Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?
Yes. Random doesn't mean equal distribution. To be precise, it's a pseudo-random, since there are Drop Rates at play, but it's a random choice among the pool included, based on the rates posted.
It's not pseudo random because there's drop rates but because it isn't 'true random'. Drop rates don't factor there
Pseudo-random number generators are called "pseudo random" because they are deterministic and predictable, but exhibit all of the (required) characteristics of random number sequences over sufficiently small run lengths (sufficiently small can be, in this context, trillions of numbers long) when unknowable entropy seeds are used to initialize them.
"True randomness" is more of a conceptual idea, but one with no generally agreed upon operational definition. Which is to say, there's no agreed upon test for determining if something is a "true random number" sequence or generator, which makes the notion of true random number generators more of a philosophical debate rather than anything of practical concern.
And before someone mentions quantum mechanics, stop using Google as your teacher. Whether quantum mechanics is "truly random" is itself a debated question, specifically because of the limits of operationally defining what true randomness even is. You end up discussing epistemological interpretations of the quantum waveform, the nature of probability, and the intersection of information theory and quantum mechanics. Good luck with that.
(Personally, I'm on the side that quantum information theory is incompatible with quantum entities being "truly random" because that would imply requiring an infinite amount of information to specify their state, which would violate quantum entropy limits. However, this is unsettled territory.)
Nobody talks about "true randomness" in practical terms, only "random enough." Pseudo random generators can be made random enough. For applications where they are not random enough, physical sources of entropy are used where the "initiating states" are unrecoverable by current human technology, and thus "good enough to be unknowable." But at the end of the day, that's no different than using a cryptographically strong PRNG and just throwing the seed down the drain.
I will support this theory if it turns out that Cyclops is statistically the least pulled champ. Backs up the internal metrics that rate him as effective.
This is actually another one of those long standing myths that have basically gained legendary status.
When I started playing 7 years ago there was talk of champions having different rarities. The best 5 star was Starlord, the pool was really small and it was another era of the game. I have no idea how much of that was true in the past, but nowadays I think it's just random. I needed 83 ft crystals to get Scarlet Witch. RNG is a bit about that. On the other hand, I got the "best champions" in few crystals.
Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?
Yes. Random doesn't mean equal distribution. To be precise, it's a pseudo-random, since there are Drop Rates at play, but it's a random choice among the pool included, based on the rates posted.
It's not pseudo random because there's drop rates but because it isn't 'true random'. Drop rates don't factor there
I will support this theory if it turns out that Cyclops is statistically the least pulled champ. Backs up the internal metrics that rate him as effective.
This is actually another one of those long standing myths that have basically gained legendary status.
You realize this was a joke right?
@DNA3000 technically has joke hardware, but it's been disabled for performance reasons. You'll have to wait until Q4 for @DNA3001 if you want automatic joke recognition.
I will support this theory if it turns out that Cyclops is statistically the least pulled champ. Backs up the internal metrics that rate him as effective.
This is actually another one of those long standing myths that have basically gained legendary status.
You realize this was a joke right?
Kind of. There's people who use that statement for personal attacks against miike and say that he knows nothing about the game. It's not funny. Just vitriol
Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?
Yes. Random doesn't mean equal distribution. To be precise, it's a pseudo-random, since there are Drop Rates at play, but it's a random choice among the pool included, based on the rates posted.
It's not pseudo random because there's drop rates but because it isn't 'true random'. Drop rates don't factor there
Pseudo-random number generators are called "pseudo random" because they are deterministic and predictable, but exhibit all of the (required) characteristics of random number sequences over sufficiently small run lengths (sufficiently small can be, in this context, trillions of numbers long) when unknowable entropy seeds are used to initialize them.
"True randomness" is more of a conceptual idea, but one with no generally agreed upon operational definition. Which is to say, there's no agreed upon test for determining if something is a "true random number" sequence or generator, which makes the notion of true random number generators more of a philosophical debate rather than anything of practical concern.
And before someone mentions quantum mechanics, stop using Google as your teacher. Whether quantum mechanics is "truly random" is itself a debated question, specifically because of the limits of operationally defining what true randomness even is. You end up discussing epistemological interpretations of the quantum waveform, the nature of probability, and the intersection of information theory and quantum mechanics. Good luck with that.
(Personally, I'm on the side that quantum information theory is incompatible with quantum entities being "truly random" because that would imply requiring an infinite amount of information to specify their state, which would violate quantum entropy limits. However, this is unsettled territory.)
Nobody talks about "true randomness" in practical terms, only "random enough." Pseudo random generators can be made random enough. For applications where they are not random enough, physical sources of entropy are used where the "initiating states" are unrecoverable by current human technology, and thus "good enough to be unknowable." But at the end of the day, that's no different than using a cryptographically strong PRNG and just throwing the seed down the drain.
I was pretty confused about the whole true random and pseudo random until i read one of your comments some time back. Thanks for the recap. Will 'probably' help me in what I'm doing
I will support this theory if it turns out that Cyclops is statistically the least pulled champ. Backs up the internal metrics that rate him as effective.
