Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 102 of 102

Thread: Wasted 125 rolls trying to get Jera

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kreth View Post
    Random number generators aren't seeded separately for every function that needs one. There's likely a handful of functions that are called throughout the code in a variety of ways. Coders don't want complicated functions that pass a ton of variables just to determine a (quasi)random number between 0 and 100 or whatever.

    While I can imagine a few scenarios where sloppy code would shade random results a hair low or a hair high (*), we're talking about a massive difference (55% advertised vs. 75% delivered) in common frequency, now established with high confidence (unless several people are lying or can't count). The most likely scenario is that the coders misrepresented the frequencies, intentionally or otherwise, and Gaea profited from this misrepresentation. If players knew that chest rolls were coded for 75% commons, they might be very hesitant to purchase one.

    (*): E.g., coders using "less than" vs. "less than or equal to" incorrectly during integer comparisons, accidentally coding a percentage function from 1.00 to 100.00 instead of 0.00 to 100.00, etc. None of these make you miss by ~20%.
    This is more or less true but you are making one huge assumption which is incorrect.

    You assume that the devs were competent when they first implemented mechanics that used the RNG in PHP.

    They were not.

    The original devs were not developers by any stretch of the imagination. Their most likely story is that they bought a skeleton game and filled it with content, later expanding on what they had obtained. All you have to do is look at their history to realize how incompetent they were. The simplest of things they could not do. Everything that broke was always someone else's fault. There is no doubt in my mind that they could have made stupid mistakes when creating the initial chest system, which as far as we know was never revisited and updated beyond removing the re-roll for general duplicates. (Why would they? It was working after all.)

    In PHP there is one function for setting the seed of an RNG and one function to get a random number ranging from a min to a max number. It is so very easy for an inexperienced developer to think that perhaps they need to seed before each RNG draw. Which in turn could have severe consequences in PHP. If for example you seed the RNG, draw a number, then seed again with the same seed and draw another number, you end up getting the same number twice.

    Honestly, I want to agree with you and say that this can't happen but the fact remains that this only applies if the devs in question are competent and understand how an RNG is supposed to work.

    The fact that the original team wasn't competent at all creates reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.


    Quote Originally Posted by kreth View Post
    As is, it looks like grounds for dragging Gaea into court, except that it would be very hard to get the right data, especially since the purchases (currency for FP) are decoupled from the chest rolls (FP from a myriad of sources, free or otherwise, exchanged for rolls). FP are also priced highly variably due to promos, different sized packs, iOS discounts, etc. There's no simple conversion of "3 chest rolls = $10" or whatever. Also, it would be challenging to calculate the precise financial "harm" of receiving a Common instead of an Uncommon, for example. And Gaea being in China complicates matters for a host of reasons.

    That all said, they have a consumer confidence problem that is likely to hurt them as it becomes common knowledge among their customers, particularly their "whales". The honorable things to do for Gaea at this point is:
    • Publicly acknowledge the problem in full.
    • Fix the code ASAP.
    • Release test data on the new code to restore customer confidence.
    • Calculate how many chest rolls each account has made, where possible. (Easy for Nightfall, where all rewards are Chest-only. Could be tricky for Alpha, etc.)
    • Offer each account a fixed, one-time compensation for those rolls. If the gap is 20%, one free roll for each five previous rolls would be about fair.
    • Make the means of acquiring that compensation contingent on accepting a statement that you release Gaea from any future litigation involving this.

    I don't know about that court thing. All Gaea has to do is prove that they were not aware of any incorrect RNG implementation. After all, it was Phoenix Age who created these chests, not Gaea, not even Kabam. Gaea could argue that Kabam sold them a faulty product and sue them as a result of any suit but then Kabam would likely just argue the same thing. Heck... I doubt that even Phoenix Age knew whether their chests were working correctly. That of course begs the question whether developers can be expected to verify all these kind of systems on a game that they purchased, especially if that game has been in operation as long as CA has. Ignorance typically isn't much of a defense although there -are- exceptions to that rule.

    That said, I do agree that Gaea should investigate the issue and then act according to whatever their investigation results in. If the chests are indeed not behaving as advertised then action should be taken to correct that issue and to compensate the player base as possible.
    Last edited by Shadow Reaper; 06-18-2018 at 05:39 PM.
    "Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!" - Rev Sim

    "Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are -my- forte!" - Max

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Reaper View Post
    I don't know about that court thing. All Gaea has to do is prove that they were not aware of any incorrect RNG implementation. After all, it was Phoenix Age who created these chests, not Gaea, not even Kabam. Gaea could argue that Kabam sold them a faulty product and sue them as a result of any suit but then Kabam would likely just argue the same thing. Heck... I doubt that even Phoenix Age knew whether their chests were working correctly. That of course begs the question whether developers can be expected to verify all these kind of systems on a game that they purchased, especially if that game has been in operation as long as CA has. Ignorance typically isn't much of a defense although there -are- exceptions to that rule.
    In many important ways, it doesn't matter much why they are selling a fraudulent product, since their customer base is realizing that chests are a fraudulent product. The smart ones are either not buying chests, or mentally pricing them as nearly twice as expensive as advertised.

    Advertised (1/80 probability of a given Epic): "If I were to buy 80 chest rolls, there's only a ~36% chance of getting zero Jeras."
    Now (extra commons mean I'd estimate ~1/2 advertised chance per roll): "If I were to buy 80 chest rolls, there's a ~61% chance of getting zero Jeras."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •