Let's prove the AI is fair and reasonable

Then let us learn a lesson from this post:

It’s best to state the problem and a reasonable solution. Don’t post a hyperbolic solution. Don’t get caught up in defending the hyperbolic solution. No jokes. Just Vulcan-sourced facts.

What’s my true suggestion? It’s actually hard to implement. It’s about feel. Dark Souls is hard but it feels fair. When I play, I have a sense that if I master the systems it’s not going to throw anything at me I can’t handle. Deadly Towers is famous for being hard and feeling unfair. Too many enemies on the screen, confusing objectives, and bad controls combine to make situations where even experts can be blindsided.

I don’t care what it does to win rate. I don’t like the outlier games where an opponent gets upwards of 20 turns to my 3 or 4. GoW would feel better if it didn’t have that. A modest free turn cap like “5 turns” would eliminate the 1 or 2 games per 2 week period where I decide to retreat on Goblins’ 12th free turn. That is a lot of grouchy feelings I won’t feel. That’s a lot of threads like this I won’t make. We’ve all had it happen. Despite the arguments in this thread, none of us are happy with those games.

Is it a small problem? Hell yes. But it’s like a loose board or a slightly-poked-out nail on a deck. It’s not a big deal. The fix is low-priority and you’ve got better things to do. But every time you stub your toe on it you think, “Why the Hell don’t I fix that?” The pain it causes is a constant frustration. We all let that kind of thing go on too long.

I thought it’d go over better to make a “ha ha give us mythic ingots when this happens” joke. I didn’t foresee how many people wouldn’t receive that well. I guess what happened is people picked up on the obvious “this would introduce dozens of mythic ingots to my week” and then attacked that with zero consideration for proposing alternative, more rational solutions.

Because I do not believe for one minute there is a soul out there who gets excited or enjoys this GoW phenomenon.

2 Likes

This suggestion is reasonable. However, judging from the past, even something that reasonable would anger many players if it was the new norm for the entire game. Perhaps, the devs will consider a restricted turn game mode at some point though.

2 Likes

Reasonable suggestion. Reasonable outcome.

A restriction in extra turns for both sides, the player and the A.I would be fair. If the devs would’ve considered and implemented this design in the past we would already be used to it and the whole design process, up to this point, would already been adjusted to such terms.

These days, people are way too happy exploding the whole board and getting extra turns, changing it would cause much more backlash than we get from threads complaining about the A.I also going on an explosion/extra turns rampage.

Personally i found some peace, or accepted resignation, in the fact that this is part of the game. I can play it, leave it, or take charge for my own experience now that i got “everything”.

3 Likes

That’s not a very “me” thing to have said, but I’m not exactly known for consistency in very many places. To address this tag without reading the rest of the post first, I’ll correct it to “The only way to challenege yourself is to use less powerful troops, and where’s the fun in not being allowed to use troops that you genuinely enjoy the mechanics of?”

I once got into a rather heated argument with a rather high-profile content creator because he couldn’t see the logic behind me not wanting to use the most effective team I had available. One of my reasons was that I do genuinely enjoy the mechanics and gameplay behind that team. And let me tell you, being unable to have fun without completely nerfing yourself into the ground is exactly why I left this game.

End game is too boring and monotonous when, to pull from someone else you quoted,

Now onto the actual thread

God. Please. No. That is absolutely horrible on every level. People will complain about not getting it after miscounting seven/nine cascades from the opponent. High end player winrates will get so much closer to 100%. The literal only way for me to lose a match right now is for the AI to get one of those eight or higher cascades, and my teams literally have not been updated since the release of Blackhawk. And you’re telling me that if they hit ten, they basically auto-lose?

Plus, it validates all the whining and would drastically inflate the report rate of people getting these things happening to them, and people would realize it far more often, while even further ignoring the times that the algorithm instead gave them those chain cascades. Might I remind you that, unless it has changed, the algorithm STILL BIASES THE PLAYER IN TERMS OF FAVORABLE GEM MATCHES!

