Unfair gems when you double or triple on heros

A red letter day! Brobb actually admitted to liking something! Everyone add pretty pictures. Here is one that should warm your heart :slight_smile:

Edited by Rook: Sorry, nudity not permitted per Forum Rules


That has been done—kahree’s data clearly shows that there is a bias. I pointed that out to @Brobb on that thread and @Brobb blasted me, unreasonably and illogically, saying I was wrong and spouting smart-sounding but ultimately incorrect statements about statistical significance, when she made no attempt to actually prove what she was saying using CIs and p-values, basic tests of significance. I, as many others before me, got so frustrated with the clear lack of her ability to see reality that I just stopped talking.

If the BS about starting board randomness was true, then how come there is never, and I mean NEVER, a board where 3 or more tiles are lined up. Explain that, @Brobb. And a special challenge: see if you can do it while displaying at least a modicum of respect for someone who doesn’t share your point of view. Bet you can’t. You’ll resort to bullying, as you always do.

The developers answered that question several months ago. They have coded the starting boards to be random, but if a board shows up in the random arrangement with 3 tiles in a row, it is rerolled. It’s supposed to be rerolled before the player ever sees it, but there have been rare glitches where that didn’t happen.


Yesterday I had a starting board with only one blue tile. Well, I matched 8 vertical tiles (green and red), they exploded their dragon and then the board conjured many blues and directly served me a crystal.
Random is quite a random thing.

(attacking team: Merlin - Tiburtus - Boldtusk - Sonya - Wu Kong)

1 Like

Some things are so blindingly obvious that we don’t need to waste our time on tests - like that @Kahree’s data very clearly showed no difference between colour drop rates for strong and weak colours. But hey - anyone utterly unfamiliar with how numbers work might doubt that. …Edited

Here’s the thread in which @Kahree provided that nice little chunk of data:

(The mechanics of coding starting boards (mostly) without matches were discussed reasonably thoroughly in that thread. There are multiple obvious ways to do it, but I think the consensus was that @Revelate’s suggestion from January 31 of this year was the best - you’d complete the usual random assignment of tiles, but where matches occurred you’d process those matches (and any follow-ons) until they were all cleared, before presenting the starting board…Edited…)

(Edit: @NPNKY points out above that the devs have confirmed we got the basics of this right, though we might have got the details wrong - thanks for filling in that gap.)

So here are the data:

"Average number of tiles for 31 boards where I attacked with 5-colors:
7.6 Red
6.7 Green
7.2 Blue
7.0 Purple
6.5 Yellow

Average number of tiles for 19 boards where I attacked with 3 Purple and 2 Blue:
7.5 Red
6.8 Green
6.7 Blue
6.8 Purple
7.2 Yellow"

(It is kinda amazing to me that anyone can’t tell by looking that there’s no indication of different drop rates there. But what the heck: let’s do this.)

There are two obvious ways we could run this - test for a difference in drop probability between the samples, or test for a drop probability in the overweight sample that differs from expectations. The first way won’t show any difference, of course, so let’s waste our time on the second way, which is much more likely to show a difference. (Why did I just have a vision of some genius not understanding why the first way is an even bigger waste of time than the second, and insisting we go through the fiasco of running the numbers? Perhaps I’m psychic.)

So our null hypothesis is that the probability of a particular colour gem dropping is 0.2. Of our two heavy colours, Blue departs furthest from that expectation, so let’s use blue. (We can only conduct one test, because we do not have independent samples. I feel silly even having to say that.)

What’s our confidence interval for the probability of a blue gem dropping? 16.6%-22.6%, at the 95% confidence level (Wilson Method), so we have no evidence that true probability does not equal 0.2.

How about if we relax our confidence level? At 90% confidence, our interval is 17.0%-22.0%, so again, no evidence the true probability does not equal 0.2.

I could keep dropping the confidence level to make a point, but now I’m losing the will to live. When your smallish sample produces a point estimate of 19.4%, it is very obvious that you’re not going to be able to show a statistically significant difference from an expectation of 20%.

(FYI - I treated each gem drop as a separate trial here, for a sample size of 665. It would be reasonable to argue that there are not 665 independent trials, but then we’d have to reduce our sample to 19, we’d get an even wider CI, and we’d have even less chance of seeing any difference from the expected drop rate. Sorry to be Captain Obvious, for those who are rolling their eyes at me pointing this out.)


Gentle reminder to play nice with each other (this goes for all parties), and that flags are for actual rule breaking of Forum Rules. Thank you.

Is this another preemptive warning about flags as a matter of general principle, or is something else going on? Should we be worried about hindsight-hiding of posts again or are we all okay?

I’m getting flags on various players. Nuff said.

It’s simpler to say:

Yes, the number of plue and burple did drop between sample A and sample B, but quite honestly the sample is far too small, and the difference - especially given the random nature of what we’re observing- just is not big enough.

Because folks, we should expect a different result from set B than set A, and the chance exists that it would align with the hypothesis. But we can’t exclude that it’s simply chance without many more boards added. So… if you guys really believe in this. Get your boards screen shotted, and do some counting.

(And, it has to be ALL boards, not just the ones you “notice”)


It is simpler and more intuitively appealing to say exactly what you said. Unfortunately,

So while I prefer your approach, sometimes you just gotta do what the crowd demands.

Seriously? Again? Is this a thing now? Should I get my flags out too?


Here we go :joy:


Everyone knows @Brobb is a contrarian and forum warrior… except for him. I normally don’t indulge in this stuff, but he does it to everyone.

Regarding the actual conversation: It is becoming very blatant, but I also understand why they can’t just fill your board with purple gems when you stack 3 purple heroes. I think they’re randomizing it as much as they can while also trying to balance it. Tough job, I’m sure.

I’m an equal opportunity contrarian and forum warrior. :smiley:

I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying, here. I think we know with a pretty high degree of certainty that, aside from the fiddle with opening boards to avoid opening matches, boards are totally random. I think that’s the only “balance” involved.

I disagree with everything you said :smile:

Is it blatant?
I don’t think so. And I think we are lacking evidence of this :slight_smile:

Tough job - I don’t think so. I think the hard part would be to exclude the boards that start with matches. They already did that. Otherwise they just need to choose a formula to randomly generate tiles. To me, it seems they’ve done this. I don’t imagine this was a challenging part of the design of this game…?

RIGHT!! Haha. I totally forgot what led to you making that insanely in-depth explanation. Makes a lot more sense now. Carry on :smile:

Yes and by the time you have done that your heros are dead . Would it just be fairer to start off with a even board .

If you don’t believe confidence intervals work the way I’ve described, then I’d be absolutely fascinated to hear how you do think they work. It’s always interesting when someone asserts firstly that they know little about a subject, then secondly that one is wrong about a particular aspect of it, for reasons they cannot explain,

You’re joking, right? You’re feeling bullied again? What is it that is making you feel bullied? Is it when I point out that you are wrong? The two solutions to that are either to stop being wrong or to stop letting it bother you. (I utilise the latter.)

Then that’s the last I’ll hear from you. Take your shoddy understanding of statistics - and my best wishes - and go in peace.

*exasperated noise

Accusing others of a bad behavior and then immediately engaging in it yourself is called hypocrisy.

Don’t say someone is bullying you and then immediately bully them. (No @brobb, I’m not talking to you in this instance.)

For heavens sake, Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. When all else fails, follow the Rules.

1 Like

I hope you get an extra big bag of catnip for the job you do here rook…:grin::grin::grin::grin:

1 Like