I do get why you edited my post, I never disagree with that. But you should more so edited his post that tells everyone who disagrees with him has no brain.
Saying that someone does not have a brain isn’t considered a slur, but I am happy to change it since you feel strongly about it. 
Where I come from (Norway), telling someone that they don’t have a brain is extremely bad language. I can only judge from the country I come from tho. I thought it was pretty much the same in every country tho.
It’s been fixed.
It is possible, but what me and others have seen overtime is a more objective fact that cascades and lucky drops also happens for the players, we don’t ignore these just because they are in our favor and given certain scenarios like active storms and large removal of gems from explosions we understand this can bring risk to a battle. I’m playing with the Sunspear Class, which cause a permanent Firestorm, everytime i face The Dragonsoul he is able to performs more or less three casts of his spell thanks to my storm and his explosions. If i survive then at my turn my Infernus can also take three or more turns and wipe out all the enemies, if i face any emey who can’t use Red Gems or Explode consistently the A.I is at a greater disadvantage because i’m surely performing more or less the same three extra turns in a row with Infernus.
I also notice when an enemy takes a skull match instead of gathering mana that would be clearly a better tactical choice, which means the A.I cheats itself in favor of the player with these random acts. If your propposition would be true the A.I would never make such mistakes against me a player level 1200+.
So, with all due respect, these theories about the A.I are silly when you starts paying close attention to what happens during the battles instead of focusing only in the victory. There are numerous factors that may contribute to such misleading ideas about the fairness/unfairness in this game, but for some people it’ll be basically a matter of blind faith fueled by their egos. It makes these people incapable to process some defeats at a silly F2P game and they start weaving conspiratory theories… And if i can be honest, as much as i enjoy fiction, this topic presented nothing new and was already tiresome from the start, but i did my best to remain civil and present another perspective to be considered. Take it as you please.
2 Likes
I assume that when most people complain about things going against them, they’re referring to ranked PvP. We have been told that “difficulty” scales beyond the player’s control in such a situation, but nobody’s explained what that means. Those of us who’ve bothered to track things like Kraken’s devour, Fizzbang’s explode, or Nobend’s explode, for example, have seen that the expected results occur in two-star PvP while three-star PvP shows a marked slew in favor of the enemy.
This is why, absent any explanation, many of us assume that things are skewed against the player. I’m not even saying it’s a bad thing and in fact I could make a case for its necessity.
o.O
Um…we were kiiiiiinda told the exact opposite? That there isn’t secret, invisible difficulty scaling? Not sure where you’re getting this from.
1 Like
https://community.gemsofwar.com/t/concerned-for-the-future-of-the-game/26591/95
Specifically, the following from Salty:
There are many other examples. It’s been acknowledged that the “luck” scales as you increase in PvP rank, and this was assumed to be modifying the combo breaker or gem drops. The developers have acknowledged many, many times that they tweak these things. Here’s an example where it’s acknowledged that the AI can be three times as lucky as the player.
I personally do not notice anything major with cascades that can’t be attributed to recall bias. What I have noticed is that things that are supposedly based on a percentage are not exactly accurate. When the Kraken was dominant in the meta, I remembered thinking that the devour sure seemed to activate more than 35% of the time. So I started tracking, and after two weeks I was at 65 observed devours out of 84 casts for the AI. The chances of this occurring given a 35% expected rate was something like 1 in 1 quintillion, which curiously also meant that devour activating 0 or 1 times out of 84 (given a 35% expected rate) was more likely than 65 out of 84.
Others that I did not track as accurately included Fizzbang’s explode, Nobend’s explode, Infernal King’s respawn, Dragon Soul’s respawn, and Gorgotha’s Ancient Horror. All were off by a significant factor. (Dragon Soul’s was acknowledged and changed.)
I simply do not believe that Tier 1 ranked PvP (to be fair, this is exclusively what I am referring to) adheres to the published chances because I have not observed anything close to them for what I have tracked. Basically, if we were told to collect data on these things and determine probabilities (assuming they were unknown), we wouldn’t come up with what’s listed on the card.
Is it possible I’m just really unlucky? Sure. Like a 1 in a quintillion chance.
2 Likes
I think you’re viewing that from the wrong direction. What was said there is that the AI is shackled and not allowed to be as lucky as the player is, and those shackles “scale” in the sense that they fade away in some circumstances, leaving a situation where the computer is no longer modified to be worse.
This is distinctly different from the computer being modified to be better - which does not happen anywhere.
Likewise - the quote didn’t say that the AI is three times luckier than the player. It said that if the AI gets three times luckier than the player, then it’s deliberately blocked from getting luckier.
All of this is the “sometimes cheating in the player’s favor” that I mentioned.
4 Likes
No, it’s not just you, I’ve started the post because time and time again happens. Like the last time when I said f it! I must post this, where the boss used his skill that costs 32 twice in 4 turns…That is ridiculous! He got an insane amount of cascades in 4 turns but what enrages me is that the devs keep saying its not, almost want to make you look stupid for saying crazy stuff. I don’t mind losing, I play other gems based games but this is horrible and frustrating. Btw if a unit has a 25% chance to activate something you can bet your a#$ 50% of the times it will!
