Look, “proof” can be dangerously loaded term often at the best of times, and the small-number statistics of this game (notably, say, summons) make them vulnerable to all sorts of superstitions, whether it’s about “the best way to summon to increase your odds!!!” or “the summon portals are out to get me, personally!” or even “I know that it’s ‘purely random’ because SG told me it is!”
I mean, if I say that “well I still don’t have a single S5 5* hero,” when does that “prove” anything?
If I’ve done ~50 pulls, there’s like a 45% chance of no S5 5*.
If I’ve done ~100 pulls, there’s like a 20% chance of no S5 5*.
If I’ve done ~200 pulls, there’s still like a 4% chance of no S5 5*.
Do any of these “prove” anything? And why should it be up to me to buy pulls to “prove this statement wrong”?
On the flipside, let’s imagine we get SG to somehow verifiably disclose raw summoning stats, and it turns out that out of the last 1 million S5 summons, that 160,000 (plus or minus a few) S5 5* were obtained. Does that “prove” pure randomness, or does it show that results come out, en masse, to be consistent with the advertised rate… but not necessarily randomly per se?
(I’m not even getting into the weeds of all-computer-“randomness”-even-in-good-faith-is-actually-pseudorandom here, which is a different discussion, presumably.)
——
And here’s a problem I have with this thread and question:
No matter how posed in good faith the original question is, there will be folks who are likely to point to this thread and say “if if if there’s no PROOF that this game is rigged, then that PROVES that it is unrigged and the randomness is perfect and anyone who says otherwise can only be an ignorant crybaby!!!”
…when that’s not how proof works at all…
… much less when what would constitute acceptable proof is not defined, and may not even have a definition that is acceptable to at least most interested parties who would read this.
——
For what it’s worth, personally, I find it reasonable to believe that the underlying “randomness” of the game is likely actually, at baseline, a reasonable attempt at randomness to within the limits of computer pseudorandomness — in that in-game behavior is likely consistent with randomness,
OTOH, I also don’t preclude the possibility that such randomness is… tweakable, if for no other reason than to make sure that bulk results stay consistent with stated odds, possibly for legal reasons. If any such tweaking can or does exist, then that could allow the possibility that it could be used in any number of ways, particularly if the stated odds remain “accurate enough” on large enough scales.