than we might think of as “normally random.”
While I do not doubt that some form of valid pRNG engine underpins the game, OP makes a point that is often made here: namely, that it “feels” like there are a lot of very rare results on the disadvantageous side that pop up in game.
Observation bias? Something else? At some point, it is fruitless to speculate because we will never see the code.
But I will say that I empathize with OP, as does anyone else who has played this game for a period of time, because it does quite often seem like the odds aren’t in our favor—even when they should be.
Dr. Zola
Its bias. The people who complain are the people who it happens to, therefore they are amplified above the actual threshold for the generator. There are going to be many people who get sub optimal results, and many who get better than optimal results, but only one group is going to be upset about it.
Yeah, exactly. We always notice more bad than good results, because the unlucky ones are louder.
There are millions? of players, so even with a quite low probability it‘s not unlikely to find a single one with that many dupes ... and somewhere out there might be a guy with 6x Ægons instead.
I understand the frustration. I've been opening Science and Mystic left and right because I have zero good mystic champs and 1 good science champ (Quake). So far, I've pulled only trash mystics. It is what it is I guess
My situation has been a little weird with them. Ive opened about 6 mystic science in hopes of torch and gotten about 3 quakes almost all back to back
I've opened way more than 6 and got Torch finally...it was worth all the bad pulls IMO...Kabam tries to do something nice and all of you start whining like little kids...this is a great addition to the game and can seriously help rosters...this is a RNG based game, so if you don't get the champ you want, try again, cos there are already more than a hundred of these whine posts on forums everyday...
all these stories are not giving me any good vibe about the dual crystals. i was saving a bunch for a chance to get Aegon and Doom. but then decided to use them all in the new featured crystal.
all these stories are not giving me any good vibe about the dual crystals. i was saving a bunch for a chance to get Aegon and Doom. but then decided to use them all in the new featured crystal.
Featured this round has a lot of good champs so not a and run. But honestly, the duel crystals give you a better shot at getting the champ you, but it isn't guaranteed. Most likely you'll hear more bad pulls than good because the bad pulls get shares a lot more often. It is all still RNG and you don't know if you don't try
Comments
Dr. Zola
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/probability-events-independent.html
Dr. Zola
Gives the same amount.
NGL I was thinking of switching up about 3 crystals ago, did at least 10 maybe 15 featured crystals too with nothing.
My other account pulled a bunch of trash/mediocrity, but then got Magik, Doom x2, and Cap (FINALLY).
As someone mentioned, it clearly doesn't happen often otherwise we'd see it all over forums from the conspiracy theorists.
Just because it happened to you doesnt suddenly mean the game is rigged and you have to see game code to prove otherwise. What about the bloke who's first 2 6* champs were both Corvus? What about me who has got Aegon in the only 2x 5* nexus I've opened?
If you can't handle a game with RNG when you get bad rolls, play something else.
I really think Kabam should of assigned these crystals all to one specific class
The notion that people have to take random generators on faith is false. The problem is that most people, as in 99.9% of all humans, don't understand randomness on any practical level, and thus their intuition leads them in directions that make it impossible for them to either analyze or criticize random generators in a meaningful way.
Let's tackle this one. Let's assume the anecdote is accurate (this is not a safe assumption when it comes to anecdotes about probability, but we'll make it here). There's somewhere around 60 champs in a dual class crystal, plus or minus. The odds of pulling the same champ seven times out of thirty pulls, assuming no other context, is about one in 23000. The math: assume the odds of pulling any particular champ is one in 60. The odds of pulling that one champ seven times in a row is (1/60)^7 = 3.5x10^13 or one in about 3 trillion. There are 2,035,800 ways to arrange those seven pulls within a set of 30; 30! / 23! 7!. That means the odds of this happening for a given champ is about 7.3x10^7 or about one in 1.38 million. However, there are 60 different champs this can happen for, which means the actual odds of this happening are 60 times higher than this, or about one in 22918. So assuming I've done the math correctly, that's about one in 23000.
How many people think that something that will only happen once out of every 23000 tries is something that is not happening at all, across all the players opening dual class crystals? Numbers like this are probably the most pernicious. When the odds are tens of thousands to one against, that's simultaneously very rare for any one person, but probably happening all the time across the entire game. So the odds of it happening to one person are low, but the odds of us hearing about it happening all the time are very high. This is probably the most non-intuitive situation for probability.
Dr. Zola
I don’t think I have any grounds to argue against someone’s assertion that it functions correctly. I assume it does, but because my individual experiences in game are anecdotal at best I really don’t have a credible way to rebut the presumption it does.
Dr. Zola
I'm pretty happy with the dual crystals atm lol. Not sure how many I've opened. I started out opening mutant/skill for Aegon and mystic/science for Doom. Went to the mutant/skill exclusively after a bit.
You can prove if something isn't random. You can't prove it is random. But you can prove that if it isn't random, the deviation from random must be smaller than some amount. As far as I can tell, RNG deviation if it exists has to be less than one part in two hundred, and probably less than one part in one thousand. And that's simply not something human beings can just see by watching crystals. The difference between sufficiently random and non-random would not be seeing something that should never happen, it would be seeing something happen slightly more often than it ought to. And humans simply aren't good at making that kind of judgments off the top of their heads.
I don't do this as much as I used to, because honestly I don't think it will come to anything and it takes too much work for the same negative result. But I haven't given up entirely. I'm focused on uncollected arena crystals now, looking to see if I can detect from mass data collection whether the RNG has a skew, whether the reward table selection algorithm has fencepost errors, whether there are weird round off anomalies, whether there is a correlation anomaly. I currently have 1300 individual openings. That's nowhere near enough to perform the kind of analysis I want to perform, but its a long term goal. I could have five times as many if I switched to standard arena crystals, but I think opening standard crystals every week one at a time would drive me insane.
Dr. Zola
There are millions? of players, so even with a quite low probability it‘s not unlikely to find a single one with that many dupes ... and somewhere out there might be a guy with 6x Ægons instead.
There, I've said my piece...