I’m aware of that and I assumed it meant what you say it does (that the player can be as lucky as possible, while the AI is capped). However, the greater point remains that these things ARE tracked, weighted, and tinkered with, which introduces the possibility for error. I am not sure if it was that thread or another, but there is a list of all “lucky” events that relate to the AI and the player and what their chances were. It was fairly thorough, so it indicates that yes, they are aware, and yes, they modify these things.
I should note that what I’m referring to specifically is outside the scope of that. It’s frustrating to hear players and developers “the RNG is biased in favor of the player” and point to a very specific data set that excludes what I’m referring to. I am not a power player and I still use Infernal King, so it would be somewhat easy to track my respawn rate, for example. It is hard to observe many others, with the possible exception of goblins (not because they’re super popular, but because when you play they’ll have multiple 10-turn strings).
Wait a second. That’s the type of thing someone replaced by an android controlled by a sentient AI would say to throw us off the trail. How do we know you are still really you?
1 Like
I keep thinking of something I don’t like about D&D. I could have a level 20 Wizard who has made his living killing millions of squirrels, including Dire Squirrels and banishing a few squirrel demons. But when I’m facing some trivial opponent, I may cast some spell I’ve cast a million times but roll a 1, causing the DM to decide I flub it so bad I incinerate one of my party members with no chance of resurrection. No matter what I do, for those spells there is always a 1 in 20 chance of catastrophic failure even if I have literally (as in, in a literary sense) been declared a demigod. Sometimes RNG does not describe game mechanics in a way that makes sense.
That’s the angst we feel in GoW. At endgame, we feel like we should be able to win games. We see people on leaderboards with the same team we have but twice the boss level. Then we play four matches in a row where the CPU is “more lucky” than us in a way that, objectively, a statistics god might describe as “very probable”. We don’t care.
With 20+ mythics, fully ascended commons, 6-starred kingdoms, we want to feel like winners. We want our losses to be exciting battles where, up to the last move, we could see a path to victory. It’s hard to balance the game to make that possible at all, let alone frequent. And if every PvP match were a stressful 5-minute battle of wits, I think the game would lose some of its charm.
So here we are. Every GOW game is a lot like a D&D round. You have a 1 in something chance everything goes right and you eviscerate the opponent no matter what team they have. You have a 1 in something chance everything goes wrong and the opponent wrecks you and you never had a chance. Most games are somewhere in between: you lose because of some less severe circumstance or win because you executed your plan.
Nobody likes what happens when you roll a 1. It’s impossible to tell people to like it, and when the results are catastrophic it’s impossible to keep shrugging it off.
(Let’s ignore that there are two schools of D&D gameplay and some treat the dice as subservient to “Did you tell a good story?”. My table was a very strict spreadsheet-style group and I couldn’t talk them out of it.)
I’m curious to hear how you would eschew the “1 in 20” problem at this point. Would you eliminate the “x% chance to Devour/kill” entirely? Would you remove Deathmark?
I don’t disagree with your analysis of the state of the world, and I agree that when people rage about the “unfair” AI and RNG that what they really are raging about is those games where everything went wrong, forgetting in the heat of the moment the many games where enough went right to win. A long time ago I was outspoken against Devour as a mechanic, simply because of how drastically it flipped the tables (literally and metaphorically). I never felt that the odds were against the player, but I hated those out-of-the-rear-end reversals the AI could pull off despite knowing I did the same.
To me, though, the discussion is a tempest in a teacup. The dev team has never shown any indication to agree with a more controlled, less random design philosophy, and in fact introduces new troops and mechanics all the time that have severe consequences at low frequency. These sorts of rants, while cathartic, don’t go anywhere aside from academic debates about what constitutes “unfair.”
4 Likes
Case in point, the next mythic…
5 Likes
I don’t know. This is a dilemma I’ve gone over in a lot of these threads.
Part of the fun of GoW is we like to wield unfair teams and destroy our opponents. I don’t think there would be as many players as happy with the game if we couldn’t make completely overpowering teams.
But that’s a double-edged sword. If we can get 10 free turns and deny moves to our opponents, they can do it to us. It turns out it’s nowhere near as fun when it happens to you.
But when successful teams can exploit boards vulnerable to generators, you end up playing a lot of matches where the game’s decided in 3 turns and the starting board can kill you.
I think “fixing it” involves completely deconstructing the game and making a new one without a lot of the mechanics we love, or at least toning them down. “Explode 10 gems” is too powerful. “Convert all green to yellow” is too powerful. Tone those numbers down and you still have interesting effects. But they pale when you can see bigger things.
I remember when I was a newbie, Ancient Golem felt broken. I used it to dismantle PvP teams that’d been a big problem to me. I haven’t used it outside of daily tasks since I got TDS and Gorgotha. Who cares about “explode one gem and do damage” when you can “explode EVERY gem and do damage”?
Power creep made this a very unfair game. I sometimes forget it’s never actually fair, so long as my definition of fair is “the CPU can’t cheese me the way I cheese it.”
1 Like
Lol in canada it’s the same and to be honest i don’t know anyone who would be happy if i tell them they got no brain
Fully boiled down.