Getting tired of having Instants shoved down my throat

[DeletedUser9307]

During the Fall Event I had been saving up Hazelnuts for the Traveling Merchant 1, I spent 840 in an attempt to get it. All I got was one 140 Hazelnut package and the rest were ALL Instants. I've spent over 1300 'nuts at this point and the trend has continued. I have won nothing other than one other 140 package and Instants.

Apart from one Legendary, the rest have been junk; 1-30 min time reductions that are worthless at Chapter 5 level+ build times. I'm not opposed to Instants, though I think the time reductions would be more useful as percentages, but I am getting tired of having them forced on me at every turn. They are taking away from more useful rewards in my opinion.

EDIT: I was wrong on the quality of Instants I was winning, they were all 33% or Legendary Time Reduction. I apologize for that discrepancy. It does lessen my complaint to a degree, but my over all disappointment is still there. 45% of the potential prizes are Instants, and they are all the highest percentage to win options. These are not what I play the Fall Event for.

I, OTOH, love the instants. i do a lot of upgrading and the instants lets me build faster, finish stuff faster.

 

[Arkadia]

@SoggyShorts Touche for that 1 part of my whole comment

@Ashrem Chill lol ...and enjoy the tourneys just for the KPs, or to help ur FS. For some, that could be a lot of fun too

 

[Ashrem]

Chill lol

I think you're reading something that isn't there.

 

[Legolesa]

During the Fall Event I had been saving up Hazelnuts for the Traveling Merchant 1, I spent 840 in an attempt to get it. All I got was one 140 Hazelnut package and the rest were ALL Instants. I've spent over 1300 'nuts at this point and the trend has continued. I have won nothing other than one other 140 package and Instants.

Apart from one Legendary, the rest have been junk; 1-30 min time reductions that are worthless at Chapter 5 level+ build times. I'm not opposed to Instants, though I think the time reductions would be more useful as percentages, but I am getting tired of having them forced on me at every turn. They are taking away from more useful rewards in my opinion.

EDIT: I was wrong on the quality of Instants I was winning, they were all 33% or Legendary Time Reduction. I apologize for that discrepancy. It does lessen my complaint to a degree, but my over all disappointment is still there. 45% of the potential prizes are Instants, and they are all the highest percentage to win options. These are not what I play the Fall Event for.

 

[Legolesa]

I actually loved the instants especially to speed up my scouting as it takes over 50 hours and this also helped open areas to complete for my relics so it benefited several quests at the same time. Collect them and use when needed by looking ahead

 

[DeletedUser2870]

@Nopen3ss
Even though that lessens the disappointment somewhat, it still shows the chance-mechanism is off.
But I already made several posts showing the 25% chance on the daly prize doesn't seem to be true.

@Legolesa
Sure, but timereducing instants to me are only useful for either upgrading factories or workshops with their huge upgrading time now (25 hours or so, though even there I don't care that much anymore) or to finish building/scouting for an event quest a bit sooner. Other than that they aren't much use to me.
My schouting times are around 55 hours now, so sure, an instant is nice to finish that sooner, but there is no way of sytematically make those instants myself, so the only time to get them is during events. And whoopie...then 1 or 2 provinces are done a bit sooner. Doesn't really make that much of a difference to me anymore. My average will still be only about 2/week.

 

[Ashrem]

If people think the math is wrong, the appropriate thing to do would be to file a report in the bug forums with whatever data they have so there is a slight chance that a moderator might run some tests and pass the results on to the devs if they think the bug is reproducible. Endless whinging about bad luck isn't going to change anything, because none of us can test a reasonably large number, and we have no idea who's reports are accurate or how accurate.

 

[DeletedUser9601]

I think instants are hands-down better than the random relic rewards they replaced. But if people are sick about instants as a prize, what reasonable suggestion do they have?

Presumably the rewards will never be something like "50% change at the daily prize."
So you've got to come up with [numbers/rewards based on large chest]
25% - daily prize
20% - more tokens (either 140 or 200)
10% - KP
10% - runes
35% - ???

Maybe there's no other prize, and the numbers above are tweaked to equal 100%. The obvious downside though, is that the prizes will need to be weakened (eg, getting 15 KP instead of 25, or weaker daily prize buildings), because I presume Inno came up with this system with some balancing in mind. Or it takes more tokens to open a chest, so where you might have opened 50 in this event to get all 3 prizes, next event you open 30?

 

[DeletedUser7370]

because I presume Inno came up with this system with some balancing in mind

Sure they did. You can see what all the probability math comes out with here.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NtG24lapN6nRZS416Q9PNheuQL3B7SsxSzXId6mxa2Q/edit?usp=sharing

I might improve that for the next version to list the unaccounted prizes. Currently it disallows fractional prizes and throws all the fractions away. This results in some number of prizes that are not counted.

edit: I just went through and did the missing box data on my offline version and it came away with 4 missing out of each size.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

@Ashrem
*shrugs*...I did. Got a standard reply that its just chance and everything works fine.
Problem is, if 400 rolls with a 25% of scoring each are made, one can reasonably expect about 100 prizes. With some variations for the chance factor, but one should not end off too far.
Out of those 400 tries, I scored between 11-12%, which is less than half of what it should be. And since those 400 rolls were reasonably evenly divided over 3 accounts and 3 events, its even more unreasonable to say its just a fluke of some bad scores.
Inno can tell me its all working fine all it wants, my results do not agree with them. But then again, they hardly ever seem to be bothered by facts, or feedback in any form for that matter

 

[Ashrem]

That being the case, I'd have to guess they know how many of each prize get given out, and how many rolls that entailed, so either:
1) they think the averages are working, or
2) they are deliberately wrong.
In neither case will they likely care about further reports.

