Champ pool getting too big

As more and more champions keep getting added to the crystals, is there any hope of the regular crystals being split up or something? I'm tired of getting the same 4*s over and over...does this bother anyone else?

Comments

DrZola

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

Not a proven way to get more of what you want, at least in my experience.

Dr. Zola

Spurgeon14

RunamokUSA wrote: »

If the pool is getting bigger how are you pulling the same champs over and over..

I keep pulling the 2015 champs. How is it possible? The odds aren't in my favor. I would appreciate if they would split them up by year or something permanently...because the 2015 vs 2018 champs suck. Plus, they don't featured 4* crystal shard crystals.

Spurgeon14

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

Whats the point of getting 4* shards if I can't get a 4* featured crystal with them?

Spurgeon14

Drooped2 wrote: »

This complaint doesnt check out with math. Right now you have a .89 chance per champ ish

Splitting it although removes some chamois from it ups your chances of pulling each.

Ie 24 per crystal is 4 percent

It makes sense if the champs are split up, especially by year or something. If there are 100+ champs, but I have 85 of them, the odds of getting the same ones are extremely high. If they have a crystal with 24 options and I only have 9 of those, I have a decent shot of getting a new champ...does that make sense to you?

Spurgeon14

Darkstar4387 wrote: »

Scottryan wrote: »

"The pool is getting so big that i keep pulling the same champ over and over"...what?

Means duping the same champions over and over and over again, and again i know how op feels since I have a lot of subpar champions at Max sig like Groot, cyclops, Netflix Daredevil, winter solider etc

I also have a lot of champions at sig 60-80 some not so good like civil warrior, both Magneto's and, vulture, hulk buster and many more.

It's the fact that even with a pull this big you coul end up never pulling certain champions and just pulling the same ones over and over.

I am missing a number of champions in the 4* pool and have a habit of duping some in quick succession right after I just pulled them.

This is exactly what I mean. It's really amazing how few people seem to understand this, or else are just trying to troll or interpret my post in the most idiotic way possible. I'm glad some people understand though.

phil56201

In the 2 years Ive played, I kinda pull champions in waves. Ill pull the same champion, back to back over a short period of time, only to never pull them again. Pulled phoenix no less than 5 times during the month of Dec 2015. Had a spurt of SW's last summer that saw her initial pull and subsequently maxed out and a couple max sig stones even after. Same thing with Magik last fall. And Joe Fixit too. Other examples as well.

Lately its been Thor Rag and DR Voodoo. Simultaneously. Last 3 times I opened 4 stars. I always wait until I have 3 or 4 then pop em. Last 3 times, there they are like some buddy cop flick. Other examples to WS sig 80 now, Storm 60, All being pulled in short waves. Can be a couple days or just back to back in the same pull. But then its over and on to another wave or cluster or whatever.

I'm not saying its rigged or set up or anything. I simply don't know, but the other poster mentioning "batchy" pulls immediately made me think of how odd my pulls tend to be.

MaatMan

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

no featured for 4* crystals now is there.

phil56201

phil56201 wrote: »

Pulled phoenix no less than 5 times during the month of Dec 2015.

Was supposed to say dec 2017

xNig

Spurgeo14 wrote: »

RunamokUSA wrote: »

If the pool is getting bigger how are you pulling the same champs over and over..

I keep pulling the 2015 champs. How is it possible? The odds aren't in my favor. I would appreciate if they would split them up by year or something permanently...because the 2015 vs 2018 champs suck. Plus, they don't featured 4* crystal shard crystals.

Magik Ultron Starlord etc says hi.

Worknprogress

DrZola wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

Not a proven way to get more of what you want, at least in my experience.

Dr. Zola

It's worked just fine for me. I don't feel like there should be a way to guarantee getting what you want regardless. That's the whole reason they changed the featured crystals

Worknprogress

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

no featured for 4* crystals now is there.

I couldn't possibly care less about 4*s at this point

Worknprogress

4*s are just iso and 5* shards at this point

DrZola

Worknprogress wrote: »

DrZola wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

Not a proven way to get more of what you want, at least in my experience.

Dr. Zola

It's worked just fine for me. I don't feel like there should be a way to guarantee getting what you want regardless. That's the whole reason they changed the featured crystals

And you’re right about the guarantee part—that won’t ever be part of the game (and shouldn’t be really). But few people, Kabam and Marvel included, probably foresaw this game running as long as it did and expanding the champ pool as far as it has.

