Problem with Singularity Crystal

I Opened Total 10 (300 Units) Singularity Crystals . 9 Crystals on day1 when the Crystal is available and 1 yesterday all crytsla gave me 3star Champions i Not Even received any 4star or 5star champions . i spined all 10 crystals and not found void in even 1 crystal also . the only Champion i got is 3 star Void .10 3star chapions worth 3000 units . if there is refund for only those who receive sentry in these crystals i not even got him also . so is there any changes and return of the units i used on this crystal or no.. please say sir . As there are many who got benefit from just 2-5 crystals and me not got any 4star atleast from these crystals

Comments

Kyrkant

I opened 5 and pulled out a 5* Void and a 4* Sentry ... I don't see any problem ...

Deadbyrd9

Void is in there and you got him. It’s a gamble and you are guaranteed at least a 3*. You knew what the worst outcome was going into it. It’s a gamble. You getting a terrible outcome does not warrant a refund in any way

RedDevil

u got so u gonna be happy . i not got so i will feel bad and unhappy

DrOctavius2_2

Welcome to the rip off that is crystal openings in this game

ContestOfNoobs

i opened 8 AA fgmc and got

5* kg
5*AA
2x 4*

from 8.

but this is RNG

Affliction

Opened 6 for AA. Popped them all at once. All three*.

unknown

This content has been removed.

ContestOfNoobs

_ASDF_ wrote: »

ContestOfNoobs wrote: »

i opened 8 AA fgmc and got

5* kg
5*AA
2x 4*

from 8.

but this is RNG

Affliction wrote: »

Opened 6 for AA. Popped them all at once. All three*.

Love how people call that RNG. It all runs in streaks... which is the opposite of random.

@_ASDF_
I seen someone open 90 FGMC and not get a single 5*.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Deadbyrd9

The quarter has a 50/50 outcome. That’s not equivalent to featured gmcs. Can’t conpare those things

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

VulcanM

RedDevil wrote: »

u got so u gonna be happy . i not got so i will feel bad and unhappy

you decided to risk a gamble knowing the low chance of 4-5* and are still complaining? maybe open 30 and if there's no four star then that might seem weird, but it was your choice to waste your units. you expected a really good champ, but its meant to get you bad champs, everyone knows this, so stop your complaining and deal with it.

VulcanM

besides you got those 3* at a discount, buying a three star crystal nornally costs 400, so again, stop complaining

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

_ASDF_ wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

The quarter has a 50/50 outcome. That’s not equivalent to featured gmcs. Can’t conpare those things

It’s not about the 50/50 chance it’s about the irony of calling Kabams algorithm deriving crystal openings as “random”. It’s not random if the chances are 10% for a featured yet there is serious inconsistencies in large sample sizes and accounts. I’ve won thousands playing poker and knowing the odds. It’s clear that some accounts for certain players are operating under a realistic 10% chance while others are at 1% chance lol

If this were true, this would be trivial to prove. Such a difference in statistics would be measurable. However, all available actual data suggests this is not true.

Random and pseudo random distributions should meet certain criteria, and one of those criteria is the permutation distribution test. For a sufficiently long generated sequence, analyzing all possible consecutive numbers of a certain length should generate approximately equal numbers of those sequences.

In other words, in a genuinely random sequence of numbers all possible different sequences should occur equally likely. A sequence of numbers with no runs of a given size is actually one of the easiest tests to determine non-randomness. It is also so common of a failing that human beings *think* runs should be rarer than they actually are that this specific test is one of the fundamental ways in which fraud is discovered in data sets from scientific articles to accounting records.

To put it another way, human beings' intuition about what random numbers looks like is so horrible, whenever they attempt to generate a random sequence by hand they always fail in a way that is easy for a statistical analysis to determine. Some college level introduction to statistics classes demonstrate this by asking students to attempt to generate random sequences and also spot them among human generated and computer generated sequences. Human beings almost always fail this test miserably.

NOOOOOOOOPEEEEE

Its a thing called RNG bud

VulcanM

_ASDF_ wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

The quarter has a 50/50 outcome. That’s not equivalent to featured gmcs. Can’t conpare those things

It’s not about the 50/50 chance it’s about the irony of calling Kabams algorithm deriving crystal openings as “random”. It’s not random if the chances are 10% for a featured yet there is serious inconsistencies in large sample sizes and accounts. I’ve won thousands playing poker and knowing the odds. It’s clear that some accounts for certain players are operating under a realistic 10% chance while others are at 1% chance lol

it is random, however, lets say that some lvl 5 player opens 3 phc and get 2 2* and a 4*, then open 30 more and get another 4*, but a lvl 55 might open 300 and only get one. i believe that lower level champs have a higher chance of getting a better champ, partially to help them get an edge and also partially because phc are more difficult to get in large quantities. a lvl 5 might be able to get 5 a week and a lvl 55 might get 50 a week. also, they might boost accounts drop rates and lower another but they're not selectively picking them, the picking is random, speaking of random, inside of those boosted accounts the drop rates are still technically random, hope this brings another perspective.

