The Logray problem

"NicWester;c-1741099" wrote:

"JerrickKharr87;c-1740930" wrote:

"TVF;c-1739859" wrote:

"Firebrigade;c-1739796" wrote:

"TVF;c-1739733" wrote:
Logray looking back at me after store refresh...

4/4 last 4 days. It’s like they flipped the switch back on.

They left the switch in the exact same spot it's always been. That's how odds work.

It’s funny how so many of us notice the deficiency....except you. ??‍♂️?. Defending until the end I suppose lol

You notice confirmation bias.

"JerrickKharr87;c-1741029" wrote:

"TVF;c-1740982" wrote:
Conspiracy theories always seem to make certain people feel better for some reason.

Or just smart business.

No, conspiracy theory. And even "theory" is giving it too much credit. Where's your proof? That a couple people on a forum complained and now aren't complaining any more? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there's a 1% chance of not seeing a specific character for a couple days. That's a pretty rare, pretty low amount and shouldn't happen, right? If this game has a million players then it's going to happen to 1000 people.

The more people in the game, the more likely unlikely outcomes become.

There are obviously characters with greater “value” based on their abilities or their requirement to participate (and succeed) in events - to the extent that their shards are offered for cash when they are at their peak demand. It isn’t completely outrageous to imagine that those who want to generate revenue from the game would want the ability to influence the rate of occurrence for these characters to increase that demand.

Proof works both ways. It would be great for the community if the development team could confirm that there is no capability in the code to apply different weightings to character occurrences within an overall random selection process.

Apologies if a formal statement to that effect has been made previously but I’m not aware of one and would definitely welcome it. It may(!) quieten some of the conspiracy theorists though I suppose they’re less likely to take it on trust.