Paralyzed by choice.
I would really like to see if the devs know the difference between predetermined outcomes and actual chance.
Such as…I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails on 1 coin toss.
But if it’s predetermined that out of 4 coin tosses that I will get Heads at least once out of the 4 coin tosses no matter what. Then it’s no longer a 50/50 shot.
The World Events so far compared to what’s written to what is…leans in favor that some us may need to go back to “university”.
Haha. Looks like more than 1 player will be getting a power orb this week. Maybe a new record judging by @awryan. It’s really funny that random scoring can actually be more predictable.
Huh?
Power orb buyers will be determined by who buys the most Tiers + time + allegiances with others.
That’s one of the easiest formulas to follow in GoW.
Humans aren’t predetermined, only the matches this week are…
Btw…
(New SS)
It goes down a little smoother if you listen to this while you process “equal chance of appearing”.
Lol…
I’ll stop spamming now.
Yes. But the primary objective of random scoring/battles was to disrupt mass power orb giveaways due to the allegiances (and other factors) of which you speak.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, they need to refresh all battle choices after each match. It’s not that hard devs, why make it look like no thought has been put into these events?
Not random is a kind of random.
Honestly given other streaky occurrences in rng in troops like IK, I’m not too surprised at this “randomness”.
I guess they didn’t have the heart to tell us otherwise.
I recall this coming up in the first campaign. The reason battles are in the same order for everyone is because people asked for it. So everyone gets the same opportunities to score points (assuming the battles all award a fixed number of points).
If this is indeed the case (as suggested by glancing at the LB), this is another example of Failed Communication by the Company.
The battles are randomly chosen, ahead of time. There’s nothing inconsistent with that statement.
In that base line thinking. Nothing is predetermined since our very existence is randomly generated.
Grammar is important. If battles are randomly chosen ahead of time, the correct statement would be “battles WERE randomly chosen” (see above). English is my second language, surely if I have a grasp of these nuances then native speakers should too 
But whatevs, I prefer randomly nonrandom battles to obscure scoring. Thank you
I much prefer this type of scoring to that x1.18 bullshit.
Random scoring: “Why do I get less points than player x despite having more wins. Random scoring sucks.”
Fixed scoring: “Why do so many people tie on the leaderboard? Fixed scoring sucks.”
Can’t please everyone i guess.
As long as all rewards are achievable within tier 4 guild wide, i dont care what scoring system they use
Yeah, I’m very happy for this to continue. I’m not necessarily against Fleg’s suggestion of increased battle selection refresh rates, depending on implementation.
Giving players choice allows them to either optimise their scoring, or pursue other battles because they might be more fun, or easier.
Epic+ Battles were also supposed to help players who might have been struggling against tougher opponents, similarly at the cost of fewer points/Sigil, but I get the sense a lot of players have forgotten they’re there, or don’t notice or know what they are (I never hear questions about them).
I don’t know anyone who consistently chooses the easiest or lowest rarity fights in these World Events, but I’d imagine it ends up not working for them either, in the sense that at some point they’d be forced into taking a higher rarity/harder battle. I guess maybe it just makes the difficulty gradient a bit less steep (e.g. if constantly picking lowest level, instead of driving up the level of the highest rarity fight). So I guess maybe that’s the main audience.
Imagining Fleg’s suggestion of a refresh after each battle, and assuming all selections are the same for everyone, perhaps differing in level based on your previous choices, it does realistically seem okay.
The only situation in which I’d be a little bit annoyed is if say there were two battles of the same rarity, worth the same amount of points, with points increasing by level as well, and all selection offerings were the same for all players;
Say for my first 30 Sigils, I could choose between either, so I decided to keep selecting the same one to earn more points;
Then for the rest of my Sigils thereafter, due to RNG, only the other battle was offered
In this (unlikely) case (depending on how much you trust the RNG to be reasonable, which not everyone does), there becomes a proportionately small benefit to having someone “map out” the battle offerings, much like ToD, to then select the optimal path – which yeah would be annoying, although maybe not too many people would bother anyway.
But yeah, let’s not complain too much about battles being the same between players, pls and instead, just about how they’re offered to us to choose.
I’d also prefer it to stay this way. It’s the fairer approach, same effort, same result, no dice roll to determine the winner. However, this feels like it is missing a way to get extra points out of a battle, e.g. by intentionally picking some handicaps. This could be a smaller troop pool (e.g. color/role/rarity restrictions), stronger opponents (e.g. increased level, special extra traits) or weakened teams (e.g. harmful traits like increased spell cost, increased damage susceptibility, no extra turns). These would be optional for each battle, to more you select, the higher your score multiplier.
I have no problem at all with the scoring or ties on the leaderboard. Just don’t call it “random” offers then.
