I'm finding this thread very interesting, so I predict another long essay coming on at a future point (eek!), since I have a fair bit to say on the subject of F2P games and the randomness, or otherwise, of the systems they use (which is strongly related to their unfortunate reliance on inducing players to gamble - or call it what you will - in pursuit of earning revenue). However, there's one point amongst the several interesting comments which I may or may not ramble about (at some future date) which is very much within my own field of education and training as well as personal interest:
People will never accept random for random and instead find patterns, most of them will find patterns where they come out as losers. It has nothing to do with the "random" not being random, but with psychology. People believing in such patterns don´t make them actually exist.
I assume you are referencing a combination of
Confirmation bias and the psychological phenomenon of seeing patterns in random data which is known as
Apophenia (often confused with a sub-type of itself known as
Pareidolia). Both of these, and especially the second, have become common buzzwords in popular discourse over the past couple of decades, but although apophenia is one reason why a person may see a pattern where none exists, it is important to recognise that it is the same (and very important, in survival terms) aspect of our minds which enables us to recognise patterns which
do exist - but which tends now to be given as
the only possible explanation every time anyone perceives any controversial instance of a pattern existing in any kind of data which should, theoretically, have no pattern (whether it actually does or not) - ever since the phenomenon was popularised, largely thanks to the Internet, by one specific instance where a religious person perceived an image of the face of Christ in a piece of burnt toast (no, really). But just because
some patterns are imagined, it does not follow that
all perceived patterns are, likewise, imaginary.
The human mind is certainly not as predictable as F2P games (and many psychologists and psychiatrists who should, frankly, know better) would like to believe, and there are many cases where people can easily recognise their own tendency towards confirmation bias and/or apophenia, and can compensate for it if they wish to - which some, of course, do not, preferring to blame a perceived unfairness when they are, as you say, merely unlucky. It is sometimes the case that confirmation bias/apophenia are blamed when patterns are perceived which actually do exist, whether or not in a disguised form - and this happens, more often than not, where someone with something to gain intentionally manipulates another person into blaming their own confirmation bias for recognising - not imagining, and that's the salient point - patterns which really do exist. But more on this when (or if, since I do get in and out of moods for Forum rambling) I get round to a proper reply on this entire (and complex) subject.
Furthermore, if Elvenar
were to use not a classical/purely random RNG system, but rather what I tend to call, in video games, a pseudo-random system, i.e. one in which each failed outcome causes the software to increase the odds of a successful outcome for the next random roll, leading eventually to the certainty of success, then I don't think we would see anywhere near as much discrepancy between individual players' Event reward results. I am no mathematician, though, and there are probably other meanings of the same term (pseudo-random) - or perhaps there is another term for what I mean? Any advice very welcome, since correct English usage is a particular love of mine, and I'd hate to be using the wrong term!
* * * * * * * *
Also,
@Sir Derf in particular, since I'm an absolute maths dunce and would much appreciate your knowledge and expertise here: I am aiming solely for Grand Prizes, and choosing Event Chests based upon their
face value alone (i.e. their stated number of Staffs awarded per X amount of Event Currency),
not based upon their mathematical/statistical value
including the % chances of winning extra Currency from some of the Chests (which I know is the system which the more mathematically adept players, as well as those who have at least some faith in Inno's RNG being equitable [on the individual player level], will probably use). Thus I choose the 18s first, then the 45s, and avoid the 80s and 89s unless there is almost no difference between their face value Staff rewards and the face value of the other, lower-value, Chests - and this has happened only once to date, so it is statistically insignificant, since I've now spent around 80% of my Event Currency on lower-[face]-value Chests. I hope this makes sense?
As to why I do this : it is because experience across many Elvenar Events over the past three years or so has taught me not to rely upon the statistically most useful Chest choices which are derived by factoring in the % chance of winning extra Event Currency from relevant Chests. This is not because I mistrust mathematics (far from it), but rather solely because my luck
in this game in particular appears to be unusually poor. I would be far more confident of such systems in other games in which - for whatever reason - I do not have such consistently (and, for me, atypically) poor RNG luck - it's the nature of Elvenar's RNG which appears to be a particular problem, whether for some or for all of us - within which I am including, although nobody is likely to complain about it, of course, instances of players having much
better luck than average, not only worse.
And
@BlueBlou : Good for you!
I'm also primarily hoping to win enough Set pieces (as I think I will) to be able to produce CCs, so I'm also in the happy band who will be able, at least, to achieve this - although I'd also love to win the Steel-producing building, since it's the rarest T1 Good in my own FS and my own local Map area as well, and it's likely to become only rarer, too, as the Scrolls disaster continues to bite, seeing as Steel is the most common T1 pairing with Scrolls, and abandoned Scrolls Cities will thus lead not only to fewer Scrolls, but also less Steel in circulation.