All I Needed Was Mutant

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

Hopefully the game team takes measures to atleast balance out the RNG.
You can't balance RNG. Then it isn't RNG anymore

You are wrong. I'm asking for true RNG, I proved it wasn't. You pretend it is, despite proof. The world isn't flat either!

You cite 0.1% as odds, yet ignore my 5th paragraph. For a single pull or handful of pulls, you aren't wrong. For NINETY pulls, you are full of it. Statistics dictate you are lying to yourself and furthering lies to others.

It's broken.

Pancake_Face

thats really tuff but yea theoretically you should get every class after 6 crystals. Sometimes you don't but by 15 u should have one of every class if not 2. I would really like them to put the drop rates for them because i pull tech and science the most no matter what.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

thats really tuff but yea theoretically you should get every class after 6 crystals. Sometimes you don't but by 15 u should have one of every class if not 2. I would really like them to put the drop rates for them because i pull tech and science the most no matter what.

That's not how RNG works.

DNA3000

Science dictates that any one spin in a casino game, and it is a gamble. However as sample size increases, odds are supposed to resemble the true odds. In this case, 90 pulls should have some resemblance of the true odds the game provides, which clearly aren't even 1:6 ratios.

That's incorrect. Because random sequences are not supposed to be predictable, you can never be certain how any one random distribution will appear. If you could, that distribution would by definition fail a test for randomness. Instead, we can only determine the odds of a particular kind of distribution occurring. If we're trying to test to see if something is random or not, we try to see if distributions show up more often than they should. At some point, the odds against seeing what you're seeing become so high, we assume that it isn't coincidence or random chance, and we're seeing a real thing.

The odds of opening 90 T4CC crystals and getting exactly five of a targeted class are about one in a thousand (it is one in 951). The odds are actually slightly better at getting five or less: about one in 694 (there are more ways to get five or fewer than there are to get exactly five).

Statistically speaking, then, seeing five or fewer of the class you're targeting out of 90 crystals is unlikely, but not incredibly so. Out of every thousand people attempting the same experiment, I would expect at least one or two people to have the same result on average.

This may seem pedantic, but this is also something people often get confused by. Statistics doesn't tell you the result you're going to get. It only tells you the odds of getting a result. If you think you're seeing something that "proves" the crystals are not random, you first have to ask what the odds of seeing what you're seeing are, and then ask out of all the players playing the game how many are likely to be seeing the same thing. If those odds are incredibly low and are so low it is unlikely anyone has ever, or will ever see that thing, that's worth looking deeper at. But if you're seeing something that one out of 700 people are seeing, and there's probably hundreds of other players, if not thousands, that would have seen the same thing if the crystals were entirely random, then that's unlikely to be convincing evidence of anything.

DNA3000

The rigged-ness of the game RNG has always been a problem.

The fact that the people who think crystals are rigged have never been convinced by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary used to be a problem. Now, even though they still exist and they grumble about it in dark corners, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary has convinced enough of everyone else to make them laughing stocks in the two public forums for the game (here, and the Reddit).

It was when I detected that change a couple years ago that I stopped trying to disprove the crystal conspiracy people wrong, and just started reporting my drop odds measurements for reference. To the extent that that battle is winnable at all, it has already been won. The rest is unwinnable, and not worth the effort.

This content has been removed.

Hopefully the game team takes measures to atleast balance out the RNG.
You can't balance RNG. Then it isn't RNG anymore
You are wrong. I'm asking for true RNG, I proved it wasn't. You pretend it is, despite proof. The world isn't flat either!

You cite 0.1% as odds, yet ignore my 5th paragraph. For a single pull or handful of pulls, you aren't wrong. For NINETY pulls, you are full of it. Statistics dictate you are lying to yourself and furthering lies to others.

It's broken.

So........ How is it broken?

StevieManWonder

I know DNA already explained it, but I want to add that a sample size of only 90 is very very small for trying to get a gauge of the probability of getting any one number of combinations of t4cc. You would need to open thousands of t4cc to get even a decent gauge for the probability.

This content has been removed.

Hopefully the game team takes measures to atleast balance out the RNG.
You can't balance RNG. Then it isn't RNG anymore
Buuuut that’s not he problem. It’s not true RNG. It’s already heavily weighted with specific odds set against the players. That’s like calling a Vegas casino balanced odds.

Kabam can fix the RNG by actually making it more truly random instead of their horribly rigged results.

It's not weighted any way. We can get dizzy calculating odds and probability based on results, but the reality is when you roll the Crystal, you have a 1 in 6 chance at any Class, each time. It doesn't give one Class and subtract that Class the next time you roll. You don't get all 6 in 6 rolls. It's not biased or affected by any outside factor, and what you're describing would be the opposite of random. It would be results affected by what you've already pulled. As DNA suggested, you either believe it's rigged or you don't. The difference is, we have evidence that it isn't. Years of it.

This content has been removed.

Hopefully the game team takes measures to atleast balance out the RNG.
You can't balance RNG. Then it isn't RNG anymore
You are wrong. I'm asking for true RNG, I proved it wasn't. You pretend it is, despite proof. The world isn't flat either!

You cite 0.1% as odds, yet ignore my 5th paragraph. For a single pull or handful of pulls, you aren't wrong. For NINETY pulls, you are full of it. Statistics dictate you are lying to yourself and furthering lies to others.

It's broken.

So........ How is it broken?

As I said, one set of pulls or even 5 are always going to be untrackable. 90 data points tied to my account's specific status / needs is trackable. For instance, you didn't say if you were maxed on every crystal except Tech. If so, then you'd have the beginnings of the evidence I am showing. If you opened 90 and ended up with almost no Tech, then yes, that's broken.

