I know crystals are not rigged but it’s so hard not to think this way when…

You pull 5 x 6* featured crystals and you get 4 of these out of 5. The fifth an equally old and useless champ, Green Goblin,

Really really weird level of being unlucky, lol.

Comments

DNA3000

I don't think speculation will ever go away on this subject after someone found that weighted RNG patent for Kabam or Netmarble, but it is what it is.
People still think the Earth is flat even though we have both billionaires and high school students sending things into orbit. This conspiracy theory would have been laughed at by the ancient Greeks. We now live in an age of jet aircraft and GPS. The number of people who would have to be in on this conspiracy is probably now more than 10% of the population of the Earth. And this deters them exactly not at all.
I once put a microscope to a basketball and, wouldn't you know it, those are flat too

Actually, someone did in fact do that.

Suros_moon

Hey I said it was mere venting, out of frustration, maybe more than actually believing what I wrote. I still find it odd how a large amount of crystals can accumulate to nothing, given the law of averages a vast amount of times. Furthermore as you can tell from my previous posts, I’m not exactly the brightest of sparks to say the least 😅

Actually this particular post should be handled with care. When I responded I assumed you were referring to the law of large numbers under some different colloquial moniker, hence my comment about an insufficient number of samples In reality what I think you now mean of by law of averages is what is more commonly known as “Gambler’s fallacy” which, when phrased that way, tells you exactly why you shouldn’t be invoking it for rational expectation building. Mean revisions don’t occur because your next crystal goes “Wait you haven't gotten a 6 star” then poof the correct crystal outcome appears. The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement). Has absolutely nothing to do with individual crystals

Suros_moon

I don't think speculation will ever go away on this subject after someone found that weighted RNG patent for Kabam or Netmarble, but it is what it is.
People still think the Earth is flat even though we have both billionaires and high school students sending things into orbit. This conspiracy theory would have been laughed at by the ancient Greeks. We now live in an age of jet aircraft and GPS. The number of people who would have to be in on this conspiracy is probably now more than 10% of the population of the Earth. And this deters them exactly not at all.
I once put a microscope to a basketball and, wouldn't you know it, those are flat too
Actually, someone did in fact do that.

Irrefutable. Where is your “science” now Megasthenes?

Quicksilver89

When I say large amounts I mean countless bundles of such amounts added together with same result over a period of time, not one isolated event. That was an example. I’m stupid but not that stupid. It was a bit of frustration to start with but more so wondering how it can happen so often over a large number of crystals sometimes with no release. And to be clear couldn’t care less about 6*s it was just baffling that was not even one given me past openings have also went that way. I may have misspoken a good few times and like I said I ain’t the smartest nor was I trying to troll.

DNA3000

Hey I said it was mere venting, out of frustration, maybe more than actually believing what I wrote. I still find it odd how a large amount of crystals can accumulate to nothing, given the law of averages a vast amount of times. Furthermore as you can tell from my previous posts, I’m not exactly the brightest of sparks to say the least 😅
Actually this particular post should be handled with care. When I responded I assumed you were referring to the law of large numbers under some different colloquial moniker, hence my comment about an insufficient number of samples In reality what I think you now mean of by law of averages is what is more commonly known as “Gambler’s fallacy” which, when phrased that way, tells you exactly why you shouldn’t be invoking it for rational expectation building. Mean revisions don’t occur because your next crystal goes “Wait you haven't gotten a 6 star” then poof the correct crystal outcome appears. The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement). Has absolutely nothing to do with individual crystals

Actually, as stated this is also a common statistical misunderstanding. The measured result does not converge to the statistical average for sufficiently large sample sizes. This gives rise to the idea that if you look at enough samples, eventually the average will "appear." In fact, the gap between the measured result and the statistical average should fluctuate, but overall grow over time. The measured result will eventually be as far away from the statistical average as you need it to be.

What does drop over time (again, in a random variable way) is the proportional difference between the measured result and the statistical average. In other words, if you were to open an increasingly larger number of Paragon crystals, say, and the statistical average says 8% of them should be 6* champs, then when you open a thousand of them instead of getting 80 you'll get some other value like 84 or 73. Something kinda close, but not exactly, because random is random: you can't expect to get the exact average. But if you are, say seven away from the average at 73, you should not expect to get closer than that for higher samples. If you open a million, you won't likely get the expected amount of 80,000, but you also won't be anywhere near off by seven either. You might see 81,000, or 79,500, but you'll probably be off by hundreds.

Proportionately, you're getting closer to the statistical average because 81000 is only 1.25% off the statistical average of 80000. But it is also ten thousand off.

The percentage difference tends to get smaller. The actual difference tends to get larger. It is important to distinguish between the two. Some people mistakenly believe if the numerical gap between the statistical average and the measured result keeps getting bigger, something must be wrong.

DNA3000

how it can happen so often over a large number of crystals sometimes with no release.

Simply put, it can't. However, I cannot analyze or explain recollections. I can only explain data. Which is why collecting it is the only way you're going to get an answer to your question. It will either be that you're recollecting incorrectly, or you're summarizing your recollections incorrectly (meaning: you evaluated something as being highly unlikely when it wasn't, and are only remembering that you saw something unlikely), or you're a lottery winner, or there's a problem with the crystals, which would make you in effect an even bigger lottery winner (because you'd be the first ever to demonstrate such a thing).

Quicksilver89

Unfortunately as you say I cannot give such evidence as I did not record when maybe I should. I wasn’t hoping to gain anything from this but I have indeed gained knowledge I did not have beforehand, so I thank you.

Valroz

Thanks for all the explanation guys. But I just pulled him again. Lol.

Oh well…

But I pulled Bullseye on my alt so that kind of makes things better, lol.

ahmynuts

Thanks for all the explanation guys. But I just pulled him again. Lol.

Oh well…

But I pulled Bullseye on my alt so that kind of makes things better, lol.

I don't believe in rigged rng (unintentionally weighted? maybe) but 4 antivenoms in a row would make me quit the game for at least a month

Suros_moon

Hey I said it was mere venting, out of frustration, maybe more than actually believing what I wrote. I still find it odd how a large amount of crystals can accumulate to nothing, given the law of averages a vast amount of times. Furthermore as you can tell from my previous posts, I’m not exactly the brightest of sparks to say the least 😅
Actually this particular post should be handled with care. When I responded I assumed you were referring to the law of large numbers under some different colloquial moniker, hence my comment about an insufficient number of samples In reality what I think you now mean of by law of averages is what is more commonly known as “Gambler’s fallacy” which, when phrased that way, tells you exactly why you shouldn’t be invoking it for rational expectation building. Mean revisions don’t occur because your next crystal goes “Wait you haven't gotten a 6 star” then poof the correct crystal outcome appears. The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement). Has absolutely nothing to do with individual crystals
Actually, as stated this is also a common statistical misunderstanding. The measured result does not converge to the statistical average for sufficiently large sample sizes. This gives rise to the idea that if you look at enough samples, eventually the average will "appear." In fact, the gap between the measured result and the statistical average should fluctuate, but overall grow over time. The measured result will eventually be as far away from the statistical average as you need it to be.

What does drop over time (again, in a random variable way) is the proportional difference between the measured result and the statistical average. In other words, if you were to open an increasingly larger number of Paragon crystals, say, and the statistical average says 8% of them should be 6* champs, then when you open a thousand of them instead of getting 80 you'll get some other value like 84 or 73. Something kinda close, but not exactly, because random is random: you can't expect to get the exact average. But if you are, say seven away from the average at 73, you should not expect to get closer than that for higher samples. If you open a million, you won't likely get the expected amount of 80,000, but you also won't be anywhere near off by seven either. You might see 81,000, or 79,500, but you'll probably be off by hundreds.

Proportionately, you're getting closer to the statistical average because 81000 is only 1.25% off the statistical average of 80000. But it is also ten thousand off.

The percentage difference tends to get smaller. The actual difference tends to get larger. It is important to distinguish between the two. Some people mistakenly believe if the numerical gap between the statistical average and the measured result keeps getting bigger, something must be wrong.

You would have to insert things I didn't say into the statement to get any sort of misinterpretation.