VulcanM

"chance of getting a better chance"

VulcanM wrote: »

_ASDF_ wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

The quarter has a 50/50 outcome. That’s not equivalent to featured gmcs. Can’t conpare those things

It’s not about the 50/50 chance it’s about the irony of calling Kabams algorithm deriving crystal openings as “random”. It’s not random if the chances are 10% for a featured yet there is serious inconsistencies in large sample sizes and accounts. I’ve won thousands playing poker and knowing the odds. It’s clear that some accounts for certain players are operating under a realistic 10% chance while others are at 1% chance lol

it is random, however, lets say that some lvl 5 player opens 3 phc and get 2 2* and a 4*, then open 30 more and get another 4*, but a lvl 55 might open 300 and only get one. i believe that lower level champs have a higher chance of getting a better champ, partially to help them get an edge and also partially because phc are more difficult to get in large quantities. a lvl 5 might be able to get 5 a week and a lvl 55 might get 50 a week. also, they might boost accounts drop rates and lower another but they're not selectively picking them, the picking is random, speaking of random, inside of those boosted accounts the drop rates are still technically random, hope this brings another perspective.

if you need me to elaborate on anything i will be happy to do so

VulcanM

DNA3000 wrote: »

_ASDF_ wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

The quarter has a 50/50 outcome. That’s not equivalent to featured gmcs. Can’t conpare those things

It’s not about the 50/50 chance it’s about the irony of calling Kabams algorithm deriving crystal openings as “random”. It’s not random if the chances are 10% for a featured yet there is serious inconsistencies in large sample sizes and accounts. I’ve won thousands playing poker and knowing the odds. It’s clear that some accounts for certain players are operating under a realistic 10% chance while others are at 1% chance lol

If this were true, this would be trivial to prove. Such a difference in statistics would be measurable. However, all available actual data suggests this is not true.

Random and pseudo random distributions should meet certain criteria, and one of those criteria is the permutation distribution test. For a sufficiently long generated sequence, analyzing all possible consecutive numbers of a certain length should generate approximately equal numbers of those sequences.

In other words, in a genuinely random sequence of numbers all possible different sequences should occur equally likely. A sequence of numbers with no runs of a given size is actually one of the easiest tests to determine non-randomness. It is also so common of a failing that human beings *think* runs should be rarer than they actually are that this specific test is one of the fundamental ways in which fraud is discovered in data sets from scientific articles to accounting records.

To put it another way, human beings' intuition about what random numbers looks like is so horrible, whenever they attempt to generate a random sequence by hand they always fail in a way that is easy for a statistical analysis to determine. Some college level introduction to statistics classes demonstrate this by asking students to attempt to generate random sequences and also spot them among human generated and computer generated sequences. Human beings almost always fail this test miserably.

yes, humans fail at generating random numbers because humans tend to find patterns, thus making it harder to make things random, but luckily we invented programs specifically for this. these programs generate random numbers for us so we dont make mistakes. kabam doesn't generate these numbers by hand, they generate it via computer program.

this is true that humans think that things should be rarer when given a random number, this is purely psychological, but like you said the chance is equal, but it's not equal at the same time. that's the funny thing about being random. but again this generating is done by computers so that no mistakes due to humans being humans are created.

i am not agreeing nor disagreeing, instead stating my opinion on your post, please feel free to educate me on parts that i might have interpreted wrong, i would like to understand as much as possible, Thank You

VulcanM

_ASDF_ wrote: »

ContestOfNoobs wrote: »

_ASDF_ wrote: »

ContestOfNoobs wrote: »

i opened 8 AA fgmc and got

5* kg
5*AA
2x 4*

from 8.

but this is RNG

Affliction wrote: »

Opened 6 for AA. Popped them all at once. All three*.

Love how people call that RNG. It all runs in streaks... which is the opposite of random.

@_ASDF_
I seen someone open 90 FGMC and not get a single 5*.

Which is like watching someone flip a quarter and land on heads 90 times in a row. The odds are extremely low. Except in MCOC, where certain accounts seem to always get featured champs and others open 90 crystals lmao. For some reason it’s super common in MCOC to flip quarters and land on heads 20-90 times in a row.

actually its like rolling a 100 sided dice but never getting a 37

VulcanM

VulcanM wrote: »

_ASDF_ wrote: »

ContestOfNoobs wrote: »

_ASDF_ wrote: »

ContestOfNoobs wrote: »

i opened 8 AA fgmc and got

5* kg
5*AA
2x 4*

from 8.

but this is RNG

Affliction wrote: »

Opened 6 for AA. Popped them all at once. All three*.