This is actually another one of those long standing myths that have basically gained legendary status.
You realize this was a joke right?
Kind of. There's people who use that statement for personal attacks against miike and say that he knows nothing about the game. It's not funny. Just vitriol
I don't believe I mentioned Miike at all. Kabam have stated themselves that they have their own metrics on how champs are performing. Realistically they must otherwise re-balancing is just based a farce.
I was merely pointing out that if some tin foil theory has equally tin foil stats to back it up based on a meme of all things - I would support it. It's clearly a joke.
It's not that I don't know effective != best. But "effective" is the critical component of the meme. Everyone knows what the reference is without explanation.
I opened about 70 featured crystals, got 6 times prof X, 5 times winter soldier, 5 times rocket raccoon, 5 man-thing, 4 X23, 3 Shang Chi dupes IN A ROW, still hunting for Gorr. And you still believe, that chance is equal? Kabam is playing badly here, when they tell that chances are equal.
I opened about 70 featured crystals, got 6 times prof X, 5 times winter soldier, 5 times rocket raccoon, 5 man-thing, 4 X23, 3 Shang Chi dupes IN A ROW, still hunting for Gorr. And you still believe, that chance is equal? Kabam is playing badly here, when they tell that chances are equal.
The chance is absolutely equal. You can’t look at crystals as a compounding variable. They’re all individual variables, and the RNG is run every time a crystal is spun.
Maybe stop opening featureds for a bit? The pool is extremely limited, and 18 out of 24 champs are not featured. You’re always going to be let down if you look at it from a lens of not getting featured champs.
This isn’t something where the more you lose, the more likely you are to win. It’s clearly stated that it’s a gamble, and you can’t be upset with the rewards of that gamble.
It’s illegal for Kabam to rig the crystals, and it’s also illegal for Kabam to lie about that, as Miike said earlier in the thread.
Again, taking a break from the featured and opening basics might be a nice change of pace. Hope you get your Gorr.
@Kabam Miike Can you please also confirm that every class has an equal chance to drop from a T4cc crystal and that this chance is not subject to any change by any parameters.
I will support this theory if it turns out that Cyclops is statistically the least pulled champ. Backs up the internal metrics that rate him as effective.
This is actually another one of those long standing myths that have basically gained legendary status.
You realize this was a joke right?
I know you were joking, but its still worth pointing out because there are a lot of other people who aren't joking.
I opened about 70 featured crystals, got 6 times prof X, 5 times winter soldier, 5 times rocket raccoon, 5 man-thing, 4 X23, 3 Shang Chi dupes IN A ROW, still hunting for Gorr. And you still believe, that chance is equal? Kabam is playing badly here, when they tell that chances are equal.
So you think your drops proves the crystal is biased towards those champs? Then how do you explain that in 69 crystals I did not pull Rocket once. Are you saying *your* crystals are biased towards Rocket and *mine* are not? That's silly. That's basically saying no matter what a player gets, that proves their crystals were biased towards what they get. It says that every crystal is biased, just coincidentally towards that it eventually drops. That's ludicrous.
And for the record, I pulled Gorr three times. Not only that, I pulled him twice in the first three pulls. Maybe Kabam knows you want Gorr, but hates you and has rigged your crystals to not contain Gorr. Just you, only you, and your crystals.
Or it is completely random, and out of 69 crystals the champ I failed to pull was Rocket, and the champ you failed to pull was Gorr, and out there among the thousands of players opening crystals there are players who failed to pull every other champ, some of whom think the crystal is rigged to specifically avoid that one champ.
Also, the *average* number of crystals it takes before you pull at least one of all twenty four champs is 91. That means some players will pull at least one of every champ before 91, but many players will take more than 91 crystals to eventually pull one of every champ, assuming they open that many. For those players, it will look like the crystal contains a deficit of the champs they never pull, but that's exactly what statistics predicts will happen.
I will support this theory if it turns out that Cyclops is statistically the least pulled champ. Backs up the internal metrics that rate him as effective.
This is actually another one of those long standing myths that have basically gained legendary status.
You realize this was a joke right?
@DNA3000 technically has joke hardware, but it's been disabled for performance reasons. You'll have to wait until Q4 for @DNA3001 if you want automatic joke recognition.
I’ve been playing for 8 years and this has been my experience.
While the drop probability may and is mostly likely equal and I admit I’m speculating as someone with a background in technical training who worked for an entertainment company a few years ago, the drops clearly seem to be based on your champion roster.
If I have a rare 5 or 6 Star that’s ranked up and at max sig, I can pull them fairly but not as frequently as I do with the meme champs all summoners pull over and over…
I also have paid attention to the experiences my son and friends who place MCOC. If they haven’t logged in and played in awhile they get some insane champion pulls.
My son pulled a 6 star Kang and a 6 star Thanos during the holiday events after not playing for well over a year.
Even though we can review all of your patents, I doubt we have the ability to see any language in those patents regarding the game’s algorithms and the pulls potentially being based off of your own roster.