The LLN is exactly as I stated: The sample mean will converge almost surely to the true mean for as n goes to infinity (For the WLN this changes to “in probability”). There are a few other variations actually but most of those amount to precursors to prove these.

“The measured result will eventually be as far away from the statistical average as you need it to be.”

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.

Colinwhitworth69

Let's get ahead of this (or kinda "behind this," since we've talked about this many times before):

This will not be a topic on a future livestream, because it would be incredibly short and likely wouldn't move the needle in any way. haha

We would simply say the truth: RNG is random.

I'm convinced there isn't any evidence we can provide you all that will make everyone nod in agreement, and we know this because we've tried. We can bring in DNA to show his massive spreadsheets to showcase how, with a large enough sample size, RNG proves to be RNG.

But we do these things time and time again. And there's always claims of foul play. I am willing to wager that even if we showed everyone the code that governs these mechanics, it would convince even fewer people as not everyone has coding experience, myself included.

I understand the frustration that comes from not getting what we're looking for in crystals, and even moreso the larger the sample size gets. And yes, sometimes we see weird clumping of crystal openings that make you raise an eyebrow. Dr Zola makes some excellent points about personal bias and potential misunderstanding of statistics, and we find it seems to be the answer most frequently when we have claims of rigged RNG.

It's an important reminder that rigging crystals would be unethical and illegal. We would never risk the future of the Contest on such shady approaches.

More importantly, why would Kabam want to rig crystals? It would serve no business purpose and simply makes no sense to do it, and I have never understood why players believe you rig crystals.

Colinwhitworth69

Let's get ahead of this (or kinda "behind this," since we've talked about this many times before):

This will not be a topic on a future livestream, because it would be incredibly short and likely wouldn't move the needle in any way. haha

We would simply say the truth: RNG is random.

I'm convinced there isn't any evidence we can provide you all that will make everyone nod in agreement, and we know this because we've tried. We can bring in DNA to show his massive spreadsheets to showcase how, with a large enough sample size, RNG proves to be RNG.

But we do these things time and time again. And there's always claims of foul play. I am willing to wager that even if we showed everyone the code that governs these mechanics, it would convince even fewer people as not everyone has coding experience, myself included.

I understand the frustration that comes from not getting what we're looking for in crystals, and even moreso the larger the sample size gets. And yes, sometimes we see weird clumping of crystal openings that make you raise an eyebrow. Dr Zola makes some excellent points about personal bias and potential misunderstanding of statistics, and we find it seems to be the answer most frequently when we have claims of rigged RNG.

It's an important reminder that rigging crystals would be unethical and illegal. We would never risk the future of the Contest on such shady approaches.
Explain how I have opened 24 xmagica paragon crystals (bought with money from store) 5 of the daily valiant special crystals (from store with real money) and 10 of the new serpent paragon crystals (units) in the past 24 hours, and not even a single one did I get so much as a 6*?!

Simple, in a random world any combination of pulls is possible, some far less than others but still possible. Sucks but that's RNG for you.

Also, like their predecessors the Cavalier crystals, Paragon crystals are a massive waste of your money. Sure, you'll get lucky once in a while, but more often you'll regret your decision.

Suros_moon

Anyone who knows the definition of a mean knows you are comparing proportions which inherently captures the entirety of the extrapolation you made. You can clarify, sure, but there was certainly no misunderstanding in what I wrote. The only particularly interesting thing is the discussion on how the amount of difference between measures of proportion scales with n, which, as you noted, may be lost on some people. Of course a change in 100 values matters a lot less on the scale of tens of thousands of experiments

PantherusNZ

Something people also forget is that "value" can mean very different things to different people when it comes to which champs you pull. It's all well and good when talking about star rarity, but when you specify different champs then there's way too much to take into account.

If you already have Dr Doom awakened, then pulling him again is of limited benefit - if he's max sig then even less so. But if you don't have him at all, then pulling him is HUGE.

If you really wanted to try out Luke Cage's buff but don't have him as a 6*, then pulling him is a big deal. Similarly getting Zemo for the challenge, or some other champ that you specifically want because reasons.

