When the vintage 4* characters were reintroduced to tokens, it was stated that when drawing a 4* you had a 50% chance of pulling a “latest” character and 50% chance of pulling a “classic”. This was displayed in game as “3x odds” for latest characters. The numbers didn’t quite add up for both of these statements, so one of them must have been an approximation. It wasn’t clear which.
With Kraven entering tokens, there is now sixty 4* characters in tokens, or 12 latest and 48 vintage. If there is still a 50% chance of pulling a latest character, then latest characters would have “4x odds” (12 * 4 == 48). However, the store still shows them as “3x odds”.
So have the odds of pulling a latest character been dropping as new characters entered the pool? Or are the odds displayed in game now inaccurate?
That kind of sounds like it is saying the “3x odds” label is meant to be an approximation of the real odds used to calculate the result of the token draw.
If instead the “3x odds” part is accurate, and the “even split between latest and vintage” is an approximation, then it has deviated quite a lot in the intervening seven months. It’d mean the chance of a 4* draw being a latest character would now be down to 43%.
[ cue conspiracy theories about not being able to cover new characters in time for SHIELD Training ]
I kind of wish they’d go back to showing percentages again, since they avoid most of this imprecision.
I Think they decided to stop showing percentages once the percentage chance for each 4* dropped to the 0,1 % range. Seeing it like that is hardly motivating…
It was a really dumb choice to do it this way. I called it on day one that they wouldn’t constantly recalculate and this x3 would eventually be wrong. They are so predictable…
If they don’t want to display tiny percentages for individual covers, they could still replace the current “1:N” odds for groups of covers with percentages.
For example, if the actual chance of getting a 5* cover from a legendary token is 15%, I’d prefer to see that rather than “1:7”. They could then show another grouping showing 42.5% chance of getting the 12 latest 4* characters, and 42.5% for the vintage 4* characters. That keeps the numbers manageable.
I always imagined an initial coin flip which determined if the pull was from latest or classics, and then another coin flip to see who you get from whatever pool the first coin flip determined.
That’s the problem with making it a graphic vs just a data point. It’s hard to tell the computer to make a new graphic when it’s time. To do that automated with a graphic they’d have to premake all the graphics they think they might hit and eventually they’d still hit this problem. Data point is better.
I was under the impression that there is actual legality around displaying the correct chances in stores like these. I’d be willing to bet 3x odds is still accurate and it is no longer 50/50 between latest and classic. It’s hardly scientific but to support this I’ve noticed that I seem to draw more classics lately.
"The chance to pull a 4-Star is split evenly between Latest and Vintage 4-Stars, which means Latest 4-Stars will initially have 3x better odds than Vintage! Players will now be able to get covers for any 4-Star in Cover Stores, while making the Latest 4-Stars more accessible. 4-Star Characters will continue to rotate into the Latest status as they are released, and will enter the Vintage status when there are at least 12 following 4-Stars that have been released. "
My math is probably off, but I estimate that the odds were about 3.27 x better when the announcement was made back on July 27. Now we have added 9 4*s since then, so my estimate is we just crossed to 4x better odds when we hit 60, as OP estimates. And the odds of a specific vintage 4 from any draw is somewhere around .885%. (Tell that to Gwenpool, who I keep getting for some reason.)
I am going to assume that they kept the odds split evenly between Latest and Vintage 4’s and have not updated the display. Note that if their actual odds are better than the displayed odds, then they are not “cheating” anyone and they are meeting the requirements of notifying users of what they are getting.
They could certainly update the odds display, since it seems to have risen to a round number (4) as it was 3.xx up until now.
However as to your point of they are not “cheating” if the actual odds are better than displayed odds, I would like to point out that if odds for latest 12 are higher, then the odds for vintage 4s is lower too. So somewhere the odds are wrong
If the odds of one outcome are better than advertised, then the odds of of some other outcome must be worse than advertised.
If the outcome with worse odds is less desirable than the one with better odds, you could make the argument that no one is being cheated. But in this case, it is one set of 4* covers competing with a second set of 4* covers (“your odds of getting that Red Hulk cover are lower than expected, but it is okay because your odds of pulling Sandman are better than expected!”).
In the end, I’d prefer accurate displayed odds: that way I can make decisions with full knowledge of the risks. I can’t do that if there is a hidden set of odds that differ from the simplified display odds.
The only advertised odds are that you get about 1:7 5’s from Legendary pulls, and Heroics offer about 1:14 4’s, and that there are 12 4’s that reward out at 3x odds. So they never have published in game (or, I believe, otherwise) the odds of getting a vintage 4* from any one pull. Just that the Latest 4’s were 3 times as likely to be rewarded.
Your odds of getting a Latest 4 have remained the same - not really gotten any better. If you get a 4 from a pull, you still have a 50% chance of getting one of the Latest 12 vs 50% of the Vintage heroes. But, the odds of getting a specific vintage 4 have gone down due to dilution. They have never said the odds of getting a specific Vintage cover probably for this reason (it drops every release, and they don’t want to call attention to it).
The Bonus Hero program was a huge step in helping get specific covers. However, the sheer number of needed covers to have a fully champed 4* roster remains a huge hurdle for players.
@bluewolf: my point was that if the latest 4s are 3 times as likely to be pulled as a vintage 4, then the split between latest and vintage is not 50/50. The latest characters would need to have 4x odds. At 3x odds, you have a 43/57 split.
I assumed the split would be 25/75 since that is technically 3 times more likely (so 1 in 4 for classic, 3 in 4 for latest). I personally find that I get about that.
]