Stop the permanent cascades by the AI

joerginger

Ever since the AI upgrade, the computer has been cascading like crazy, thus getting very high amounts of mana in very early turns. Watching the computer cascade for minutes and then emptying its hand every turn is the opposite of fun, especially when your turn comes and the only thing to match on the entire field is a row of loyalty gems that will once again enable a match-5 in the enemy's colour. This has been going on for way too long by now and should stop really soon.

Monkeynutts

It is frecking ridiculous.
Mana you get vs the ai is nearly 1:3 over a game.

DBJones

Over many games, this advantage levels out if you pay close attention to finding the best match. However, I still think the giant mana swings without any ramp are ridiculous, for both sides. At the very least, matching three, then having an on-color match fall from nowhere (all three falling gems are on-color) shouldn't happen.

Kinesia

Its separate from the AI change. They happened at the same time, but cascade thing is DIFFERENT.

I think it is related to the changing of gem changers not changing loyalty gems, but am not sure of that.

But it happens to you too, you just notice more when the AI does it.

Regardless it _is_ breaking the game, at the very least the IMMENSE amount of complaints should make that clear.
And those of us in other forums apart from the official ones are seeing it even more from people who are scared to come here and talk because of the hostile environment.

For every 1 post here there are orders of magnitude more elsewhere, this is TOO serious, no matter the cause, put the gem changing back to what it was.
Whatever bug you were trying to fix in loyalty changing or explore you've broken far far more than that would have, things need to go back very very fast. 

Repeat: This is affecting very seriously people who never ever see a single one of the discussions here, they have no support, they just know their game is now _attacking_ them, these changes need to be gentle and tested and warned about, this was none of those things.

Tilwin90

You couldn't have been more right @Kinesia I would be less unhappy with Brainy Greg if I knew I hadn't been handicapped at the same time...

@Brigby this has been a subject for a lot of time around here, but either I did not notice a response, or no response has been given regarding gem changers no longer affecting loyalty gems. And being such a great issue, it's good to know at the very least if:
- It was intended that way (though it would sound like one of those "it's not a bug, it's a feature" situations and I expect torches and pitchforks why hasn't it been announced in the first place)
- It's a bug, the team is aware of it, and they are working hard on fixing it.

DBJones

Brigby apparently went through the Bugs sub-forum and compiled a list, including the loyalty gems no longer converting, to give to the developers. That was on the second, no further news yet.

Monkeynutts

wow just lost to a Lili 1. My 74 mana against 163 mana....and I had a support that gave me gems of my colour in play. 

arNero

+1

Starts to get sick of AI not only getting infinte mana over and over, but every time I carefully try to make a match, the next gems falling quite often allow the AI to get 5-match, plus all the cascades that follow.

Laeuftbeidir

-1
I don't believe the ai has any advantage, but I do believe in perception bias. Nerving Greg would be meh (I never liked the mentally challenged Greg), and as octal9 (a source I regard as trustworthy) said and showed multiple times, the RNG is as random as can be. Changing it, even in our favor would take the R out of it.

hawkyh1

theoretically deck rng that produces 5 copies of demolish
is not giving the ai an advantage(assuming the same rng
is used on both sides). in practice having to draw more
than 40 cards before you get 4 copies of each card
breaks the rules of a 4x10 card deck. I like the smarter ai.
currently my belief is the rng is across a too large a range.
rng is only a part of the game, it should not be so
overpowering that is dominates the outcome of the battle.
if greg played as me and both players have identical decks,
I'm currently not convinced the outcome would be 50/50
wins/losses across 39 battles.

HH

DBJones

Probably not. Even flipping a coin wouldn't be most of the time with only 39 trials though (technically never as 39 is odd, but I mean varying by 3+). Also, any particular reason to choose 39?

Monkeynutts

What I don't get is when the AI tends to.cascade it fill just enough of 1, 2 or 3 cards and thos 3 cards change a game. I rarely see an AI match one block three and pass.

hawkyh1

39 battles is the whole of the toa event(being 3x13). should
players expect the rng to be reasonably fair(ish) across the
whole of a multi day event?

HH

DBJones

Not really, the rng in this game is actually pretty good. That means a good number of people will experience bad luck in most of 39 battles, and about the same number will have good luck most of the time. I don't think that's actually a problem, I think the real problem is the degree to which luck can determine the course of battles in this game. One good turn can put you way too far ahead of your opponent, and one bad turn can lose the game. These are in extreme circumstances admittedly, but I think even those should take 2-3 turns to totally decide the course of a battle. With more reasonable cards and/or cascades 4 turns to set up a near unbeatable board would be reasonable. Basically, both sides should have a chance to recover from any sort of big swing in this game.