Honestly think about the results in your opinion (and evidently @Dust_Angel agrees with you). Does it make any sense that an epic troop would be just as likely to be crafted for the same exact cost as 3 common troops?
Luckily you aren’t the judge of this matter since bug reports aren’t supposed to be decided by a jury of your peers. The issue is either bugged in the same vein that Dungeons were. Or… The devs are knowingly misleading players on purpose and are just going to attract even more heat and loss of credibility due to it.
Clearly even if I did 100 gem dragon troops and got same results then you would still spin the data in hopes that you “won” an argument with a stranger on the Internet.
I don’t care about winning here. I do enough of that in real life on a daily basis. What I care about is the game attracting players and not scamming them.
Those are exactly the 2 I am missing as well… The devs are doing this on purpose … I have no doubt @Kafka@OminousGMan@Jeto … Please prove me wrong… PROVE… Not some double speak… Why are you guys blocking those 2 Dragons?.. I have 4 each of the others.
I want to say “you prove it first” but everybody knows emotions are impervious to logic…
Yes, having a lopsided distribution of Gem Dragons is obviously weird, but it tends to be really, really difficult to “prove” if an RNG is being unfair.
And the last voluntary data collection about Gem Dragons actually documented a collectively fair distribution between all six.
“Apps offering “loot boxes” or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase.”
They sell dragonite, there are no odds showing the drop rate of each dragon before you hatch. Therefore they are breaking the Apple tos.
With that said the loophole is “type” they are all the same type technically.This should show the level of scum involved.
Someone doesnt understand randomness in real life. It’s a 1/6 chance for each color (they’ve said so), but that doesn’t mean it turns out that way every time.
Roll a die. That’s a 1 in 6 chance, just like these dragons. Do it 5 times, and it’s possible to get one 1, one 2, and three 3s. That doesnt mean the die is rigged, it means that’s what you rolled.
Flip a coin. You won’t always get heads, then tails, then heads, and so on. It will vary, sometimes you get 3 heads in a row.
If you roll a die 1000 times, you will get very close to 1/6 for each of the options. Not always though. It might come out to 0.166666666 for 2s, but 0.164 for 3s. That’s how randomness works.
There was a thread in the forums where someone was collecting data on which dragons came up. It was pretty close to 1/6, before the person got bored with it or whatever, and they stopped.
Have they actually disclosed the odds? Kafka’s reply in the other thread only stated it’s “not bugged”. It implies the dragons all have equal chance but I don’t recall them ever disclosing the actual odds or mechanics.
We had a thread several months ago asking for confirmation and never received it.
I’m of the belief that it’s simply 1/6 for each dragon, but I’m curious where they stated it. I definitely could have missed it if they did.
The actual weightings of each dragon were never precisely clarified as far as I know but it looks like they are equal from data gathered.
Seems to be mostly the unluckiest people questioning whether this is correct. Haven’t seen a single person who got all 6 dragons before most others complaining. Funny that.
Do you know how many times they have said something that turned out to be a lie after the community tested?
There are 6 Dragons, at least 2 of them are weighted differently than the remaining 4. Just like orbs. Blue and green orbs do not drop at the same rate. Same goes for the dragons.
Can you back this up with data though? If you only look at a few people’s data (i.e. the people who are complaining) you will of course have biased results. I am by no means saying the data I gathered in the thread linked above is 100% accurate, and if you really believe the rates are skewed, then by all means gather some data. But from the 150+ data points I gathered, the results are very evenly spread.
No one has data, that is the point. It wouldn’t help anyhow, they manipulate the rates as needed.
They are varying the weights based on the economy. So 2 of those dragons at least are always more rare than the others. It’s what sells those daily dragonite deals.
Did you know casinos in the US may change the rate of a machines payout at any time. Even live? Do you think a game studio governed by literally no one isn’t?
Its not a conspiracy theory, it’s literally economics.
Do you know how crazy that sounds? If you look at the data NerdieBirdie collected, you’d see that you’re wrong.
No offense to the devs, but I don’t think they’re that sophisticated. They’ve had this visual issue going on for weeks, and they can’t figure out how to fix that.
If you think they are so fraudulent, maybe you should find another game.
Since you are making a positive claim, feel free to support it with ACTUAL data, i.e. sourced or collected from the game itself.
Definition, please – is it “I believe my hypothesis to be true despite a lack of literally any supporting evidence and/or hard facts to the contrary” ?
False equivalence. There’s a number of additional disclosure requirements and regulations attached to that ability, specifically to verify that the casino industry isn’t unfairly cheating people out of money.
There IS admittedly a lack of comparable, default oversight when it comes to videogame publishers, but again, if you are the one making a positive claim then you are the one who should be providing hard data to support it. My debating skills may be seriously out of practice, but I know there’s a general rule of “claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
