It doesn’t work like that. Once you’re +4500 there is no more “harder opponents” all opponents are about the same. The only variable left to adjust(so to increasingly compromise your chances of winning) is the tile distribution. Hence, after raiding diamond lvl and say, 5 consecutive wins, the boards on the 6th are just terrible- like nothing you see on the friendly battle. Fact.
Can you please share the evidence you have gathered to lead to this inarguable fact?
I had the same impression, too easy to win
To what end? Even if you had developers giving you a code walk-through explaining exactly how the tiles are manipulated- would that have any impact to your continuation of this game? Absolutely not- it will not change a single thing- be it attitude, mindset or whatever. You’ll continue to do as you always do- as will I.
I’m just super curious what evidence you collected to term it a ‘fact’.
Also - how does SGG punish rainbow players after 5 wins?
Let’s remember the forum rules
Currently all published statistical evidence by players supports SGs claim that the boards are random.
Every one who had ever claimed otherwise on the forum has refused to provide a statistically significant dataset.
You’re welcome to speculate and share conjecture, hunches and good old gut-instinct but this isn’t fact without evidence
I dunno… we’re still having fun with these boards
But help me disprove it.
Pretend I have a degree from MIT
There are 2 slot machines.
One is tight
The other is loose
Tell me… how do I show you the math?
They both have wins and losses. But one is unquestionably tightened to lose more often. It’s no trade secret. I just want to show you the math and am beside myself how to do that…
I figured the best way is look for discrepancies between rainbow and mono. That should tell you something, right?
By the way. The defense boost is
This topic is just so trollable. Because…
you can point at any slot machine and
say nah nah na nahnaaaaaah na
They do get fiddled with!
Just tell me how to prove it
so that I can disprove it
LOL and we now have a whole new level of conspiracy theories.
Haha yeah I guess that’s fair. But it’s not new for me. I’m still lock step with my very first post. I pinged slots on day 1
And still puzzled why I have 50% more board reshuffles with rainbow teams than mono.
You’re not alone @gborgej
Others have also noticed how terrible our allies defenses are
Even those who say otherwise:
And then… they fixed it?
Let’s go down that rabbit hole!
And here you are again, thinking that you know better than what we have experienced on our own. Left you hanging on in previous discussion, will do the same in this one. Cheers!
Oh I’m sorry. Did I misunderstand you?
The boards didn’t… change?
It was easy for 2 days? Or it wasn’t?
Ok, Now I am confused:
What does that mean? Can you explain further please? Maybe you experienced something very important!
Maybe your alliance members are just easier to beat (jk).
Only at first though!
2 days later their defenses have done push-ups and sit-ups.
Personally, I’m glad it got… fixed!
The game would be boring otherwise
Yes, I like being able to attack my alliance members and be able to tell them how their defense stacks up and let some members know how they can improve on their defense.
I even thought about changing my defense so they can get practice against different situations including spares but, then I would have to change it back before I logged off.
What I noticed in our line was originally no one posted up the hits they lost. Me very much included.
But by day 2 & 3 we started to see the ones where the defence stood tall or we started to go left field. Like a Blue mono to a green tank. Then as it was an easier pill to swallow when you lost the videos started to appear.
I certainly don’t win every one I play and I haven’t noticed a considerable difference in the way they play.
But then I have wasted at least 15 flags trying to beat a 4500 defence with a team of 3*…
You realize a) this is an inductive argument and b) induction is no proof. Remind yourself of Bertrand Russell’s famous argument- every day the farmer goes to feed his chickens. The chicken expects to be fed. Then one day the farmer kills the chicken. This is not what the chicken expected. Statistically, the chicken had “proof” that it was going to be fed, just like all the days previously.
As a consumer- I have no obligation to prove anything. I simply observe that the boards are easy and conclude that there is a programmatic reason for that.
Chickens are known to be poor of intelligence and poor of sight. Therefore I would hesitate to take the observations and conclusions of a chicken over my own observations combined with logic and reasoning
Wow- you totally missed the point about statistics and past performance not being a prediction of future state. Okay. Fine for me…
Don’t worry, I got it.
SG exectiive: “So - some people already think boards are manipulated. Despite the fact that they aren’t and we have told them so. Is that right?”
SG dev: “Yes, sir”
SG executive: “And, they don’t trust us over this whole costumegate fiasco, and all the cashgrab escalations, the powercreep, yadda yadda?”
SG dev: “Yes, sir”
SG executive: “Excellent. Please go ahead with manipulating the boards for the inconsequential friendly raids to make them MUCH easier and get them to mistrust us more for absolutely no gain fiscal or otherwise for us.”
SG dev: “Yes, sir. You are a genius, sir”
Forget “past performance and statitstics”. My observations don’t match yours. And that little thing called common sense also gets in the way of believing it without EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. As is the trend for anyone making these observations and conclusions regarding boards
Yeah, yeah, there are no black swans and all that jazz.
But a larger dataset had more inductive force than a handful of observations
If I flip a coin 1000 times and record a 50/50 result (a la the dataset collected by @garanwyn) it inspires considerably more confidence than a handful of unrecorded observations.
This seems like a rather flawed logic
P1 - the boards appear easier than in a different environment
P2 - my ability to mentally analyse the difficulty of game play is sufficiently high as to deduce such a change within a number of attempts equal to X (10?)
C - Having played X number of attempts, without recording the results, I deduce that the game is easier