An question about featured crystal
Rebark
Member Posts: 428 ★★★
In the featured crystal do all champions have the same chance of being obtained?
I've opened 17 crystals and only got one feat champion, the other 16 were completely useless champions for my game stage.
So far there were 3 Karnak, 1 Gamora, 2 War Machine, 2 Rogue, 1 Nebula, 1 Daredevil, 1 Cyclop, 3 Thor Ragnarok, 1 Purgatory, 1 Medusa and 1 Iceman
I've opened 17 crystals and only got one feat champion, the other 16 were completely useless champions for my game stage.
So far there were 3 Karnak, 1 Gamora, 2 War Machine, 2 Rogue, 1 Nebula, 1 Daredevil, 1 Cyclop, 3 Thor Ragnarok, 1 Purgatory, 1 Medusa and 1 Iceman
Post edited by Kabam Porthos on
4
Comments
all the lower tier champs of over all usage in game tend to be pulled waaaaay more often than the newer featured champs. like yea some people will get lucky and pull a featured champ sometimes even back to back. but its way more common for 100 people to pull a karnak than 10 people pulling a CGR or a peni in a featured.
people can try and deny it all they want or try to discredit it by simply saying conspiracy but they too know the casino is always rigged against the people. thats just how it works
That would just be ridiculous, and heavily influence people’s ability to take your opinion seriously.
but even when this kind of evidence is presented there is always a counter argument based off opinion rather than facts so it doesnt matter what i say, people already except what kabam tells them lol. like when they introduced drop rates on the crystal info... as if those numbers were real xD
Stop spreading random conspiracy theories without an ounce of evidence and just your hatred of Kabam and your experience to show.
at this point a "conspiracy" is more believable than kabam telling us what is or isnt 🤷
do you think casinos are not rigged?? cause this game is simply another version of gambling
The reel is just for show, you’d have thought someone who’d been on the forum as long as you have would know that by now. But I guess you see what you want to see.
Firstly, as a matter of fact, the champion doesn’t pop up as your new profile straight away, but waits until the reel animation has stopped and you’re at the end screen of opening crystals. I actually saw this yesterday when I opened a 5* Crystal from the calendar on one of my alts.
Go to 18:10 here and you'll see that your argument is based on pretty shaky evidence already. And evidence is a kind word for what you're saying.
A better example would be how the notification for a new champion (one you've never pulled before in any rarity) pops up when the crystal starts to slow down. The one for profile pics? Yeah, but that's hardly damning either considering it's explained by my next point.
Secondly, the champion you are going to get is automatically decided when you place the Crystal on the spinner, before you even see the first champion pop up in the reel. That’s why you’ll get the same champion if you spin it out, tap it or click open button.
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/26491#Comment_26491
If you don't believe me, check this out. Unless you simply don't "except" what Kabam says just because they're kabam. In which case, your evidence for this tin-foil hat, lizard-people rule the world, conspiracy theory is "I don't believe what Kabam tells us just because it's kabam, and I'm annoyed that I got bad pulls".
So we will go back to my original point. Do you have any evidence based reasoning for why champions have different odds when they're bad? Any statistical analysis of a large sample? Anything other than it seems like bad pulls are more often pulled? (even though the vast majority of the community considers around 30-40% of the champion pool "good" at any one time, so of course it seems like bad pulls are more often, because people consider more champions bad)
also that 18:10 is still in the beginning part of the account where it wont show icons, cause a 2* takes the place of the icon rather than the 1* he had common sense lol... , if you move it up to 36:10 literally shows icon of a new champ before it stops rolling. as i said pre destined, if that is the case there is no reason to spinning or popping as youll get the champ that is set right.. so how are they set? you really believe pulling the same 2 champs back to back is statistically more possible than pulling a different champ, especially when you take alliance pull feeds into account... even opening class type crystals, pulling the worse tier champs happens more often than a top tier champ.
you also going to tell me accounts dont tend to get more of a class type more than others when it comes to resources??
If you claim that there are pink elephants hidden in the clouds and I say no there aren’t, you need to be able to prove there are. It’s not my place to prove there aren’t any.
It’s the same here. You’re claiming the crystals are rigged. You need to provide evidence to show your theory is correct.
Of course some accounts will get worse champions more often than good champions. But have you considered how many champions you think are good, and how many you think are bad? Honestly, go through every champ right now and see if they’re equal. Let me know how many champs you would consider to be good and bad pulls.
Of course some accounts will get more of one class type than the others, it’s essentially impossible for that not to happen with how many players play the game. Have you seen more posts saying “hey guys, I pulled exactly equal number of t4cc/gems/class champions”, or more complaining their classes were weighted differently? This is confirmation bias, and you’re the perfect example of it.
I feel like your entire post can be summed up by “what are you talking about”. It’s a babble of incoherent thoughts and conspiracy theories.
You are basing this off nothing other than your feeling, and until you’re willing to deal with this in a factual way, there’s nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise. Have a think about why you believe what you believe, and I’d probably rethink the whole tin foil hat bit, it’s really not a good look.
The crystal is set on the spinner. The game using whatever method of rng that they use, calculates the champion you will get.
I get that you wanted Hercules or someone else. But many of those champs are far from useless.
It happens, but no one comes here to brag about thy, they come here to post the opposite.
Crystals aren’t rigged to favor one champion over another. True randomness requires repetition. If you asked 365 random people when their birthday was, would you expect to get 365 different answers, or would you expect some overlap? Same concept at play here.
You get the notification that you’re receiving a new champion before the reel stops spinning because the time it takes for the computer to run the RNG algorithm is faster than the time it takes for the reel to stop. So the game knows before you actually see it, but it didn’t know before you put the crystal on the spinner.
Think about it, it doesn’t make sense that the crystal would be decided before you opened it. What if you spent your shards on a basic instead of a featured? What if you cashed in your 3* shards for 4* shards in the Black ISO Market? The game would be doing countless unnecessary calculations all of the time and be entirely unplayable. It only decides what’s in a crystal once you have committed to opening it.
Now, I do find it humorous that some say it's impossible to be rigged. There simply isn't enough data to determine either way. That lack of data goes both ways. True, it is incumbent upon the person bringing the charge to bring forth evidence, but to suggest that crystal drop rates are based (from players perspective) on anything other than trust is disingenuous. Unless someone has done a comprehensive and continuous crystal odds breakdown that I'm unfamiliar with.
Besides, with the way everything else works, (in unintended ways) I can understand a player's perspective questioning if this too isn't broke.
Personally, I don't think it is, but I do not have enough empirical data to support my belief. It's just based on trust at this point.
If you had 60 people in the same room, the probability of two or more sharing a birthday shoots up to 99.4%.
And if you had 200 people in the same room, there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999998% chance.
And lastly, just to really drive the point home, the chances of 2 people sharing a birthday when 365 people are in a room is 99.999999.....99999145 % but imagine there's 155 9s in between.
Repetition is an inherent part of randomness, as you've said @Wicket329 , and sometimes that repetition will be twice in a row. It's unlikely for one specific person, but with how many players in the game, and how many crystals they open, it's way more unlikely for it not to happen and get posted about on the forum.
It’d be super weird to roll a die and get a six five times in a row. But if you’re rolling that die thousands or millions of times, it’s practically inevitable. It’s notable that it would happen to you specifically, but not at all weird that it would happen to somebody in general.
How do you gather statistically uncontaminated data? You analyze streamed openings, and people who upload all openings religiously. Recorded openings suffer from all sorts of bias, including the obvious fact that people tend not to show "boring" openings. But back in the day bulk crystal opening videos were a lot more common than they are now, and there was enough data in them guaranteed to be free from uploader bias to be able to tell if the crystals had a noticeable bias towards or away from certain champs. I did this for PHCs, for 4* crystals, 5* basic crystals, and for the old school featured 5* crystals. None of them showed a statistical bias towards or away from the "good" or "bad" champs.
This is super time consuming, and beyond a certain point the tide turned against the crystal conspiracy crowd, so I stopped doing this for the most part. I do still look periodically, and I data record things like my 6* featured openings for my own purposes, and none of them show gross skewing. The amount of data I have isn't enough to show more than really big skews. But that's sort of the point: the amount of crystals the average person opens isn't high enough to "see" statistical skews without very careful statistical analysis. That's what makes anecdotes in this are completely worthless.
Other people have also examined crystal, with similar or weaker statistical controls, and all of the higher quality analyses found no evidence for statistical skews in the champion crystals. My favorite one was the cinematic crystal, where a forum poster stated that they could *see* direct evidence that the crystal was favoring certain champions, and when I actually tabulated all the postings in the thread he said contained that evidence everything he claimed was obvious was actually not true in the actual numbers. They were seeing what they wanted to see.
I cannot say that every champion in a particular pool has *exactly* the same chance of dropping. What I can say with confidence is that if one champion drops more often than another, the difference is so small no one could possibly be seeing that difference, which makes the belief that the odds are different baseless.
I opened 18 featured crystals so far, and haven't pulled Karnak yet (see: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/1996098/#Comment_1996098). That's not noteworthy if Karnak was just as common as any other champ. But the odds of not pulling Karnak if he were ten times more common than the other champs are about one in 664. When you factor in all the other featured crystal openings floating around out there from people who are basically uploading all of them (and thus aren't vulnerable to internal biases) the odds of Karnak being that much more common compared to the other options is probably tens of thousands to one against, if not higher.
However, I don't need to tell you, a period in the past is not proof for the present. What might have once been true can also now be false. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anything changed, but without constant monitoring, we can only believe it to be true. That data would have to be constant and continuous... which as you mention is quite the undertaking... one I truly wish I had the time for becuase it's, as I mention above a labor love for me. Several times I've had the inclination to do it myself, but alas, real life always seems to get in the way and the best of intentions go by the wayside.
Besides, I don't believe there exists any tampering with the crystal odds either. It would more be an exercise of love than trying to "prove" any nefarious motive. That would be a death knell to any game and company that tried those shenanigans.
And yes, no testing in the past would prove the crystals were not changed later, and no testing today would prove they won't change them in the future. But at some point, when people keep saying the crystals are rigged and there's no evidence to support that assertion, the burden of proof shifts to the people making the claim. It is an unreasonable burden to expect everyone to keep proving them wrong constantly.
Besides, no one asserts that Kabam started rigging crystals yesterday. They assert that Kabam has always rigged crystals. Once you prove they were not doing so at any covered period of time, you disprove the entire statement.
One source of a lot of crystal opening data of a more recent vintage would be COWhale's old crystal opening videos. Over time he opened a lot of crystals, and it isn't hard to see how many featured champs he pulled on average. It tends to be approximately the number you'd expect: not a lot fewer, and not a lot more than statistically predicted. If anyone thinks Kabam rewards spenders with better odds, his crystals would seem to disprove that notion - at least any advantage would be so small the spenders can't see it, and what's the point of giving them an advantage they can't actually tell they are getting? Conversely, his crystal openings also tend to disprove the notion that the featured champs are much rarer than Kabam claims, as they do, over the long haul, show up more or less at the posted rate.