The most annoying thing in Tales

RobaiRobai ✭✭
edited June 24 in Ear of the King
Stop changing SS order randomly!
It's so annoying.

When I choose five SS in specific order that order should stay for the whole Tale.

Comments

  • TiamatTiamat ✭✭
    +1

    Also they got to have a better sorting system in the "Your Sworn Sword" tab, like in the AvA, by specialization.
  • RobaiRobai ✭✭
    edited June 24
    Also it would be nice if they make some Tales group, where you add SS to that group and those SS are removed from the big list, so that they won't appear in any other list (that is, can't be selected for AvA, BQ, AC, Adventures, etc.).
    When selecting SS for Tales you can select SS from Tales group only.
    Of course, you can can move SS from Tales group back to general list any time you want (unless those SS are in Tales atm).

    The same idea would be for Adventures group.
    For example, I'd like to move all SS that are lower than lvl 127 to Adventures group (during AvA I'd move some of them to AvA group).

    And AvA group would be nice too.
    For AvA also subgroups (or just several groups) would be nice too (let's call them SG1, SG2, SG3, SG4).
    When sending attacks in AvA you should be able to select also SG1, SG2, SG3, SG4. This would be a quick way to select 32 SS. For example, when I want to send only 32 spies, not all 100 spies (I don't now a quick way to do that).
    That should work also when changing regions, that is, you can select SG1, SG2, SG3, SG4 when adding SS to camps too. You should be able to remove one group too (currently I don't know how to remove just a selected group, because "remove all" removes all SS from that camp, not just selected type of SS).

    Moving SS to groups would reduce some lag IMO.
  • RobaiRobai ✭✭
    edited June 24
    In Options menu add this:
    - if SS is in Tales group then he can see and equip only Peerless items
    (in Tales non peerless items is for beginners only anyway, but by default this option can be unchecked)
    (this would save so much time for me, so this option would be so awesome since I want a quick way to equip items for Tales SS, I don't want to see any non peerless item on the list for this)
  • TiamatTiamat ✭✭
    Excelent ideas, @Robai.

    Does DB team read this forum? If yes, they could save so much time from deciding what to do just taking ideas from the current not-so-big player base.
  • DutcherDutcher ✭✭✭
    Yes, DB reads this forum. But generally only for fixing player emergencies and not for the purpose of picking up good ideas or granting player wishes. Over the years I've seen maybe a small handful of player input grabbed and used, out of thousands of suggestions. Using a counter strategy may work better or the "Brer Rabbit approach":
    Please please DB, don't create any more alliance management tools, nor house Arryn or SS keep sorting & selection menu's and we really don't need any more bug fixes either, thanks!
    Arya Serious? If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!
  • ZeppZepp ✭✭✭
    There are some things to do that can help you keep track of which SS go with which Tales... for example, I try to remember the SS names for each of my teams. This is My Azor Ahai team:

    lkj0k0ftcmyl.png
    Colossal Dragons: Apophis, Nanabozho
    Mature Dragon: Manannan mac Lir
    Adolescent Dragons: Kutkh, Samartitxiki, Sun Wukong, Ti Malice, Veles, Wisakedjak
    Baby: Anansi, Azeban, Exu, Guidgen, Huehuecoyotl, Itomi, Juha, Lilith, Loki, Maui, Mendacius, Nahash, Seokga, Set, Susanoo, Wahn, Yun Harla
  • Robai wrote: »
    Also it would be nice if they make some Tales group, where you add SS to that group and those SS are removed from the big list, so that they won't appear in any other list (that is, can't be selected for AvA, BQ, AC, Adventures, etc.).
    When selecting SS for Tales you can select SS from Tales group only.
    Of course, you can can move SS from Tales group back to general list any time you want (unless those SS are in Tales atm).

    The same idea would be for Adventures group.
    For example, I'd like to move all SS that are lower than lvl 127 to Adventures group (during AvA I'd move some of them to AvA group).

    And AvA group would be nice too.
    For AvA also subgroups (or just several groups) would be nice too (let's call them SG1, SG2, SG3, SG4).
    When sending attacks in AvA you should be able to select also SG1, SG2, SG3, SG4. This would be a quick way to select 32 SS. For example, when I want to send only 32 spies, not all 100 spies (I don't now a quick way to do that).
    That should work also when changing regions, that is, you can select SG1, SG2, SG3, SG4 when adding SS to camps too. You should be able to remove one group too (currently I don't know how to remove just a selected group, because "remove all" removes all SS from that camp, not just selected type of SS).

