**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

Champions’ probability in crystal pools intentionally different?

2

Comments

  • Options
    the_eradicatorthe_eradicator Posts: 363 ★★★
    edited January 2023
    DNA3000 said:

    Probably have less hassle and conspiracy threads if they would just be done with it and actually designate the list of champs that suck as "commons" and every 10 commons you get a guaranteed "uncommon". Keep the odds the same otherwise but throw people a pity champ for their trouble.

    No, that would forever be enshrined as an admission that the sucky champs are more common by crystal design. They would be taking victory laps claiming to have “proven” the crystals were rigged all along.

    I would sooner have the next mega solar flare destroy all technology and send us back into the Stone Age. We educate people about what the data actually says, what the math says, and how these things work in general, and we let them sort themselves into those we can save, and those we can’t. The ones that insist on living in a world dominated by conspiracies authored by idiots we don’t placate.


    Conspiracies are there everywhere. And they exist because so many things cannot be just explained with classic mathematics or statistical models. Maybe this is going beyond the stuff that exists on earth but outside the earth we don't know what exists ...so we can only speculate. Same way we don't know what the developers have actually written into the algorithm. But reality is there are algorithms out there available as open source that easily allow you to control the probability of things like these. They have been there ever since the concept of loot boxes arrived. That's why it's a rare chance to get a good thing out of those boxes. It's a strategic business move. The fact that you don't have to out go of your way to use these libraries would suggest that why won't they use the tools easily available at their disposal. A straight up "No , they don't ! " won't seem like a simple answer.
  • Options
    Your friend is probably referring to the patent kabam has on a weighted rng system that isn't in this game but people think it.

    DNA3000 said:

    Probably have less hassle and conspiracy threads if they would just be done with it and actually designate the list of champs that suck as "commons" and every 10 commons you get a guaranteed "uncommon". Keep the odds the same otherwise but throw people a pity champ for their trouble.

    No, that would forever be enshrined as an admission that the sucky champs are more common by crystal design. They would be taking victory laps claiming to have “proven” the crystals were rigged all along.

    I would sooner have the next mega solar flare destroy all technology and send us back into the Stone Age. We educate people about what the data actually says, what the math says, and how these things work in general, and we let them sort themselves into those we can save, and those we can’t. The ones that insist on living in a world dominated by conspiracies authored by idiots we don’t placate.


    Conspiracies are there everywhere. And they exist because so many things cannot be just explained with classic mathematics or statistical models. Maybe this is going beyond the stuff that exists on earth but outside the earth we don't know what exists ...so we can only speculate. Same way we don't know what the developers have actually written into the algorithm. But reality is there are algorithms out there available as open source that easily allow you to control the probability of things like these. They have been there ever since the concept of loot boxes arrived. That's why it's a rare chance to get a good thing out of those boxes. It's a strategic business move. The fact that you don't have to out go of your way to use these libraries would suggest that why won't they use the tools easily available at their disposal. A straight up "No , they don't ! " won't seem like a simple answer.
    DNA clearly shows the mathematics behind it in many threads and is easily provable. The issue is people don't understand how statistics work.

    Keep in mind that if you flip a coin 1000 times and get heads 600 times, people will say that the next 1000 need to have, or is more likely to have, 600 tails to bring the distribution back to average. That isn't how statistics work, and people get frustrated when they learn that isn't how statistics work.
  • Options
    AverageDesiAverageDesi Posts: 5,260 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Probably have less hassle and conspiracy threads if they would just be done with it and actually designate the list of champs that suck as "commons" and every 10 commons you get a guaranteed "uncommon". Keep the odds the same otherwise but throw people a pity champ for their trouble.

    No, that would forever be enshrined as an admission that the sucky champs are more common by crystal design. They would be taking victory laps claiming to have “proven” the crystals were rigged all along.

    I would sooner have the next mega solar flare destroy all technology and send us back into the Stone Age. We educate people about what the data actually says, what the math says, and how these things work in general, and we let them sort themselves into those we can save, and those we can’t. The ones that insist on living in a world dominated by conspiracies authored by idiots we don’t placate.


    I love this
  • Options
    Marostrange2005Marostrange2005 Posts: 422 ★★★
    for the last time this is not how maths work....if something has 0.5% chance to show it does not mean that u will get everyone in 200 crystals cause the chance is 0.5% every crystal and it does not add up by stacking them it still remains 0.5% after 100000000 crystals
  • Options
    Marostrange2005Marostrange2005 Posts: 422 ★★★

    A lot of people got an F in Math and an A+ in Prof Hoff's Tinfoil Studies.

    ikr since when do percentages pile up lol
  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 19,081 Guardian

    DNA3000 said:

    Probably have less hassle and conspiracy threads if they would just be done with it and actually designate the list of champs that suck as "commons" and every 10 commons you get a guaranteed "uncommon". Keep the odds the same otherwise but throw people a pity champ for their trouble.

    No, that would forever be enshrined as an admission that the sucky champs are more common by crystal design. They would be taking victory laps claiming to have “proven” the crystals were rigged all along.

