This game is ruined

[grscarface]

Also, one last thing from me. I’ve never seen you in the game, and I don’t even know if you’ve played Marco Polo at all, but I do find it interesting how invested you are in this discussion, especially with the number of long replies.

Yeah I just feel drawn to threads like this. It's the subject in general (people spreading or feeding conspiracy theories about random events in various games). It was just a random impulse that I responded in this one. Nothing particularly about Marco Polo. Although I have played a couple of times, I'm not an expert in this game.

But you also found it interesting that someone who you specifically pointed to this thread has responded here. So i guess whoever responds here - you'll find something interesting about them. Just as in your game patterns

But fine, I'm ready to leave now.

I simply mentioned the possibility of a bug, no system is flawless. And I’m not the only one who has noticed similar patterns, yet the responses tend to be either “paranoia” or “conspiracy theories.”

I understand the tendency to defend the platform, it’s a good one, but I’ve learned to question things rather than accept everything a priori.
Have a nice day.

[Chionti]

Hi Grscarface,

I have been following this discussion, and yes, I agree that those two players completely dominate the arena in the past few seasons. However, I played against them many times and watched their actions closely. They do not win because of luck. I would say this is exactly why we can beat them.

Their biggest strength is that they can estimate the opponent's actions very well. They do not want to get the maximum points from their own action. Their goal is to get the maximum advantage with the current action.

*(For example: if their own action gives them 6 points and the opponent gets 4 points, the net advantage is only 2 points. But if they block the opponent's best action, they get 3 points and the opponent gets 0 points. This gives them a 3-point advantage, so they will choose this blocking action).*

Also, they can see your expected actions in the current round with high accuracy. They see more good paths than most players, so their game is not as sensitive to the random factor as other players.

Grscarface, I understand your frustration, but just look at these numbers.

• My stats against them:
  • ABY1977: 28 wins in 99 games (28%)
  • dusko_iv: 14 wins in 60 games (23%)

• My stats against you:
  • grscarface: 26 wins in 45 games (58%)

The conclusion is that they are simply better than you, just like they are better than me.

I hope you do not take this message as an attack, because I did not mean it that way. With these numbers and thoughts, I want to prove to you that you are wrong, and also show you where you are falling behind compared to them.

[grscarface]

@Chionti Thanks for your reply, I understand your point, and I don’t take it as an attack.

However, my intention was never to compare myself to specific players or argue about who is better. That’s not the point I was making.

What I’m referring to are specific patterns and possible unintended behaviors (or bugs) in the game that seem to occur repeatedly, especially in situations involving high ELO players. Whether those players are better or not is a separate discussion.

Of course, strong players can reduce the impact of randomness through better decision-making, and I fully acknowledge that. But that alone doesn’t necessarily explain consistently recurring situations that feel statistically unusual.

I’m not claiming a “rigged system” but I do believe that no system is flawless, and it’s reasonable to question patterns that appear repeatedly over a large number of games, especially when others have reported similar observations.

So again, this isn’t about skill comparison. It’s about whether there might be edge cases, bugs, or unintended mechanics that deserve a closer look.

Anyway, I appreciate your perspective.

[tchobello]

Hello,

When games are implemented, the developer is only responsible for the game logic itself.

Everything related to players (matchmaking, ELO, player selection, and game setup at the platform level) is handled by BGA, not by the game implementation.
The setup process inside a game only receives the number of players; it does not know who the players are or their skill level.

Some players sometimes feel that games may be influenced by skill level or matchmaking, but there is no mechanism in the game code to do so.

Many games on the platform are created by volunteers and may not be perfect, but they are not designed to favour or disadvantage any group of players.

[Phoxtrot]

Oh another baseless conspiracy theory.

To make an assertion about bias, you need hard data, else you are just showing your own cognitive bias.

So first you need a methodology to collect data, data collection without a proper methodology is usually biased.
Then or together, you ,need to determine what *precisely* you will measure like how many times this person or this well define set of persons has had this particular result happen out of how many situation. It needs to be something where the expected probability is fixed and known otherwise the maths will be very complex.

Then you collect the data, following scrupulously your methodology. If you change methodology or what you measure along the way, that's heavily subject to cognitive bias.

Then you create an appropriate likelihood function to compute mathematically the likelihood of the results you obtained.

Then you remember that there are millions of games being played here.

If you obtain a likelihood above 1%, you have nothing.
If you obtain something below 1% when can start to discuss but you'll need a bigger data set, it really isn't worth much effort until you can et below 1 in 10000.
At 1 in a million, we prod in the methodology, verify the assumptions, verify the data set, verify in particular that the choice of data set follows a good unbiased methodology, and if everything holds true, then you have a point. Still not a certainty, just a point.

For now, you have nothing. Just your own bias.
"has come to you about five times more often than to me." just isn't cutting it.
You need a precise count out of an unbiased data set (and all of stuff explained above otherwise cognitive bias can screw everything)

This requires maths and to know the rules of the game just enough to know what can be measured with a fixed chance and if it's relevant to the point you want to make. Expertise in the game is mostly irrelevant.

[Jellby]

I think it's much more likely that some players are being favored for their good karma from previous lives, or by some deity or other...

[grscarface]

I think it's much more likely that some players are being favored for their good karma from previous lives, or by some deity or other...

Hahahaha good point

[FrankJones]

an assertion of this kind requires significant evidence. I have never played this game, but I find the topic interesting. (I only saw this thread because the forum filter is broken, so it is showing all game forums instead of my usual 15-20 for the games I play.)

You can post the URL to a set of games that you believe shows proof of your assertion.

But, I'll just echo what other have said. Coding a game to favor high Elo players would take a bizarre amount of extra work to write code that actually analyzes the game situation to figure out which outcomes favor which players. Why would any developer do that, especially when the code can be viewed by other people?

My understanding is that most games on BGA use the same RNG function, one that has been tested extensively.

[Silene]

I’m not claiming a “rigged system” but I do believe that no system is flawless, and it’s reasonable to question patterns that appear repeatedly over a large number of games, especially when others have reported similar observations.

I think it is important to note that favouring high elo players cannot happen accidentally from a flawed RNG. As we heard from some game developers, the RNG does not get any information about who the numbers are for / who the players are. In order to favour a specific group of players - it can only happen if it was built in maliciously. Done on purpose by the game developer and conspiring with the site-developers.

So if you claim that a specific group is favoured, you ARE claiming a rigged system. Something like that cannot implement itself. And if you still stand by that claim you need really strong proof which I doubt exists.

Maybe rethink the possibility that what you "observed" was just an unlucky streak (which are normal to happen on any RNG). And you probably don't remember as strongly the last lucky streak where that didn't happen.

Apart from that the fact that there have been people on the forum who claim that the RNG favors
* higher ELO players
* lower ELO players
* premium players
* new players (to get them hooked)
* the ones that have been lucky before
* the ones that have been unlucky before
* ...
...kinda shows that: yeah, you can definitely observe streaks where one group of players is luckier than another. But no, that's not weird - it just happens because stuff happens.

[AsteroidField]

This is real, and everyone saying it isn't is lying to you. When you reach master rank, you gain the ability to adjust luck levels. I just reached master in Heat: Pedal to the Metal and unlocked this option on the menu.
Someone adjusted your luck level to Hard