    Moving SS to groups would reduce some lag IMO.
    this is very good information.

  • yitaminyitamin ✭✭
    edited July 20
    I'm pretty sure that the order isn't random, it does what most of the rest of the game does. Any special order you see when you create a list lasts only as long as that sessions lasts, then the next time you load it, you get "inventory" order from then on. I can see how it might be irritating if you really like things in a different order but I've long since made my peace with the game's preferred order. At least it does something predictable if not preferred. Random really would **tsk tsk**.
  • RobaiRobai ✭✭
    yitamin wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that the order isn't random, it does what most of the rest of the game does. Any special order you see when you create a list lasts only as long as that sessions lasts, then the next time you load it, you get "inventory" order from then on. I can see how it might be irritating if you really like things in a different order but I've long since made my peace with the game's preferred order. At least it does something predictable if not preferred. Random really would **Chech'tluth**.

    Of course it's not technically random since even random generator gives numbers by the exact algorithm (100% predictable when you know the algorithm and the seed).
    By random I've meant that the order changes (it doesn't matter if it's actually random or predictable change). The thing is that it shouldn't change. Morevover, we should be able to control the order.
  • I believe the order only changes when you log out (or the game crashes/freezes). So try and finish a tale in one go if you can.
  • Yeah, that's when it happens.
    Add me as a friend.

    My player ID: 159443
  • But the most annoying thing of Tales are: rolls are not random, the moving pics only cost time and 50% chance for BT or BI is often 8 B in a row.
  • Most annoying thing in tales?

    People whinging about their bad luck and not understanding probability...
  • ZeppZepp ✭✭✭
    I understand probability, but I also have the worst luck... I once calculated it and I am 3 standard deviations below normal...
    Colossal Dragons: Apophis, Nanabozho
    Mature Dragon: Manannan mac Lir
    Adolescent Dragons: Kutkh, Samartitxiki, Sun Wukong, Ti Malice, Veles, Wisakedjak
    Baby: Anansi, Azeban, Exu, Guidgen, Huehuecoyotl, Itomi, Juha, Lilith, Loki, Maui, Mendacius, Nahash, Seokga, Set, Susanoo, Wahn, Yun Harla
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    @Stinksofsquid that can't be the most annoying thing in tales since thats not in tales....that would have to be the most annoying thing about tales (for you).
    guess you really just couldn't resist taking that cheap shot though could you? so by all means they can't prove the rng is "broken" but can you prove it isn't? if its broken/programmed in a bias way (maybe based on what is used for the seed number) then the "whining" is justified, if not then it isn't.

    also what exactly is the probability of 8 battle in a row out of 15 matches? and whats the probabilty of that happening twice in say 5 tries? (didn't happen to me but I'm curious).
  • ZeppZepp ✭✭✭
    Around 0.4% for one try. Pretty small for twice in 5 tries, not 100% sure on my math for that, so I won't give you a number.
    Colossal Dragons: Apophis, Nanabozho
    Mature Dragon: Manannan mac Lir
    Adolescent Dragons: Kutkh, Samartitxiki, Sun Wukong, Ti Malice, Veles, Wisakedjak
    Baby: Anansi, Azeban, Exu, Guidgen, Huehuecoyotl, Itomi, Juha, Lilith, Loki, Maui, Mendacius, Nahash, Seokga, Set, Susanoo, Wahn, Yun Harla
  • Each time you try a stage in tales, the chance that the next 7 will be the same type of action (battle/trade/intrigue) is just 1 in 128! In other words, it will happen pretty often! Considering each tale has 15 stages, then assuming you complete every one (and including the possibility that the 8 in a row crosses 2 tales), you would actually expect this to happen every 8 or 9 tales. So twice in 5 tales isn’t a shock really.

    I once had my first 13 in a row as the same type of action, about 1 in 4,000 chance of that happening. But considering the number of players playing tales and the number of attempts each of us has, it would be really weird if these kinds of things DIDN’T happen to several people every tale. And considering the sheer number of rare things that can happen to people (multiple 100s, multiple 90+, multiple same action etc.), pretty much every player will get at least one of these on most tales. Some won’t get any for several tales and others will get several in the same tale.

