Venom the Duck: A Study

DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★
edited May 2020 in General Discussion
I had asked on another thread linked here

(https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/1227757#Comment_1227757 )

whether Venom the Duck’s buffs were equally random. Since I got no official response, I teamed up with someone and recorded fights and buffs generated.

For each of the following scenarios (No Synergy/Offensive Synergy/Defensive Synergy), we staged fights and recorded 200 instances of Aberration buffs generated by VtD (600 total buff instances over three different scenarios).

Here are the results:

No Synergy
Fury 15.5%
Power Gain 16.5%
Precision 19.5%
Regen 14.5%
Armor Up 18%
Perf Block 16%

Offensive (Frenzy) = 51.5%
Defensive (Survival) = 48.5%

Offensive Synergy (added Carnage)
Fury 26.5%
Power Gain 22%
Precision 18%
Regen 11.5%
Armor Up 8%
Perf Block 13.5

Offensive (Frenzy) = 66.5%
Defensive (Survival) = 32.5%

Defensive Synergy (added Agent Venom)
Fury 12.5%
Power Gain 11.5%
Precision 11.5%
Regen 17.5%
Armor Up 23%
Perf Block 24%

Offensive (Frenzy) = 35.5%
Defensive (Survival) = 64.5%

Conclusion is pretty straightforward: each Aberration buff appears to have an equal chance of being generated when there is no synergy partner present. When there is a single synergy partner present, the +25% chance appears to provide a multiplicative increase (not additive) to the roughly 50-50 chance a buff is either Offensive (Frenzy) or Defensive (Survival).

Would more trials have produced a more precise result? Probably, but recording 30 minutes of VtD against 1.1.1 unawakened Dr. Strange and then skimming through to chronicle 600 buffs is tedious, and 200 trials per scenario seemed to provide sufficient directional accuracy.

Based on this test:
1) Each of VtD’s buffs is equally probable
2) Synergies increase the probability a type of buff will occur by something like 25% x 50%
3) Nothing can be said about other scenarios (AW, AQ, different opponents or quests), but it is reasonable to expect the same rules prevail everywhere

Did “clumpiness” occur? Of course. In some sequences, the same buff recurred up to 4 times consecutively. At other times, a particular buff didn’t occur over 20 instances. In one instance, a particular buff (Regen) occurred 8/14 times to start a fight. But that is consistent, I think, with randomness.

I think this answers my question. I hope this will be helpful. Special thanks to former forums member Hamin.

Dr. Zola

Comments

  • SpideyFunkoSpideyFunko Member Posts: 21,944 ★★★★★
    Was it a specific fight you used for every single test, or a variety?
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020

    Was it a specific fight you used for every single test, or a variety?

    Initially, I used the Red Skull fight in Master EQ 3.1 (he is defensive, fight is slow) before I realized it would eat most of my day to dodge back and forth. I kept that data and checked it against the remainder. Nothing was different.

    I believe we both wound up using the Dr. Strange fight in 1.1.1 for our data sets, which would mean there were six different fights against that quest. Again, minor differences in values, but overall consistent with each other.

    Dr. Zola
  • SpideyFunkoSpideyFunko Member Posts: 21,944 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Was it a specific fight you used for every single test, or a variety?

    Initially, I used the Red Skull fight in Master EQ 3.1 (he is defensive, fight is slow) before I realized it would eat most of my day to dodge back and forth. I kept that data and checked it against the remainder. Nothing was different.

    I believe we both wound up using the Dr. Strange fight in 1.1.1 for our data sets, which would mean there were six different fights against that quest. Again, minor differences in values, but overall consistent with each other.

    Dr. Zola
    Okay then. Was wondering if you changed up the fights and had any random nodes, or just kept it constant.

    What star rating did the VTD’s happen to be?
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • SpideyFunkoSpideyFunko Member Posts: 21,944 ★★★★★
    Harylmin said:

    DrZola said:

    Was it a specific fight you used for every single test, or a variety?

    Initially, I used the Red Skull fight in Master EQ 3.1 (he is defensive, fight is slow) before I realized it would eat most of my day to dodge back and forth. I kept that data and checked it against the remainder. Nothing was different.

    I believe we both wound up using the Dr. Strange fight in 1.1.1 for our data sets, which would mean there were six different fights against that quest. Again, minor differences in values, but overall consistent with each other.

    Dr. Zola
    Okay then. Was wondering if you changed up the fights and had any random nodes, or just kept it constant.

