• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

A Gateway into the Past

Sir Derf

Mentor
No difference. Or they are providing incorrect information.

Picture 100 slips of paper in a hat. Write "2 Lucky Draws" on 20 of those slips. 20% chance.

It doesn't matter what is written on the other slips of paper. The other 80 might all have "1 Broken shard". The other 80 might be 40 "1 Coin" and 40 "1 Supply". The other 80 might be 80 different amounts of Orcs. Still, 20 slips for "2 Lucky Draws" out of 100. 20/100, 20%

They could have implemented the process in a way that does not produce the odds they have stated. But, if they state their odds, you should be operating under the assumption that they are accurately describing reality.
 

Jake65

Sorcerer
Here's how much I don't know about any type of maths which goes beyond what I'd call basic numeracy. Can anyone help me out here?

These two Requests both appear to have the same 20% chance of winning 2 x Lucky Draw : the upper is 'Rare' and the lower is 'Extroardinary' :

View attachment 6512 View attachment 6515 View attachment 6516

... but does it make any difference, probability-wise, that there are both a different number of other possible outcomes and different odds attached to them? My experience with rolling physical dice suggests to me that there may well be a difference, but my lack of maths ability decrees that I have no idea how it works in the Event, where there are no physical dice and we also have no idea of how Inno's RNG works.

Or am I just mistaken all round, and translating the 'virtual' dice rolls into real ones would actually not affect the 20% Lucky Draw chance...?

(NB : I know that - outside of the above question - there is also the 'cost per Red Gem' to consider, in terms of producing the Board Pieces required).

How does it go? "Random, random, everywhere" - I may not be Ancient just yet, but I'm starting to understand the Mariner's point of view...! o_O
This is the first I'm seeing a 20% chance of Lucky Draw cards. Best I've had is 14%.
20% is good odds!
 

Silly Bubbles

Illusionist
No difference. Or they are providing incorrect information.

Picture 100 slips of paper in a hat. Write "2 Lucky Draws" on 20 of those slips. 20% chance.

It doesn't matter what is written on the other slips of paper. The other 80 might all have "1 Broken shard". The other 80 might be 40 "1 Coin" and 40 "1 Supply". The other 80 might be 80 different amounts of Orcs. Still, 20 slips for "2 Lucky Draws" out of 100. 20/100, 20%

They could have implemented the process in a way that does not produce the odds they have stated. But, if they state their odds, you should be operating under the assumption that they are accurately describing reality.

Just don't forget to put the slip of paper that you pulled out back into the hat to have a chance to pull it out again otherwise it would affect the odds of the remaining items. I think this might be what can get confusing.
 

Sir Derf

Mentor
Confusing in trying to interpret my analogy, but not, I think, the confusion that was voiced in the original question.

What Laurelin was questioning was, I think, a common misconception when looking at the random selection of different options. When looking at a setup where there is an array of options and an element of randomization in picking those options, it is common to picture them all as having equal likelihood of occurring. As in her examples, the question was voicing the discordance between a one-out-of-four option and a one-out-of-five option both apparently having 20% chances, where the gut feeling is that the first would be more likely than the second, as 1:4 evenly would have 25% odds versus 1:5 having 20% odds.
 

Ramases

Seeker
Why do you have to win two of each of the other quest buildings before you get to the Temple of the Sun and the Moon? That means you are way into one quest a day and need 600 points.
 

finzles

Adventurer
I have a question. Can’t attach a screenshot, so hope I explain this clearly.

I’m looking at the event quest window. Each day there is a new task for us to complete, and at the bottom of the quest window is a progress bar showing which prizes we have won and which prizes are coming up. Click on one of the prize icons and the bar expands, and there are some numbers underneath the prizes, in blue and green circles. The green numbers appear to represent the number of daily quests requires to obtain each prize.

What do the blue numbers mean, what are they for?
 

Jake65

Sorcerer
Thank you Jake. What does that mean? What happens at each of those blue markers? Sorry if I’m being dense!
It's when the event characters appear and tell the story of the game.
When you have to click the back button to make them go away :)
 

Laurelin

Scholar
Well, this has taken me so long that it's now a largely redundant reply...

@finzles : All Quest Line Events have a near-identical interface, functionally speaking, although the Event theme and graphics frequently change. However, the Event UI can be confusing, since there is only ONE set of Event Quests in any Quest Line Event, even though the UI shows two rows of Quest numbers. In the current Event, there are 76 Quests altogether, and your progress through them is shown at the right-hand end of the top row of numbers : for example, you can see from Pic. 1 below that I myself have completed 71 of the 76 Quests.

