**KNOWN SPRING OF SORROW ISSUE**
We noticed a number of the Spring of Sorrow objectives aren't working properly, we are investigating and currently working on a potential solution.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options

How is Possible 5 Time Back Back Same champion from 6* feature

2»

Comments

  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 19,091 Guardian
    MavRCK2 said:

    Balm82 said:

    Hate to say it but there’s no such thing as RNG, games like this use Pseudo RNG, which is basically a predetermined pattern.

    To make it truly random you need a random source, like nature, wind blowing, waves crashing . . . Small companies dont pay for that kind of thing.

    You will get the champs you want when they allow you to.

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2057138#Comment_2057138

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/2057143#Comment_2057143

    @Balm82 while I can see why you would get to that conclusion on hearing something like Pseudo RNG and assuming that must mean there's some flaw in it, it's simply not the case. These extremely informative comments by @DNA3000 explain the flaw in this kind of thinking
    Actually, there are companies that audit and check the pseudoRNG of systems such as casinos - without independent auditing one cannot say for certain Mcoc is working properly.
    Those independent audits are relatively simple, and far less stringent than something like DieHard or UO1. I've seen those audits: they focus on two specific things that gaming commissions are concerned about: payout odds and results skewing. They test the machines code and logs to ensure that a) the average payout of the machine is consistent with the intended payout odds, and b) the statistical distribution of the output (slot wheels, cards dealt for poker machines, etc) corresponds to the statistical expected distribution of those outputs. In the world of pRNG testing, these are trivial tests, but they correspond to what gaming commissions are most concerned about: fairness, and the appearance of fairness (which are two different things).

    Technically, an independent audit doesn't verify anything is working properly. It determines if something is working within certain limits. No test an auditor can perform in a relatively short period of time can "prove" the RNGs in the slot machines don't have some sort of flaw. In fact, audited machines have subsequently been discovered to contain flaws. But the question is degree of certainty. If you want to know if MCOC's crystals contain some sort of subtle one in a billion flaw, there's no way for the players to ever figure that out. But there's also no way for the players to ever notice. Conversely, if you want to disprove a crystal conspiracy like "the crystals generate tripes way more often than real random crystals would" that is a testable premise, because any such flaw would materialize in testing that players could conduct. You wouldn't need an independent audit to prove such a flaw existed.
  • Options
    phil56201phil56201 Posts: 983 ★★★

    Have a photo? Would love to see them stacked like that

    Not his pull, but here are some screen shots of some of the times it's happened to me.






  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 19,091 Guardian
    MavRCK2 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Balm82 said:

    Yea he’s the guy thats always on this forum telling everyone they are wrong.

    Technically, I'm not always on the forums, and I don't tell everyone that they are wrong. Some people don't make enough sense to be wrong.
    Balm82 said:

    Computers cant do random, its a fact.

    And yet, every day they do random enough for everyone's purposes. Video game lootboxes are the easiest kind of random they do. The encrypted connection your browser uses to get to these forums, or your online banking account, or any other secure site requires that your computer generate random numbers for those connections to work. If the RNG they used was not statistically random, these connections would be trivial to break.

    "Computers can't do random"? In an academic debate, maybe. In the real world:

    RFC 4086: Best Practice Randomness Requirements for Security

    TestUO1: A successor to the Diehard statistical tests for software random number generators

    Sorry cognitive dissonance going off.

    It’s easy to sound smart when one is in a field uncommon to most and commonly spoken by one daily.

    1. Enough for everyone’s purposes - ? Ugh what? Everyone? Enough?
    2. Easiest kind of random - video game casinos are in this same category as per the papers I’ve read and are noted to be easily flawed
    3. the same code for rng in banking, browsing and mcoc is being used? monitored? verified?
    4. trivial to break - only this parameter ensures security?
    5. what of the papers that are not in the field of security, but in other fields of rng

    “The amount of energy necessary to refute **** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it” - and I don’t type quickly so many that many orders of magnitude.
    1. I've described what "enough" is in this context several times in this thread: histographic spectral fidelity (all reasonable pulls and sequences of pulls are equally likely), unpredictability (players have no way to determine future pulls by observing past pulls) and immutability (players cannot influence future pulls in a predictable way by any opening strategy). That is "enough."

