Board Game Arena

Silene wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 20:10 The thing is: for what you say is happening to actually happen - that would REQUIRE the developer to implement some mid-level-AI-functionality into their game to analyze what's good and what's bad for one player and to process player-information to find out which player to favor. That's many-many hours of work to do. So why would that be happening? Why so much effort? To advantage one random dude over some other random dude? Why?

Good players (and that is universal to many games and not just Marco Polo) play in a way that is flexible towards randomness. They set up themselves in a way that more random events are good outcomes for them and less random events are bad outcomes for them. When they are ahead, they take less risks. When they are behind, they take risk in order to at least have a chance to get lucky.
So yes - they do get more favourable outcomes than worse players. But that's not because the randomness favors them but because they set up their game-position well.

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 19:42

ABY1977 wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 19:24 Interestingly, when you scored 500 points ELO, did you notice that the site was helping you?

And as I checked now I haven’t

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 20:20 You’re arguing against a full “AI cheating system” that I never claimed.

I’m talking about observed patterns in actual games, not developer intent (it could just as well be a bug or something unintended).

Also, saying “good players adapt to randomness” is true in general, but it doesn’t automatically explain consistent asymmetries that still needs to be examined, not assumed.

ABY1977 wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 21:54

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 19:42

ABY1977 wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 19:24 Interestingly, when you scored 500 points ELO, did you notice that the site was helping you?

And as I checked now I haven’t

You don't have 500 ELO now, but you did it earlier, because you have this trophy.
But now you're not writing about big ELO, but about the fact that the advantage goes to the player who has more trophies. It's kind of hard for me to imagine such a script in a program. The main thing is, why?

Silene wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 22:07

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 20:20 You’re arguing against a full “AI cheating system” that I never claimed.

Actually I said mid-level-AI-functionality. Not full.

I’m talking about observed patterns in actual games, not developer intent (it could just as well be a bug or something unintended).

Either there IS assessment of who the player is and what to give them - then there HAS to be some developer intent of rigging something. Situation-evaluation and results adapting to it doesn't implement itself.
OR random events happen regardless of the players. Then the patterns you observed are just randomly happening and nothing out of the ordinary. You just feel them to be unfair because perception fools us too easily.

Also, saying “good players adapt to randomness” is true in general, but it doesn’t automatically explain consistent asymmetries that still needs to be examined, not assumed.

At first they have to be assessed. Make a hypothesis and test it. Otherwise your "consistent asymmetries" are just a gut feeling.

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 22:17[...]
You’re arguing against a full rigging system I never even claimed I clearly mentioned unintended behavior.

Funny how you’re asking for hypotheses and testing, but already decided it’s just perception

Silene wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 22:47

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 22:17[...]
You’re arguing against a full rigging system I never even claimed I clearly mentioned unintended behavior.

So are you saying it is systematically favoring a specific group of players or not? Because unintended behaviour cannot systematically favor a specific group of players if
* there's no information about the players passed over to the game status
* and there's no analysis of the game status with evaluation what is favourable and what is not.
But if those 2 things are done then it IS done intentional because it cannot implement itself. And those are certainly not needed to implement the game.

Unless of course we talking about fate or some kind of godly intervention that makes the php-random-function not stick with the expected propabilities... that might work without any coding

Something has to be influencing the propabilities if they are differing from a fair roll or shuffle.
If it's unintended behaviour (wasn't influenced) then you have just observed a lucky or unlucky streak which happen to everyone and will pass.

Funny how you’re asking for hypotheses and testing, but already decided it’s just perception

My position is the default assumption and the one that is stated to be done in the FAQ. It is what you will have, if you do the easiest implementation for the game. Also btw. what occasionally developers of different games have said on the forum on similar claims in other games.

The extraordinary needs to be proven. Not the ordinary.

... or at least you need to present suspicious data. But you're not doing that - you just present your conclusions to your feelings. At least give us a couple of game tables that you find suspicious and what exactly is so suspicious in those games. Those will probably still be cherry-picked, but it least we would have something to work with and to examine.

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 23:17 Also, one last thing from me.

grscarface wrote: ↑19 May 2026, 23:17 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.