Maybe you want the new champs, maybe you want a specific older one, maybe you want a specific class because you have an AG or Rank-Up gem for them...Kabam neither knows nor cares about it. But the more you want something, however unlikely, the more upset you'll be when you don't get it.

Valroz

Then you sometimes have those really lucky days like this one two weekenes ago.

This I pulled from a mythic nexus skill crystal on my alt.

Of course this was the first time anything like this happened since this kind of crystal became available.

So I suppose my extreme luck just swung to the opposite side of the spectrum. Lol.

Polygon

Let's get ahead of this (or kinda "behind this," since we've talked about this many times before):

This will not be a topic on a future livestream, because it would be incredibly short and likely wouldn't move the needle in any way. haha

We would simply say the truth: RNG is random.

I'm convinced there isn't any evidence we can provide you all that will make everyone nod in agreement, and we know this because we've tried. We can bring in DNA to show his massive spreadsheets to showcase how, with a large enough sample size, RNG proves to be RNG.

But we do these things time and time again. And there's always claims of foul play. I am willing to wager that even if we showed everyone the code that governs these mechanics, it would convince even fewer people as not everyone has coding experience, myself included.

I understand the frustration that comes from not getting what we're looking for in crystals, and even moreso the larger the sample size gets. And yes, sometimes we see weird clumping of crystal openings that make you raise an eyebrow. Dr Zola makes some excellent points about personal bias and potential misunderstanding of statistics, and we find it seems to be the answer most frequently when we have claims of rigged RNG.

It's an important reminder that rigging crystals would be unethical and illegal. We would never risk the future of the Contest on such shady approaches.
So you are confirming that kabam is not using the patent they own and registered that give result depending on users profile/habits etc.. ?

Also there is something called Independent Audit that a lot of companies do to prove their good faith and honesty to their users. Kabam maybe can do same about their RNG methodology to put everyone at ease and burry once and forever the rigged RNG conspiracy?

Untill then no one is right or wrong as there is no evidence from both parties, it is just your words against theirs.

@Cure2024 What habits? The only legal patent i can think of that theyre allowed to do is make the offers based on how much ones spending habits are.

But spending habits or any habits etc should NOT have an effect whatsoever on crystal opening RNG. Otherwise we’re all playing the wrong game lol

Suros_moon

“Actually, as stated this is also a common statistical misunderstanding. The measured result does not converge to the statistical average for sufficiently large sample sizes. This gives rise to the idea that if you look at enough samples, eventually the average will "appear." In fact, the gap between the measured result and the statistical average should fluctuate, but overall grow over time. The measured result will eventually be as far away from the statistical average as you need it to be..”

Upon rereading this paragraph isn't only adding in information its definitively wrong in one place based on the definitions you’re invoking so Ill ask you to clarify the language. Implying that this is wrong: “This gives rise to the idea that If you look at enough samples the average will appear” in particular is concerning. Although Id use the words “be approached” not appear since the underlying mean is assumed to be present before experimentation occurs, that is basically the correct formulation (assuming finite variance, independence, etc. of course). The true parameter is converged to as you look at more samples or that the probability that the difference between the two is greater than some epsilon goes to 0 for all epsilon greater than 0 as n goes to infinity (WLN). What Im guessing based on your previous statements would have actually been pointing to is the incorrect statement that “the observed count should match expected count as the sample increases” which is, of course, false, because the LLN/WLN deals in proportions not observed counts. It seems you're throwing in the word average at a place you didn't mean to so Ill ask you to clarify the meaning here because again, if you meant that the sample mean does not converge to the true mean the statement is flatly wrong @DNA3000

DNA3000

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.

I'm afraid that's word salad. If you're going to try to get technical, then the proper way to discuss what normal people see when they open champion crystals is that we're looking at distributions, not means. There's no such thing as the mean of a set of crystal openings. If someone is expecting to see a certain amount of 6* champs pop out of a crystal, the question is what would reasonable expectations be from a certain number of crystals, and on a meta level what would reasonable expectations be for the number of such distributions that are observed.

In the context of distributions, the "statistical average" refers to the statistical average result, which is the average quantity of 6* drops you would observe given the predicted distribution.

