The fact that the green has only a half attack to the red has already been said here many times, if you can’t answer my video, then write that you don’t know and you’re done. Maybe someone will know, this is how it is delayed and in a while no one will know what I am asking and which videos I have in mind. And I hope I misunderstand that Kingston didn’t dodge because it wouldn’t help anyway, and I hope the game doesn’t determine how the abilities work depending on whether it helps or not.
Well, this thread IS about stone (or tile) colour distribution, not hero talents. Since you continually use the wrong heroes in your videos (yet claim you can reach top 100) I can’t decide of you’re trolling or punking.
2 Likes
The distribution of stones has been addressed here many times and the only answer was chance. So I thought that maybe something constructive points about this, but I see that I won’t get an answer to any of them here, so there is no point in writing here, because I prefer not to comment on constructive things here. So, for my part, I will calmly conclude with the fact that the whole explanation is a coincidence and what does not fit into your statistics is not worth asking.
The fact that green scores 1/2 times against red is important in this matter of why you can’t win these particular bouts.
One can say “I don’t know the answer to your particular question…but you’re asking the wrong question, because you need to first master the basics, and based on this video, you haven’t…”
No offense. I want you to succeed. But I want you to help yourself, not insist on continuing to do something that doesn’t work.
3 Likes
Good luck, I have tried this ( like a couple of other forum member) in the past but came to the result that either FrancescoDarkness don’t want to change something on his game play or he intentionally does that to stress the community when ever he is bored…
1 Like
I know. I have seen it. 
1 Like
I recall commenting months ago there may be a translation issue involved.
One battle in tournament.
One.
Already willing to quit.
And if I hadn’t been flooded by red even after the initial board I would have won.
But there was no way to hit Sabina with nothing but red, Skittleskull was charged by red dropping from offscreen and there was no way to get rid of red even after busting 3 red diamonds.
And you should of gone in with red heroes then and you would of been a winner.
Take heroes in that match the tiles your getting man, OMG
Pretty nice advice in a tournament without reds…
2 Likes
At least someone can see the funny side of it, LMFAO
I mean come on man, coming on here because 1 match
Doesn’t go his way, it had to of been a joke right.
what happened, is there a decrease in the stats of all heroes? Why is my Titan attack point now dropping drastically? Is the Titan too strong now? even though the Titan in our alliance is still as it has been, there is no increase.
same as usually, full red, no red tiles.
So as SG pretends it’s random, why don"t they simply display their code, when can look at it.
join me in the “NO MORE MONEY” groupe. tired of it.
It’s not one.
It’s one out of one - and allegedly the easiest matchup.
That being said you might be ok with losing because the Force (aka the board) is not with you.
I’m not - and never will be.
Also… I ended up in top 1% so it’s not about the outcome.
It’s more about “if you are gonna flood me with forbidden colour just take my flag and spare my time”.
If you have a job and a family it shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
It makes people quit, because it’s time not well spent.
So…you want to win 100% of all hits to consider your time well spent?
Where, exactly, would the challenge be in that?
1 Like
I don’t want to win 100%.
Nor I expect that.
But the challenge should be choosing a decent team and making the right moves.
If that is taken away by a factor you have no control over and you can counter in a really limited way… is that a challenge?
Am I actually playing?
BTW I always reject the “challenge argument” in games where you can pay to be stronger.
These 2 sentences aren’t mutually compatible though.
You state you don’t want or expect to win every game. Then you follow that by saying the challenge should be picking the right team and making the right moves.
This insinuates you expect to be able to pick the right team and make the right moves all the time. Which essentially means you think you should be able to win every game.
If there was no RNG at all then this would actually be possible and the very best would never lose and have raid streaks in the 1000’s but RNG will eventually give us a puzzle so great we can’t actually solve it and no paid for team is going to manage it.
I do believe good play can win from a poor starting and those of us in this thread who support the notion that it’s random have and do this.
But as stated above if you were 1% in the tournament then you won the majority of your games and your defence won the majority of its matches. So getting 1 bad board isn’t the end of the world and doesn’t help your statement that you don’t expect to win every game. Where is the screen shot of all of the starting boards from the wins? You just focused on the worst one and have used that to have a rant.
3 Likes
I’m sorry, how can I be focused on the worst one given it was the VERY FIRST?
I definitely had worse starting board (and won nonetheless), the key factor here was that I kept getting flooded with red.
That means despite my moves.
My statements are compatible given that you can make mistakes and don’t know what stones are coming next so you actually can’t assess the optimal strategy over a deeper than 1-step strategy BUT that is completely different from you are getting so much red that your moves don’t matter.
If your argument to counter that is that the best ones would always win… I don’t see anything wrong with that (nor does IOC or World Chess Federation).
You can think of other ways to make the game more “challenging” for everyone while still keeping it fun like, let’s say, golf handicap or, revolutionary, same heroes for everyone.
Keeping in mind that the challenge argument makes no real sense in a game where you can pay to be stronger, random intervention makes even less sense because honest unbiased random will hurt everyone the same way (on average).
To be honest… It hurts more weaker players so your argument falls kinda short.
[Why does it hurt more weaker players?
Try taking out 3 random clubs from Tiger Woods’ sack and someone else’s sack, then have them play on the same tournament.
Who do you think is more likely to be able to compensate?]
The random argument as a “balancing” factor makes sense only in a context where random is biased.
Because, honestly, balancing requires aimed intervention, not just taking off a colour for everyone and distributing RNG to everyone.
As for myself: sorry, I keep thinking that playing a lottery in which your number is not up is both pointless, not fun and a waste of time.
1 Like
(I liked your Tiger Woods analogy.)
1 Like