As for 4* crystals, they are just ISO and shards for me as well, but it isn’t that way for everyone. Plenty of players (likely an overwhelming majority) still want and use 4*’s to complete content players at your level and mine have long since finished. I’m not even sure (and don’t really care) how many champs are in the 4* pool, but it’s more than in the 5* by a good ways.

No guarantees is fine; what doesn’t work in my opinion is a **** shoot that’s 1/108 odds per champ and getting worse with every 5* addition (not to mention the 6* pool that’s now ~60 strong). Carving it up a little without charging a 50% premium would be welcome relief.

Dr. Zola

DNA3000

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

Spurgeo14 wrote: »

As more and more champions keep getting added to the crystals, is there any hope of the regular crystals being split up or something? I'm tired of getting the same 4*s over and over...does this bother anyone else?

It is very annoying, but it's the result of pRNG algorythm which Kabam uses. Low quality pRNG algorithms produce the kind of "Batchy" results we tend to see. Linear congruential generator (LCG), the one that Java uses by default, which while fast, has been known for decades to be pretty poor quality and produce the kind of results we see. (I do not know if this is the actual algorithm used, but it sure does feel like it.

No pRNG in general use by any modern language has sufficiently bad sequential correlation that a human being could detect it with their eyeballs. I'm not familiar with Java's specific choice of parameters, but as there are very good ones with minimal correlation it would seem illogical they would go out of their way to pick a bad set.

But again, even *horrible* pRNGs are unlikely to generate sequences humans can see. Especially in a multiplayer game where literally millions of people are doing things that require random numbers generated.

Based on the literature I"ve read, Java's current choice for parameters suffers from tupling bins, aka the problem of "sets falling in planes" but it is otherwise reasonably random. This means it does not suffer from the correlation problem you describe: it is not "batchy." Instead, it doesn't distribute short sequences of random numbers randomly. To put it another way, to catch this implementation in the act of doing something non-random, you would have to be able to tell that the sequence Cyclops/X-23/MODOK occurs less often than MODOK/Wolverine/MsMarvel. No one does that analysis.

This is separate from the fact that the Java implementation is not generally used in server-side applications. The generators you'd use from something like the Microsoft or GNU libraries are much stronger.

The problem which I have stated, the batchy results is exactly what we are observing.

Every time I've spent enough time analyzing large numbers of pulls, I don't see any statistically significant "batchines." It is literally impossible for such effects to show up when human beings look at small numbers of pulls and yet disappear when someone looks at large numbers of rolls. "Batchiness" that shows up with small numbers and disappears with large numbers is called "randomness."

Werewrym

DNA3000 wrote: »

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

mostlyharmlessn wrote: »

Spurgeo14 wrote: »

As more and more champions keep getting added to the crystals, is there any hope of the regular crystals being split up or something? I'm tired of getting the same 4*s over and over...does this bother anyone else?

It is very annoying, but it's the result of pRNG algorythm which Kabam uses. Low quality pRNG algorithms produce the kind of "Batchy" results we tend to see. Linear congruential generator (LCG), the one that Java uses by default, which while fast, has been known for decades to be pretty poor quality and produce the kind of results we see. (I do not know if this is the actual algorithm used, but it sure does feel like it.

No pRNG in general use by any modern language has sufficiently bad sequential correlation that a human being could detect it with their eyeballs. I'm not familiar with Java's specific choice of parameters, but as there are very good ones with minimal correlation it would seem illogical they would go out of their way to pick a bad set.

But again, even *horrible* pRNGs are unlikely to generate sequences humans can see. Especially in a multiplayer game where literally millions of people are doing things that require random numbers generated.

Based on the literature I"ve read, Java's current choice for parameters suffers from tupling bins, aka the problem of "sets falling in planes" but it is otherwise reasonably random. This means it does not suffer from the correlation problem you describe: it is not "batchy." Instead, it doesn't distribute short sequences of random numbers randomly. To put it another way, to catch this implementation in the act of doing something non-random, you would have to be able to tell that the sequence Cyclops/X-23/MODOK occurs less often than MODOK/Wolverine/MsMarvel. No one does that analysis.

This is separate from the fact that the Java implementation is not generally used in server-side applications. The generators you'd use from something like the Microsoft or GNU libraries are much stronger.

The problem which I have stated, the batchy results is exactly what we are observing.

Every time I've spent enough time analyzing large numbers of pulls, I don't see any statistically significant "batchines." It is literally impossible for such effects to show up when human beings look at small numbers of pulls and yet disappear when someone looks at large numbers of rolls. "Batchiness" that shows up with small numbers and disappears with large numbers is called "randomness."

By that same argument it would also be impossible to disprove "batchines" without directly being able to see the statistics Kabam has access too. The fact is sometimes the odds of something happening are just too small to be an actual coincidence. Now I'm not saying I buy into the idea of "batchiness," but I do believe that some of the crazy things we see aren't 100% RNG at work. At some point the odds become small enough where we can conclude that the chance of such a thing happening are, in fact, impossible.

On the topic at hand, having a less than 1% shot at specific champions seems to me to be a number that is small enough to consider a change to the way we obtain champions (or at least a new method that can guarantee a chance greater than 1%).

DNA3000

DrZola wrote: »

What @mostlyharmlessn is saying is qualitatively different from the usual tinfoil hat rubbish that suggests the game is secretly working to hose the player base. What I understand him to say is that the pRNG algorithm, combined with the way seed numbers are generated and refreshed, can tend to produce the same result more frequently than a better randomizer would.

Yes, that's mathematically possible, so I addressed it as a mathematically possible scenario. The problem is that it is not plausible.

In my experience, game developers (as opposed to, say, cryptographers or simulation engineers) almost always do one of two things when they need a random number for their game system. The most common thing to do is to use the random libraries built into their language of choice, generally C or C++. Most commonly you'll be using the Microsoft VC++ libraries or sometimes less frequently the GNC C and C++ frameworks. All of these have "strong" random implementations.

Strong is a relative term here. Random number generators are usually tested in a number of ways to determine their "randomness." The first obvious test is binning. Have it generate random numbers from, say, one to a hundred, and see if every number comes up roughly the same amount, within statistical variance. Another more sophisticated test looks at tuples. In other words, generate pairs of random numbers, and treat them as (x,y) coordinates and plot them. Do those numbers distribute themselves evenly throughout the plot space. The "falling in planes" problem I mentioned above refers to taking the Java generator and treating the numbers as (x,y,z) coordinates in three-dimensional space and plotting them: they tend to cluster around certain slices through space rather than being distributed like dust throughout the space. That is a form of non-randomness that would have a serious impact on, say, astronomical simulations. Then there are entropy tests (generate a random file of 1 megabyte of data then try to compress it), sequential runs tests (generate a random sequence and measure the distribution of sequences that all increase or all decrease in succession), and lots of other complex tests. The *first* obvious test is "does every number come up equally likely over sufficiently long runs" and virtually all pRNGs you're likely to use that come from software libraries passes this test sufficiently well.

There is a case where a game's randomness will fail this test. And that's when a game developer decides for whatever reason to not use the random implementation handed to them by their language libraries and decides to write their own. These *always* suck. Always always always. However, they always suck so badly that virtually any reasonable analysis of their output can spot the problem almost instantly. They have bad distributions and short periodicity. The problem here isn't that the RNG isn't "batchy" it is that it is so batchy it is obviously batchy in tests. And that's not what's happening in MCOC. If it was, there would be zero chance I wouldn't have spotted it by now.

The one problem I can't dismiss easily is problems due to reseeding. But those have nothing to do with the RNG per se: bad reseeding will wreck any and all pRNGs that use seeds at all. In fact, improper reseeding is fundamentally no different than using absolutely randomly generated numbers using cosmic ray data or something, and then accidentally using the same list repeatedly. Perfectly random numbers are not statistically perfectly even within short sequences, and reusing the same perfectly random short sequence repeatedly generates non-random results. But now you're entering the realm of extremely difficult to prove or falsify conjectures. If the idea is that MCOC is improperly reseeding its RNG for crystal drops, and it is doing so in a non-predictable way as well, then what you're basically saying is everyone's data can exhibit different results at different times between different people. That's tantamount to saying no data can be correctly statistically analyzed. But it also means no one's anecdotal observations can prove or disprove anything. You're no longer in the realm of needing thousands of data points to prove anything, you're in the realm of needing billions.

Taz0911

They should just make the 5* basic crystal into smaller groups like the dungeon Crystal's where you have like maybe 10 or 15 champs in each so you have better odds of a target champ

Str

It would be nice to see class specific 5* featured crystals added. Not as regular monthly occurrence but as perhaps a one week event with plenty of lead time for people to save. Mon-sat a different class featured 5* crystal and then on sunday a featured crystal with only champs from 2018-2019 in.

Spurgeon14

Worknprogress wrote: »

4*s are just iso and 5* shards at this point

God tier 4*s still have use. I use champs like AA and Void a lot. Plus, since 4* are easier to pull than 5*, it would be more helpful.

MaatMan

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

no featured for 4* crystals now is there.

