How is using Censures method Cheating? [Staff Quote in Post 2; Censure (Otto) Comment in Post 139]

I heard SG considers Censures pull method is cheating? Would somebody please explain how using information that the game freely gives to get better pulls is cheating? In order to cheat you must be able to something nobody else can do. Every person playing this game can do the method without changing anything in the game. The game gives you all the information needed to make better pulls. Guess im just confused over all this. Truthfully if the game gave more than 80% 3* when 80% of people playing the game do not need 3* heroes. How about a change in %. Say 60% 3* 30% 4* and 10% 5*. Still mostly 3* but a better chance for better heroes. I noticed you changed some for the better and I thank you for that. I am no cheater. I grind this game just like anybody else does. Lost one account I played for 2 years and got no help from SG. 2 reasons I know of why people are leaving this game. 5* Heroes and mats. Both are too hard to get. Should not have to drain a bank account to get a 5* hero.

4 Likes

I haven’t heard that, and have no reason to believe they care how or when people choose to pull, at least in terms of whether they’d consider it cheating.


This was somewhat addressed in an AMA previously too, when Small Giant Staff acknowledged they were aware some players believe different Summoning methods can yield different results, and that they don’t attempt to convince people otherwise:

21 Likes

Thank you zephyr1 for clearing that up. Confusion is gone.

4 Likes

There is no mathematically logical reason for the method to work. It plays on the assumption that random is streaky, which it is but only randomly. Despite that, I’ve tried the method and it’s failed more often than it’s worked. Kinda like random pulls.

Maybe the problem is my lack of faith.

9 Likes

I tried using Censure’s method in beta, when SG was testing the ‘under the hood’ changes with the tokens. Over 100 pulls, it worked 47% of the time, whereas standard pulls were 53% (over 100 pulls).

Conditions of ‘success’ were “any 5* or HOTM”

So. No.

12 Likes

Please redirect me where Small Giant stated that, as saying it would be almost a confession it actually works.

So please, show me this message from Small Giant.

5 Likes

Does this apply to the Dawa method also? I hope not :joy::rofl:

10 Likes

I don’t think you used a big enough sample size. Not a stats expert though. But also, you seem to be saying you got a 5* on 53% of your non-Censure method pulls. Please clarify?

2 Likes

This slightly mischaraterizes the theory behind the method. E&P’s RNG is actually “pseudo-random,” which is inherently streaky. It’s not true random. (To be clear, I’m just stating this based on what the guy who came up with the method said. I don’t know the first thing about how RNG “seeds” actually work. But he sure does sound convincing! LOL. And for what it’s worth, most of my alliance tends to use the method, and anecdotally I think the consensus is that it works. At the very least, there’s no DOWNSIDE to using it, because the worse case scenario is that it’s bunk, and pulls truly are random, so it’s not like it can actively harm your results.)

5 Likes

What exactly is this method in qestion?

People think it’s like a slot machine in a casino and there’s times when it’s “hot” and ready to pay out.

The method works by doing test summons to see if it is in fact ready to pay out those 5*

And guess what? Sometimes it does! But not all the time but usually you’ll be told this is because you did some part wrong. Or it wasn’t in fact ready.

But the reality is it’s just random. And random sometimes gives you stuff and sometimes it doesn’t.

22 Likes

This.

I’ve tried to discuss it with my alliance and nobody wanted to hear about the silly mathematical voodoo. Basically told me, almost unanimously, but in nicer terms, that I’m just being foolish and a victim of confirmation bias.

Fair enough, I will admit that it’s a possibility. But can it also be possibile that it IS increasing my overall success? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact of the matter is that no one knows if it works or not, and if they tell you it’s definitely one way or the other then they’re a victim of their own confirmation bias.

But it doesn’t hurt anything to try. If it doesn’t work but we do it anyway, we get the same randomization that we’d get without it - big whoop. But if it does work, even by a small amount, ignoring it could actually hamper possible success - which to me is reason enough to give it a try, and takes no more effort than ignoring it.

Tbh for me personally: I’ve seen enough anecdotal “evidence” to play along, including from top players, experts on the game mechanics, and even members of our trusted mod team - players who pull a helluva lot more than I do, who’ve played a whole lot longer, and who’ve actually tracked their pulls to back up their claims. I trust their judgement on every other aspect of the game, and I have no reason to believe they’re just inventing things out of the blue or suggesting trends that aren’t supported by observation. Even if it can’t be categorically proven.

6 Likes

I should have clarified. 100 ten-pulls. Indiscriminate to any 5* regardless of source, across all portal types. 47% using this method, 53% not using this method. It is coincidental that the numbers add to 100, i did 200 total 10 pulls.

I know its not a perfect sample size. The numbers are easily skewed because i got some 10-pulls with zero, others with 2,3,4 5* — including a portal with 2 5* and 3 hotm. For further clarity, i just went 5* YES/NO regardless of how many.

But my attempt to do 100 ten pulls of each type was enough to tell me this: the “Censure method” isn’t quite the “slam dunk” that the advocates have said.

No. It isnt a perfect statistical sample— but anecdotal evidence enough FOR ME to disregard this method versus standard draws, considering the “scenario” with which you must draw from to even begin the process.

7 Likes

This made me lol at work, damn you

4 Likes

OP please show us where SG said this? Or did you just make it up? Is there any point to this topic if they didn’t say anything?

sirfightsalot1 the changes you are suggesting would ruin the entire game. Yes everyone would like more 5* heroes, myself included, but there is a good reason why things are the way they are. This game is a long game, changing the odds as you suggested would change the entire dynamic of the game.

Zephyr this is absolutely right. What amazes me is the number of people believing in some kind of method, but whatever turns people on…what I find more disturbing is the belief of some that SG would consider it as cheating. The number of things players blame on SG, is just ridiculous.

3 Likes

Censures method is simply predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as a random number generator, which is absolutely true, but then goes a step further to try and predict when it will be favorable. I don’t believe, in fact I know absolutely for a fact, that the things that are stated as being completely random in the game are not, in fact, random, but suggestions that one could actually predict them are far fetched. There’s way too much confirmation bias involved. I pulled 2 x 3 stars in back to back silver token pulls and then went over to do a 10 in the season 3 portal and got jack. Censures method would suggest SOMETHING of value would come out. But I’m hard-pressed to consider a 56th Melandor as something of value.

As for “cheating”, how would they even know? They’re not sitting in your living room watching you play. That’s Google who’s watching you, and they definitely don’t care how many 5 stars you get.

5 Likes

Ah! Yes, makes way more sense now, thank you.

Those 5* %s are pretty high, but sample probably still too small (and results don’t account for other low-probability pulls like seasonal 3*s or whatever; not sure which portal you were pulling from), so whatever.

I feel confident of one thing: None of us are ever going to prove it works, or doesn’t work! lol

1 Like

And yeah, those guys need to show THEIR work before they can call anything a “slam dunk.”

1 Like

Cookie Settings