Again I fully admit my evidence is based off of my own experiences of being a veteran player and friends with current and former alliance members offline.
While my analysis is anecdotal, like I said, we don’t have transparency on everything just like with any social media or gaming platform utilizing algorithms in the background.
Have a good one MCOC fam! Still here after 8 years and hopefully many more to come!
Also Miike - Please give your team some pushback on the event quest difficulty change. I know the company is for profit but this move makes your broader base of players want to retire or skip EQ for AQ/AW and will not increase the company’s revenue.
Comments
"True randomness" is more of a conceptual idea, but one with no generally agreed upon operational definition. Which is to say, there's no agreed upon test for determining if something is a "true random number" sequence or generator, which makes the notion of true random number generators more of a philosophical debate rather than anything of practical concern.
And before someone mentions quantum mechanics, stop using Google as your teacher. Whether quantum mechanics is "truly random" is itself a debated question, specifically because of the limits of operationally defining what true randomness even is. You end up discussing epistemological interpretations of the quantum waveform, the nature of probability, and the intersection of information theory and quantum mechanics. Good luck with that.
(Personally, I'm on the side that quantum information theory is incompatible with quantum entities being "truly random" because that would imply requiring an infinite amount of information to specify their state, which would violate quantum entropy limits. However, this is unsettled territory.)
Nobody talks about "true randomness" in practical terms, only "random enough." Pseudo random generators can be made random enough. For applications where they are not random enough, physical sources of entropy are used where the "initiating states" are unrecoverable by current human technology, and thus "good enough to be unknowable." But at the end of the day, that's no different than using a cryptographically strong PRNG and just throwing the seed down the drain.
The best 5 star was Starlord, the pool was really small and it was another era of the game.
I have no idea how much of that was true in the past, but nowadays I think it's just random. I needed 83 ft crystals to get Scarlet Witch. RNG is a bit about that. On the other hand, I got the "best champions" in few crystals.
Kabam have stated themselves that they have their own metrics on how champs are performing. Realistically they must otherwise re-balancing is just based a farce.
I was merely pointing out that if some tin foil theory has equally tin foil stats to back it up based on a meme of all things - I would support it. It's clearly a joke.
It's not that I don't know effective != best. But "effective" is the critical component of the meme. Everyone knows what the reference is without explanation.
Kabam is playing badly here, when they tell that chances are equal.
Maybe stop opening featureds for a bit? The pool is extremely limited, and 18 out of 24 champs are not featured. You’re always going to be let down if you look at it from a lens of not getting featured champs.
This isn’t something where the more you lose, the more likely you are to win. It’s clearly stated that it’s a gamble, and you can’t be upset with the rewards of that gamble.
It’s illegal for Kabam to rig the crystals, and it’s also illegal for Kabam to lie about that, as Miike said earlier in the thread.
Again, taking a break from the featured and opening basics might be a nice change of pace. Hope you get your Gorr.
Jinx
And for the record, I pulled Gorr three times. Not only that, I pulled him twice in the first three pulls. Maybe Kabam knows you want Gorr, but hates you and has rigged your crystals to not contain Gorr. Just you, only you, and your crystals.
Or it is completely random, and out of 69 crystals the champ I failed to pull was Rocket, and the champ you failed to pull was Gorr, and out there among the thousands of players opening crystals there are players who failed to pull every other champ, some of whom think the crystal is rigged to specifically avoid that one champ.
Also, the *average* number of crystals it takes before you pull at least one of all twenty four champs is 91. That means some players will pull at least one of every champ before 91, but many players will take more than 91 crystals to eventually pull one of every champ, assuming they open that many. For those players, it will look like the crystal contains a deficit of the champs they never pull, but that's exactly what statistics predicts will happen.
I’ve been playing for 8 years and this has been my experience.
While the drop probability may and is mostly likely equal and I admit I’m speculating as someone with a background in technical training who worked for an entertainment company a few years ago, the drops clearly seem to be based on your champion roster.
If I have a rare 5 or 6 Star that’s ranked up and at max sig, I can pull them fairly but not as frequently as I do with the meme champs all summoners pull over and over…
I also have paid attention to the experiences my son and friends who place MCOC. If they haven’t logged in and played in awhile they get some insane champion pulls.
My son pulled a 6 star Kang and a 6 star Thanos during the holiday events after not playing for well over a year.
Even though we can review all of your patents, I doubt we have the ability to see any language in those patents regarding the game’s algorithms and the pulls potentially being based off of your own roster.
Again I fully admit my evidence is based off of my own experiences of being a veteran player and friends with current and former alliance members offline.
While my analysis is anecdotal, like I said, we don’t have transparency on everything just like with any social media or gaming platform utilizing algorithms in the background.
Have a good one MCOC fam! Still here after 8 years and hopefully many more to come!
Also Miike - Please give your team some pushback on the event quest difficulty change. I know the company is for profit but this move makes your broader base of players want to retire or skip EQ for AQ/AW and will not increase the company’s revenue.