I couldn't possibly care less about 4*s at this point

but wat about those who do?
pesonally i dont either. as i have 115+ 4*.
but some people do.

are you a selfish entitled person who doesnt care about anyone other than themselves?
or are you someone who cares about the game and its players as a whole?

Spurgeon14

Taz0911 wrote: »

They should just make the 5* basic crystal into smaller groups like the dungeon Crystal's where you have like maybe 10 or 15 champs in each so you have better odds of a target champ

THIS!

玩玩玩家

Champ pool too big, Ipad Lagging and AW fight 50% health lost after IOS crash .

玩玩玩家

...and so you guys gotta buy new iphone and new ipad pro.

Worknprogress

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

no featured for 4* crystals now is there.

I couldn't possibly care less about 4*s at this point

but wat about those who do?
pesonally i dont either. as i have 115+ 4*.
but some people do.

are you a selfish entitled person who doesnt care about anyone other than themselves?
or are you someone who cares about the game and its players as a whole?

No but I got to this point without a 4* featured crystal and with shards being far less available. So can anyone else

Worknprogress

Things like energy reductions and vastly increased shard availability already make clearing content and roster building far easier for newer players. I don't see why they constantly feel entitled to things changing for their benefit when loads of players have already done all of this with far less.

DrZola

Worknprogress wrote: »

Things like energy reductions and vastly increased shard availability already make clearing content and roster building far easier for newer players. I don't see why they constantly feel entitled to things changing for their benefit when loads of players have already done all of this with far less.

To a large extent I agree with you. I remember sweating it to get past the old Juggs in 4.3.3. Terrible. New players don’t have to fave that difficulty and can do it with far superior champs.

At the same time, more chances to pop crystals (via more shard availability) doesn’t necessarily translate into progression, especially as the odds continue to stack. I’ve popped 7 5* crystals since early December and not a single one advances my account other than to add another arena team or some sig levels to already awakened champs. And it’s largely been that way since early summer across I don’t know how many 5/6* chances.

Limit it to Elders Bane or Ancient One titles. Charge a modest premium. Require players to finish a special quest to be eligible. Doesn’t matter. Something to trim the pool to a 1-2% chance per champ would be appreciated.

Dr. Zola

_fr3do_

Agree. Also check my topic about this
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/117743/basic-and-featured-4-pool#latest

Worknprogress

DrZola wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Things like energy reductions and vastly increased shard availability already make clearing content and roster building far easier for newer players. I don't see why they constantly feel entitled to things changing for their benefit when loads of players have already done all of this with far less.

To a large extent I agree with you. I remember sweating it to get past the old Juggs in 4.3.3. Terrible. New players don’t have to fave that difficulty and can do it with far superior champs.

At the same time, more chances to pop crystals (via more shard availability) doesn’t necessarily translate into progression, especially as the odds continue to stack. I’ve popped 7 5* crystals since early December and not a single one advances my account other than to add another arena team or some sig levels to already awakened champs. And it’s largely been that way since early summer across I don’t know how many 5/6* chances.

Limit it to Elders Bane or Ancient One titles. Charge a modest premium. Require players to finish a special quest to be eligible. Doesn’t matter. Something to trim the pool to a 1-2% chance per champ would be appreciated.

Dr. Zola

Of course it's far less frequent for end game players to make roster leaps. That's where the current featured crystals can come into play. They're terrible value for a newer player but if you already have a good roster, they're great for flushing it out with niche or new champs that can make certain content easier.

I just don't think the current situation needs any major tweaks personally. There are so many more shards in the game now that newer players can just continue opening basics to build a solid base and end gamers can use featured crystals for better chances at a champ that will legitimately benefit them.

Those that don't feel the increased odds are worth the expenditure can just continue to hope for that under 1% chance at something good from a basic to drop.

IsItthough

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

MaatMan wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Why would they split stuff into classes? It wouldn't make any sense to even give random AG and rank up gems as rewards at that point. Then anyone could just target a specific class for whatever rewards they got.

well they really should be split in some way or another. i was merely offering a suggestion.
and a good one for us TBH.

u got a better one?

Think it's fine as is personally. Want a reduced pool? Open featured crystals

no featured for 4* crystals now is there.

I couldn't possibly care less about 4*s at this point

I think this is the major problem for some of us on the forums, you have people that have built rosters and played along time, then there are those still climbing up the ladder. As you said you couldn't care less about 4* so I fail to see how any of your input is relevant. There have been a number of suggestions in this thread, the class breakdown or year breakdown is nice. Neither guarantee you the champ you want, and both offer equal chances at pulling garbage vs great. They already do this with the Daily FGMC so it would be nice to see a change in the near future.

unknown

This content has been removed.