    What star rating did the VTD’s happen to be?
    I believe it was a 6* r1 unduped and a 5* 4/55 s70.
    So not that much difference, okay. Thanks
  • Mirage_TurtleMirage_Turtle Member Posts: 1,868 ★★★★
    Thanks for posting this!
  • Jmille85Jmille85 Member Posts: 101
    Thanks for doing this! It always seems for me precision and perfect block pop up the most without any synergies.
  • RockypantherxRockypantherx Member Posts: 3,916 ★★★★★
    Really interesting stuff, always nice to see in depth stuff like this

    Don’t know if I believe it though, my 6* feels like a 45% chance for armour up and 45% for perfect block
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★

    DrZola said:

    Was it a specific fight you used for every single test, or a variety?

    Initially, I used the Red Skull fight in Master EQ 3.1 (he is defensive, fight is slow) before I realized it would eat most of my day to dodge back and forth. I kept that data and checked it against the remainder. Nothing was different.

    I believe we both wound up using the Dr. Strange fight in 1.1.1 for our data sets, which would mean there were six different fights against that quest. Again, minor differences in values, but overall consistent with each other.

    Dr. Zola
    Okay then. Was wondering if you changed up the fights and had any random nodes, or just kept it constant.

    What star rating did the VTD’s happen to be?
    Mine was a 1/25 awakened 5*. The other was a 4/55 awakened 5*.

    Dr. Zola
  • MagrailothosMagrailothos Member Posts: 5,970 ★★★★★
    Great work @DrZola.

    Nice to get some evidence of 'equality' in the randomness!
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★

    Really interesting stuff, always nice to see in depth stuff like this

    Don’t know if I believe it though, my 6* feels like a 45% chance for armour up and 45% for perfect block

    Understood. I have no evidence of this, but VtD feels like other aspects of pRNG in game—what I called “clumpiness.” You could loosely define it as the tendency to get an identical result multiple times over a sequence.

    At times I observed sequences that felt like they were stuck in a rut—5/7 Fury, or 4 straight PB. I suppose all pRNG engines do this because this can happen randomly in nature, but the odds of getting the same buff over and over are reasonably low. I’d have to check the raw data, but over 200 buffs I’d often have more than a couple sequences of 3X/4X duplication.

    Dr. Zola
  • Horror_punkHorror_punk Member Posts: 1,058 ★★★★
    Just simply tell is he good bad
    Worth upgrading or not as a 5* duped??
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★

    Just simply tell is he good bad
    Worth upgrading or not as a 5* duped??

    Haha. I have 2* through 6* duped. If you like the roulette element of pRNG sprinkled throughout your fights, he’s your guy. If you are risk averse and would prefer to have a little more control, he’s probably not your guy. If you don’t like ramp-up champs, avoid.

    With the right buffs, he’s a great AQ path runner of low maps and can own Incursions. Lack of immunities limits his usefulness, however.

    Dr. Zola
  • ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Member Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    Here's a good video I found in a 6* r3 VtD to Inlude entire build up of all 10 buffs. Looks very random to me but it desired ones were banked.

    https://youtu.be/Ye7Qvp9fFRQ


  • Colonaut123Colonaut123 Member Posts: 3,091 ★★★★★
    Damn, I wouldn't have done what you did. So kudos to you.
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★

    Damn, I wouldn't have done what you did. So kudos to you.

    It was a slow Wednesday.

    Dr. Zola
  • RoOOtsRoOOts Member Posts: 234 ★★
    edited May 2020
    Thank you for your time and work. Awesome from you. But the results are as expected? Should save this thread for all the rng conspiracy threads popping up all the time.

    Now the real question: R5 material for you? Despite all the awesome cosmic champs?
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★
    @RoOOts Very welcome. Also thanks to my forums mate @Hamin. VtD is working as expected per our research.

    Actually, I have an awakened 6* (and 5*, and 4*, and 3*, and 2*). So I could field a full flush, raft, sord or twack of ducks.

    I do like my VtD, but I prefer immunity champs for all the weird things the game tosses at us. He may get R2–but I need my Void and Aegon at R5 first. VtD is more like a vintage convertible you take out of the garage on a sunny spring day.

    What would tempt me is if Howard got a solid stealth synergy buff with VtD. I have both at 6*’s and can only imagine how ducky they might be together with just a little tweaking.

    Dr. Zola
  • Horror_punkHorror_punk Member Posts: 1,058 ★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Just simply tell is he good bad
    Worth upgrading or not as a 5* duped??

    Haha. I have 2* through 6* duped. If you like the roulette element of pRNG sprinkled throughout your fights, he’s your guy. If you are risk averse and would prefer to have a little more control, he’s probably not your guy. If you don’t like ramp-up champs, avoid.

    With the right buffs, he’s a great AQ path runner of low maps and can own Incursions. Lack of immunities limits his usefulness, however.

    Dr. Zola
    Thanks zola
    I don’t like ramp up champs as I’m exploring 6.4 so no use of a single champ for entire lane.
    Further he isn’t got any immunities so I’ll pass ranking him up.