The highlighted Quest numbers in the top row (on a green background, in this Event) indicate which of the 76 Event Quests, when completed, will award a Quest Line prize, and the highlighted numbers in the bottom row (blue background in this Event) indicate which of the [same] 76 Event Quests will show a new panel of the Event's Narrative (its storyline) - in this Event, those Quests are Nos. 6, 14, 24, etc.

In other words : Despite being called 'Event Narrative Quests' in the tooltip which appears when you mouse over the bottom row (the tooltip is shown in the Pic. 1 image below), these are not separate Quests, and the Narrative panels don't do anything other than provide entertainment value.

Having not much else to do right now [er, as usual...], I've made a couple of annotated images:

1. Pic. 1 shows the main Event Quest UI which appears when you click on the Quest-giver's icon at the left-hand side of the City Screen. On the right-hand side of the rows of numbers, you can see from the top row of numbers that I've completed 71 of the total 76 Event Quests, and also that my next Narrative Quest will appear when I reach Quest 75 (bottom row of numbers).

If you click on the 'paper and quill' icon in the bottom left of the Event Quest UI - which I've marked as (A) - the Narrative panel (Pic. 2) will appear.

2. Pic. 2 - the Narrative panel - will open up showing the most recent Narrative panel you've completed, although you can cycle through all of those you've already completed by using the green arrows, again at the bottom left of the interface, and you can see that I've completed nine 'Narrative Quests' so far. You can click anywhere else on the screen to quit out of the Narrative panel and go back to the main Event Quest UI.

NB : To avoid 'spoilers', and in case you haven't yet completed all of the Event Quests which have a Narrative panel attached to them, I've shown only the first Narrative panel which everyone sees at the start of the Event.

... hope this helps! :)

Event_Narrative_Quests_02a_Edited.jpg


Event_Narrative_Quests_02b_Edited.jpg
 

Silly Bubbles

Illusionist
I love this new format. I think it's quite entertaining and can be played easy or more intensive way depending on how hard we want to try for a certain prize. I got my full set so that's good. The only thing that spoilt it for me is reduced chances of winning daily prizes as this is my priority for most of the events. I think that the odds need to go up to 30% for at least one trade.
 

Laurelin

Scholar
@AsterObelix @Sir Derf @Silly Bubbles : Many thanks for explaining what looks [to me] to be far more complicated than it really is! :)

I remember reading, years ago, an article about probability and Chaos Theory - and not surprisingly having very little understanding of the maths it discussed, since it assumed its readers were graduate-plus mathematicians and/or physicists, which I am not. The gist of the article, even though it didn't go into elaborate mathematical depth even for its expert readers, was that a discovery had been made which showed that while one would assume that probability works normally under all circumstances, developments in Chaos Theory indicated that it actually doesn't. The examples given were the probability of meeting random people who, by pure chance, share (a) one's birth date, (b) one's Star Sign, or (c) both.

The conclusions stated - with enough maths provided to tell me that I had no chance to understand it - were that there is, in fact, NOT a 1/365 chance of (a), nor yet a 1/12 chance of (b), let alone a [whatever the maths is] chance of (c) - there is actually a significantly greater chance of all three happening, in the order of [and this is only an approximation from memory, I'm afraid - it was years ago] there being actually a ~10/365 chance of (a), a ~1.5/12 chance of (b), and a much smaller, but still more than double the apparent probability-only, chance of (c) being the case.

The article also stated that - contrary to the first assumptions of most readers - these figures were NOT related to the most obvious (or indeed any known) socio-anthropological factors such as whether more babies are conceived or survive birth etc. on any particular day of the year, and it concluded by saying that this is why we don't just imagine that we meet more people who share our birth date and/or Star Sign than probability would suggest - we really DO meet more such people than we should, if simple/classical probability were the only [mathematical] factor at work.

I have no idea if any more research has been done in Chaos Theory vs classical probability since then (and I wouldn't understand it, even if it has!), but it's this kind of thing which I was wondering about when I asked my original question - more than I was confused by the visible appearance of four vs five possible outcomes, which of course is always counter-intuitive at first sight and before reading the actual stated odds (since most people usually first assume identically distributed odds between the given number of outcomes - which in the examples I gave would be 1/4 vs 1/5) - and also more than I wonder about Inno intentionally cheating its players by running a deliberately biased RNG algorithm, although they wouldn't be the first F2P gaming house to do exactly that, if only because RNG in F2P games is often a major revenue source which encourages the gambling-minded in particular to spend money, while F2P games are - conveniently for those which aren't honest - rarely, if ever, subject to the same type or degree of oversight and/or Govt regulation as, for example, casinos often are.

Be that as it may, though, I'm also curious about whether the number and type (i.e. the number of faces) of dice which are rolled would make any difference to the outcome - assuming unbiased physical or simulated dice. I'm familiar with Dungeons & Dragons-type physical dice, and the two ways to to make a percentile roll are either to roll a single d100 (which are often unreliable) or to use 2 x d10 - one for the tens and one for units of the result.

Does it make any difference that there is only one chance for the d100 to register its result, with only one possible outcome, which has a large possible variance (1 to 100 inclusive - one hundred 'degrees of variance', if there is such a concept), whereas the 2 x d10 method has two chances to register a result, each of which has only ten possible outcomes, with each outcome having a much lower 'degree of variance' of only 1-10 inclusive? And would it make any difference if one used instead, for example, 20 x d5 (if they existed, which I don't think they do)? In other words - does the number of rolls made combined with the 'degree of their [possible] variance' from each other affect the overall outcome in any way? Or to put it yet another way, since I'm sure I am not getting my point across well, or at all : there is only one chance in 100 to roll any given result on a d100. There are, conversely, two chances to roll any given result when using 2 x d10 - and each outcome has only a one in ten chance to occur, so there is a lot less 'variance between results' present than there is when relying on a 1 in 100 chance... or is there?

Does the above even make sense as to what I'm asking here? I'm afraid I can express it only in words, not maths. Hmm.

And I really am interested in all this, not trying to be contrary, and - again - not accusing Inno of anything. Mind you, and at least somewhat back on-topic (!) - I have noticed, during this Event, that where I've had three Dwarf Requests on offer, and the lowest Gem-value of those needs one or more higher-tier Board Game Piece(s), there seems to be a noticeably better chance of spawning higher-tier pieces of the relevant type(s) from the Cups than the stated % figures indicate... until the Cups produce the required high-tier piece(s), at which point the spawn chances appear to revert to matching their stated odds, with mostly lower-tier pieces appearing... but of course this is probably just my own confirmation bias... ;)
 

Far Reach

Conjurer
a discovery had been made which showed that while one would assume that probability works normally under all circumstances, developments in Chaos Theory indicated that it actually doesn't. The examples given were the probability of meeting random people who, by pure chance, share (a) one's birth date, (b) one's Star Sign, or (c) both.

The chance of any two people in a room sharing a birth-date is a well known mathematical problem. It is sometimes called a paradox, because the actual result can be counter-intuitive. To quote from wikipedia's page on the "birthday problem":

In probability theory, the birthday problem asks for the probability that, in a set of n randomly chosen people, at least two will share a birthday. The birthday paradox is that, counterintuitively, the probability of a shared birthday exceeds 50% in a group of only 23 people.

The birthday paradox is a veridical paradox: it appears wrong, but is in fact true. While it may seem surprising that only 23 individuals are required to reach a 50% probability of a shared birthday, this result is made more intuitive by considering that the comparisons of birthdays will be made between every possible pair of individuals. With 23 individuals, there are (23 × 22) / 2 = 253 pairs to consider, much more than half the number of days in a year.


The exact calculation is a little messy (especially if we account for other factors such as more people being born in some parts of the year than others) but is entirely given by ordinary probability. (Not sure where Chaos Theory comes in.)

And I really am interested in all this, not trying to be contrary, and - again - not accusing Inno of anything. Mind you, and at least somewhat back on-topic (!) - I have noticed, during this Event, that where I've had three Dwarf Requests on offer, and the lowest Gem-value of those needs one or more higher-tier Board Game Piece(s), there seems to be a noticeably better chance of spawning higher-tier pieces of the relevant type(s) from the Cups than the stated % figures indicate... until the Cups produce the required high-tier piece(s), at which point the spawn chances appear to revert to matching their stated odds, with mostly lower-tier pieces appearing... but of course this is probably just my own confirmation bias... ;)

If you record every result you see then probability theory will allow us to calculate whether there is a significant statistical deviation between your observations and what Inno's published percentages would imply. It is common that people over-extrapolate from a few outlying results though, and that is what I would suspect has happened here.
 

Silly Bubbles

Illusionist
@Laurelin It really depends how complicated you want to make it. As much as I believe in Chaos Theory, I think it’s ridiculous to think that a butterfly flapping has a significant effect on weather system, it's only one of many. There are things that have much bigger effect than that and that’s what I focus on – on significant things. Otherwise, you never make a conclusion or decision because you’re too stuck in billions of little details.

Also, for Inno to cheat its players they would have to have a reason to do it, invest resources into the cheating, invest resources into hiding the cheating and make it profitable. There would also have to be an indication that it is so (eg people not getting what they would expect). To me it sounds way too difficult for anyone to be worth the effort and I personally haven’t seen any indication that I’m being cheated for them to make money from. They surely can't hide the actual result we get and that's what most people base their spending on.
 

Laurelin

Scholar
I love this new format. [...] I got my full set so that's good.
... Congratulations - but I think that one's opinion of this Event, as with any other type, will be much affected by the part of your post I've highlighted in bold... although I agree that this Event's mechanics are, in terms of their fun factor alone, more entertaining per se than those of most other Events. Then again, I personally very much enjoy the 'Misty Forest' type of Event, as many other players vehemently do not, but I've also been very lucky with those Events, as it happens, which is no doubt an influential factor in my own [not typical] enjoyment of them, too!

All in all, though, this Event is certainly low on Event Currency compared even with the decreasing sums offered in most Events over the past six months or more - and there are two related points I'd like to mention which I haven't seen discussed (much) on the [English-language] Forums:

1. The Stash Outpost which adds +1 Currency to City drops (which have been an unusually important factor in this Event, due to the overall lower amounts of Event Currency available via Quests and Daily Gifts) - if one ever buys those, of course, since they're cash-only - was priced at £9.99 rather than £7.99, and has also been offered only in one City per player, not in every City, as formerly. I myself think this may be related to Inno's apparent drive to limit 'Diamond farming' by players who use smaller Cities to 'feed' larger ones, although there is some speculation, mostly on the US Forum (I don't/can't read the non-English Forums) that this may or may not be yet another 'bug' (with my cynical head wondering whether, if so, it may be a cousin of the FA Coins bug-which-wasn't - more below on Coins - but Time, not to mention Inno's metrics, will tell, of course).

2. The value of the Ashen Phoenix has been noticeably reduced because over time, fewer and fewer Event Quests have been worth even as much as the 50+ Event Currency (EC) which many Quests were formerly worth. In the current Event, the most any Quest is worth is 30-odd EC, whereas the Ashen Phoenix was introduced when up to half of the Quests in each Event (I am too lazy to check the exact figure) were worth 50+ EC, with the Ashen Phoenix paying out extra EC [pretty much] as follows (sorry it's so complex - it's Inno's design!) :

Stage 1-5 ... 1.0% to 1.4% EC sequentially per Quest reward (rounded down, so +1 EC per Quest below 50 EC reward value)
Stage 6 ... 1.5% EC per Quest reward (rounded up, so +2 EC per Quest of 50+ EC reward value)
Stage 7 ... 1.7% EC (1.6% is missed out)
Stages 8-10 ... 1.8% to 2.0% EC sequentially.

Therefore, Stages 6-10 of the Ashen Phoenix are worth 2 EC per 50+ EC Quest reward, unless - and I don't think this has even applied since the Ashen Phoenix was introduced (or ever at all?) - any Quest were to be worth 100 EC or more, which would award [up to] +3 EC per such Quest.

Now that all Quests are worth well under 50 EC, though, spending any Artifacts on an Ashen Phoenix is pointless (and wasteful), because it awards only +1 EC per Quest at all Stages (based on US Forum comments by Ashen Phoenix owners). Of course, that's still worth 79 EC in the current Event, for example, at +1 EC per Quest, but even so, I think this is a pretty stealthy and significant nerf from the viewpoint of any player who used their original Event-won Ashen Phoenix Artifacts to evolve their Ashen to Stage 6 or above in expectation of earning more EC than that per Event - especially because Ashen Artifacts could, as usual, be exchanged for others, which it now seems would have been the better choice. I also recall that the Ashen was, at the time, considered a very good investment - based on the old per-Quest EC values - so many players tried to evolve it.

Furthermore, I think (?) Ashen Phoenix Artifacts have been added to the Spire this week - which hardly seems much of a prize, since they have no purpose other than Disenchantment (although I'm not risking it - my guess is that an 'Artifact exchange system' of some kind will eventually materialise) - unless Inno either reverts Event Quests to being worth 50+ EC and/or alters the way in which the Ashen functions - and if Ashen Artifacts are due to be added to the Crafting rotation (if not there already? - the base has been there for a long time) - then this seems a rather cynical move, considering (a) that all Artifacts cost 10K Spell Fragments and 3 x Blueprints to Craft, and (b) that there are already so many types of Artifact in the rotation - with an obvious bias towards the 2019 Phoenix type (4 of 5 which I see) - that each non-2019 type is becoming very rare.

The only thing that spoilt it for me is reduced chances of winning daily prizes as this is my priority for most of the events. I think that the odds need to go up to 30% for at least one trade.
I think 50% is more realistic, since on about half of the days since I've reached the Daily Locked Quests, I myself have not even had enough Event Currency - once translated into Board Game pieces, with the enormous degree of randomness involved there - to complete even one [good Gem-value] Dwarf Request. Rarely, I have been able to complete two Requests - so, two Daily Prize attempts - on the same day of the Daily Locked Quests - which for me, as for many later-game players, has been the majority of the Event, since I finished the first 'batch' of Quests in around five days, without even rushing noticeably, and after spending my initial Currency. Again because of how randomly the Event mechanics work, I can't rely on completing enough Dwarf Requests to [without risk] hoard enough Event Currency for several attempts per Daily Prize., and it's not very exciting to sit and look at the Daily Prizes cycling through without having even one chance at more than half of them.

I don't think Inno will mind, though... I predict that this Event has been a high earner in terms of extra Currency sales, not only because merge-type games are very popular, but also because I've read many more comments than average, both here and on Facebook (Inno's preferred promotional vehicle) by players stating that they either have already bought, or intend to buy, extra Event Currency in order to play more of the merge game. As I think you said yourself, @Silly Bubbles (apologies if it wasn't you?)... this type of mechanic is, indeed, known to be addictive.

Oh, and : the sums of Coins needed for relevant Quests are much higher than usual, as per the last FA. Yesterday's Quest for me was this one:
[
Summer_2022_Quests_01g_Q.67_Big_Amount_Coins_MH_22m_Ch.XII.jpg
... i.e. just under a third of my 22m Main Hall capacity. The 'Produce Goods' Quests are pretty heavy, too - for my Combat-focused City, at least.

In fact, and without buying extra Event Currency, this Event is, overall, both more Resource-demanding and slower-progressing than any I can recall in terms of its underlying functionality, despite its highly visible and, per se, fast-moving and very interactive 'Board Game' merging mechanics - when one actually has more than a day's worth of Event Currency to spend. Quite an interesting trompe l'oeil, in fact - although I often say that Inno's 'player management skills', to use a neutral term I just made up for the occasion, are often significantly underestimated... :D
 

Silly Bubbles

Illusionist
@Laurelin You're surely entitled to your own opinion and feelings as I am and hopefully, I did make it clear enough that they are my feelings and not how everyone feels. I do believe in giving feedback and I'm surely not expecting everyone to feel the same. But my feelings are mine and I'm quite sure that I know how I feel and why. ;)
 

OldHag

Scholar
I have really enjoyed this event. It took a lot of patience, a lot of declining and waiting for new trades, but I had finished the quest list and was onto the dailies with 16 days to go, which did drag it out a bit too much for my liking and I think the drop rate around the city was quite poor, but overall I enjoyed the new format. I got the 7th set piece this morning and was lucky enough to pick up some more lucky cards, which gave me an extra 150 chips (total) to spend, so I may even get the avatar (why isn't it an oldhag?) if my luck holds out.
 

Laurelin

Scholar
@Laurelin You're surely entitled to your own opinion and feelings as I am and hopefully, I did make it clear enough that they are my feelings and not how everyone feels. I do believe in giving feedback and I'm surely not expecting everyone to feel the same. But my feelings are mine and I'm quite sure that I know how I feel and why. ;)
Just out of interest : why would you think I'm opposing your feelings, or saying you shouldn't have them, or in fact arguing particularly with you at all, other than where I clearly tag you (or quote you) - for example, where I'm agreeing that we should get a better chance at the Daily Prizes, even though I think that a 30% chance is too low, according to MY experience/feelings/whatever (and we can hardly use anyone else's for reference)...? I'm not - honestly - and it's probably clear enough to anyone who can stand to read my hopefully no longer rambling, but still longer-than-average, comments here that I, too, love to give feedback... whether anyone takes account of it or not. Heh :D

@OldHag : I think the avatar is more like a Young Hag, but if I even get the final Set piece it'll be a miracle, so although I'd love to own her, I won't!
 
Top