• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

RNG Needs to Scale

  • Thread starter DeletedUser12423
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser12423

Guest
RNG that Scales means the % to win is slightly reduced with each win. While the % to win is slightly increased with each loss. Scaling balances out, but it also prevents late players from exploiting certain boosts or buildings, while allowing a person a better chance at getting a single win. And even better, while it prevents exploiting a boost or building, it also does not directly effect crown accumulation.
Carried this over from the Winter Event Feedback. There were too many distractions there. The current system is broken. Unless Inno really wants players to have 60 14-hour boosts or 16 frozen fountains, something needs to be changed. More so, the current system lets someone walk away as a loser with 8+ attempts at 25%, which is 1-4 odds respectfully, and still fail. But that did not happen to me only once, it happened a second time, with 11 attempts at 25% without a win on the 3rd set building. Either I have the worst luck in history, your listed % is wrong, you have my account flagged-to-lose, or this system is terrible!
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
It would be nice for players if it gave everyone approximately the same result, but if that's what they wanted, they wouldn't have designed it like a slot machine. This is a free to play game, in which the developers need to constantly look for ways to convince the players with money to part with it. A random system where some players get more than others is almost perfect for tempting players to spend money. Guaranteeing that everyone gets what they want without spending money is not going to keep the game running. The death line for all free to play games is when players get what they want. Keeping them wanting more is the only way to succeed.
 

DeletedUser9759

Guest
There isn't a "lose" option. Every time you open a chest you receive a prize. The perceived value of those prizes may vary from player to player, but they will help you to advance your game. Changing the odds for individual players kind of defeats the whole random part.
 

DeletedUser5800

Guest
Unless Inno really wants players to have 60 14-hour boosts
I can't speak for INNO but I'll take 60 14hr boost anytime I can get them! I already used all the ones I got this round rushing the scout to another expansion. If they offered an expansion as a daily would that not be considered by everyone the best prize? Well if you use them right that's exactly what you get. ;)

I've had bad luck runs but I've also had good luck runs, and I liked the good more than I would have having experienced the bad, if it was just always the same it would get boring really fast. What's the point of playing a guaranteed win, they could just give out the prizes every 30 daily log-ins and skip the whole event. "You logged in 30 days in a row, pick ten prizes of your choice!" Lame
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
You'd be a lot happier person if you stopped thinking the world is out to get you. It wouldn't hurt to quit accusing other people of exploiting the system because they don't care and are happy with what they got.

I only got one of the set buildings too, I just don't care. In your books, that makes me a an exploiter because I'm happy with what I got.

Since set buildings have existed for the better part of year in other Inno games, and you just started playing here in October (Almost certainly long after those designs were created) I'm not sure what credit you think you're entitled to. It's not like the devs have ever turned up here and thanked anyone else for any of the ideas they used over the last two and a half years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser12423

Guest
Yeah. So anyway, let's stick to Topic. RNG Scaling. Thank you ^ ^
 

DeletedUser12423

Guest
haha, I like it. It made me smile, thank you Shimmer <3
Have a great day =D
 

DeletedUser5800

Guest
I've ignored that you think you invented the metric because I don't really care, I knew they existed in FoE a long while ago from someone else's post but it really is of no consequence, people sometime have original ideas that just happen to already be a thing. I invented artificial drone bees to pollenate California almond groves earlier today and then found an 6 month old article describing the prototype. Doesn't change the fact that I thought of it. LOL So I'll give you credit for having the idea even if it had already been had. ;)

That aside, some people have to be losers and a few have to lose hard for it not to just be a gain x for y effort metric. I did the opposite and won more than I meant to and way to many keys back vastly cheating myself out of what could have been better things IMO than what I got too many of. I overshot doubles based on past bad luck where no keys popped for 15 rolls. Therein is the gamble. Somebody else has the whole set in their inventory and won't ever place it, someone got so many fountains they don't know what to do with them. Winners, losers, even that is perspective because one persons win is another's loss. Maybe a win is getting 2,000 Kps or a bazillion hrs in instants.

I get that you failed to obtain what you wanted and that is below the statistical probability. That's how gambling works though, you always have the option to just skip events altogether and never go in the proverbial casino.

What you are suggesting is if I spend x I should definitely get y. If that is the case there should be no chest and just a list of prizes you can purchase with keys. Hell I would love that actually but it is a whole different thing than what we have, not a slight change to an existing thing. Were you to suggest that they present said list instead of the chest I would be in favor. An event store where you just spend your keys or diamonds on what you want. But that isn't anywhere close to what it is nor nearly as fun to the majority I would imagine.

