• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Collection reward on Aztecs Settlement

posineg

New Member
Does the collection reward also work for the mini game?

I am at a 10% chance for the X4 reward and had 46 collections, only one x4. This is not counting the mini game.

I am so waiting for my luck to turn. I love obtaining the 4% chance when it is for my benefit but not when it is against.

I know this has been hashed-out in other posts but at what point is a %chance ever close to what it says? RNG is not balanced and always favors the lowest chance, or for me it does. I cannot be alone in this.
 

Joeyjojojo

Active Member
If you mean Aztecs, then the x4 does not apply to the mini-game.

As for RNG, people complain when it goes against and we do remember those times but we tend to forget when it turns in our favor. I've no interest in collecting the data necessary to confirm, but I suspect pretty strongly that it works exactly as it should. Remember that statistics for something like this requires a really big sample size. Any random 10 or even 100 tests is not likely to match up with the stated odds.

Last GBG season I had 4 SCs adjacent so should have only had 4% chance to gain attrition and picked up 6 attrition in ~30 hits. Just bad luck. I'm pretty sure that there have been times when I've had only one or two but ran a nice 10+ streak without gaining any.
 

posineg

New Member
Remember that statistics for something like this requires a really big sample size. Any random 10 or even 100 tests is not likely to match up with the stated odds.

That is rather my point. To expect a sample size of more than mean/average amount of attempt for a given run is pointless. The threshold will never be reached. A person would never collect 500 times in a settlement.

Last GBG season I had 4 SCs adjacent so should have only had 4% chance to gain attrition and picked up 6 attrition in ~30 hits. Just bad luck. I'm pretty sure that there have been times when I've had only one or two but ran a nice 10+ streak without gaining any.

This further proves my point. Those type of odds occur too often to be an actual probability. You had a less than .5% chance of hitting 6. What are the probability this happens often, blind guess says very high probability.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
To expect a sample size of more than mean/average amount of attempt for a given run is pointless.


It can (and has been) done for other RNG tests.

Ardak posted every collect in GE for a long while and showed that it was accurate.

Some other idiot took 7 months for 10,000 WW collections to show the Diamond drop rate.

When tested the RNG has proven reasonable.

And even if the RNG doesn't work, what boots it?

We all play with the same RNG, so even if it sucks, it sucks for us all.
 

Joeyjojojo

Active Member
That is rather my point.
I get what you're feeling but that wasn't actually your point, you said:
RNG is not balanced and always favors the lowest chance, or for me it does. I cannot be alone in this.
It doesn't always favor the lowest chance, we just notice those instances when it does. If something has a 95% chance of happening and it doesn't we feel cheated, but that doesn't mean the RNG is broken, just a combination of bad luck, low sample size and probably confirmation bias. Now, it may actually be broken, but as Algona said, those few instances where someone really put in the effort to test it, it looked like it worked correctly.
 

posineg

New Member
It doesn't always favor the lowest chance, we just notice those instances when it does. If something has a 95% chance of happening and it doesn't we feel cheated, but that doesn't mean the RNG is broken, just a combination of bad luck, low sample size and probably confirmation bias. Now, it may actually be broken, but as Algona said, those few instances where someone really put in the effort to test it, it looked like it worked correctly.
Do you really believe that the RNG table that Inno uses is balanced? There is no governing body that monitors RNG. Inno could easily build a pseudo RNG table that weights the results.
You mentioned that in order for statistics to work properly, there needs to be a large pool of data. A large pool of pseudo RNG numbers with the majority of positive results weighted at the back of the table is still a "random" occurrence even though it is favored to limit positive results. Make everyone use the same table and restart the table each time, low positive results, majority of the time.
Sorry, not sorry. When you goal is to make money, the house always win.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Do you really believe that the RNG table that Inno uses is balanced?

Yes because it's been proven to be:

Ardak posted every collect in GE for a long while and showed that it was accurate.

Some other idiot took 7 months for 10,000 WW collections to show the Diamond drop rate.

When tested the RNG has proven reasonable.


Confirmation bias and small sample sizes do not facts make.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
A large pool of pseudo RNG numbers with the majority of positive results weighted at the back of the table is still a "random" occurrence even though it is favored to limit positive results.

Sigh. Nope, that's not what happens.

I'm the idiot who collected 10K WWs to determine the Duamond drop rate.

50 Collections per day, documented in the thread Algona the Peddler in the MK sub forum.

Tens of thousands of players. A lot of them damn smart (no, not me) play this game. Do you really think INNO can build 'a pseudo RNG table' that can fool those players?

The only way 'a pseudo RNG table' can hold up over time is it emulate an RNG well enough to fool those smart players.

I'll repeat: So what if the RNG is t3h ch33tz? We all play with it.

----------

A bit if advice. Unsolicited and almost certain to be rejected.

One key to mastering this game is quit trying to blame the game, INNO, other players, or anything for the consequences of your not understanding how the game works.

Instead realize that other players have mastered this game and ask them how they did so.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
I am at a 10% chance for the X4 reward and had 46 collections, only one x4. This is not counting the mini game.
So instead of getting the expected 4(.6), you got one. Stop the presses, this is a major scandal! German game company scamming random Americans!

