Wraith wrote:First, unless you know the RNG algorithm, there is nothing suggesting that some rolls (i.e. one roll = opening one chest) have bigger odds than others to yield a BP. As far as we know the odds are the same every time.
Wraith wrote:If there were brackets of times (say, periods of 5 minutes) when the server is more likely to drop BPs, or if the rolls were predictable in any other way, then that would mean the RNG algorithm is very badly designed.
Period lengths of MT are known to have dead streaks, and get caught in them.
Wraith wrote:I don't know what algorithm Shop Heroes uses, but I doubt it's an algorithm that Cloudcade wrote themselves because software devs rarely write their own. Without getting too technical, developers usually use a default RNG algorithm that come with the coding library they use, and these algorithms are carefully designed by experienced professionals to give every number an equal chance of dropping and to ensure the results can't be predicted by humans.
MT, used by Unity (black box beyond who's implementation they used though), which is usually the same standard algo thrown around. There have been many variant improvements, However, they are variants, and never merged.
Wraith wrote:Second, some of your tips contradict each other. For example, you say there are times when the server is more likely to drop BPs and at the same time you advise people to stop opening chests after getting a BP. But if there really were better periods of time than others to open chests, then logic would say that if you win a BP, it's more likely the server is on a good time and you should keep opening chests.
True, some could be superstition there, this is just my personal experience getting 3 in a row, 3 separate times. It may not even matter here, my best theory is that in blackjack, if you have 52 cards, you pull a King, what are the odds you pull another king on that next card? When you wait until the deck is reshuffled (other players rolling, since the assumption the internal state is server side), are those odds higher? Feel free to ignore that if you wish, and let me know.
Wraith wrote:Third, there's a lot of psychology research on superstition (or more precisely: there's research on why people are superstitious):
Avoiding streaks as you advise is called the gambler's fallacy: it's the mistaken belief that you can't get the same result multiple times in a row. An example is roulette players in a casino who see the ball land 10 times on black in a row, and who then assume the the next time it MUST land on red so they go all in. Nope, the odds of red and black (or in our case: the odds of getting another BP) are still the same.
Assuming the RNG is:
and doesn't have flaws: http://www.pcg-random.org/
plenty listed here
Wraith wrote:There's no evidence that the RNG algorithm is humanly predictable
Except all PRNG actually IS predictable. It's called pseudo for a reason, and computers are logical - NO randomness. If you give it 1+1, you are always getting the same result. Which is why all devs are told to seed by time() to help it "look more random" when opening an app.
If you know the internal state, you can figure out what's next in any RNG. MT only has 1 stream of numbers as well, so you just figure out where that pointer for the internal state is. https://jazzy.id.au/2010/09/22/cracking_random_number_generators_part_3.html
You only need 624 numbers from it to determine the internal state.
The only reason it is not usually predictable in games, is because its server side. However, for client side RNG: there are people who write programs to look for the internal state to determine what the next rng will be for their next "moves".
Wraith wrote:With that said, if you really wanted to prove your ideas, you could open a few hundred chests while following your tips, and then open an identical number of chests at random times. It would take time, but it's the only way to prove you're correct about what you say.
Love to, donate me the gems.
I can only give ALTERNATIVES to their current methods. Worst case scenario, their luck doesn't improve right? "oh well"? Best case, they feel better,
which is half the goal here (as noted in your selection bias paragraph, which I don't see as a bad thing).
How much is superstition and how much has a basis/research behind it... who really knows. I'm sharing my personal findings, and I'm open to other testimonies, but to say its completely baseless... well, feel free to read those links.