However, in the context of opening crystals, there is no "sample mean." That's a complete misuse of language.

Rookiie

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.
I'm afraid that's word salad. If you're going to try to get technical, then the proper way to discuss what normal people see when they open champion crystals is that we're looking at distributions, not means. There's no such thing as the mean of a set of crystal openings. If someone is expecting to see a certain amount of 6* champs pop out of a crystal, the question is what would reasonable expectations be from a certain number of crystals, and on a meta level what would reasonable expectations be for the number of such distributions that are observed.

In the context of distributions, the "statistical average" refers to the statistical average result, which is the average quantity of 6* drops you would observe given the predicted distribution.

However, in the context of opening crystals, there is no "sample mean." That's a complete misuse of language.

Suros_moon

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.
I'm afraid that's word salad. If you're going to try to get technical, then the proper way to discuss what normal people see when they open champion crystals is that we're looking at distributions, not means. There's no such thing as the mean of a set of crystal openings. If someone is expecting to see a certain amount of 6* champs pop out of a crystal, the question is what would reasonable expectations be from a certain number of crystals, and on a meta level what would reasonable expectations be for the number of such distributions that are observed.

In the context of distributions, the "statistical average" refers to the statistical average result, which is the average quantity of 6* drops you would observe given the predicted distribution.

However, in the context of opening crystals, there is no "sample mean." That's a complete misuse of language.

Im shocked that you would say this. It is, of course, correct to discuss these things in precisely the terms I used. You would frame the openings as a series of Bernoulli trials for each candidate (say 6 stars in the paragon crystal). The sample mean is of course, just the sum of 0s and 1s that occur divided by the number of crystals opened and the LLN would claim that this should approach the true success rate (whatever the proposed drop rate is for 6 stars in the paragon crystal). This has nothing to do with the absolute count of 6 stars you attain which we expect to grow infinitely far from the expected count which seemed to be the topic of the “correction” you were making. Dont mistake a lack of understanding on your part for an error on mine

DNA3000

More importantly, why would Kabam want to rig crystals? It would serve no business purpose and simply makes no sense to do it, and I have never understood why players believe you rig crystals.

There are a number of different contradictory theories. The oldest, and most straight forward, is that Kabam lowers the chances of getting a "good champ" to force people to buy more crystals and thus make more money. This seems logical, until you ask why they don't just make the crystals cost more? That's far less deceptive, far more legal, and generates the same result.

Ah, but if you increase the price of the crystals people will buy fewer of them, the logic goes. So instead of increasing the price, you reduce the value of the crystals instead, because that will cause people to buy more. This is ridiculous.

The last step in this hysterical notion is that because Kabam lies about the odds, players don't know the crystals have less value so they don't realize they are getting less. If they increase price that's obvious and players will react. But if they lower the odds of getting what you want and don't tell anyone, players will continue to buy the crystals not realizing they are getting less value.

Except as we've seen in this and hundreds of other threads, the average player (and even quite a few of the not-average players) have absolutely no idea how to calculate probability and value with any precision. To a first order approximation, nobody calculates the value of crystals. They value them based on their experience with them. If they get what they want they think the crystals are worth it, and if they don't they think they aren't worth it. Lots of players simply refuse to buy champion crystals because they think they have poor value from *experience* not math. So any attempt to manipulate the odds of the crystal in any noticeable way will cause players to react accordingly and buy fewer of them, no different than if Kabam simply raised the prices of them.

Honestly, this is both the most straight forward crystal conspiracy and the least ridiculous, and it is fairly ridiculous. They get increasingly dumb from here. The overarching idea is that the players are dumb, but only in very specific ways. Except for the person promoting the conspiracy theory, of course.

Colinwhitworth69

More importantly, why would Kabam want to rig crystals? It would serve no business purpose and simply makes no sense to do it, and I have never understood why players believe you rig crystals.
There are a number of different contradictory theories. The oldest, and most straight forward, is that Kabam lowers the chances of getting a "good champ" to force people to buy more crystals and thus make more money. This seems logical, until you ask why they don't just make the crystals cost more? That's far less deceptive, far more legal, and generates the same result.