    It makes no logical sense for the RNG to be broken, so unless you’re a conspiracy nut who believes man didn’t go to the moon, I think it’s safer just to play the game and enjoy it.

    And I’m damn sure that if people COULD prove the RNG is broken, they would have...just like they can’t prove that man hasn’t been to the moon...
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    so you are just bunching everyones rolls together and just saying its ok because so many players play? I'd consider one person getting serveral and others getting none to be broken, why should some players be outliners (and luck was supposedly introduce to deal with outliner dragon crafters..the ones that were on the bad end of course). They don't all need to get it at the same time or the same exact amount but 7 to 0, and what if they often get 7 and the other often gets 0? is it ok because most often get 3 or 4.....and why shouldn't the 7s whine about the unfairness of it all, they seemingly have a right to since they are bearing the bad luck of it all.

    I think there's already examples out there that prove rng can be broken/implemented in a way that's bias/unfair....wouldn't someone need to be a conspiracy nut to ignore past evidence and automatically assume everything is a-ok just because. If all one looks at is the overall rolls of the rng they can only ever tell if as a whole it's balanced, that won't tell you if someone is constantly an outliner or not.
    If I sell a car and tell someone there's a 1 in a million chance the breaks fail would it still be true if their breaks fail a second after they left the car lot but that was the 2 millionth car I sold.

    I don't know the exact implementations of rng, but if the number is being seeded on the user end then it means one can often get 7 and the other 0 but then that would still be unfairness being caused due to the differemce of the users devices and the way the rng is seeded, on the other hand if it's seeded on the servers side then one getting 7 and the other zero is a sign of streaking/unfairness and also indicates an issue.....or what with so many players playing luck just so has it that they always call upon the rng at the time its set to dish out a roll that = the same type of action as the one they had before.

    last I guess is the fact that a plumber can know a pipe is broken (he sees water on the floor) but doesn't know where, how does one even check if an rng is broken? how does one prove it unless its so broken it would have already been obvious to the programmers from the start (rolling nothing but one number)? If everytime a player comes and says I got these rolls and the odds are so low for it I don't think I should be getting these, we say it's just bad luck or we say well there's so many players it was bound to happen to someone, aren't we actually getting the proof but just ignoring it so we can live in ignorant bliss because we don't want to consider the possibilty that something wrong could be going on.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    crap that was way longer than I thought it would be.
  • Zepp wrote: »
    I understand probability, but I also have the worst luck... I once calculated it and I am 3 standard deviations below normal...

    Zepp, even if you did once calculate it correctly, all that proved is that you were 3 standard deviations below normal for that particular test. I cannot believe that anyone from DB has put you on a jinxed RNG or that they are using different RNGs for different players or (if you believe in one) there is a higher power who gives a damn about an online game and is actually making people lucky/unlucky...

    I've woken up for my 4 morning tales efforts and lost them all when probability tells me I should probably have won 3 out of 4 on average. I've sometimes had that bad luck carry on for the whole day or even most of the tale. Other times I've won 4 or 5 in a row, when my chance of winning each tale must be about 50/50.

    You do not have the worst luck my friend, you just had some bad luck and later you'll get some good luck.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    Isn't every server likey programmed with a separate rng though/pulling numbers from a different one? so in a way there would be different rng for different players.



    yeah I know thats not how you meant it, but I figured I'd take the cheap shot.
  • @NN because that is the way life is. If there weren't outliers, people wouldn't play the lottery and people wouldn't get rare diseases.

    I play poker with my friends sometimes and sometimes I don't get anything better than a low pair for the whole first hour, while I can remember another player getting runs/straights in the last 3 hands of the night! Especially handy when people had been drinking quite a bit by then...

    The crucial part of RNG is the R (Random) bit. If it was supposed to provide everyone with equal luck each time they played a tale, there would be no excitement in even playing! Just give people the rewards based on their stats and move on...boring. The whole excitement is there when you know you need to win 2 out of the last 3 attempts in order to get the next threshold but your chances are low. But sometimes you succeed!

    Numbers are NOT being seeded on the user. It's a simple roll of 1-100 and it's really not a hard thing to do. People who get bad luck are the ones who talk about it. You don't get someone posting on a forum to say, "Hey guys, I tried 16 tales today and I won 15 of them! RNG must be broken!", yet I'm certain that's happened to plenty of people. Possibly even happened to me.

    Just keep remembering that plenty of people play lotteries hoping to be an outlier...
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    nah people getting rare disease isn't in line with this in any shape or form.