And I don’t regularly completely close out the opponent, taking upwards of twenty turns in a row. Hell no, that’s not every single game or anything. And there aren’t the odd games that happen where the enemy doesn’t get a turn.

Ring Ring

Oh, it’s Lady Sapphira, reminding me that yes, every time there is a mana surge of red, yellow, or blue (Or Green/Purple/Yellow/Blue if I’m feeling fancy) on the starting board, exactly that happens. And it’s not like I’m using a high-investment team.

Except that it happens, and it happens more often in the player’s favor than anything. Tell me, how many times today have you had the same things happen to the AI where you get those cascades or extra turn loops? Were you counting that? Where’s the data to counterbalance this? Your observation is heavily biased, and if this change ever gets added to the game, I’m deleting my forum account.

I’m not even going to address the rest of this thread. The OP was just too much.

Edit: I should also add that things like this would be 100% farmable, because you can set the board up for the enemy to do that more reliably. And trust me, people would farm it, intentionally ruining games for themselves in hopes of getting that guaranteed ingot. I mean, just look at what these fools do with their defense teams, might as well just leave one peasant there if you only want revenge fights on the ladder.

1 Like

I probably remembered it wrong, i stand corrected then. :slightly_smiling_face:

Edited for language. You are free to disagree with the game direction, but please keep it clean.

I’ve recently checked the tribute randomness. Tribute statistics - #40 by akots

Seems like everything is pretty much random there. It also seems that tribute code might run on the server side, not 100% sure though.

I’m not going to argue with how you “feel”. There are “feelings” and there is math, science and proof. I’m afraid that if people “feel”, there is no way to convince them that this “feeling” is not very accurate. And yes, Earth is flat after all. :wink:

2 Likes

Flat%20Earth
I received enough proof of that during a hillbilly barbecue months ago, i had to remove my belt at some point. Since then, NASA didn’t even sent me a package of crackers as a scientific rebuttal… :neutral_face:

1 Like

Yes, it does.

Now as much as i enjoy the occasional condescending ‘science doesn’t care about your feelings’ post, it hardly applies here. I have to wonder if you actually read my post that you quoted.
I did not doubt your math nor how you came to your conclusion from the sample set you used.
I explicitely stated the disconnect lies in your sample set itself, as it did not match at all with how the troop behaved for me. No feelings involved whatsoever, that is all.

@akots hiya! Did you ever go back and re-crunch the numbers after I updated that thread with my data set of 2000 collections? Just curious

Cheers
Calvin

Nope, because you have not updated the table. But if you post the whole dataset in a similar format, anyone can run the simulation and compare to the actual data. It looks like the method is working rather nicely and has enough power with the numbers you posted initially. From statistical point of view, there is no need for further testing. :slight_smile:

You can post or upload your data and we can take a look at the numbers to see what is going on. Otherwise, well, it is feelings and nothing else. :slight_smile:

I posted all 2000 in a google spread sheet I linked to in a post after your last post but fair enough. I was just curious if my only getting 17 tributes or less after 2000 tributes was still “normal / expected” mainly

The sheet is here if anyone was / is curious 2000 Tributes in 144 Days with Near Max Kingdoms - Google Sheets

Cheers
Calvin

I don’t think you know what feelings mean but ok. I can not upload any data as i don’t have it anymore, as what i collected was never meant for public educatuion but just to make up my own mind about the issue after the “omg TDS rezzes 7 times in a row all the time!!!” reports (i doubt my dirty handwritten tally list would have met your scientific standards anyways) .
However i can tell you the two things from memory in which it differed from your set which would be in a bit above 200 Independent TDS deaths the average ressurects where at just above 26% and i just had 2 triple rezzes happen.

Sometimes it feels like it balances out to 50% because it works 25% of the time for the player, and 75% of the time for the AI…

This thread is like TDS pre-nerf.

Resurrecting despite all the odds? Seems the ai might be running this thread :smile: