The community doesn’t have access to the code, we can only gather data and analyze what the code does.
It doesn’t make a difference on technical level. Just like you can manipulate the odds you can pretend that there was something else behind the door. This is really a matter of trust, and IP2 isn’t exactly faring well in that regard lately.
I’m one of those poor saps that chose 123456 for the first 30 days.
I am also a frequent forums reader and still waited the 30 days during mounting evidence from this awesome community showing that other patterns were more likely to produce a perfect run.
So, with the proof of a bias, I changed my sequence and with the creation of the door picking tool was getting closer to that perfect run. Now I’m back to square one.
Weavergate stopped my monetary investment and this latest ‘coding’ discovery only reinforces that decision. Whew, just in time as I have a free gift card that I was contemplating using for an in-game purchase.
Well at least it is now 10% for everyone
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
if the devs are honest with us this time… 
Exactly. That’s the problem here.
Correcting the rigged randomizer is not the problem. Some are complaining only because they were exploiting it…
Note (a) they were able to change the door algorithm without a client update, so clearly the door generation is server-side not client-side; and (b) there isn’t any visible client/server communication on opening a door, only at entering the dungeon and at entry/exit of dungeon battles – unless they’re doing so at door opening silently and with minimal lag which … hasn’t ever been something they’ve achieved before.
So yes, I would guess the layout of all 6 doors is generated up-front server-side, either at daily reset or on-demand on first entry to the dungeon.
Do we trust that that generation is fair now, given that it very deliberately wasn’t before? Trust’s a tough thing to come by, these days.
FWIW, I am 100% on Fourdottwoone on this: the “item X cannot be behind door Y” pattern that was discovered was not an subtle RNG seed exploit and was not accidental: this was a deliberate design and implementation choice.
I am willing to extend a little benefit-of-the-doubt that the resulting penalizing of players choosing the “well it’s random so I may as well always play 123456” strategy was an unintended/unconsidered consequence rather than deliberate cruelty.
I don’t even think it would be reasonable for them to say that “this is an unfair advantage that players who frequent forums get over those who don’t” - we live in an information age and the information was available publicly. It’s no different to people joining other forums, groups and communities to learn more about the game including tips and strategies.
Even the forum is cheating. Just got a message that I only have a few likes left to give today.
What kind of BS is that?
I can’t today.
I should be angry. I was angry. The resignation set it. Now… I don’t know anymore.
Take your dragons and shove them.
Won’t be too long until you come up with the next ridiculous thing to chase after. Guess I’ll get the missing dragons then.
The client communicates with the server for every door you open. You can verify this by detaching your network and clicking on a door, the door won’t open until you reconnect. This is really a sensible approach, otherwise you could peek into the client/server communication when entering the dungeon and know what’s behind each door.
Ah, nevermind then; so it could be rolling for each door as you open it.
If it wasn’t on purpose, why then even implement a code (pay somebody to create it + spending time on it) at all?
Go with 100% RNG and thats it. But implementing a code that create a disadvantage for players who don’t use the forum is imo 100% intentional.
This wasn’t intentionally rigged. Why would someone knowingly implement RNG that can be predicted with some success in a matter of weeks? Patterns are based on the ‘seed’ value being identifiable. Thats why quantum computers are better at RNG than non quantum. But as I said, the seed can be made highly random nonetheless by using a parameter that ralidly fluctuates such as CPU usage, core temperature and so on. If the ‘seed’ is a number between 1 and 6 then predictability is far more straightforward.
Actually, there is legislation that would cover gambling, which some would consider the systems in this video game (me included). The very nature of loot boxes are gambling, which is why countries are changing their laws and even Nintendo is making a change to Mario Kart Tour lootboxes because of it.
Remember folks, The House Always Wins
Not in this case. Poor implementation meant that the house was losing. They made it easy for ‘card counters’ to profit.
Yes, that is why they changed it pretty quick, coming off a vacation 
You don’t need a quantum computer for random numbers, standard computers have been using them for several decades now. Just about any programming language comes pre-equipped with a pseudo-random number generator implementation that’s good enough for anything related to randomness. Even knowing a seed wouldn’t change anything in any way, because the server is using that pseudo-random number generator for many purposes each second, so any pattern that could possibly show up would get mudled in a non-reproducible way. That seed theory of yours wouldn’t even fly in a low budget spy movie.
Look, the current situation is that of a house owner claiming they have no idea how the secret drug lab in the basement only they have access to happened to show up. There is absolutely zero doubt it was intentional if you know a little bit about software development.
That’s something we’d love to hear from IP2. Note that it did take the combined effort of several hundred players for over a month to figure out the details, not many communities are that dedicated.
As mentioned previously, this isn’t an RNG or seed issue.
They restricted certain room types from being behind certain doors. At the start of the dungeon, battle 1 (lowest level boss) could never be behind door 1 (upper left). Battle 2 (medium level boss) could never be behind door 2 (upper middle), and so on for each of the 6 doors. There was another restriction that’s a bit more complex to explain, but it further changed the odds as you opened more doors. This made it possible to better predict the odds of encountering a good room (battles / altar, stairs, jewels) or bad room (trap), and increase the chances of a perfect run.
Stop with this next year stuff. Give us a path right now to craft color specific dragons. I don’t care if it is 2500 Dragonite…just do it asap.
Exactly. Card counters don’t publicise the methods they use to exploit flaws in the system. The community did the exact opposite and seem surprised and shocked at the response. If IP2 can’t be bothered to programme diligently then why should the community highlight this failure at a time when resource anhillation is the goal? I have always considered exploitation to be unsavoury but lately, the relentless cash grab approach is weakening that philosophy.
No matter what…they got it wrong and were exploited as a result. I am not going to enter a debate about computer RNG generation because unless you know the method then you cannot state with conviction that it was one thing or another. The bottom line is that an algorithm is required for the range but RNG generation is by programming. Please explain why you are so enraged when it was so easy to crack the code?
That’s not correct. They exploited the players, the players eventually figured out what was going and turned the table, and only at that point they decided to do something. If you scroll to the top, they tried to sell it as “listening to feedback”, while doing absolutely zero in regards to the real Dungeon feedback the community has provided the past month.