Science dictates that any one spin in a casino game, and it is a gamble. However as sample size increases, odds are supposed to resemble the true odds. In this case, 90 pulls should have some resemblance of the true odds the game provides, which clearly aren't even 1:6 ratios.
That's incorrect. Because random sequences are not supposed to be predictable, you can never be certain how any one random distribution will appear. If you could, that distribution would by definition fail a test for randomness. Instead, we can only determine the odds of a particular kind of distribution occurring. If we're trying to test to see if something is random or not, we try to see if distributions show up more often than they should. At some point, the odds against seeing what you're seeing become so high, we assume that it isn't coincidence or random chance, and we're seeing a real thing.

The odds of opening 90 T4CC crystals and getting exactly five of a targeted class are about one in a thousand (it is one in 951). The odds are actually slightly better at getting five or less: about one in 694 (there are more ways to get five or fewer than there are to get exactly five).

Statistically speaking, then, seeing five or fewer of the class you're targeting out of 90 crystals is unlikely, but not incredibly so. Out of every thousand people attempting the same experiment, I would expect at least one or two people to have the same result on average.

This may seem pedantic, but this is also something people often get confused by. Statistics doesn't tell you the result you're going to get. It only tells you the odds of getting a result. If you think you're seeing something that "proves" the crystals are not random, you first have to ask what the odds of seeing what you're seeing are, and then ask out of all the players playing the game how many are likely to be seeing the same thing. If those odds are incredibly low and are so low it is unlikely anyone has ever, or will ever see that thing, that's worth looking deeper at. But if you're seeing something that one out of 700 people are seeing, and there's probably hundreds of other players, if not thousands, that would have seen the same thing if the crystals were entirely random, then that's unlikely to be convincing evidence of anything.

You said it yourself: "one random distribution". This is 90.

Further, you said "odds are better getting five or less". So you are saying odds get BETTER the FEWER you get? I'm guessing you made a typo here.

I do agree with your number of 1:694 as I found 5 in 90 pulls is 0.143%. However I disagree that it doesn't resemble a sample that would resemble a mean distribution. You said it yourself: this is a "one out of every thousand" spin. For that spin to ALSO match the class I needed, the ONLY class I needed is a significant data point. To ignore that is only half the story.

CoatHang3r

....but that's heresy. Lol.

Seriously, there's no convincing people who think it's rigged. They're just going to go on being suspicious.

....but that's heresy. Lol.

You know yourself from previous posts that pulling 10 vs pulling 90 is a very different amount of data.

Also, CoatHang3r had a different inventory setup that my claim. For me to be maxed on everything EXCEPT mutant versus a player who has capacity in all classes is very different.

So this example claiming to debunk my post is apples to oranges. I can show you my champ list too if you want random data points to muddy the topic, we can talk about more off-topic mud. Or how about instead we focus on the data I provided that make a solid claim of distribution flaws?

This content has been removed.

Hopefully the game team takes measures to atleast balance out the RNG.
You can't balance RNG. Then it isn't RNG anymore
Buuuut that’s not he problem. It’s not true RNG. It’s already heavily weighted with specific odds set against the players. That’s like calling a Vegas casino balanced odds.

Kabam can fix the RNG by actually making it more truly random instead of their horribly rigged results.

Wait what? How is what the OP pulled from 90 NOT true RNG? True RNG is random results. Just because you were looking for certain a certain class or classes doesn't make it any less RNG. That's just confirmation bias. You can't prove one way or anther that it's rigged or not rigged.

Hopefully the game team takes measures to atleast balance out the RNG.
You can't balance RNG. Then it isn't RNG anymore
You are wrong. I'm asking for true RNG, I proved it wasn't. You pretend it is, despite proof. The world isn't flat either!

You cite 0.1% as odds, yet ignore my 5th paragraph. For a single pull or handful of pulls, you aren't wrong. For NINETY pulls, you are full of it. Statistics dictate you are lying to yourself and furthering lies to others.

It's broken.

So........ How is it broken?
As I said, one set of pulls or even 5 are always going to be untrackable. 90 data points tied to my account's specific status / needs is trackable. For instance, you didn't say if you were maxed on every crystal except Tech. If so, then you'd have the beginnings of the evidence I am showing. If you opened 90 and ended up with almost no Tech, then yes, that's broken.

90 pulls in the grand scheme of the game is insignificant. 90 isn't a true representation at all any more than the 5 I pulled are. You think RNG is broken because you didn't get Mutant which is what you were wanting.

What if you did. What if you got 20 mutant and less of the others, would RNG still be broken or you wouldn't care at that point?

How many other T4CC crystals have you opened since you started playing and how many of those instances did you get or didn't get what you wanted? Those count along with the 90 but you didn't track them so your data is invalid now. There's nothing wrong with Kabam's RNG unless it didn't give you what you wanted, then it's broken AF.

....but that's heresy. Lol.
You know yourself from previous posts that pulling 10 vs pulling 90 is a very different amount of data.

Also, CoatHang3r had a different inventory setup that my claim. For me to be maxed on everything EXCEPT mutant versus a player who has capacity in all classes is very different.

So this example claiming to debunk my post is apples to oranges. I can show you my champ list too if you want random data points to muddy the topic, we can talk about more off-topic mud. Or how about instead we focus on the data I provided that make a solid claim of distribution flaws?

That's a lot of words to support a conspiracy theory.

Darksniper240

Because Kabaam has someone watching your account and know that you want mutant and just to mess with only you, they make sure you pull less mutant...That is until next time when you need a different catalyst and they will change their programming to get you less of that one. Sounds legit. SMH.