    Dr. HORROR_PUNK
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★

    DrZola said:

    Just simply tell is he good bad
    Worth upgrading or not as a 5* duped??

    Haha. I have 2* through 6* duped. If you like the roulette element of pRNG sprinkled throughout your fights, he’s your guy. If you are risk averse and would prefer to have a little more control, he’s probably not your guy. If you don’t like ramp-up champs, avoid.

    With the right buffs, he’s a great AQ path runner of low maps and can own Incursions. Lack of immunities limits his usefulness, however.

    Dr. Zola
    Thanks zola
    I don’t like ramp up champs as I’m exploring 6.4 so no use of a single champ for entire lane.
    Further he isn’t got any immunities so I’ll pass ranking him up.

    Dr. HORROR_PUNK

    DrZola said:

    Just simply tell is he good bad
    Worth upgrading or not as a 5* duped??

    Haha. I have 2* through 6* duped. If you like the roulette element of pRNG sprinkled throughout your fights, he’s your guy. If you are risk averse and would prefer to have a little more control, he’s probably not your guy. If you don’t like ramp-up champs, avoid.

    With the right buffs, he’s a great AQ path runner of low maps and can own Incursions. Lack of immunities limits his usefulness, however.

    Dr. Zola
    Thanks zola
    I don’t like ramp up champs as I’m exploring 6.4 so no use of a single champ for entire lane.
    Further he isn’t got any immunities so I’ll pass ranking him up.

    Dr. HORROR_PUNK
    Your diagnosis is correct. He’s a fun dalliance. But not fit for for 6.4.

    Dr. Zola
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,663 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    Would more trials have produced a more precise result? Probably, but recording 30 minutes of VtD against 1.1.1 unawakened Dr. Strange and then skimming through to chronicle 600 buffs is tedious, and 200 trials per scenario seemed to provide sufficient directional accuracy.

    The back of the envelope margin for error with 200 measurements (per situation) would be about three percentage points, more or less in this case. I would expect your measurements to be roughly within the range of 13.8% and 19.6% for the baseline case, which they seem to be.

    If you wanted to be accurate to within one percentage point (i.e. between say 15.5% and 17.5%) you'd have needed to do about ... 1667 buff measurements for the baseline case, or about 5000 total across all three scenarios. A bit more than four hours of recording time given your original test. I don't think that's something a lot of people would be looking forward to doing.

    At least when someone says they can tell when an RNG is broken just by looking with their eyes during game play, you now have a much better context with which to judge that claim.
  • WhathappenedWhathappened Member Posts: 747 ★★★
    Great test. I wouldn't have believed it if someone didn't have the test results. It just doesn't feel that way. Of course we're more likely to remember the disappointment.
  • phillgreenphillgreen Member Posts: 4,112 ★★★★★
    Nice work.

    I always bring venom as a synergy partner because as Tom Petty said, the waiting is the hardest part.
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,124 ★★★★★
    edited May 2020
    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    Would more trials have produced a more precise result? Probably, but recording 30 minutes of VtD against 1.1.1 unawakened Dr. Strange and then skimming through to chronicle 600 buffs is tedious, and 200 trials per scenario seemed to provide sufficient directional accuracy.

    The back of the envelope margin for error with 200 measurements (per situation) would be about three percentage points, more or less in this case. I would expect your measurements to be roughly within the range of 13.8% and 19.6% for the baseline case, which they seem to be.

    If you wanted to be accurate to within one percentage point (i.e. between say 15.5% and 17.5%) you'd have needed to do about ... 1667 buff measurements for the baseline case, or about 5000 total across all three scenarios. A bit more than four hours of recording time given your original test. I don't think that's something a lot of people would be looking forward to doing.

    At least when someone says they can tell when an RNG is broken just by looking with their eyes during game play, you now have a much better context with which to judge that claim.
    Agreed. And that was the point: directional accuracy. Nothing about these mini-trials led us to conclude there was anything anomalous about the way our VtDs worked in the scenarios we tested. Recording and then transcribing 20+ hours of VtD gameplay was “beyond scope.”

    Some of the “clumpiness” still puzzles me—if I have it correctly, the probability of getting three consecutive identical buffs is less than half a % point. Not impossible, but it occurred several times across 200 total buffs instances in the No Synergy test. Instances of four consecutive identical buffs also occurred more than once in the synergy scenarios. I haven’t calculated the probability of the frequency of either occurrence but I suspect they are low.

    I will add this: it is unfortunate players feel like they need to do this to verify the game’s verbal product descriptions. But that’s where we are—I asked a question, no one answered, so I found a partner in crime and we limned it for ourselves. My hunch was that it was probably equally random, but I wanted to check. Looks like it is.

    Dr. Zola
Sign In or Register to comment.