I agree that the probability of two occurrences occurring in the same month is not zero...but it is over 1 in a million chance (closer to 1 in two million, so I would only need to play consistently for 10,000 years to have it happen again, lol).

I definitely agree that there must be something inside the programming formulas. To resolve this, the programming answer should be simple. Either increase the probability of getting "head" every time you get "tails," then reset at 50/50 OR force 50/50 over short durations.

The additional concern on this RNG is that the same programming issue may lie in the board and in natural draws.

Thank you @PinkApple

This issue extends to the competitive balance between players, which also must be considered.

A prime example is that in 3.5 months, I have played @Meji six times. @Meji has gotten the first pick each of those times.

The necessary changes in the RNG coin flip and the requirement for the ranking system to consider series instead of one-off games must also consider balancing the starting positions. Each player needs to have relatively equal times with the start.

If the starting position is skewed to one player, and the starting position has a statistical win rate advantage, the results become meaningless. Even using the writ of coin versus an extra gold at the start would most likely cause a skewed result without balancing the start position.

Come on @ZOS_Kevin, give us some feedback on these issues. The ranking system must change, and the coin flip formula must be reviewed.

There is absolutely a seeding issue between first and second player choice in Tales of Tribute.

I've had very very long 1st player streaks. There are also seem to be certain players were I tend to go second against them maybe 4/5 games.

It's a big problem since it calls into question other game RNG which could be improperly seeded. Not only could people figure out how to abuse the seeding, but it's also the case that TOT, being not the best balanced game between 1st 2nd player will end up with leaderboard outcomes that have just as much to do with seeding as they do player skill.

First turn has too much of an advantage honestly, the 1 coin the player that goes second gets is worthless a majority of the time. Very rare exception where you can get armory, but that's only happened a couple times in the 100+ matches I've played

IncultaWolf wrote: »

First turn has too much of an advantage honestly, the 1 coin the player that goes second gets is worthless a majority of the time. Very rare exception where you can get armory, but that's only happened a couple times in the 100+ matches I've played

First or second turn basically doesn’t matter, the tavern matters. Often enough is the tavern for the first player in the first round pretty trashy as well and the second player gets to buy the 6 coin card which often is Arsenal. Often enough you can buy Luxury Goods and maybe another card in the first round as player one. It‘s all random. There is no real advantage to starting first or being second as it all depends on the tavern RNG.

RCubed1967 wrote: »

Incorrect. I have shown over several months that the win rate for the first pick is much higher than for the second pick.

That does not mean that the second pick never wins, but there is a significant statistical advantage if you pick first.

This has been verified by other people tracking games.

I encourage you to track your games for wins and losses relative to starting position. You need at least 30 games with first pick and 30 games with the second pick to be statistically valid.

Also, please look at my post RNG, Luck and Strategy (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/637813/rng-luck-and-strategy#latest)

Yeah I have about a 80% win rate against player matches when I have first pick, and yes I have even won against people constantly in the top 10 ranked, so it's not a skill issue. First turn has an unfair advantage

@Seraphayel: Fair enough, but your last comment would also support my findings. It does not matter what the source of the issue is; it matters that there is a win rate discrepancy between the first and second pick. The question becomes how to fix it. If it is a programming issue, then ZOS can change that (maybe). If not, the Writ of Coin change may be enough to tweak things closer.

Note that I have recorded 770 games which support the difference between first and second picks. These results include different scenarios in an attempt to discount patron combinations. There are others who are also tabulating their results and have found that this discrepancy holds.

You need to support your argument that an advantage does not exist. Adding to the database by recording and reporting your results is one way. Another way is to run a properly constructed Monty Carlo simulation. Either is acceptable.

@ZOS_Kevin likely has access to everything we could ever ask for to prove this. ZOS just needs to share its database...but they never seem to do that.

Where the secret lies is in what the subroutine for the draw pile curation actually is. Is it a single event following a shuffle and the order of the cards in the draw pile are set and not altered at any point between shuffles? Or is it really that only when the card draw function is triggered that card selection for the next card(s) order is generated and subsequently dealt, allowing for the game to pick and choose when and what cards it deals from both populations of each of player's draw piles in attempt to match pre-determined parameters unknown to the players. The tavern replacement card draw function could have the same subroutine in it's programming for the intent on attempting to satisfy the same pre-determined parameter set. This would be more obvious to see happening as it happens. When the smallest odds of probability seem to occur repeatedly. Like when you use the cheap 1 coin treasury card to remove another card from the tavern and both cards are replaced with the exact same two cards, way late in the game but before a tavern shuffle. When improbable is actually mathematically impossible because there's only so many of each card in each deck, the treasury's tavern cards being the smallest of all collections. I cant even count how many games I've played where the tithe card appeared more times than there are in total before a tavern shuffle occurred its happened so often and still happens. That cant be true, and the draw piles being set in a scheduled order after they are shuffled without any unscheduled order changes in between shuffles also be true at the same time. Without human dealers or any transparency in the automation of digital entities that support a fair system that can have its fairness actually be measured against, it cant be said for certain that RNG seeding is used part or in whole in the programming. It is therefore not reliable to track and compare any history of your experiences because we don't have all the information about the given set/control schematic to measure against. The card game itself being a part of a larger total propriety is most likely why that specific piece, or any, hasn't been revealed or confirmed at all, rather than of the programming itself. And probably never will be. Frustration and anger at the powers that control this pastime is what is meant to be experienced, otherwise such info would already be a well shared known thing just as with everything else within this community. Especially by now.

@FrancisCrawford - this feels baited...but I will respond slightly. Please read the entire post as well as my other posts related to the overall RNG (the basis of this one was originally for the coin flip of the starting position.) You could argue a false dichotomy if I used the same patron choices and played the same people, but I am not. The strategies, patron and people are all altered. Unquestionably, some patrons work better in first than second (better in second than first), but that is accounted for. If you still feel that the data is suspect, please offer an alternative hypothesis and supporting data.

@GCJ_ - there may well be a very broken programming issue (I highly suspect there is). The origins of this post were based on a coin toss to see who plays first, which is undoubtedly broken. I feel that programming issues may push into other issues, such as the cards on the table and how our decks are shuffled. The entire program related to RNG should be reviewed.

@Seraphayel - thank you for testing! The more you track, the better your data becomes (and it also helps improve your in-game strategies). The entirety of the game's balance needs a review. I feel like two simple tweaks may make the RNG more palatable in the short term: convert a coin to a writ of coin and review the RNG programming (ZOS could simply check the program with a Monty Carlo simulation). Something more significant might be needed as well, but that takes time.

I am sure that @ZOS_Kevin has access to all the data to review for RNG busts. ZOS just needs to share it.

So, after having played almost 70 matches I can say one thing:

I’ve won as many matches going 1st as I’ve lost going 2nd. In my sample size that means the win:lose ratio is 66:33 in favor of going first.

Honestly, I have no clue where the error is, is it in the programming of the tavern or some kind of RNG, but it‘s incredible how much going 2nd puts you in a losing position by simply making you go second. There needs to be done something about this ASAP. I did not want to believe it first, but something is rigged towards the first player winning. This is just not possible under normal circumstances.

Well, I had another round of continual rolls. This time 10 in a row of first picks.

Programming a dice roll is relatively easy, or at least can be made fair.

Please address the issue ZOS.

You know @ZOS_Kevin and @ZOS_GinaBruno, the easier way to deal with the problem is to simply state that you recognize that there is a problem, that you are working on it, and that you will provide an update (not necessarily a solution) by x date.

Weird how much better that would work.