4 star and 5 star basic crystal drop rates - Kabam still hiding!

BDVMBDVM Member Posts: 67 ★
in General Discussion
All you post on your drop rates is that we have a 100% chance to pull a 4 star or 5 star champ... laughable! How about telling me if EVERY champ has an equal chance of being pulled in the basic crystals. BS!!! How many of us have opened 4 and 5 star crystals only to pull some **** champ like Iron Patriot, over and over again. Kabam, how about full disclosure. Not just partial disclosure. We know you're screwing us with weighted odds to pull good champs in the basic crystals. How about just showing us so that we can all get good nights sleep after we open 10 crystals and they are all garbage champs.

Comments

  • Deadbyrd9Deadbyrd9 Member Posts: 3,469 ★★★★
    Yes, it’s an equal percentage for all champs. Is it an even distribution for all champs for every player? No, but that’s how RNG works
  • Primmer79Primmer79 Member Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    Lets be real here. Even if they posted "All champs have same odds" would there still be people saying "STOP LYING TO THESE PEOPLE"
  • BUZZdog3000BUZZdog3000 Member Posts: 457 ★★
    rng
  • BDVMBDVM Member Posts: 67 ★
    If you take the basic pool of champs and assume that half are decent and half are bad, then you should have a 50/50 chance of getting someone that is usable. However, EVERYONE that I know who plays this game will report that 6-8 out of every 10 champs that you pull from basics are **** champs. Therefore, we must assume that there is a weighted system in place. Until someone shows me otherwise, that's what history shows.
  • Primmer79Primmer79 Member Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    BDVM wrote: »
    If you take the basic pool of champs and assume that half are decent and half are bad, then you should have a 50/50 chance of getting someone that is usable. However, EVERYONE that I know who plays this game will report that 6-8 out of every 10 champs that you pull from basics are **** champs. Therefore, we must assume that there is a weighted system in place. Until someone shows me otherwise, that's what history shows.

    Thats the problem. Its not 50/50 good/bad. Ever sit down and try to do that grouping? theres quite the grey area of meh champions that some summoners would say are ****. It depends what the person wants and needs for the roster.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Member Posts: 2,214 ★★★★★
    BDVM wrote: »
    If you take the basic pool of champs and assume that half are decent and half are bad, then you should have a 50/50 chance of getting someone that is usable. However, EVERYONE that I know who plays this game will report that 6-8 out of every 10 champs that you pull from basics are **** champs. Therefore, we must assume that there is a weighted system in place. Until someone shows me otherwise, that's what history shows.
    You're making some pretty big assumptions there bud.
    What if you assume that 8/10 champs are bad? Then you'll never be disappointed, and you won't have to waste your time assuming that there is a weighted system in place.
  • BDVMBDVM Member Posts: 67 ★
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    BDVM wrote: »
    If you take the basic pool of champs and assume that half are decent and half are bad, then you should have a 50/50 chance of getting someone that is usable. However, EVERYONE that I know who plays this game will report that 6-8 out of every 10 champs that you pull from basics are **** champs. Therefore, we must assume that there is a weighted system in place. Until someone shows me otherwise, that's what history shows.
    You're making some pretty big assumptions there bud.
    What if you assume that 8/10 champs are bad? Then you'll never be disappointed, and you won't have to waste your time assuming that there is a weighted system in place.

    What are you a white knight for Kabam? Are we "buds" ? LOL .... my assumptions are based off of experience and feedback from other players in my alliance and other alliances. I am looking for someone from Kabam to clarify the situation and not passive aggressive feedback from someone like you.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.