I put a lot of effort into it at christmas, and again in the spring, and my numbers seemed pretty close to as expected (though in one case I was significantly higher than average on getting buildings). I know others have done the same. So (not to belittle other people's feelings) I have trouble caring. Even if the chance of getting horrific rolls is only 1 in a thousand, that's going to happen a few dozen times over the number of players/cities, and I expect that many of those people will be here complaining.

 

[DeletedUser6219]

I have found the instants to be moderately useful.

 

[DeletedUser7370]

Problem is, if 400 rolls with a 25% of scoring each are made, one can reasonably expect about 100 prizes. With some variations for the chance factor

While number of rolls is significant, and having too small of a set can lead to wide variations; 400 is not a large enough set to tend to assure ideal. The reason for that can be found in understanding Kolmogorov Complexity. You might have documented exactly what you got for every roll, but I suspect that you have estimated your rolls and counted the buildings after to determine a total.

Given that you state you are looking at 3 accounts(cities?) on 3 events, that would make 9 cities worth of data and my numbers say that opening large boxes for the amounts of box points generally in the large event leads to 47 boxes given that the probabilities listed for getting more box points are accurate. Now 9 times 47 would be 423, so I can see your estimate of rolls as very reasonable. And I do not doubt your ability to count the buildings.

As I mentioned Kolmogorov above is important because there is a big difference between flipping 1 coin 400 times, 1 coin 4000 times, 1 coin 40,000 times, 2 coins 4000 time, and 1 penny with 1 nickle 4000 times recording distinctly the landing by type of coin in paired flips. While the last 2 seem the same, they are separated by an order of magnitude in complexity.

Having said all of that, it is very difficult to figure out if there is a significant problem in the random number generator without a lot more data. All you have given provides that you have received half as many buildings as the ideal value of 25% on 400 random rolls. So I will use 50 buildings received as the factor, which equals 12.5%. The other way to look at it is that there is a 75% chance of not getting a building on any single roll, and you have not gotten a building on 87.5% of your rolls. That is a 16.666667% deviation from the ideal results. I think a deviation of that size is not statistically relevant, as it would likely be within 1 standard deviation. If you have data that shows a consistent large deviation inflating another value then the 2 would become conjunctively significant, and I would love to examine your full data set.

 

[DeletedUser5800]

I have found the instants to be moderately useful.

I agree, though 'moderately' might be to strong a word. I would say slightly. If I had 5x as many I might be on board with moderately.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

That being the case, I'd have to guess they know how many of each prize get given out, and how many rolls that entailed, so either:
1) they think the averages are working, or
2) they are deliberately wrong.
In neither case will they likely care about further reports.

I put a lot of effort into it at christmas, and again in the spring, and my numbers seemed pretty close to as expected (though in one case I was significantly higher than average on getting buildings). I know others have done the same. So (not to belittle other people's feelings) I have trouble caring. Even if the chance of getting horrific rolls is only 1 in a thousand, that's going to happen a few dozen times over the number of players/cities, and I expect that many of those people will be here complaining.

Of course, a stroke of bad luck might be true here.
As for caring...well...I'm slightly annoyed, but its mostly I like keeping stats when I feel things are off to see whether I'm right or not.
Caring for the game...not really, not anymore. I'm slowly fading myself out of this game but that has nothing to do with the events, but all with the way they keep altering the game in ways I don't care for.

 

[satchmo33]

What's the link to see all of the daily prizes? I saw it somewhere then promptly lost it.

 

[SoggyShorts]

.I'm slightly annoyed, but its mostly I like keeping stats when I feel things are off to see whether I'm right or not.

I think this is part of the problem- we tend to only notice how our own luck is going when it sucks. Even though your personal data of 400 rolls getting you 12% instead of 25% is fairly comprehensive, the player who got 40% wins isn't going to come here to post their stats.

My own conspiracy theory is that the nuts we collect around our city has gone down. I recall(perhaps falsely) getting a 3x almost every day, and this time across 2 live and 1 Beta account I'm at 8 total.

What's the link to see all of the daily prizes? I saw it somewhere then promptly lost it.

https://www.gamersgemsofknowledge.com/eldrasils-ascending-daily-prizes

 

[SunsetDanar]

Well, some pretty valid observations here and they seem to mostly mirror my own. The listed percentages for success don't seem to match but also, these are the odds per attempt so, depending upon the type of table this is built upon, they appear to remain the same for each attempt. There does seem to an anomaly in that if a stated 25 percentage rate for success in gaining the prime object holds true, then each try beyond the first four unsuccessful ones should (and does) increase the odds but is still not guaranteed because of the other available options so they appear in the form of those other available options.

It's hard to grump about results when we don't know the cause. I mentioned the table and it's a question to be sure. If I were to hazard I guess, it resembles, by apparent function, an algorithmic grid table. Said table will run percentages either by string or by grid square or by a combination of both. Now, it's possible to adjust the success rate/percentages for each programmed item within each grid square as long as that grid square contains a valid mathematical statement. That means that the success rates can be manipulated within the table, by square but when the success rate equals 25% at the end of the string, it can be named 25%. Pure speculation to be sure but at least one possible answer since there have been none so far...

 

[Ashrem]

There does seem to an anomaly in that if a stated 25 percentage rate for success in gaining the prime object holds true, then each try beyond the first four unsuccessful ones should (and does) increase the odds

It doesn't, really, increase the odds. For every 140 hazelnut event*, there is a 75% chance that you won't get the daily building. People always look at the chance of getting what they want, when the opposite is much more telling.

* I'm using "event" in the physics sense of opening a chest, not the game event.

 

[SunsetDanar]

Right. I more correctly should have said that the odds may change rather than increase. Not mathematically, of course, but simply by chance. The odds may increase, decrease or remain the same.