New Idea: Primary buildings in events should come from a pre-determined pool

Discussion in 'Ideas' started by Prinza the Hunter, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. Prinza the Hunter

    Prinza the Hunter Brigadier-General

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Proposal:

    With event buildings (e.g. Elephant Fountain and parts; Palace and parts) there should be a pre-defined pool of buildings from which a random selection is made to be made available at any one time.

    (For all I know this is how it works at the moment but the presence of items on the Casino Wheel are merely described as 'random'.)

    (I checked the forums for an idea like this but not spotted one with the searches I thought to try.)

    Reason:

    While many players are very happy with the availability of buildings to make up sets, there are many comments about some worlds being scarce for particular buildings. If the presence of buildings is entirely random, it is possible that some neighbourhoods are over-supplied with some buildings and starved of others.

    If a neighbourbood has a predetermined number of each of the buildings in a set from which a random selection is made, it can be assured that the neighbourhood as a whole is supplied with the appropriate number of buildings, while still leaving the individual collection of them as a matter of chance.

    Details / example:

    A simple count is initialised for the neighbourhood. Say, 50 (this number can be important in player perception). I will give an example as though are just 3 buildings in a set:
    Building 1: 50
    Building 1: 50
    Building 1: 50​
    The randomiser first decides whether any special buidling is to be presented. If so, one of the buildings is picked at random and its count is reduced:
    Building 1: 50
    Building 1: 49
    Building 1: 50​
    This process continues until one of the buildings has been exhausted:
    Building 1: 3
    Building 1: 9
    Building 1: 0​
    From then on, the randomiser first decides whether any special buidling is to be presented and if so, picks at random from what is left:
    Building 1: 2
    Building 1: 9
    Building 1: 0​
    In time, there will only be one building left to be selected:
    Building 1: 0
    Building 1: 5
    Building 1: 0​
    So now, when the randomiser determines that a special building is to be presented, there is just the one building to pick from, until all buildings reach zero.
    When all buildings reach zero, the counts are re-initialised and the process repeats.

    In this way, it can be assured that a certain number of every building is supplied, while still retaining the random chance aspect. Players can be told that a mechanism is in place to ensure that the neighbourhood as a whole is being offered all the buildings in equal number, so any shortages personally experienced are just chance of the draw, without the potential for them never having had an opportunity.

    Visual Aids:

    No visual changes.

    Balance/Abuse Prevention:

    This system would mean that for a while, only one building in the set is being made available. However, that building should be one that is needed by some players unless one of the buidlings holds no attraction for players in general.
     
  2. Bartimaeus46

    Bartimaeus46 FoE Team Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Location:
    Scotland
    -1 Don't see the need.

    I would assume how they are doing it currently is percentages.
    So say 1% chance of getting a palace on the wheel, 5% getting a surrounding piece, 10% get 5 FP, 2% get 10 FP etc.
    Everyone has the same opportunity of getting what they want to appear on the wheel.

    Your way, you could be wanting a specific piece but they've all already been taken so you have to wait for everything else to be taken to reset the counters. So it ends up taking away the chance of getting the piece you want.
     
  3. z78sabjan

    z78sabjan Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London
    Just to be clear,- I'm not sure I follow - you mean that the rewards should be personalized?
     
  4. Prinza the Hunter

    Prinza the Hunter Brigadier-General

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    NO! Not personalised at all.

    Statistically, a 10% chance of something happening is just that, a 10% probablity of it happening. However, that statistic allows for it not to happen at all, or for it to happen every time.

    A pure random chance of 10% (or whatever it is) means that players can be overwhelmed with the opportunity to get a particular building, or might never be given the chance.

    I do not propose that the player is given the direct chance to get each part of a building. I propose that the neighbourhood is given that opportunity, so that a player is unlikely to feel they never had a chance for the building, even if the spins they got resulted in them not ending up with one.
     
  5. Bartimaeus46

    Bartimaeus46 FoE Team Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Location:
    Scotland
    Piece 1: 0 left
    Piece 2: 21 left
    Piece 3: 32 left

    I want piece 1. I have to wait for 53 other pieces to get taken by others first.

    I'd rather a 1% chance of even seeing it on the wheel over a 0% chance.
     
  6. z78sabjan

    z78sabjan Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London
    Yeah I think there could be only one way to make sure that everyone has an equal chance, if the wheel wasn't shared between the hood.
    That way everyone would have the same let's say 10% chance.

    Or maybe if the number of pieces were to increased drastically, so it could never be

    Piece 1: 0
    Piece 2: 21
    Piece 3: 32

    rather

    Piece 1: 200
    Piece 2: 325
    Piece 3: 182

    If you feel me.

    There would always be more. But frankly, I don't really know how it works right now..

    From what you guys saying, it looks to me that the number of pieces are limited. If that's the case, I think it shouldn't be, since the chance by itself decides what you get anyway.
     
  7. Prinza the Hunter

    Prinza the Hunter Brigadier-General

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    This is why I stated in the proposal (emphasis added):
    Yes, in practice, if the number is 32 or more, you might have to wait for 53 other pieces to get taken by others first, in your example.

    However

    The general perception (as shown in the thread I linked to) would (accurately) be that one building is being supplied too frequently, while people are hanging around, hoping that someone else will spin the wheel so that they can get a chance one of the 'rare' buildings in the set. So, a few players might have to wait for 53 other buildings to go first but the majority of players would be happy to see the chance to grab a building they need. The majority of players would therefore be spinning and refreshing the wheel at a greater rate than they would otherwise; this means that your wait for 53 other buildings to go by would not be as long as you would have to wait under the current system.

    If the initialisation count is 30 rather than 50, the absolute longest you would need to wait is for 60 other buildings to go by (in a 3-building set) but that would be rare - more likely you would have to wait (a short time) while players pick up around 14 other buildings (if my statistical mathematics is right).


    The biggest down-side I see of my proposal is not any waiting time (which would be reduced on average, not increased) but this (emphasis added):
    If, as an example, a set is made of 3 buildings giving (Stand-alone, 1-adjacent, 2-adjacent):
    1. Happiness, Happiness, Coins
    2. Supply, Forge Points, Medals
    3. Population, Goods, Forge Points
    Then people will be trying to arrange sets around as few of building 1 as possible, while trying to get in as many of building 3 and filling out with building 2 only as necessary to get the adjacent bonus on building 3.

    Meanwhile, the system will be force-feeding the buildings equally, rather than letting players just skip over the unwanted ones.

    There might be an answer to this (like, don't create unwanted buildings!) but it could be an issue.
     
    Bartimaeus46 likes this.

Top