    Also the game isn't life, I don't play the game for "life", thats what life is for......and poker is a strategy game its not so much what cards you get as it is how you play the other players, but if there was an online poker game with money at stake giving some people the same set of bad cards often I'm 100% positive someone would slap them with a lawsuit for fraud. your non online poker option also doesn't hold weight as an rng analog unless a mechanical shuffler was used, since well its all in how one stacks and shuffles the cards.

    The R isn't random "luck", an rng is technically meant to provide the same luck (as it wouldn't be considered working/not broken if the numbers didn't "even" out when they test it), and there's a differemce between getting the same luck/rolling the same things and having rolls that adhere "closely" to your statical chances.

    how do you know how the numbers are seeded or whats used as a seed? by being seeded on the user side I meant it in the way of the seed number being determined by a value having to do with the user (their ip, account id, fan speed, cpu temp, etc.....obviously what options are available depends on what exactly it is the user is using and how much access it has to their device) my apologies for not making that clear before. Pretty sure that while in whole numbers its likely 1-100 the rng rolls decimals aswell, which means the number poll is that much higher.

    Noone brags (too much) about their good luck because 1) it comes across as bad sportsmanship and being a douche, and 2) because in the event something is wrong they don't want to lose out on the benefit.

    no one plays the lottery hoping to be the losing outliner though, we also have no idea what rng the "lottery" uses or what other measures they take....though I've certainly read of atleast one that uses 3 different machines and has someone pick the one they use randomly every few drawings or so, iirc.....and the game also doesn't allow me to pick my own numbers, in fact there's a great idea let us pick the numbers to be counted as a win based on our % chance of succes (personally I'd rather not because I'm too lazy, but atleast then you aren't so bound and can truly feel you just had bad luck in picking your numbers).

    None of it though explains why it is appearently impossible for the rng db uses or the implementation of it to be broken......especially when one consideres the fact it wouldn't be the 1st time in history such a thing happened, and in most of those case just the same the company and many other players claimed it was working fine/fairly and how it was just confirmation bias, does that mean thats the case here??? no, but it does indicate that something having to do with rng can be broken/incorrectly implemented. Only db can really figure it out, by doing a greater test of the system that simply talling up all the rolls to see if the amount of rolls for each number is "even" or not.

  • NN...I give up. If you want to spend your life worrying about conspiracy theories and that some people are somehow jinxed in tales, you go for it.

    For me, I know there are good runs and bad runs for all. Glass half empty people believe they are jinxed when they get bad runs and even when they get good runs, they constantly worry that a bad run is around the corner. It's a game...and we're all playing the same game with the same rules.
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    nah I stopped worrying about tales, I felt you took a cheap shot and called you on it, from there it just spiraled. I'f I'm anything I'm a fluid kind of guy, at times a "pessimist", at times an "optimist", but mostly a "the glass is half and half" kind of guy, either is possible. I just don't immediately dismiss a possibilty simply because I figure what I know/think is more than what someone else thinks.
  • ZeppZepp ✭✭✭
    There appears to be some evidence that your IP address may play a role in the RNG calculations (which would suggest why there seem to be some players who are three standard deviations below normal on three tests that lasted for one Tales per test). It has also been suggested that time may also play a role, which is why players tend to prefer to play shortly after midnight in their home time.

    Overall the numbers average out. DB probably does not intentionally target specific players. That is not the same as saying that poor RNG design does not disproportionately affect some players more than others.
    Colossal Dragons: Apophis, Nanabozho
    Mature Dragon: Manannan mac Lir
    Adolescent Dragons: Kutkh, Samartitxiki, Sun Wukong, Ti Malice, Veles, Wisakedjak
    Baby: Anansi, Azeban, Exu, Guidgen, Huehuecoyotl, Itomi, Juha, Lilith, Loki, Maui, Mendacius, Nahash, Seokga, Set, Susanoo, Wahn, Yun Harla
  • NNNN ✭✭✭
    Zepp wrote: »
    Overall the numbers average out. DB probably does not intentionally target specific players. That is not the same as saying that poor RNG design does not disproportionately affect some players more than others.

    Thanks, thats pretty much all I've been trying to say (well say is a possibility) :* ......but alas my communications skills was lacking, you certainly word it far simpler/better than I did and using less words to boot :D :D

Sign In or Register to comment.