Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-23947276-20131024221423/@comment-13789016-20131028173307

Ranoake wrote: Godofcyanide wrote: Ran, I second what Hypno has said. There have been multiple instances of people posting things on Internet fora and then, suddenly, Mobage changes things to make the posted information invalid.

I'll give you an example. When I was first interested in combat math, I noted on my blog that each bot died after a specific number of hits from each boss. By next episode, that number was no longer consistent. I speculated that they raised the RNG range to introduce more variance and make bot death time harder to predict.

I suspect this happens because we have a great, experienced group of gamers playing a game made by novice game designers. We find all sorts of advantages, and they go about closing them since they don't want us to have those advantages, but they don't think of it until someone mentions it, because, again, novice game designers.

And there is no good reason to force us to empty our ruby collection into any bridge if we choose not to, other than to make ruby management more difficult for players. Based on the calculations of TODAY, the RNG factor is negligible and does not appreciably affect bot death in any meaningful way. The variance is something like .1%.

I can prove it to you very easily. The simulator I wrote ignores RNG completely when it comes to damage, and the differences between the calculated values and the values I observed in ACTUAL battles is less than 1%. That is not enough to vary the bot lifetime by any appreciable amount.

People see one attack and make grand generalizations that are not supported by the limited evidence.

Finding advantages within the scope of the rules is all well and good, but again, I have YET to hear one such claim substantiated with any reasonable proof. I guess it comes down to what each person considers reasonable proof. Some people might be happy believing something if they see it once and only once, I am not that liberal when it comes to proof, I need to see it replicated at will.

And yes, not having an option to select how many rubies you want to spend IS a problem but NOT a sinister one aimed at screwing players. It probably, like all other issues that were EVENTUALLY fixed, just not as high a priority as something else right now. Ran, I know what you're saying with only stating fact rather than theory, but I think this forum isn't necessarily about the 100% facts, its also and always has been speculation that is supported by some fact. I don't think its a big deal that GoC or anyone else talks about the whole Mobage makes changes on the fly thing, because that is true, we all have been stealthed. but I think the frustration of these fine tuned changes is when it happens at an inappropriate time (in the middle of an event) also, because that gives certain people an unfair advantage who put more resources in to the pre-stealthed periods.

Why can't they make those changes in the next event so that everyone is on the same playing field? this generally gives the players a feeling of being the testers rather than actual players. and hence, the animosity is born.

I sorta see the personal attack a bit, but Hypno did try to lighten it up, I don't think his comments about you about being naive were really serious. And I think he just noticed that you made a few interesting comparisons that were noteworthy. anyways, internet forums are about just making the comments that you feel, you can't control what other people say and everyone is entitled to communicate their observations.

you did some good work with the simulator Ran, thanks Alot! and I'm sure it'll save a lot of people time. but if its posted in the forum, you can bet that Mobage has seen it, and we will see if they do anything about it.