South Paw will NOT be participating at this time, thank you.
Kenn Oath. Per request in chat by South Paw.
Copper, a brief history for you since I started in Java and the responses to player concerns from Bytro.
Moving from JAVA to HTML was understandable, as the security and the ability of the JAVA format was questionable. But we lost some of the finer control functions as a result. We could sneak artillery up by the second, not a 'guestimation' area.
Moving off that format, to the current 'enhanced' graphics display, Bytro did allow a 'Legacy' format to be run along side it for those now accustomed to the older JAVA based style. Until they didn't.
The Use of GOLDMARKS has always been a tit for tat argument, some, if not most, agree that the occasions where a whale was encountered was appropriate to allow continued free play on maps, as these encounters where usually confined to the larger 100 or 500 player maps and did not bother the community as much in the smaller maps. Until that changed and now we have 'cards' in place of GM.
But WAIT. Not in place of it, along side it. And tempting to use on any map, as some of the cards are, you guessed it, now free.
Well, except for the cards that would equalize the game. Units that when used en mass are game destroyers even more so than GM was.
You could fight a whale through better tactics and use of the same units available. But no more. Buy these new units, or loose.
So, that is where we are. Oh, but it is still free....... kind of. Maybe.
Gold won in game, given as compensation or won from ads and games are not allowed to be used to assist allies to build or boost. I would assume it an ally this is with, as all GM can be used for your own purpose.
One of the more elaborate bait and switches I have seen.
Then why play? If it is SO bad, why are you here?
Like it or not, this is a business. They have limited resources in which to provide a format that the MAJORITY of the community can agree too.
Thousands, even tens of thousands of players hardly constitute a majority by any standard when the player registration is over 5 million.
Servers cost. Staff costs. Tech support costs. Brick and morter costs.
The game is free.
Do the math.
I have played in chatters maps from days long past. Before I get into details of this write, I would like to express thank to the staff, and Field Marshal Dan, South Paw (Retired), and Avarita in particullar, for resurrecting these from the days of Java. They where, and are , a fine tool for bonding community.
Now, to the core of the issue.
The maps are designed to be all inclusive. No rank requirements, no GM use and no commitments when joining.
I am dissapointed when these fundimental core values are tossed to the curb simply to keep alliance members from in fighting. I know it is there, as I have spoken with many folks, becouse I KNOW many folks.
When this happens, expectations of a neutral game are severly tarnished, and game play becomes an alliance match rather than a free for all as intended.
For those on the staff that are not familiar with these standards, that where honored long ago, shame be upon you for acting this way and making the game a subject of alliance honor rather than what it is designed to be.
And for the other alliance players and team mates, shame be upon you as well.
Play the game. Simple. Make your friends based on the map. Not based on prior commitments to one's alliance members.
This is NOT what was originally intended, and those who know they are involved with this type of activity should be ashamed.
Uphold what it was originally created for. Fun and a chance to participate in a community event.
This lends itself to the question: Does the curve developement rely specificly to a particullat point in time and begin data aquasition (A battle) in an attempt to estable the curve, or is it accumulative for a game as it advances, or part of a series of continuous calculations from multiple data contributors?
In laymans terms, do they leave the engine running for additional trips when you get out of the car, or do you shut it off and restart every time.
If specific to a time and specific unit, the RNG never developes the curve. It is not balance in it's application therefore and can be biased as a result. If clustering is coumpounding this as it applys to every battle due to it not having enough data points to establish a curve during the first calculation (Repete number simulation habitual clusters). Bias again can be encountered, if it uses these data points and continues the data collection, using each contributor within the population in order to establish a Universe. Establishment of the universe is nessessary to claim the 6 sigma rule is followed. Otherwise it is not a true reflection of the development. It would be inconsistant size sampling of subgroups. This again can artificially bias data points if clusters are present.
The very reason that 7 does not pay, or pay well in craps. It has a higher probability of appearance.
What we see is habitual. We assign variation in the output as "luck", when in actuallity, it may be a bias that a player encounters. Depending on how the curve is developed, the distribution end result then can skew, adding credability to the appearance of a series of battles, or a string of games we attribute to this "bad luck".
I have done a some research into the subject of RNG (Random Number Generators) and have discovered that there are several types.
There are differences in the bias that can effect outcomes based on probability of randomness. Numbeer custers of the 0 vs 4 for example. There are few references of good generators I have found that apply to games, most are labled as 'good enough for who it's for' in the reaserch articals.
