How come every time you double or triple color on heros that color gems disappear or are never in line with there enemy. It is noticed by all in my alliance and people are becoming very annoyed at how blantent it is becoming . Why is it doing this ???
Yes, like the match where I tripled purple
Ps. Color are random, of course there will be even bad boards. The fewer colors you bring and fewer will be your damaging tiles.
When you stack colors, you have a tendency to match those tiles first and avoid your missing colors. That’s human nature. That leads to a board full of tiles in your missing colors.
I try to combat that by consciously trying to play the board exactly as I would with a rainbow team, and BY making diamonds in the missing colors so I can clear them out quickly.
That was my opening screen. And the whole time the battle lasted I was able to do exactly 2 blue matches
Use the yellow matches to charge Wu first. By then you should have some blue matches to do massive tile damage.
Oh I did, and wu’s were the only damage I did too. When boards are refular, not good, but regular, my average hit on a 8* titan is 30-40 k
Bummer. I’ve had crappy boards like that too. I just haven’t seen any more of them when I stack colors compared to when I use a rainbow team
Lol, I am compiling a stack of photos like this one
Stacks of screenshots won’t prove anything - we can all compile stacks of screenshots of bad boards.
If you really want to collect useful data, collect your next 100 opening boards from colour heavy teams, tally the colours (strong, neutral and missing) and post the results. 100 isn’t a lot of boards, but it’s a start.
You won’t be the first to do this, by the way - so far, no one has found any significant bias away from their heavy colour that I’ve seen. Randomness being what it is, I expect it will turn up eventually. You might be the first.
Brobb, please, take off your aluminium foil hat. Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about conspiracies other than bad boards. I know you are somewhat brainwashed about randomness on other threads, and probably just annoyed not getting some nobel prize for asserting algorythms are random in nature
You’re right: I’m brainwashed about randomness and horrified that I have not yet received the Nobel Prize for “algorythms”. That doesn’t change the fact, though, that there’s not much value in posting screenshots of bad boards unless you just want to entertain us with pretty pictures.
But if that is what you’re trying to do, then go ahead. I love pretty pictures.
Easy to prove. When I had one red hero, I always had equal start stage…when I put 2 red heroes, all start screens show at least 2-3 less red stones compare to the equal distribution of other colors… system cheating.
If it is easy to prove, then by all means go ahead and prove it. Don’t just claim that “all start screens show at least 2-3 red stones less” - we know human perceptions like that are horrifically unreliable. Collect a nice sample of opening screens, log the colours for a control group and a colour heavy group, and report the results.
If you really find a significant variation from expectations, then other people will repeat your test (I certainly would). If enough replicated your findings, then we’d probably build a meta-study, or maybe coordinate the collection of many thousands of boards. We would have learned something really interesting about the game.
Without this sort of effort, though, your claims just seem silly. This is especially so when the devs have stated unambiguously that boards are random.
Brobb, its a pretty simple diagnose. You are either a/small giant games customer service employee or b/an internet troll. If a/ we all can count to 10 and have couple hundred attempts to test the hypothetis, which was done prior the claim …if b/going on net and joining forum chat with strangers over their topics wont make your life any better… either way, you aint worth further att.
If it’s easy to do, or possible at all, then do us all a favor and DO IT.
Otherwise, perhaps have a good read over here:
"People may remember evidence selectively to reinforce their expectations, even if they gather and interpret evidence in a neutral manner. This effect is called “selective recall”, “confirmatory memory”, or “access-biased memory”. Psychological theories differ in their predictions about selective recall. Schema theory predicts that information matching prior expectations will be more easily stored and recalled than information that does not match. Some alternative approaches say that surprising information stands out and so is memorable. Predictions from both these theories have been confirmed in different experimental contexts, with no theory winning outright.
In one study, participants read a profile of a woman which described a mix of introverted and extroverted behaviors. They later had to recall examples of her introversion and extroversion. One group was told this was to assess the woman for a job as a librarian, while a second group were told it was for a job in real estate sales. There was a significant difference between what these two groups recalled, with the “librarian” group recalling more examples of introversion and the “sales” groups recalling more extroverted behavior. A selective memory effect has also been shown in experiments that manipulate the desirability of personality types. In one of these, a group of participants were shown evidence that extroverted people are more successful than introverts. Another group were told the opposite. In a subsequent, apparently unrelated study, participants were asked to recall events from their lives in which they had been either introverted or extroverted. Each group of participants provided more memories connecting themselves with the more desirable personality type, and recalled those memories more quickly."
And… just because I think it’s crazy interesting, even if not at all relevant
Even a small change in a question’s wording can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. This was shown using a fictional child custody case. Participants read that Parent A was moderately suitable to be the guardian in multiple ways. Parent B had a mix of salient positive and negative qualities: a close relationship with the child but a job that would take him or her away for long periods of time. When asked, “Which parent should have custody of the child?” the majority of participants chose Parent B, looking mainly for positive attributes. However, when asked, “Which parent should be denied custody of the child?” they looked for negative attributes and the majority answered that Parent B should be denied custody, implying that Parent A should have custody.
So you have tested the hypothesis? That’s awesome - it’s just what I was suggesting! Please go ahead and post your results so that we can all review them. I’m really pleased we don’t have to keep hearing wild claims unsupported by any sort of evidence and I’m looking forward to seeing your data. Great work!
Thank you. [Blushes.] You are too kind.
I generally don’t agree with @Brobb, but this time I feel compelled to do it.
One thing I found helpful when stacking or even full housing (something I generally do against green or yellow Titans because of the heroes I have) is to look for gems to be made on the colors I don’t want. Removing all of them from the board generally has the effect of cascading the Colors I need.
I just did it for the science lol. My team of underleveld heroes is 3070 and his team was 3400. easy win. I think everything is proven now
A red letter day! Brobb actually admitted to liking something! Everyone add pretty pictures. Here is one that should warm your heart
Edited by Rook: Sorry, nudity not permitted per Forum Rules