    2. Slot machines are not in the same category as online gaming lootboxes in this context for a number of different reasons, mostly related to money and their regulated industry status. But within the context of software implementation, they also suffer from the fact that they are implemented within strict hardware limits, which can place constraints on the RNG implementation that you wouldn't have in an online game. In an optimized hardware implementation, it is harder to implement a good RNG than in an online game with practically unlimited entropy sources and no real limits on the size of implementation (relative to the rest of the systems).

    3. Now you're getting silly. In the context of what I was saying, I was talking about a browser connecting to such services. Of course the code is going to be the same: it is the same browser.

    4. If you're asking for a lesson in information systems security, that's beyond the scope of this thread. Saying that something would be trivial to break if it contained a particular flaw does not say that this is the only important parameter. It says it is a critical one.

    5. If you had actually read the links as opposed to just their titles. or if you were just remotely familiar with what RFCs are, you'd know that RFC 4086 is not a "paper." It is a best practices working document whose intended audience are people who implement software systems for, within, or connected to the Internet. It is basically a rubber meets the road guide to help people who work in the real world. It is presented to counter the notion that "computers cannot do 'real' random" means anything of practical value. In the real world "computers cannot do real random" means the same thing as "nails are not true fasteners" means to carpenters.
  • Options
    KattohSKattohS Posts: 717 ★★
    All I know is you spin a crystal you get a champ or particular resource.

    You pop a crystal you get a champ or particular resource.
  • Options
    ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    Proof or I assume you are greatly exaggerating like most people when it comes to rng complaints.
  • Options
    SaltE_Wenis69SaltE_Wenis69 Posts: 1,993 ★★★★

    Proof or I assume you are greatly exaggerating like most people when it comes to rng complaints.

    yeah same I need proof. The chances of pulling taskmaster 5 times in a row is astronomically low.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,393 ★★★★★
    Balm82 said:

    Did you know that you can actually get paid to sit and bash a keyboard all day in order to create a random set of characters? Or indeed move a mouse around a picture and let the binary code give you the random numbers.

    Monkeys at a typewriter? That's the argument?
  • Options
    ShaggyMShaggyM Posts: 267 ★★★
    All these calculations are assuming every champ in the game has the same drop rate which I don't believe has ever been stated by Kabam.
  • Options
    HoitadoHoitado Posts: 3,707 ★★★★★
    edited March 2022
    Hear me out tho.

    If you pulled a good champion 5 times in a row would you say it’s RNG? My guess is yeah but you didn’t get a good champion and are therefore complaining and saying it’s rigged
  • Options
    Mario33Mario33 Posts: 477 ★★★
    I, one time, tried to complete my 5* shards with selling 4* Karnak. Then i opened the crystal and get 5* Karnak… AND GET 3 MORE KARNAK AFTER THAT BACK TO BACK.

    That day i stopped selling champs.
  • Options
    Rudolph_RaindeerRudolph_Raindeer Posts: 294 ★★★

    I got BWCV to sig 100 just off these features and pulled her for first time......

    I did the same. Except it was sig 120. And it was Yellow Jacket. Good and fun times.



  • Options
    FluffyPigMonsterFluffyPigMonster Posts: 2,069 ★★★★★
    I pulled iceman 6 times a in a row during the last featured. 9 times in all (he’s natural sig 160 from featured - meaning all it took was an extra 45000 shards instead of opening all basics)……

    All he needs is a tiny value update and he’s mega.

    Now I play the waiting game.
  • Options
    ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    All these rng complaints and conspiracy theories remind me of bigfoot and loch Ness monster seeings. Sure people have "seen" them and taken "proof", but it just always seems to be super grainy and unclear pics, showing pretty much nothing definitive.
Sign In or Register to comment.