Dynamic Adjustment

what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

"leef;c-1879522" wrote:
what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

The semantics of their response said 'manual'. A dynamic algorithm is anything but manual, especially when it's based on machine learning.

A game that takes money from people should be transparent in how it does so. If an algorithm dynamically changes drop rates to induce you in to playing longer or spending money then it prays on gambling.

It's not about whether you agree or disagree with it - however it certainly puts the 'RNG' arguement to bed as that doesn't exist in a game that dynamically adapts to the situation based on trained data

"leef;c-1879529" wrote:

"Reyalp;c-1879525" wrote:

"leef;c-1879522" wrote:
what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

The semantics of their response said 'manual'. A dynamic algorithm is anything but manual, especially when it's based on machine learning.

Since they can just flat out lie without consequenses, i don't see why you want to argue sementics here.

A game that takes money from people should be transparent in how it does so. If an algorithm dynamically changes drop rates to induce you in to playing longer or spending money then it prays on gambling.

Transparancy on such a system would definately not benefit the game, or the players for that matter.

It's not about whether you agree or disagree with it - however it certainly puts the 'RNG' arguement to bed as that doesn't exist in a game that dynamically adapts to the situation based on trained data

So what is it about? A hypothetical discussion about RNG not excisting under the assumption that they're using such a system? What purpose would that serve?

It's the same as the dealer being able to change his hand in blackjack to fit the situation.

Personally, I think if a company (EA) with a goal of making as much money as possible* has the technology that enables them to squeeze more money out of the players, they will use that technology. And I really doubt that they prohibit their affiliates to use it. It's more likely that they encourage the usage of that technology.

Now the question is whether CG implemented it or not. I think it depends on how can they meet the monetary expectations (or even requirements) of EA. Usually I'm pessimistic about the intents of profit-driven companies, though I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt to CG. The fact is that we'll never know as it's obvious that they never ever admit it if they use that technology.

So these kinds of speculations and discussions make no sense and lead nowhere.

*Edit: I mean if that's their main and only goal, which is clearly shown by the iterations of basically the same games over and over (I'm looking at you Fifa and co.)

The reason Crumb used the word manual is because he was parroting the answer from the CG employee who answered the drop rate question in Q&A who goes into greater detail about what he means by manual; I would suggest reading the Q&A hyperlink that Crumb posted before he used the word manual

If you look into Carrie’s comments on Reddit, she flat out says they do not do dynamic RNG in very clear words

"Kisakee;c-1879579" wrote:

"leef;c-1879566" wrote:

"Kisakee;c-1879552" wrote:

"EduardoCadav;c-1879538" wrote:

In the end we'll probably never know the truth, so just play the game and stop worrying about it.

If you chose to accept lies and live a happy life with that just do as you like. They will never admit that they use it somewhere, of course not. But if they have such patents they will use them, especially when they have to pay money to get it in first place. The sheer existence is evidence enough, believe it or not.

What's the alternative?
Don't accept their lies and stop playing because you believe that the existence of such a patent is evidence enough for you to know that they're using it?

That's one way to deal with it, yes. Another one is to continue playing with that knowledge and keep it in mind for future if it comes to questions like 'To spend or not to spend'.

Even if they don't use it for this game they will use it somewhere and some people may chose to not spend money to a business that uses such bad tricks.

So basically just keep playing like you were playing before you were aware that they owned such a patent. Maybe pretent to be outraged a bit here and there, blame EA for being greedy once again, referrence their horrible reputation a few times and most importantly; potentially stop spending like this is the last straw that broke the camel's back.
I'm sorry, it's just funny to me.

"Drazhar;c-1879577" wrote:

"Ultra;c-1879570" wrote:
If you look into Carrie’s comments on Reddit, she flat out says they do not do dynamic RNG in very clear words

Yes, she also said that she never saw that patent before but then she said she has a lot of bosses (she works for EA now, she's no more CG_Carrie) and that adding the algorythm contained in that patent is something they've been asked for regularly. So she basically said that she never heard about that patent but then she said they've been asked to use it for long time. Isn't this a little bit contradictory?

She already addressed this.

"Holek83;c-1879604" wrote:
do not 6* the character and you will never be stucked at 99/100 maybe you can fool the system by having 184/85 :wink:

And if you do ever find yourself at 99/100 make sure to sim in groups of 5... the game will 100% guaranteed give you 3/5 drops just to annoy you a bit more ;)

Here are both responses from the dev team.

If you dont believe them, take it up with them in a private message, but they are clear that they dont do this and that drop rates are fixed.


https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/bwxmbh/ea_patent_have_we_been_deceived_all_along/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Note here:All drop rates are fixed.

"CG_SBCrumb;c-1877522" wrote:
As we mentioned in the Q&A, we don't do any manual changing of odds in general. Additionally, we don't modify the drop rates of challenges from release to release.

https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/1877522#Comment_1877522

This will be closed as well.

It is either used or it is not used. My thoughts are that it is used. It's "industry standard". And "bosses are asking for it to be used" (to paraphrase).

If that's an issue to me then I wouldn't play.