Personofsecrets wrote: »

I've wondered if there are bot players. Most people who I have asked have responded that they are not.

you think AI can't respond and carry on a discussion lol.

yep the scripts of tribute certainly fit and would work

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

My own theory: The more you complain, the worse your overall attitude is, which affects the decisions you make while playing Tales of Tribute and other portions of of ESO.

I experience the same thing when trying to clear certain challenging PvE content, both in ESO and in other games. The worse my attitude becomes for whatever reason, the more blunders I make-- which feeds back into my sour attitude, leading to even more blunders on my part.

No conspiracy theories needed, just normal human psychology.

My own experience is that when I do lose, i tend to lose in pairs. Although I would like to think that I'm not affected by losses in ways that cause me to lose more, but I know that I have been at times. Even if that is the minority of times, it's possible and it has happened.

Of course, I find it suspicious when a player who I usually beat is suddenly able to take me out several games in a row. Also, I notice some other high rated players have bad stretches of games too. If we can put psychology to the side, and I think that we should in some cases, then seems unlikely that someone who wins 80% of their games will often lose in pairs.

The problem with the gaming environment is that, for an extremly long time, people who have hunches about the games innerworkings are simply seen as conspiracists. That is despite several key factors that would give us good reason to give some likelihood, even if only a small amount, to such conspiracy theories.

- People are imperfect and apt to design imperfect systems. (This is the same logic that people are biased in their observations)
- Even well made systems may be exploited, including unwittingly, when metrics such as Time, Date, User ID, or Server are used to generate randomness.
- There are forces beyond individual control, such as capitalism, which could provide incentives for making less random system. Below is an excerpt of a patent for the matchmaking system used by Wargaming in World of Tanks.

… According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Similarly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant...

Given these ideas, I think that one should assume that games tend to have problems with randomness. In this particular case, I do think that the OP would probably win much more with additional experience. I would be happy to watch their games as they play them and offer coaching. No matter who posts these ideas though, I think it is worth taking them seriously at some level. And I am quite certain that ToT has an issue with showing cards in the tavern that are in "classes" as repeats. Of course there isn't likely to be an acknowledgement from development about such a thing, but we do sometimes learn how random to the game isn't exactly truly random.

I seem to recall that Elder Scrolls Legends, for a card that made a random creature based on available mana, would first decide the cost of that creature and then decide what creature it would be. This was opposed to just picking the creature out of the pool of all creatures. Because there are many more low cost than high cost creatures, one would think that based on "randomness" alone, creatures would typically be puny. As it turns out, the chance of getting a low cost creature or a high cost creature were equal!

And I'm pretty sure that ESO has some things like this too. Beyond the ideas that there are random seeds which are not properly refreshed, there can by dynamics like there were in TESL. I believe that the game, for example, rolls weapon type before rolling the exact weapon. So people have an equal chance of getting a Bow as they do a Staff even though there are three times as many staves.

cagle0614 wrote: »

I genuinely like and respect the last two responses.

SeaGtGruff: I am ADHD, I take Concerta a stimulant. For me when I make mistakes or lose in a game. That becomes a challenge. When I play a video game solo I always play the games on the Hardest possible setting.
I do agree at times you can become frustrated and make simply stupid choices.

Personofsecrets: The problem I have is very simple. I work remote. So I am playing this game during the day and after work. So there are days I am playing up to 16 hours. When I am at my desk and I do not have a job issue. Tales of Tribute is very entertaining and a good distraction.

I even get a card that says heavily played that you consume.
I get that like every few days or so.

One of the other threads I have a link to.
I documented the first game I played to the last game I played.
If I remember correctly I played like 25 hands and had a total of 3 or 4 wins the entire day.
One day that is something I can certainly understand.

Another thread I have documented how the game starts and what cards are dealt to the opponent.
Ive conceded matches because I play the game so often it is obvious to me when the system is going to allow the player to win short of them not catching a 4 patron win.

The problem becomes that it is supposed to be a daily quest.
If you are doing this X5 or X10.
You are not going to complete it for 10 toons in one day even if you do just one win per toon.
I have literally had 2 and 3 days at a time where I am lucky to win a hand in 16 hours.
When the system does this sometimes I play anyway. Other times I simply say screw it and do quests and occasionally try another hand.

Another problem I have is that I can login with my wife's account. She has 4 patrons.
I can get paired with the same players ive played.
Ive seen at least 3 players who have wiped the floor with me suddenly make the dumbest moves that even the Expert NPC player wouldn't make.

When you play this enough it becomes painfully obvious when you are playing against an AI player.
You are / have won the hand and they will make moves that even the newest player is not going to make

Would you be willing to record and share some of these games?