**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
Also, you're generally wrong about lottery tickets. It would actually be illegal in a lot of places if lottery tickets were designed that way. Lottery tickets are not loaded or weighted. The distribution of prizes is engineered by adjusting the drop odds, and relying upon the fact that basic statistics will drive the numbers reasonably close to the desired reward ratios. The only random ticket games I can think of that are designed the way you describe are things like the McDonalds Monopoly game.
For lotteries where the prizes are big enough that their results are widely publicized, we know that sometimes there's one winner, and sometimes there's more than one. The same is true for lower tier prizes: the number of winning tickets fluctuates. The winning numbers are not predetermined, so there's no way for the lottery operators to specifically print only a certain number of winning tickets. In fact, although most lotteries will assign numbers to your ticket randomly, most will also allow people to pick their own numbers. Obviously, there's no way to control the number of winners in such lotteries.
And really, people should probably stop saying "computers are incapable of making an independent random event" because that's one of those statements that is technically true but also misleading to the point of being false.
Once again: we don't need "completely random" or "independently random" results. There isn't even a proper definition of what those terms mean. We just need the drops to appear to be random: to pass sufficiently strong randomness tests. Since the game is based on the Unity engine, it is reasonable to suppose that they are likely using Unity's RNG. Which is a matter of public record: https://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/Random.html states that the Unity random is an implementation of XORshift128. The XORshift algorithm is documented in this paper: https://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i14/paper. As to your objections on the strength of the generator, I will quote from the paper:
If β is a uniform random choice, (the seed), from Z, then each member of the sequence βT, βT2, βT3, . . . is also uniformly distributed over Z, so we have a sequence of ID, Identically Distributed, uniform elements from Z, but they are not IID, that is, Independent Identically Distributed. But it turns out here, as for many RNGs, functions of the ID elements often have distributions very close to those of the same functions of elements of an IID sequence. That is the remarkable property of certain choices of functions f ( ) over seed sets Z that justifies their usefulness in computers for the past fifty years.
which addresses the issue of random distribution and correlation, and
Simple and very fast (125 million/sec), the elements in its cycle of 2^192−2^32 easily pass all the tests in Diehard.
which addresses the issue of sufficiently random for purpose (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests for a discussion of the tests being referenced).
It’s only done it once for me, on a grandmaster as soon as the spin started. So if Apple game centre knew I was pulling a five star from a GM crystal, obviously the champ is assigned as soon as you go to open it whether it be spin, pop or quick tap.
“Once the spin is ready to stop it just inserts whatever you drew into the carousel so that it lands on that prize. As part of the prize draw coming from the server, the server also tells your device a "near miss item" prize to place just before what you're getting. (I don't know specifics, but this means Kabam can intentionally inflate featured draws as near miss - this should be a surprise to no one who has spun a crystal)”
He explains it in detail here. https://www.reddit.com/r/ContestOfChampions/comments/5liw9v/crystal_spinner_carousel_explained/
*there might have been an otriux post similar to what I recall, that had different details I just cannot remember his Reddit handle to search for it.
1) The character is ASSIGNED when claiming to obtain the crystal or when claiming the crystal (in the case of shard crystals).
2) The assignment is done on the Kabam server, not on the phone or tablet.
3) By turning or opening a crystal, your copy of the game is synced to the server.
4) The turning system is a simple entertainment and a way to add excitement to the moment. It is also a visual representation of the synchronization that is done with the server, so that to exactly match the character that is going to match the one shown on the screen, sometimes "strange jumps" occur.
These "strange jumps" have been the cause of all kinds of conspiracy theories for years, when the opening system has always been transparent and public.
Conclusion: use the spin system if you are on a Youtube broadcast and use the direct opening if you are playing for yourselves.
The reel is purely entertainment—what you see isn’t what is in the crystal. Adjacent champ profiles aren’t “near misses,” as much as we might like to think so. Whether they are intentional insertions to entice more spending is something I cannot confirm.
If I could, I would replace the slot machine type animation with something much more ambiguous (maybe with the crystal shaking and and changing colors and cracking but by bit before it actually pops and without any champ display). That would clear a fair amount of confusion (but also produce fewer reel thrills).
Dr. Zola
However, the post and it's data remain up and freely available for people to see your work.
To quote Kabam's closing statement there, which has been said MANY, MANY times over the years…
“… the Crystal Spin animation is only for entertainment purposes.”
If you were always seeing just 2* as the surrounding champs, or during spin, in line with actual odds, it wouldn’t be very “entertaining” now, would it.
