That's exactly it. Any single observation of a low-probability event can be attributed to this highly-improbable draw, and this indeed happens. But once you start seeing these low-probability events occurring over and over again, for multiple people, with different quests types, that brings into question underlying assumptions. And keep in mind how many of these events were reported by forum regulars and not new people popping up. We only have maybe a few dozen active posters, and many reported sequences that should be fairly infrequent. While many of those can be observed over tens or hundreds of thousands of players at large, the fact that so few people observed quite a lot is significant - unless we believe that forum poster population is somehow special.We expect occasional odds-defying runs in a truly random set, but the sheer quantity of odds-defying results is hard to understand.
fyi there is no such thing as true random with computers. There are, however, definitely better-quality algorithms out there, compared to whatever Inno is using.I have this sad feeling the programmers are using a broken, or pseudo, random call. We expect occasional odds-defying runs in a truly random set, but the sheer quantity of odds-defying results is hard to understand.
At one time that was true, but most can manage it quite nicely new by incorporating some combination of external things like temperature and light sensors, mouse position or even network latency. If Inno is relying strictly on a clock chip, that's just lazy.fyi there is no such thing as true random with computers. There are, however, definitely better-quality algorithms out there, compared to whatever Inno is using.
But with how this event's gone, it's also likely.At one time that was true, but most can manage it quite nicely new by incorporating some combination of external things like temperature and light sensors, mouse position or even network latency. If Inno is relying strictly on a clock chip, that's just lazy.
There's optimism and there's whatever keeps us here.I admire your optimism
Their definition is simply randumb.Apparently Inno uses a different definition for "random"... just sayin'...
OK, this is a complete offtopic, but if you really want to know about random number generators, click below...At one time that was true, but most can manage it quite nicely new by incorporating some combination of external things like temperature and light sensors, mouse position or even network latency. If Inno is relying strictly on a clock chip, that's just lazy.
At one time that was true, but most can manage it quite nicely new by incorporating some combination of external things like temperature and light sensors, mouse position or even network latency. If Inno is relying strictly on a clock chip, that's just lazy.
LOL, this is getting hilarious. OK, 10 quests later and I get another WS quest. And what do you know? It is 3h production again. 7 out of 7 and still counting. Time to go all in on lottery ticketsThere is no need to guess, probability theory and statistics have specific definitions and tests for randomness. Let's just say that if 3h WS quest has about 20% probability among WS quests (looks pretty close based on aggregate frequencies), then probability of rolling it randomly 6 out of 6 in a row is about 0.0064%. I mean, I am sure I am special - just not that special
Yeah, straightforward RNG implementation for such a simple application is pretty hard to screw up. If one is trying to do adjustments to random order based on some algorithm, then you can easily end up with patterns similar to what we observed.With the patterns we have been seeing focusing on repeating the harder quests, I think that this is not at all an issue of laziness, but rather an intentional challenge. For example, even a poor learning AI can cause this behavior.
It seems that this is definitely something that is bothering people. Especially with the new requirements for events. I just had a long time player in my FS who used to love this game, especially the events, message me this morning to say that he was leaving the game because the new changes are in direct opposition of his play style and he is no longer having fun in the game. He spent years working towards a particular goal he had, time with spreadsheets charting out the most efficient use of buildings and space comparing culture, population, and output. He relied mostly on AW's and event buildings for all his needs. Even enjoyed playing the Spire. He never posted cross teir trades either nor did he get more than one Phoenix fully upgraded or more than one mermaid building, etc. I'm very sad to see him go. This is now the 2nd player in my FS that has left since the start of this event. It's one thing to make some changes but to force people to play a game a certain way is another thing. For the record the changes didn't affect my play style but they greatly affected others. And to say that the changes make the events more accessible to new players I disagree with. My husband has a city in Chapter 2 and he gave up on the event because it was just too much for his little city to handle. His city in Chapter 4 was completely wiped clean of relics, CC's, troops, and goods trying to play the event so he gave up there as well. Only his Chapter 12 city is doing ok. My Chapter 14 city faired better than I expected. My Chapter 10 city got decimated with all of the relics, VV, scout, research, and complete encounter quests when it comes to troops, goods, and CC's despite producing all of those things around the clock and logging in 3-4 times a day. Events shouldn't cause harm to a city if a player wants to play them. This is the first event I've played that has actually set one of my cities back. I've already made the decision to not play the Halloween Event in both of my cities. So has my husband.You've removed from us the element of individuality by forcing us to fit in one mould. So you've removed the effectiveness of our individual approaches to solving the eternal conundrum of lack of space, whether it be event buildings, Ancient Wonders, or Magic Workshops. Of course it's hardly the first time you've ruined the effectiveness of buildings like Ancient Wonders, so great work reopening old wounds to fester once more! What trust do you expect us to have, or place in you at this point?
The true nature of the problem is STILL not being grasped.
Just took this. I'm just gonna leave it right here to be sent on to Inno. I think it speaks for itself.
It's more I look at it as that they seem to support the idea that there are different play styles and that people may choose to play with buildings that aren't leveled up all of the way. The recent event changes seem to not support people using smaller building types in their normal gameplay. I understand them not wanting people to set up the lvl 1 shanty towns but I know several players that leveled alot of their workshops or factories to only a certain point and didn't see the need to level them any higher due to other event buildings and AW's providing them what they needed (for the record I've always maxed out all of mine). Why provide a tip (even if some consider it a bad one) if there's no merit to it anymore? I have multiple members of my FS questioning this kind of stuff and feel that they are being forced to play a particular way now. I'm frustrated and a bit angry with how things have been over the past few weeks at this point. I've passed on the Elvenar response to the feedback. I've had members quit over the event. What am I supposed to tell them or reassure them when they see this kind of stuff?That 'tip' is under the assumption that you're using roughly the same amount of space overall. It's also not given in the context of events or completing quests, but just gameplay in general. It could be argued that events are pretty much part of 'normal' gameplay now with how frequent they are, and definitely that the loading screen 'tips' don't really offer the best advice, but you also shouldn't be twisting them into saying something they were never trying to say in the first place.