Conclusion: In regards to this exact suggestion of everybody that plays should definitely get the trophy metric, I vote no.
Should they abandon the whole thing for a gain x to y effort metric, (think spending your tickets at the arcade store) I would like it, but it's because I don't actually have any fun playing this game, I just find the repetition calming. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Xelenia

Ex-Team Member
Thread cleaned. There seems to be a mis-understanding that when you make a thread, it belongs to you. It does not. Let us also stay on topic. If you cannot hold a good positive discussion in the suggestion subsection of the forum, ignored the content of the thread and the post to allow those who want to discuss, actually discuss.

~Xelenia
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser12423

Guest
It was the thread I started and I asked them to stay on topic. Xelenia, I wanted to discuss the RNG Scale. Not get flamed and bullied. For the last time, the topic is RNG that scales, which is a replacement system for the current one. It's an idea that I had to move here because I was getting flamed in the Winter Event Feedback thread, and I will file a complaint if this harassment continues, by anyone. I did nothing wrong. At all.

I created this thread to escape the spam and clutter in the Winter Event Feedback thread so I could focus on my idea... A better RNG system. I did not create this thread for flames or any other reason.

The purpose of having an improved RNG system that scales is, as I said in the Winter Event Feedback thread and in the beginning of this one, is to do two positive things:

a) Players would have a much better chance of getting at least one item after rolling multiple times, and
b) Players could not exploit a certain boost or building, getting say for example 16 frozen fountains or 60 14-hour boosts on an alt.

Because some players like the way the current system is, I was attacked. This is what was suggested (Sorry for the repeat):

RNG that Scales means the % to win is slightly reduced with each win. While the % to win is slightly increased with each loss. Scaling balances out, but it also prevents late players from exploiting certain boosts or buildings, while allowing a person a better chance at getting a single win. And even better, while it prevents exploiting a boost or building, it also does not directly effect crown accumulation.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser2959

Guest
I've been advocating for this since the early days of EverQuest.
 

DeletedUser9601

Guest
There is very little detail about how the scaling would work, so its hard to give much feedback.
But I think generally its a bad idea, and an idea unlikely to be implemented.

I see 2 scaling options.
One option marginally increases chances with each "missed" roll. So I have a 25% for the daily building, and after 1 missed roll, its 26%, then 27%, etc.
This doesn't end up making you (and other flagged-to-lose players) happy though, because if you're missing on 11 rolls at 25%, you haven't affected the probability terribly meaningfully.
The second option massively increases chances with each "missed" roll. Imagine 25% to 33% to 50%, etc. So if you save up say 8 chests, you're guaranteed the daily prize.
This does end up making you happy.

A few reasons why I think its a bad idea/unlikely to be implemented:
1. There already is a "no RNG" prize. Its called the Grand Prizes. Everyone can win them if they earn enough keys.
1a. Why would Inno break their very obviously intended "2 prize" system. The Grand Prizes are very powerful and guaranteed; the daily prizes are less powerful and less certain.
2. The system above assumes you are rolling and aiming to win the daily prize. This is a faulty assumption. There are plenty of times when I'm opening chests hoping for KP (like during those earn 20 KP quests). I would be annoyed by a prize system that defaults to increasing odds for the daily prize.
2b. There is already a system in place that (albeit slightly) lets you pick your prize preference. Open larger chests for more Third Grand Prize certainty, open smaller chests for better daily prize odds.
3. As I mentioned before, adding certainty to daily prizes probably leads to a world with WORSE daily prizes. The game is a balance. Inno can't offer amazing prizes, and make those prizes easy to achieve. So if there's a building everyone will get after gathering 1,000 keys (versus 6,000 keys for the 3rd Grand Prize), I assume Inno is going to make that building worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser5800