They would make more money if they juiced the crystals, as opposed to rigging them against the players.

DNA3000

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.
I'm afraid that's word salad. If you're going to try to get technical, then the proper way to discuss what normal people see when they open champion crystals is that we're looking at distributions, not means. There's no such thing as the mean of a set of crystal openings. If someone is expecting to see a certain amount of 6* champs pop out of a crystal, the question is what would reasonable expectations be from a certain number of crystals, and on a meta level what would reasonable expectations be for the number of such distributions that are observed.

In the context of distributions, the "statistical average" refers to the statistical average result, which is the average quantity of 6* drops you would observe given the predicted distribution.

However, in the context of opening crystals, there is no "sample mean." That's a complete misuse of language.
Im shocked that you would say this. It is, of course, correct to discuss these things in precisely the terms I used. You would frame the openings as a series of Bernoulli trials for each candidate (say 6 stars in the paragon crystal). The sample mean is of course, just the sum of 0s and 1s that occur divided by the number of crystals opened and the LLN would claim that this should approach the true success rate (whatever the proposed drop rate is for 6 stars in the paragon crystal). This has nothing to do with the absolute count of 6 stars you attain which we expect to grow infinitely far from the expected count which seemed to be the topic of the “correction” you were making. Dont mistake a lack of understanding on your part for an error on mine

There are two possibilities: you have at least some idea of what you're talking about but your knowledge of it is highly technical and your communication skills are non-existent. Or you have no idea what you're talking about and are attempting to use jargon to impress people.

If the problem was the former, you would not be mentioning the law of large numbers because there is no such thing as the average (mean) of a set of crystal openings. Instead, you would probably be trying to blow past me by trying to draw me into an exotic debate surrounding the CLT or something just to see if I could keep up. So I have to conclude the problem is most likely the latter. Don't compel me to prove it. It has been a while, but this is a subject I used to teach, once upon a time. I know the difference between a simple discrepancy in terminology, and a fundamental lack of understanding.

o_o

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.
I'm afraid that's word salad. If you're going to try to get technical, then the proper way to discuss what normal people see when they open champion crystals is that we're looking at distributions, not means. There's no such thing as the mean of a set of crystal openings. If someone is expecting to see a certain amount of 6* champs pop out of a crystal, the question is what would reasonable expectations be from a certain number of crystals, and on a meta level what would reasonable expectations be for the number of such distributions that are observed.

In the context of distributions, the "statistical average" refers to the statistical average result, which is the average quantity of 6* drops you would observe given the predicted distribution.

However, in the context of opening crystals, there is no "sample mean." That's a complete misuse of language.
Im shocked that you would say this. It is, of course, correct to discuss these things in precisely the terms I used. You would frame the openings as a series of Bernoulli trials for each candidate (say 6 stars in the paragon crystal). The sample mean is of course, just the sum of 0s and 1s that occur divided by the number of crystals opened and the LLN would claim that this should approach the true success rate (whatever the proposed drop rate is for 6 stars in the paragon crystal). This has nothing to do with the absolute count of 6 stars you attain which we expect to grow infinitely far from the expected count which seemed to be the topic of the “correction” you were making. Dont mistake a lack of understanding on your part for an error on mine
There are two possibilities: you have at least some idea of what you're talking about but your knowledge of it is highly technical and your communication skills are non-existent. Or you have no idea what you're talking about and are attempting to use jargon to impress people.

If the problem was the former, you would not be mentioning the law of large numbers because there is no such thing as the average (mean) of a set of crystal openings. Instead, you would probably be trying to blow past me by trying to draw me into an exotic debate surrounding the CLT or something just to see if I could keep up. So I have to conclude the problem is most likely the latter. Don't compel me to prove it. It has been a while, but this is a subject I used to teach, once upon a time. I know the difference between a simple discrepancy in terminology, and a fundamental lack of understanding.

