Is there something wrong with the Titan Crystal RNG?
the_eradicator
Member Posts: 447 ★★★
I got the same champ 3 times from separate spins ? Couple of my alliance mates also pointed out the same thing.
Like I need new champs for BG and stuff. And I am here trying to grind out BG/Content but still get shafted after all this hard work. Where is the pay off for skill in this game I sometimes wonder ? The titan nexus seems the only way to get someone you actually want. I am missing crucial champs from the Titan pool.
I feel like they need to change the way the titan crystal works, or add safeguards to avoid pulls the same champ so many times..
Like I need new champs for BG and stuff. And I am here trying to grind out BG/Content but still get shafted after all this hard work. Where is the pay off for skill in this game I sometimes wonder ? The titan nexus seems the only way to get someone you actually want. I am missing crucial champs from the Titan pool.
I feel like they need to change the way the titan crystal works, or add safeguards to avoid pulls the same champ so many times..
Post edited by SummonerNR on
21
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://hackernoon.com/not-all-random-number-generators-are-created-equal
Dr. Zola
Presumably, someone at Kabam does a periodic check to make sure things are working within acceptable parameters.
Allegations that this crystal or that crystal is *rigged* have zero basis—sample size at an individual or alliance level simply isn’t large enough to prove a flaw of that nature.
It is frustrating beyond belief to get the same champ or same class AG repeatedly. But that doesn’t prove anything is rigged—in fact, “clumpiness” seems to be a feature of the particular methodology used in MCoC (and a lot of other RNGs).
Dr. Zola
I don't need to ask kabam for proof again.
Rng shows wins and losses every single day in chats.
Most Vegas slot machines do not use quantum cryptographic generators or miniature lava lamps. They basically use variations on Mersenne Twister. A wikipedia jockey will say MT is insecure, and any game that relies on it can't possibly argue its lootboxes are actually random. The people who actually have to do this professionally know that what matters is sufficient randomness because "true randomness" is a vague concept at best, borderline nonsense at worst.
MT is sufficient to decide on the random chance for billions of dollars to change hands. Its what those little chips that get audited and then covered in little stickers tend to run. It comes with most modern C and C++ compilers, and probably the default RNG for half the lootboxes on the planet.
And if a human were to gather all the drop data from all the games currently running for the next fifty thousand years, the odds of them actually finding the tiny non-random issues with MT are basically zero. Lootboxes are simply way too coarse to ever show that in practice.
When it comes to lootboxes in video games, while not all RNGs are created equal, all the standard ones are good enough and completely indistinguishable. If you see non-random behavior in a lootbox, it is because some idiot thought they could roll their own RNG and decided not to use the one that comes out of the box in their language of choice. Which does happen from time to time, but when it happens it is generally ludicrously obvious,
A big problem with randomness and humans is humans have a conception of what "random" is that is completely wrong. They think randomness is more "even" than it really is, that it ought to be as "featureless" as possible. So much so there's an infamous story where a college professor asks students to generate their own list of random numbers and then shuffle those into a set of actual random numbers, and the teacher can generally pick out the ones made by students almost every time. Human generated random numbers are, for lack of a better way of putting it, always trying too hard to look random. Actual random numbers, ironically, don't look random.
RNGs aren't "designed" to do anything specific. They don't "target" some "kind" of randomness. Rather, pRNGS are designed to avoid non-random behavior. They are designed to not generate patterns, except at the statistical rate those patterns ought to appear in. For the most part, when it comes to frequency (how often each number appears) and correlation (how often two numbers appear together, or are duplicated, or similar) all pRNGS tend to look alike most of the time. They kind of have to, because while there is an infinite number of ways to be non-random, there's only one way to be random. Random numbers do not have species.
Dr. Zola
That's where Kabam's intent gets exposed.
There are so many people who struggle to collect Titan shards, only to see the crystal stops on the worst characters in there 3/4 of the time.