Guest
The system above assumes you are rolling and aiming to win the daily prize. This is a faulty assumption.
Best point yet! Especially with the buy Kp quest, little cities(Chapter 1-3) almost have to win gold instants to even get these done! On my smallest I was always hoping for instants and got enough buildings to run out of room and be pissed off at getting them!
Sure I could have used diamonds to buy them, but so could someone use diamonds to get the buildings. Almost anything that changes inevitably hurts one group to help another. My biggest city was most benefited by time instants. Honestly there is a smaller window than one would think for really wanting the buildings and even that would be an even smaller window if people thought more about what would give the most benifit. I'll take the free instant scout over anything all day, how could it possibly be better to lose 400hrs and gain inventory items I'll never place?
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
It was the thread I started and I asked them to stay on topic. Xelenia, I wanted to discuss the RNG Scale. Not get flamed and bullied.
Then perhaps you need to pay more attention to what you are saying. You want to discuss increasing the odds of winning a building? Then why do you continue to call players who won buildings cheaters?
You think that winning 16 fountains is cheating, but then in the same post you want to increase the odds of winning the daily prize.:confused:
What happens to the player who won 16 dailies if their chance of winning dailies increases based on your request?
You think they were cheating because they won 16 buildings, how about when they win 20 because of your idea?
a) Players would have a much better chance of getting at least one item after rolling multiple times
not everyone want's the daily prize. For example a player may want double crowns, but not a bunch of instants of buff buildings, in which case they may desire to "lose" and get KP. You are viewing it as a loss when you don't get the daily prize, others view it as a win if they get KP, or runes, or coins etc.
a) Players would have a much better chance of getting at least one item after rolling multiple times, and
b) Players could not exploit a certain boost or building, getting say for example 16 frozen fountains or 60 14-hour boosts on an alt.
You are still wrong in your basic premise here.
1. What difference does it make if you win prizes of any kind on an alt or your main account?
2. You keep insisting that 16 fountains or 60x14h boosts is an exploit, but you refuse to explain how.
Is it still an exploit if you win 8 FF and 30 instants?
Is it still an exploit if you win 4 FF and 4 giant hands and 4 orc vortex, and 4 candy cane trees?
Is it still an exploit if you win 16 different buildings?

What makes one combination of prizes cheating but not other combinations?
I will file a complaint if this harassment continues, by anyone. I did nothing wrong. At all.
Pointing out massive flaws in your reasoning is not bullying
Falsely accusing players of being cheaters is bullying.
Perhaps it is you who should be reported.
 
Last edited:

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
an alt or your main account?
I think I'm having problems with definitions to follow this conversation: I thought alt accounts were the ones where you make a completely new account and a city on the same world where you already have a main city. From this discussion, it seems that term is being used to describe having cities in more than one world using your same account, a legitimate way to play more than one city and experiment with different play styles. Many, many players have cities in more than one world; there are FS's that are in more than one world! I only have the one city, but if Orcs is as slow as I think it's going to be, I might create a human city in another world just to experience that type of play. Other than diamonds, nothing can be shared between those cities on different worlds. So, why would it be wrong of me to go for multiples of one prize in one city where I've decided that's what I want there? It won't have any effect on my 'main' city and I may go for different prizes there. I think I'm just lost...
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
. So, why would it be wrong of me to go for multiples of one prize in one city where I've decided that's what I want there? It won't have any effect on my 'main' city and I may go for different prizes there. I think I'm just lost...
You're not lost, you and almost everyone else understands that it doesn't matter in the slightest what city you win prizes on, or how many cities you have.
This is why I keep asking for an explanation from the only person who seems to think it does matter.
 

DeletedUser9601

Guest
You're not lost, you and almost everyone else understands that it doesn't matter in the slightest what city you win prizes on, or how many cities you have.
This is why I keep asking for an explanation from the only person who seems to think it does matter.
Not sure if this is what his concern is, but I have a WoodElves city on Aryndell, and a Chapter 3 city on Wynador.

On Aryndell, I'm happy to win 14 hour instants. On Wynador, I'm not as excited about them. At some point, I'll have 14 hour builds, but in Chapter 3, on my "alt" city that I rarely play, it will be a long time before those prizes are useful. Same goes, to a lesser extent, for the gold/supplies spells. They're helpful, but not in the same way that a Candy Cane Tree would have been.

Now, this issue isn't really a "main"/"alt" issue, because there are plenty of people who's "main" city is in Chapter 3, and they'd be just as unhappy with 14 hour instants. But maybe that's what Ironman was getting at?
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
But maybe that's what Ironman was getting at?
Nope. He has specifically stated that getting multiple instants on your chapter 3 account is an exploit, as it will allow you to "power level" your city.
I tried pointing out that a chapter 3 city doesn't have any upgrades over 8 hours except the mainhall which would take 13 hours.

This is close to straying off topic, but his thoughts on which prizes should be allowed to be won on which accounts are relevant to the motivation behind wanting a change to the current system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top