SoggyShorts
Well-Known Member
Yup. It's the big swings that players won't like. Someone winning 25% of the time and someone winning 0% is going to make for an unloved system.
yeah the issue is that you only have 1 chance a week, making the RNG pretty big.Yup. It's the big swings that players won't like. Someone winning 25% of the time and someone winning 0% is going to make for an unloved system.
Don't look at what you do not want and get, look at what you want and get.I have little interest in the Spire, solely because of the RNG. If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. A couple of weeks ago my main city found the Spire to be a little easier, so for the first time I went to the top. The one thing that I have enough of for a lifetime is Portal Profits. It seemed like almost every time I opened a chest it was something rather useless, like another Portal Profit. At the very top I finished and .... got a 20% Portal Profit. For me it doesn't matter what you put into the Spire, I'm going to get another Portal Profit. Don't believe me? Here's my great winnings so far today:
View attachment 8500
100% support for beer.and maybe beer artifacts in the future
At least those artifacts aren't for anything important like the most powerful building in the game...5 fights = 3 artifacts. This is what i talked about. RNG.
2 last spires went without anything, here 5 fights...
At least those artifacts aren't for anything important like the most powerful building in the game...
Unfortunatly there are quite a lot of examples of similar good or bad luck. This is why I suspect the RNG to be streaky rather than perfectly random. Unfortunately with the artifacts both finding too few and finding to many will be very frustrating. That is why I think that a scaling RNG would be more suitable here.5 fights = 3 artifacts. This is what i talked about. RNG.
2 last spires went without anything, here 5 fights...
Sorry, was my attempt at sarcasm.Which one u consider most powerful?
Sounds a bit like a contradiction to me.As a consequence these RNGs are never truely random.
This would be nice, but honestly it doesn't seem like the Inno techs are capable of it, as it would seem sensible to implement such a system in lots of different places and they never have. I suppose the RNG is indirectly scaled when we have 25 boxes to open in an event and each one taken away makes one of the other outcomes more likely to happen... It's definitely possible.There are also ways to scale an RNG. Rather than returning random numbers an outcome is made more likely based on how many times it was failed.
well, computers aren't supposed to be random, right?Sounds a bit like a contradiction to me.
While all of the above is accurate, it is also a bit of a red herring. No one implements their own pseudorandom algorithms (outside of very, very specific cases, and online gaming is definitely not one of them). Modern PRNG algorithms, while indeed deterministic, are indistinguishable from the true random for all practical purposes, including passing statistical randomness tests. The same PRNG algorithms are used in variety of fields where having a good source of randomness is crucial (e.g. various simulations), and they are definitely good enough even in those cases.Howerver, true or physical RNG requires expensive hardware to measure some external factors, e.g. a Geiger counter to measure the radioactive decay of a nucleus. For this reason games always use an algorithmic or pseudorandom RNG, wich uses a predetermined algorithm on a hidden seed. As a consequence these RNGs are never truely random. When they are badly implemented they can lead to streaks or become predictable