So they may show a higher propensity of bigger champs during the spin (Entertaining) and in the final NEIGHBORING slots. But has no bearing on the ACTUAL champ you get.
I just saw your post and popped 1 anthromorphic crystal for the first time I m popping a cavalier Crystal. And I got this...
To put it more simply, if you spin a PHC, 4* champs will show more often than they drop, but 4* Hercules will not, across all players spinning crystals, show up more often than 4* Groot.
Cause people pop many crystals at the Same time
So if we Take that in consideration the theory that says the champion is decided when you put the crystal on reel or the theory that says that happens when you click pop or tap becomes invalid
Maybe I am wrong but this is just the most realistic theory That I can imagine
The actual official info is here:
FAQ. Crystals spin system.
Semantic and translation issues aside, the rest of my information is fully adjusted to what is currently indicated in the FAQ. You can put the irony aside, @Malreck04.
.DISPLAY ISSUE WHEN OPENING MULTIPLE CRYSTALS
When opening a large volume of crystals of the same type, they may appear to reward a much larger amount of items like energy refills, health potions, or catalysts than those crystals should. The crystals will reward the correct amount of these items, even though they are displaying the incorrect amount. Our technicians are aware of this display issue and are working to resolve this as soon as possible.
And SigStones are another common “incorrect quantity” item that people always post about up here when opening large amount of crystals at a time.
The fact is programmers reuse functions throughout a program. If they can't get the math function to display proper results, there's a good chance they are also using the same function somewhere else in the game and that is causing another undiscovered issue, or issue we know exists, but hasn't been fixed because it's also using the same bad function.
This "predestination" theory is almost certainly what @Malreck04 was referring to, because the notion that crystals are predetermined keeps coming up repeatedly on the forums and in the subreddit, and it is one of the few crystal theories that we can prove unequivocally false. We can rule out a lot of crystal rigging theories statistically, we can rule out many others by reasonable inference, but the idea that crystals are predetermined is ruled out by three completely separate lines of thought, one of which is 100% impossible to refute. a) Lootbox mechanics are well known in the gaming industry, and they all basically work the same; b) it would be impractical to store predestined crystal data and also unnecessary; and the show stopper c) no predestined crystal can contain drops that did not exist when it was formed, but virtually all crystals have exhibited that behavior.
The code path that displays crystal results and the code path that adds stuff to our inventories are completely different code paths. The code path that determines crystal drops and adds them to our inventories is pretty solid, as it is extremely rare for that to go wrong. But the code path that displays crystal drops must go through a lot more layers of the game client. There is no "function" that does this. There are functions that call functions that call functions. No programmer displays anything: they call other functions or extensions that do so. And those things call other functions or routines within Unity. I don't know what specific sort of anomaly is causing the item quantity display error, but it isn't a simple question of a function being written wrong.
You might think "so what" - whether it is a function or a function that calls a function or a function that calls many functions, that's still a programmer error. Except in game engines like this, abstraction means what a "programmer" means is not what it means in conventional programming. You can be a VBA programmer that makes dynamic spreadsheets in Excel, but if there's a bug in Excel, you being a programmer helps not at all in fixing it. You don't have access to Excel code, because that lives in a different abstraction layer from you. There are game designers that work on things like designing crystals, and there are game mechanics designers that once upon a time designed the crystal display system, and there are game programmers that implemented the engine mechanics for crystal display primitives. These all live on different abstraction layers, like VBA lives in a different place from Excel's C++ code. If the display error lives in the crystal display mechanics, only a system engineer could take that apart and figure out where the bug was, and to fix it might require tampering with something that a lot of other stuff has been built upon since then. If the problem is in the crystal primitives, that would require an engine programmer to troubleshoot and fix, and that would require making changes to the raw engine, where modularity aside you can bring down the entire game.
People do not even *look* at these implementation details often, so it is entirely possible that the only humans that really understand how they work no longer work for Kabam (that happens a lot in the game industry, actually, because you need a lot of low level programmers and designers to launch a game, but not many or even sometimes any to support one most of the time). So if Kabam decided they wanted to fix the crystal display problem, that might require first getting the right sort of expertise on contract, and then giving that person weeks or months just to familiarize themselves with the game engine (no two games built on Unity look remotely the same) so they don't completely break everything when they fix what they think the bug is. Kabam as to prioritize whether all that effort is worth fixing that specific bug that only affects crystal displays.
I think they are saying the old language version descriptions of Crystals had apparently implied the character was decided upon obtaining them.
They admit that it does say upon “opening” now, and not upon obtaining.
Issue was in the tone of the person who was replying to his original statement.