Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

Campaign configuration error causing loss of rewards

Thanks for the clarification on the tasks @awryan

This is certainly unusual :thinking: There must indeed be two different Silver Adventure board tasks. I wonder if there is a maximum time gate per campaign or if it is just a way to encourage players to get a head start in the first week and a don’t miss out in the final week

1 Like

Why has no-one written “So players spend gems to skip the task.” yet? :smile_cat:

@Saltypatra explicitly said, on-stream, that it’s purely RNG.

While I doubt she’d lie herself, there’s no reason someone else might lie to her.

More importantly, if humans are not checking the list of RNG tasks before releasing them, they’re failing the community.


What’s the point of RNG if it’s not allowed to be random? Curated-RNG™?
Like not allowing 6 enemy Infernal King respawns?
Or disallowing 3 enemy devours in a row at 25% chance?
Or forcing every 30th encounter to be a gnome on vault weekends if none have appeared for that long?

Wouldn’t hear any complaints from me if there was less RNG in general. Including the examples you give above.


I can guarantee a human at the very least glanced over the list of tasks. Nobody is that batshit insane when money is involved.

1 Like

Gems of War mostly chooses to be fully random.

However, it’s completely legitimate to have a game that isn’t fully random. There’s a randomness spectrum, from fully scripted (eg: the story quests) to partially predetermined (Explore teams have restrictions and an algorithm).

Human curation makes a lot of sense with certain things, like Campaign Tasks, precisely because weird situations can occur. Currently, the last week of Campaign 3 was precisely the worst possible scenario, but if there were another multi-day task, it might actually be impossible to complete the Campaign. You can certainly program rules for this, but nothing beats a quick glance by a knowledgable human.

From a developer’s point of view, RNG is a choice, not a necessity.


You mean from your opinion of what a developer’s point of view should be?
RNG is the tool, curating is a choice, not a necessity.


They’re both choices.

You choose from the range of options based on what you think is best for the game (as a dev) within whatever constraints you have.

But your choice has implications that you may not initially (or ever) be aware of.

If you philosophically insist on pure RNG, then you’re putting an arbitrary restriction on what your game can be. Sometimes, that turns out to be a bad choice.


I do not philosophically insist on pure RNG. I just do not philosophically agree with the assertion that it cannot be pure RNG. If your idea of a game is one that never bites back and never spawns bandits 5 times in a row, that’s perfectly fine. I don’t mind because cest la vie. I don’t go calling the publisher/developer/qa/whoever a failure.

This is a very strong statement, presumptuously representing the entire community. I personally have no problem whatsoever with RNG tasks coming up with a total of 4 days to finish the last week. It’s in the framework, such are the mechanics, and that’s where the cards fell (benefit of the doubt). The phrasing “failing the community” for not making a “choice” (now we agree it is a choice, not a duty) is a bit strong. There are 100’s of choices one can make on every aspect of the game or development or splitting time between dev/QA etc., but “they’re failing the community” because of one thing they didn’t do for you is not kind at all.

I think that’s a bit silly. You can’t have ‘pure RNG’ unless your game mode is literally rock, paper, scissors. RNG is always skewed in favour of something or somebody. Decisions were, are and will continually be made at every step of development and beyond to set and re(de)fine RNG restrictions and skew. The task system already has dozens of human imposed restrictions. It’s already curated, monitored, decided on, supervised and adjusted. Nothing offensive in saying: ‘The RNG parameters you set lead to results that are unfun, please revise restrictions’.

‘We do as the RNG commands’ borders on a troll response from the devs when redefining RNG restrictions is a large part of what they do every day.


@Saltypatra There hasn’t been any update the past weeks, could you please let us know how your investigation is progressing?

1 Like

The answer hasn’t changed, and the tasks are chosen by RNG. That is hasn’t taken as many days in the past is due to RNG, no variables have been changed and no ninja fixes made.

I’ve passed on the feedback regarding the time taken with the adventure tasks and how it blocked progression for a few days during the Campaign. I haven’t been told anything to report back at this time, or I would have let you know.

1 Like

I’d like to point out for the third time that this isn’t the answer to the question that was asked. We are aware that tasks are chosen by RNG. We want to know why the task chosen by RNG, completing the Adventure Board, required three clears instead of two, with no variables supposedly having been changed. As much as has been communicated to far, task quantity components (e.g. opening *2* event chests as bronze task) are not subject to RNG.

Wasn’t it already pointed out that the first campaign also had 3 day adventure board? Even if it didnt, there could’ve always been a 3 day adventure board task and RNG just never picked it before.

@snooj is correct. Just because something hasn’t been picked by RNG before doesn’t mean it can’t be, or that it won’t be in future. Why was it picked? RNG picked it from a randomised list of possible tasks. The RNG picks each tasks independantly of any other, which means that phenomena such as this can occur. I’m not sure what you want me to say, and I am sorry that I can’t help you further. :frowning:

1 Like

I guess the next question is, why is there a 2-day AND a 3-day adventure board task in the list the RNG picks from? Shouldn’t they all be 2-day?


Salty, if you are saying there are two silver Adventure Board tasks, one taking two days and one taking three days, that doesn’t make sense either. In that case your claim that all tasks get picked independently just can’t be true, because then we could end up with a week that contains a silver two day Adventure Board task as well as a silver three day Adventure Board task, which I’m quite convinced won’t happen.

I’m not sure what part of what I’m asking isn’t clear. :woozy_face:
Trying to home into the issue from a different angle:

1.) How many silver Adventure Board tasks are there?
2.) How many clears does each of these silver Adventure Board tasks require?

Oh no. Watch this happens soon. IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT @Fourdottwoone !

What Salty said doesn’t mean tasks aren’t independently picked. It just means the feared double adventure board tasks in a single week hasn’t happened yet.

Curious, does the community have a list of all known campaign tasks so far? I tried to find one to calculate the likelihood of that horror situation, but couldnt find such a list.

1 Like

There’s a task list that got extracted from data files around the start of the first campaign, it didn’t show any indication of duplicate tasks within the same rarity.

I’m very sure tasks don’t get picked independently, you won’t even see similar tasks of different rarity in the same week, e.g. a bronze and silver Treasure Hunt task. Salty is wrong about this.