Yeah, if you literally pulled 1 million LTs and got none, then it would be reasonable to believe the odds aren’t really 10%. But that is no where near anything that we are talking about. 40 is not the same thing as 1,000,000.
What I can tell you is that no matter what exact string of characters you pulled in your 1,000,000. It’s just as improbable as pulling 1,000,000 OMLs in a row or 1,000,000 Chulks in a row. (That’s probably not 100% accurate since 4s and 5s have different odds, but it’s close).
Each legendary token has the same odds independant of each other. You are plucking one example out of the tens of thousands of legendary token pulls and assuming that single example means there is something wrong with the RNG.
I can tell you that if D3 posted every single legendary token pull in order, you would see the randomness you are looking for (which includes clusters).
True, and I totally agree that it’s not likely to make 40 pulls and not get a 5*, just that it isn’t crazy that it happens. Or at least not really any crazier than any 40 pull string. I could post my last 40 pulls, but it happens to look random even though statistically it was improbable to pull those 40 covers, so people wouldn’t ever say “wow, that’s a crazy sequence.”
No, no one would say that. They would say you have absolutely no understanding of probability and statistics whatsoever, and you refrain from ever speaking of them again, because it’s fucking embarrassing.
No, that’s what we’re being TOLD. A lot of evidence, as well as malenkov’s project, suggest otherwise. So don’t begin any post with a statement that’s counter to what we’re arguing about in the first place.
I don’t think that people are complaining that the code doesn’t work as expected.
People are complaining that the code IS working as expected, ie that due to the way the code is constructed, there are plenty of times when they will work hard for months and not receive any reward.
In a regular game, if you played it as hard as we do for months, you would have probably beaten it by now, not be struggling to receive a single 1/13th of a power-up.
You people who make that kind of statement are missing the point. If you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, and Elektra, yes, that’s a unique sequence, just as unique as any other. BUT BEFORE YOU MAKE THOSE PULLS, no one was entertaining the hypothesis, “I bet you pull a GT, SL, Thing, Antman, Elektra”. On the other hand, the notion that people’s pulls cluster and show a preponderance of duuplication is something WE ALREADY SUSPECT PRIOR TO THE PULLS. It is not valid to look at the above sequence after the fact and claim it’s an unlikely outcome. On the other hand, if you state beforehand, “I believe pull results cluster”, and you end up with GT, GT, SL, SL, Thing, it is completely valid to point out the unlikely probability of drawing two pairs out of 5 pulls, because clustering was your stated hypothesis before any pulls happened.
It depends on how you define “impossible”. Most people with an ounce of common sense would consider a decimal point, followed by page full of zeroes and a 1 to be the same as “0”, but you’re always going to find a Lloyd who will look at that and insist, “So, you’re saying there’s a chance!”.
I don’t think I’m missing the point. And I also think you have a clear grasp on the math, so please don’t mistake my responses as looking down on you, because I don’t.
I don’t disagree with your point that there may be something messing with the true RNG. I’m just saying that the evidence is a few people plucking clustered results and saying there is a problem with the RNG. It’s confirmation bias at its best.
What I am saying is people DO go into pulling 40 tokens expecting a 5*. And I am also saying that its obvious people do not go into it expecting to pull duplicates or any random assortment of 4s. So coming out of it, people notice a couple things: 1) lack of 5s because they are expecting them and 2) clusters, because they aren’t expected and stand out (since they don’t look random). This again leads to confirmation bias, because you forget about all the other seemingly normal pulls.
So, unfortunately we are left with poor evidence based on a small number of people (relative to the player base) raging about bad luck. Then that is being extrapolated into an assumption that it is the norm, and therefore the RNG process is not working properly.
On the other hand, we have poor customer service that is replying with a canned response of “It’s working as intended” without any evidence to back them up.
So, right now, I’m siding with the developers and assuming that they have looked at the numbers and that they flesh out on a game-wide basis to line up with the listed odds.
Any whilst I did use the phrase “no matter how many times” I didn’t directly refer to a sample size of 1,000,000.
The highest number of misses I have seen people complain about in a row is <100, there may be people but I haven’t seen any posts myself.
Now 0/100 whilst highly unlikely is nowhere near impossible with a 10% pull rate.
What we need to do if we are to provide any evidence that the system in inherently cheating people is get the pull rates of everyone. As has been said in the past, there will be people hitting well above the 10% who aren’t on here complaining about it who’s results are not being factored into this discussion.
It’s a nice theory but makes no mathematical sense, even if such pools existed rather than just being randomly generated numbers.
First you are assuming that the only person opening from that pool at that time is one whale. If two whales are then one could have sensational luck and the other truly terrible luck. You also need to start a new pool because if you get the tail end of one pool and teh start of another you get no guarantees.
If a whale takes 2/3 of a pool then they will, on average, take 2/3 of the 5 stars from that pool. The odds have not changed in the slightest. And whether you draw your 5* in the middle of a whale’s rampage or at an idle moment you’re still in with a 10% chance on average. A whale may have taken 70 tokens from the pool which may have left more or less than 3 5 stars in the remainder of the pool, which may increase or decrease your odds on this particular draw, but averaged out over 100 draws you would find that your lucky and unlucky pools would have averaged themselves out to that 10% chance.
I know it feels strange, but say you are taking the last token from a pool. If it were a 5* token your odds would be 100% of drawing a 5 star while if it were a 4*. But your odds of finding that first pool is 10% while the second pool is likely to exist 90% of the time.
Not that I believe they use any kind of ‘pool’ system, because some of the past exploits would have been very easy to deal with in a pool system, but much harder in a random number generated system.
Clustering and a preponderance of duplication is a sign of randomness. In a room of just 23 people there is a 50% chance that 2 of them share the same birthday. In a room of 75 people there is a 99.9% chance of 2 people sharing the same birthday. If random meant equal distribution then these things shouldn’t be true.
Even better when you take the pessimistic view and discard any results that disagree with you. So when the results don’t cluster you are pleasantly surprised and don’t post on here about how you were wrong, but when they do cluster you take that as a sign that you knew something was wrong and that your odds of predicting a common occurrance is phenominal.
You predicted ‘clustering’. Which could be two duplicates, or three duplicates, or 2 pair, or a full house or a poker of covers. Whatever. But that whole set has a far higher probability than the probability of ‘two pairs’, which you have then specifically calculated even though that wasn’t your prediction at all.
In a 5 cover pull you have about a 1 in 3 chance of a duplicate somewhere given the current stable of 4 stars. If you were making the prediction when there were less than 27 4 stars on the market those odds only go up.
At some point, “mathematically possible” doesn’t mean much, as you cross a line of “practically impossible.”
It is mathematically possible that I will hit the next 3 powerballs, buy my own island, and as I am swimming along the coast, be attacked by a shark and only be saved when the two of us are struck by lightning. All that has a >0% chance of happening… But is practically impossible.
So when I make a pull that has a 0.000053% chance (if I calculated right) of occurring randomly, I am skeptical.
It’s Occam’s razor… What’s the simpler theory, that all these statistically improbable streaks are random, or that there is indeed something else that factors in sometimes.
This issue is, before you started pulling, you literally must make a string of pulls with that probability at some point. I don’t know if that’s 5 pulls, 10 pulls or 100 pulls. But at some point, the chances of pulling the string you pulled will be 0.000053%.
You are only skeptical about it if you don’t like the results of whatever your string actually is.
Edit:
And in this case, I would say the Occam’s razor approach would be to believe the Devs have used a very easy to implement RNG open source code for the game instead of some weird elaborate system for token pulls.
Code: A lot of people in this thread probably don’t code/develop as a profession. Generally speaking, it’s a bit silly to say the devs wrote some convoluted code to obfuscate their random pulls. Most likely, they will code this in the simplest manner they can think of, which is probably dividing the available pool up in some distribution and just pulling a random number to get it. There’s no guarantee that their code works as intended, but you have to put some faith in their internal testing.
Math: Assuming the above is true, there are definitely some people who are going to get the short end of the stick. That’s just that.
My Solution: Add a 10-pack of Legendaries, that would cost 250/200 CPs, which when pulled, will give exactly 9 4* covers and 1 5* cover. This is a simple approach which would not change the percentages like some of the other suggestions.
This isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that if you shuffle a deck of cards, draw the top card, place that card back, re-shuffle and repeat the process 3 times (4 draws total), then you have the exact same likelihood of doing the following:
Pull 4 Aces
Pull 4 Twos
Pull a 2, 7, Jack, Ace
Now, if you have 10,000 people do this, the only people that are likely to really speak up are the ones that had the horrible experience of pulling 4 Twos. And just because a small minority of people start yelling that they only pulled 2s, doesn’t mean the deck was rigged. It means they were expecting a “random-looking” or a “lucky” outcome but didn’t get it, so they complain about it.
Then you have people coming along and saying “hey look, that small minority of people must be representative of the entire 10,000; that deck of cards is RIGGED.”