I am curious, as I read on these issues, if the bias can be relative to a player themself, as some see times where their "luck" based on the RNG outcome differs from different games they enter where there is significantly different rankings of the players.
Can the players themselves create an annomoly that causes bias to a particullar ranked set within the game?
A TRNG is expensive to operarte and maintain, and as the newest are relaint upon quantum technology, are ever adapting as studies into their function continues.
I work with the assumption therefore, working form the information I have read, that here the RNG used here is subject to bias and the outcome in never a true random event.
There is some degree of commfort offered in a simple talent based game where the subjectivity of the outcome is based on simple math and less on the randomness of a potentially biased generator.
I use the example of chess. The pieces, moves options and placement restictions of the game iteslf create an evironment where suprise based on random interjection of a variable outside the players control is negated. You do not base the winner on a dice roll. It is based on ability.
Here, the variability is outside the control of the player. The dice rolls at every interaction between the pieces placed on the board.
There is, therefore, no true reliance upon a players ability to perform in a tactical application, as the randomness and potential for bias within any engagement can yeild unanticipated results, rendering the statistical information relative to HP, morale and stack unit composition totally outside the realm of any certainty.
The actual ability of the player is degraded to an serious extent as engagements occur, as RNG, not TRNG, can trend to a repeating bias based on the application of the player as used. Clusters for data.
To illistrate, if I am constantly fighting, the RNG in use far more involved regularly in the ourcome, and a disrtribution results in a bell shaped curve, but over time. Within that time, it can cause wild actions that are seriously influential to the outcome of the result. And it is based on the roll of a dice. It is there fore INFLUENCED by player ability, but not CONTROLLED by it.
Intuatively, this seems to be a reverse of what the expectations are for a normal game experience.
I want results to be in line with what I can do based on unit compostiion, use, power and tactical application.
Not on the roll of a dice.
Still waiting. Real life first also applies to the staff. Patience.
The more things change, the more they stay the same sometimes. Why it is now paid out as it is, makes no sence to me. In my opinion? Go for the solo win.
Before the time of coalitions, it was a natural thing to do. Now, I feel they have scarred the landscape so winning solo is just more difficult. I see folks join coalitions becouse they feel they will be swallowed by one of them, like being eaten by a pack of sharks. They do it for protection rather than for all the right reasons. Join one becouse it can win. Not becouse you may be eaten.
Rewards are not interchangeable for teams and individual wins. Single players are awarded the amount based on their points at end of game, even if not in a 'place', 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
When in a coalition, it is win or nothing. Something to think on for next game.
I've tried many time with army arriving from different direction but synchronised to arrive at the same minute with the delay function and always merge. In any case, even if not merge but are in the range of 3/4 kilometres from the objective, they fight as they are one army.
But it maybe a coincidence. I had played few games.
The issue is not that they fight upon arrival as a seperate unit. Should they fail to merge they do not enhance the morale of the original unit and, as a result, the losses can be far greater than had the original group recieved the subsequent armies and merged to a higher morale.
I have also noticed the absence of the infantry stats when viewing directly and not from a game platform. Again, I questioned this as well, but have not recieved an answer to any degree of satisfaction. If I had to guess, it is an oversight due to the new stat calculation program coming on line to address the time it took for a simple update. Bytro has a fine record of addressing issues, it is simply a matter of priority for them, I have little doubt.
Armies comming from seperate directions rarely, if ever, successfully merge during a battle. It is difficult enough to get them to merge at times coming in as reenforcements from the same direction, more times than not the y remain a seperate fighting unit. Why? I have no clue. It just is.
It has been a exploit since the dark days of Java format my friend. Knowing this now, use it properly. Do not alter orders once given if rail use is imparative. Use what the game offers, and there are more hidden gems yet for you to find, and come out winning. Best wishes to you.
And wait. The report states it may take up to 72 hours for a review and/or reply to your complaint. That is in the BEST case scenerios. More times than not, it is reviewed after the damage has already been done and your game lays a smouldering pile of ashes. Best of luck to you in you endevors though.
And if any disagree with that assessment, prove me wrong. There is a line forming that says otherwise.
I have a better question? Why does it matter? If you really intend to take a provence, take it or do not. Once you have done it a thousand times, it becomes fairly routine. Total calculations with finality are not possible either due to the RNG application during battles. The longer the battle, the more it can be negated as the distribution of the RNG falls under a bell shaped curve over time for a equal event.