Damn

Suros_moon

You would have to have misread what I wrote to think this disagrees in any way. I spoke only about the sample mean not some observed raw count of crystals which implicitly means that that proportion is all that matters (hence 1/n). If I were explaining it simply to someone I would even leverage that fact in that observed counts matter less as the sizes grow larger- thats kind of the point in a very measure theoretic naive way (although I have to stress that it really doesn’t capture the depth of the statement). I wouldn’t (and didnt) say that the accurate claim was that the observed count of crystals should converge to the expected count of crystals only, to quote myself: “ The accurate claim is that over sufficiently large batches of crystals the sample mean should converge a.s to the true mean (or in probability if you weaken the statement)”.
I'm afraid that's word salad. If you're going to try to get technical, then the proper way to discuss what normal people see when they open champion crystals is that we're looking at distributions, not means. There's no such thing as the mean of a set of crystal openings. If someone is expecting to see a certain amount of 6* champs pop out of a crystal, the question is what would reasonable expectations be from a certain number of crystals, and on a meta level what would reasonable expectations be for the number of such distributions that are observed.

In the context of distributions, the "statistical average" refers to the statistical average result, which is the average quantity of 6* drops you would observe given the predicted distribution.

However, in the context of opening crystals, there is no "sample mean." That's a complete misuse of language.
Im shocked that you would say this. It is, of course, correct to discuss these things in precisely the terms I used. You would frame the openings as a series of Bernoulli trials for each candidate (say 6 stars in the paragon crystal). The sample mean is of course, just the sum of 0s and 1s that occur divided by the number of crystals opened and the LLN would claim that this should approach the true success rate (whatever the proposed drop rate is for 6 stars in the paragon crystal). This has nothing to do with the absolute count of 6 stars you attain which we expect to grow infinitely far from the expected count which seemed to be the topic of the “correction” you were making. Dont mistake a lack of understanding on your part for an error on mine
There are two possibilities: you have at least some idea of what you're talking about but your knowledge of it is highly technical and your communication skills are non-existent. Or you have no idea what you're talking about and are attempting to use jargon to impress people.

If the problem was the former, you would not be mentioning the law of large numbers because there is no such thing as the average (mean) of a set of crystal openings. Instead, you would probably be trying to blow past me by trying to draw me into an exotic debate surrounding the CLT or something just to see if I could keep up. So I have to conclude the problem is most likely the latter. Don't compel me to prove it. It has been a while, but this is a subject I used to teach, once upon a time. I know the difference between a simple discrepancy in terminology, and a fundamental lack of understanding.

“There is no such thing as a mean of a set of crystal openings”

There is some very big miscommunication happening right here that we need to address. You can ABSOLUTELY have a mean if your phrase the opening in terms of successes and failures. Thats why I mentioned using Bernoulli trials for each candidate. A 1 for a successful pull of the rarity of interest and a 0 for a failure- any other rarity. The sample mean would then be the sum divided by the number of crystals you’ve opened which by the LLN should converge to the advertised drop rate for the rarity. In what universe do you think this is some exotic debate about CLT? Its not even a debate, its an extremely basic premise

Rookiie

Mr Wilson Fisk

I'd like to know when exactly the champ is actually selected. Is it pulling the champ when you claim the crystal, spin the crystal, or pop the crystal. Not that it matters. Just curious. The thing to remember is that 1% doesn't mean if you buy 100 you will be guaranteed... It's 1% per crystal.
As far as the OP is concerned I'm sure some lucky sob out there pulled x4 onslaughts...

PantherusNZ

I'd like to know when exactly the champ is actually selected. Is it pulling the champ when you claim the crystal, spin the crystal, or pop the crystal. Not that it matters. Just curious. The thing to remember is that 1% doesn't mean if you buy 100 you will be guaranteed... It's 1% per crystal.
As far as the OP is concerned I'm sure some lucky sob out there pulled x4 onslaughts...

I believe it's been confirmed that it's when you start spinning the crystal

FrostGiantLord

OP it's not rigged, it's just the RNG of the crystals, all luck based. Kabam isn't "rigging" the crystal against you, you just happened to have extremely bad luck in your crystal openings

Longshot_33

Everyone else quiet. This is the DNA and Suros show now.

Its over to DNA and ive just grabbed the popcorn. Lets go!
(DNA likely getting out his old university notes and about to do a word drop-kick on Suros)

Suros! If you know your stuff dont go down easy! If not...accept your fate.