Love how people call that RNG. It all runs in streaks... which is the opposite of random.

@_ASDF_
I seen someone open 90 FGMC and not get a single 5*.

Which is like watching someone flip a quarter and land on heads 90 times in a row. The odds are extremely low. Except in MCOC, where certain accounts seem to always get featured champs and others open 90 crystals lmao. For some reason it’s super common in MCOC to flip quarters and land on heads 20-90 times in a row.

actually its like rolling a 100 sided dice but never getting a 37

which is a lot easier to believe, however, humans tend to believe only what they want when they pitty themselves

DNA3000

VulcanM wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

_ASDF_ wrote: »

Deadbyrd9 wrote: »

The quarter has a 50/50 outcome. That’s not equivalent to featured gmcs. Can’t conpare those things

It’s not about the 50/50 chance it’s about the irony of calling Kabams algorithm deriving crystal openings as “random”. It’s not random if the chances are 10% for a featured yet there is serious inconsistencies in large sample sizes and accounts. I’ve won thousands playing poker and knowing the odds. It’s clear that some accounts for certain players are operating under a realistic 10% chance while others are at 1% chance lol

If this were true, this would be trivial to prove. Such a difference in statistics would be measurable. However, all available actual data suggests this is not true.

Random and pseudo random distributions should meet certain criteria, and one of those criteria is the permutation distribution test. For a sufficiently long generated sequence, analyzing all possible consecutive numbers of a certain length should generate approximately equal numbers of those sequences.

In other words, in a genuinely random sequence of numbers all possible different sequences should occur equally likely. A sequence of numbers with no runs of a given size is actually one of the easiest tests to determine non-randomness. It is also so common of a failing that human beings *think* runs should be rarer than they actually are that this specific test is one of the fundamental ways in which fraud is discovered in data sets from scientific articles to accounting records.

To put it another way, human beings' intuition about what random numbers looks like is so horrible, whenever they attempt to generate a random sequence by hand they always fail in a way that is easy for a statistical analysis to determine. Some college level introduction to statistics classes demonstrate this by asking students to attempt to generate random sequences and also spot them among human generated and computer generated sequences. Human beings almost always fail this test miserably.

yes, humans fail at generating random numbers because humans tend to find patterns, thus making it harder to make things random, but luckily we invented programs specifically for this. these programs generate random numbers for us so we dont make mistakes. kabam doesn't generate these numbers by hand, they generate it via computer program.

this is true that humans think that things should be rarer when given a random number, this is purely psychological, but like you said the chance is equal, but it's not equal at the same time. that's the funny thing about being random. but again this generating is done by computers so that no mistakes due to humans being humans are created.

i am not agreeing nor disagreeing, instead stating my opinion on your post, please feel free to educate me on parts that i might have interpreted wrong, i would like to understand as much as possible, Thank You

For software like video games, there's usually one of three kinds of pseudo-random number generators that is used. The first one is the random function in your programming language environment, generally C. The C library random generator for most libraries is known to be weak, but that's a very technical limitation. For dice rolls in video games, it is plenty good enough. For situations where for some reason you want to have a random number generator that is actually considered strong, most people implement a well documented generator like the Mersenne Twister or a generator derived from a cryptographic hash function. These are very strong, but also very slow. The third kind is when a smart alec thinks they can make a good, fast random number generator rather than relying on the one the library gives them or a well documented one. We usually call these "broken" because programmers generally can't write these very well.

People can still make mistakes even if they use the twister or the C library function. It isn't just the random number, it is what you do with it. This gets into deep water, but there are mistakes I've seen and some I've even helped correct where the PRNG itself was perfectly fine, but the generator was either improperly seeded (the generator starts with a seed: use the same seed twice and the numbers that pop out are identical) and situations where the numbers are subtly used improperly.

For example, there was a game once where the game rolled a number from zero to 100 to determine whether something with a certain percentage chance to occur happened. The game actually logged the rolls so it was possible to see them. Every roll from zero to 100 showed up. Which is a problem: there are one hundred one numbers from zero to one hundred. And that meant it could not be true that every single roll had a one in a hundred chance of occurring. Analysis showed that the system actually generated numbers from 0.00 to 100.00, and that's 10,001 different numbers, and every number had a one in ten thousand chance of showing up except for zero and 100.00, which each had a one in twenty thousand chance of showing up (half the chance of all other numbers). This was due to complex round off errors.

Nobody noticed a one in twenty thousandth chance difference, but it was there. Point is, the PRNG is not the only factor, and often not the most important one. How the game generates random results has more to do with the algorithm that uses the random numbers than the way the random numbers are generated. And most kinds of errors and tampering wouldn't generate the kinds of results some people purport to observe.