    I would sooner have the next mega solar flare destroy all technology and send us back into the Stone Age. We educate people about what the data actually says, what the math says, and how these things work in general, and we let them sort themselves into those we can save, and those we can’t. The ones that insist on living in a world dominated by conspiracies authored by idiots we don’t placate.


    Conspiracies are there everywhere. And they exist because so many things cannot be just explained with classic mathematics or statistical models. Maybe this is going beyond the stuff that exists on earth but outside the earth we don't know what exists ...so we can only speculate. Same way we don't know what the developers have actually written into the algorithm. But reality is there are algorithms out there available as open source that easily allow you to control the probability of things like these. They have been there ever since the concept of loot boxes arrived. That's why it's a rare chance to get a good thing out of those boxes. It's a strategic business move. The fact that you don't have to out go of your way to use these libraries would suggest that why won't they use the tools easily available at their disposal. A straight up "No , they don't ! " won't seem like a simple answer.


    Well at least you didn’t blame a patent.

    There are no “open source algorithms” that allow you to control the probability of loot box contents. They are called “drop tables” and they are so trivially obvious that almost no one even talks about how to implement them. Saying there’s an open source algorithm to control lootbox probabilities is like saying there’s an open source algorithm available to allow you to print “Hello, World!” to the screen. This is technically true, but anyone who says this clearly doesn’t understand anything about computer software.

    I pulled 21 crystals from the featured crystal that ran to the end of 2021. That crystal contained Kitty, Nimrod, Anti Venom, Knull, Sersi, Ikaris, Hyperion, Ghost Rider, Dr Voodoo, Abom, Cable, BWCV, Doc Oc, Dragon Man, Emma, Hawkeye, Hit Monkey, OML, P2099, Squirrel Girl, Taskmaster, Vision AOU, Wasp, and Yellowjacket.

    The drop quantities I got for each champ were: 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. Not in that order.

    I would bet no one who didn’t already know what I got would have any way of guessing which champs I got the most of and which I got the least of, because that’s completely random. Anyone who thinks there’s a pattern is welcome to take a guess.

    And as I mention in my Featured crystal analysis thread I linked above, I pulled 23 out of the 24 champs in the current featured at least once within 69 pulls. If the crystal was weighted to have common and rare champs, it would be far more likely that the last champ would be one of the rare ones, not one of the common ones. It turned out to be Rocket Raccoon.

    Anyone who wants to try to make the case that Kabam wanted to make Rocket Raccoon particularly rare is welcome to give it a go. While they are at it they can also try to explain why the two champions I pulled most often from the current featured were Quicksilver and Titania. One of the highest in-demand champs and one of the best champs for one week of EoP respectively.

    Good luck with that.
  • Options
    JinxesaxeJinxesaxe Posts: 412 ★★★



    These have been my openings from this featured. 23 crystals. Struck gold pretty much every time. First three were Archangel, Titania, and Quicksilver.

    The drop rates are the exact same for every character.

    Let’s put our tinfoil hats away. This discussion is brought up frequently, and time and time again we get the same answer.

    If you’re feeling cheated by the RNG, take some time off, no one will force you to stay or go. At the end of the day, this is just a silly little game, that doesn’t matter for much when it comes down to it.

    Jinx
  • Options
    CorkscrewCorkscrew Posts: 539 ★★★
    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.
  • Options
    JinxesaxeJinxesaxe Posts: 412 ★★★
    Corkscrew said:

    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.

    Well… then I might believe it too. I haven’t seen him at all!

    Jinx
  • Options
    Colinwhitworth69Colinwhitworth69 Posts: 7,277 ★★★★★
    Kaalen said:

    Kaalen said:

    This is false, and nothing we have ever said would back that up.

    Every Champion has the same chance of dropping from a crystal unless otherwise stated (Eg. the Pym Envy Crystal that is currently available has an increased chance at Yellowjacket).

    Lol, you might say that, but that is clearly not the case. Worse champs appear much more often
    Why would you ask a question just to then poo-poo the answer? Anyways, I can only tell you the truth; it's your choice what you want to do with that information.

    If you read my question you’ll see I wanted to know if it was an open thing. I didn’t ask whether it was a thing or not.

    It’s quite easy to notice really. I have pulled more Starlords than all 6 of the current featured champions in the pool combined. How is that an even probability chance?

    Before that? I got Jubilee half a dozen times, zero times OS, Hulkling, Scorpion, Rintrah, Black Cat.

    Every crystal that shows up is the same story. For me, and a ton of people I talk with.

    Trust me, I am not making this up (I wish I were actually). Simple data.

    But some guy up there is right, I shouldn’t have come here, since there is nothing I stand to gain from this. I’m out
    Tell me you no zip about probability without saying you know nothing about probability.
  • Options
    ChiliDogChiliDog Posts: 886 ★★★
    edited January 2023
    I do not remember this in my time. However, I do recall someone making a statement about the randomness of class AG crystals at the time and the forums went crazy. I think they had to further explain what they had wrote and it all blew up.