Seriously, that is so far from proof of something amiss. Would you be here complaining if you got nine of the x4 out of 46 attempts? I think not. Yet I'm sure it happens sometimes. It amazes me how often players come to the Forum to complain about exactly this type of thing. Whether it's the Settlements x4 or an event RNG mechanic, it seems to be the major complaint that players come to the Forum with. Yet there is never anything but a minor discrepancy in an exceedingly small sample size presented as proof. And as has been stated, at least two players have gone to the trouble of tracking results over an enormous number of occurrences, both proving that the RNG behaves within expectations. Reminds me of the real world a little bit. People believing there is something amiss with an event when there is absolutely no proof. :rolleyes:
 

posineg

New Member
So instead of getting the expected 4(.6), you got one. Stop the presses, this is a major scandal! German game company scamming random Americans!

Seriously, that is so far from proof of something amiss. Would you be here complaining if you got nine of the x4 out of 46 attempts? I think not. Yet I'm sure it happens sometimes. It amazes me how often players come to the Forum to complain about exactly this type of thing. Whether it's the Settlements x4 or an event RNG mechanic, it seems to be the major complaint that players come to the Forum with. Yet there is never anything but a minor discrepancy in an exceedingly small sample size presented as proof. And as has been stated, at least two players have gone to the trouble of tracking results over an enormous number of occurrences, both proving that the RNG behaves within expectations. Reminds me of the real world a little bit. People believing there is something amiss with an event when there is absolutely no proof. :rolleyes:

It is true that a few players have taken the time to collect data on a continues running activity. Thank you guys.

What is not possible to collect are the other short term events that time out or close due to completion. These events have no evidence that they hold to the probability listed and cannot be verified. I continue to collect the data I can but once the settlement is completed, I either take one for the team and continue collecting for the 1000 times of close the event. I will attempt to collect the data for as far as my little mind can handle it and report back.
 

posineg

New Member
Let me say this again. A pseudo RNG table can be built that both fulfills the % and shifts the balance. If I have 10000 numbers and 10%(1000) are winners, the list does not have to allow those numbers to fall in the beginning. I could build that list and have them fall mostly in the back of the list. A event that draws on that list and only expects 100 chances will miss the majority of the winners.

I understand that I have a bad set of luck, I always have bad luck and the few and far wins are what brought me to this rant.
 

Vger

Well-Known Member
Let me say this again. A pseudo RNG table can be built that both fulfills the % and shifts the balance. If I have 10000 numbers and 10%(1000) are winners, the list does not have to allow those numbers to fall in the beginning. I could build that list and have them fall mostly in the back of the list. A event that draws on that list and only expects 100 chances will miss the majority of the winners.
Inno almost certainly doesn't use a table of random numbers. They almost certainly do what every other game programmer does: use a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) algorithm. They would then weight the output of the PRNG to get the desired % of winners. It's pretty standard stuff, and really simple code to get right.
Using your example, you might ask the PRNG for a random number between 0 and 1. If the number is less than 0.10, you have a winner. That will happen 10% of the time on average.
No table. No luck. Just simple math.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
These events have no evidence that they hold to the probability listed and cannot be verified.

The data is there, it does support the veracity of the RNG. . You just missed it, it's not easy to see.

Any given Event a lot of players post their Feedback. Some are unhappy they didn't get what they wanted, others talk about the riches they garnered.

Exactly what should happen if there is a random element.

Much like collecting significant data on one aspect, the data is there, it just takes years of reading the forums.

Which is why you'll rarely see long term frequent posters unhappy with the RNG.

A pseudo RNG table

Let's join a devs meeting in progress.

Dev 1: I got an idea, instead of using an RNG, let's use a pseudo RNG table. We can weight it so that at the start the results are below average so folk will spend Diamonds to get more attempts.

Dev 2: How do we beta test that?

Dev 3: Wouldn't more players give up because they are losing too much at the start?

Dev 4: Doesn't that mean we have to track where each player is on the pseudo RNG table? More data and more traffic and more server load?

Dev 5: Seems like it may cost us some amount to program, test, deploy?

Dev 6: What happens if players figure out the pattern? Remember what happened years back to the OL Poker games that were using crappy RNGs?

Dev Boss: So we can stay with the RNG and avoid pissing off players who will quit early on, save money on server load and internet traffic and data space and programming, and not risk ruining our nearly two decades of game building reputation?

Dev boss: Dev 1 you're fired.

----------

A fundamental of programming, KISS, (or if you prefer a rule of life, Occam's Razor) applies here.

INNO doesn't need to spend more money using a pseudo RNG table.

They've demonstrated they know how to extract money from their customers by using means that do not upset their customers.

What is not possible to collect are the other short term events that time out or close due to completion.

Regarding your original complaint?

You can collect a lot of data personally.

Start a new city and do Aztec Settlement (don't complete! just build a lot of Goods buildings) until you've collected a few thousand productions. Log each one with percentage and payoff. Then find a statistician to review your results and draw any conclusions. If INNO is using a pseudo RNG table it will be obvious.

Takes time, sure. That's on you, you're the one trying to grind an axe here.
 
Last edited:
Top