Stones' colour distribution is NOT random - MASTER Board Conspiracy

You and Rigs are saying the same thing, you just parsed his sentence incorrectly.

2 Likes

Hmm, you’re right! Not enough coffee. Apologies to @Rigs.

2 Likes

Hmm, excuse me… I guess it’s my lack of understanding of the game and not the board not being random. Yep me and thousands other have a lack of understanding.

Why would you take it personal? Why should it bother you?

Ah, a glimmer of understanding. Did you watch the videos yet?

I’m staying the ■■■■ outta here but another more recent analysis project someone did.

Essentially looks at if the “tiles that you get” are skewed based on the team you take… I.r. the boards are rigged against the colours that you take with you.

2 Likes

Good for you. I have nothing but respect for anyone prepared to conduct and share a bit of data driven analysis.

If, for some unknowable reason, the devs wanted to reduce the number of wins a mono team was likely to string together, they could do it in 5 minutes by adjusting raid mechanics, without affecting any other part of the game and without interfering with board randomness at all. There is no reason for them ever to make boards non-random.

At various times in the past, the devs have changed the balance between raid attackers and defenders. Raid mechanics are proprietary and confidential, but the devs have never hidden the fact that they have done this.

There was also an instance (within the last 12 months, I think) where after an update a dev came to the forum (the Active Players Lounge, if I recall correctly) to note that there had been an unexpected consequence of the update. The win percentage for raid attacks had suddenly fallen well below its target level of 70%. How would players feel, the dev asked, if there was an emergency adjustment of raid mechanics to make things easier for the attacker, in order to return things to their pre-update status?

I don’t remember what players said. I do remember that within 6 or 8 hours the dev came back to say sorry, but there had actually been an error in their analytics. The raid attack winning % was right where it should be, so no change was required.

So we know that raid mechanics have been changed previously, that the devs are willing to change them further if needed, and that they have never made any promises about any aspect of them. If they wanted to make it harder to string together multiple wins with a mono team, they could just reduce the non-linear damage boost you achieve by increasing attack power. We already know the damage-attack power curve is S-shaped, with a dramatic initial damage boost and then decreasing returns later on. All they would need to do is flatten that S. So why would they ever mess around with boards?

You are clearly a better person than me. I only have two modes: light-hearted ridicule and incandescent rage. (I held a teaching position for a while. It didn’t go well.)

No one is implying that anyone is stupid for not checking for ‘proof’ that shows the boards are unquestionably random. I assume these players are stupid because they usually do not bother to seek evidence to support their outlandish suspicions - instead they seem to believe that our null hypothesis ought to be that the devs are actively lying to us, that they have engineered a needlessly elaborate means of generating non-random tiles, and that they owe us proof of randomness. (And again, I note that it is literally impossible to prove something is random, while it can be very easy to prove something is not random. And no one has ever produced one iota of evidence that the boards are not random.)

I have not been following your recent comments on this thread or the responses to them. You seem smart and willing to let the data drive your conclusions, which is excellent - I hope you stay around and share your analysis. But if previously in this thread you implied, as you have today, that the devs are lying to us, then you earned some very childish replies.

You seem to be a better person than me. Use your superior character to avoid impugning strangers for no reason.

3 Likes

This appears to be completely accurate.

7 Likes

Thanks for the acknowledgment of personal growth for you and the thousands you represent.

I shall proceed to ignore this thread again as we’re exactly where we were before the dialogue restarted today.

1 Like

Oh, didn’t get that you would think i earned the replies. The phrase “better person” makes sense to me only when one compares one’s past self to present self, not oneself to another person, so i can’t thank you for the supposed compliment.

Brobb, the devs can adjust the percentage of raid wins? As you stated above, thus, nothing is random. If you can’t see this, I don’t know what can make you see. Your words not mine. The devs came to a player lounge and asked what can be done. Seriously???
If the game can be adjusted, it’s not random.

The words you typed above make no sense,

Apparently you don’t know sarcasm.

What makes no sense? Using your words or the logic?

Well now your words above make sense. You were being sarcastic: you understand that there is nothing random about game mechanics but that boards are completely random. (Just as there is nothing random about a casino’s winning percentage, but roulette wheels are entirely random.)

Congratulations on your epiphany. I’m pleased this has been a learning experience for you.

Your words “there is nothing random about the game”. Thank you for clarifying. This is what many of us have been saying.

Actually, everything points to them wanting mono (or at least heavily stacked) attack teams to be a thing. Their damage algorithm encourages it, things like elemental links encourage it. it would be very easy for them to adjust the damage algorithm to penalize it if they didn’t want it - and for sure the release of elemental links wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t just fine with it.

4 Likes

Shouldn’t misrepresent statements by @Brobb . You can’t short a quote of one critical word

4 Likes

Not my words.

(How can you put quotation marks around something, then get the words wrong?)

4 Likes

Thanks again for your acknowledgment.

5 Likes