    But if you back out 2 or three times and spin the crstals that come off bottom right of screen, it is always a 4* phc.
  • Options
    BigPoppaCBONEBigPoppaCBONE Posts: 2,362 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Probably have less hassle and conspiracy threads if they would just be done with it and actually designate the list of champs that suck as "commons" and every 10 commons you get a guaranteed "uncommon". Keep the odds the same otherwise but throw people a pity champ for their trouble.

    No, that would forever be enshrined as an admission that the sucky champs are more common by crystal design. They would be taking victory laps claiming to have “proven” the crystals were rigged all along.

    I would sooner have the next mega solar flare destroy all technology and send us back into the Stone Age. We educate people about what the data actually says, what the math says, and how these things work in general, and we let them sort themselves into those we can save, and those we can’t. The ones that insist on living in a world dominated by conspiracies authored by idiots we don’t placate.


    😄 "Even if it means my disintegration, no pity system!"
    "You'd rather have thermonuclear war than compromise? Even though this is like giving a crying child a Binky?"
    "The math is the math! I'll let it all burn before giving someone that doesn't understand statistics a pity champ so they'll shut up!" 😂
  • Options
    Wolviman1Wolviman1 Posts: 80
    Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?
  • Options
    AverageDesiAverageDesi Posts: 5,260 ★★★★★
    Wolviman1 said:

    Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?

    What were the other 9? Also, yes
  • Options
    DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 21,536 ★★★★★
    Wolviman1 said:

    Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?

    Why wouldn't it be?
  • Options
    ThomildoThomildo Posts: 487 ★★★

  • Options
    MrSakuragiMrSakuragi Posts: 4,623 ★★★★★
    Wolviman1 said:

    Groot 5 times, man thing 5 times in 19 crystals. is that random?

    Very small sample size. And yes.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,389 ★★★★★
    Wolviman1 said:

    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.
  • Options
    AverageDesiAverageDesi Posts: 5,260 ★★★★★

    Wolviman1 said:

    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
  • Options
    BigPoppaCBONEBigPoppaCBONE Posts: 2,362 ★★★★★
    I wish they elaborated about Cyclops being effective to give more context. Who's not effective at the level where people are using Cyclops? Cyclops is a trash champ with almost no tools but also one that a lot of people recognize. I'd guess that skewed the results in a tight grouping and the early game being pretty easy if you're kinda trying so you can win with almost everyone 9 fights out of 10 doesn't hurt.
    DNA3000 said:

    Corkscrew said:

    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.

    The original statement was for the players who use him Cyclops was [datamined to be] very effective. All this means is, Cyclops can work to clear content, because there are players who use him to do so.

    It doesn't mean Cyclops is better than any other champ. It simply means there are players who use him, and those who do are not complete failures when they do. So when players back then said he was "useless" Kabam (Miike) was saying that according to the data, people were actually using him, making the statement provably false.

    But since this is the internet, this got stretched from "Cyclops is very effective for the players who use him" to "Kabam says Cyclops is very effective in general" to extremely effective to Cyclops was one of the best champs in the game. Because I guess extremely effective is synonymous with best in some parts of the English speaking world.

    Of course, none of this matters any more, because Cyclops is effective is no longer about Cyclops, it is Meme Zero for MCOC.

    Also, I think a lot of people don't actually know what the word "effective" means. It is not synonymous with best, or even good. It is synonymous with "can work." An effective solution is one that works. It may not be the best, it may not even be recommended, but it works. One of my first 5* champ was OG Captain Marvel. A bottom feeder then and now, but she is poison immune so I used her in fights that required poison mitigation. She was an effective champ for me at the time.
  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 19,081 Guardian

    I wish they elaborated about Cyclops being effective to give more context. Who's not effective at the level where people are using Cyclops? Cyclops is a trash champ with almost no tools but also one that a lot of people recognize. I'd guess that skewed the results in a tight grouping and the early game being pretty easy if you're kinda trying so you can win with almost everyone 9 fights out of 10 doesn't hurt.

    Keep in mind the context of the original comment was back in the day when even Parrying was considered an advanced skill, and most of the champs had half-empty toolkits. A champ with unblockable specials was not devoid of usefulness back in those days.
  • Options
    DNA3000 said:

    I wish they elaborated about Cyclops being effective to give more context. Who's not effective at the level where people are using Cyclops? Cyclops is a trash champ with almost no tools but also one that a lot of people recognize. I'd guess that skewed the results in a tight grouping and the early game being pretty easy if you're kinda trying so you can win with almost everyone 9 fights out of 10 doesn't hurt.

    Keep in mind the context of the original comment was back in the day when even Parrying was considered an advanced skill, and most of the champs had half-empty toolkits. A champ with unblockable specials was not devoid of usefulness back in those days.
    True, back then groot was a good defender because of his unblockable sp2 🤣
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,389 ★★★★★

    Wolviman1 said:

    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'm not sure you understand what I was saying.
Sign In or Register to comment.