Return Simming Slider to 1

Replies

  • Terzana wrote: »
    Back when they first introduced the multi-sim, we tested it in my old guild. Each of us in the experiment had to run a specific number of Sims for a 7 day week. I was the "unlucky" one who had to sim one at a time, and I was not happy about it.

    At the end of the week, I had more shards and gear than the others. At least 2 more drops per energy run on avg. I've simmed one at a time since.

    That was a long time ago, but we tested the numbers ourselves, and if you don't believe it, test it yourself for a 7 day week. This is not a hard experiment to run. Keep a spreadsheet. Post the results and prove your theory that is the same.

    It's not the same. But only you can convince yourself. None of the rest of us can change your mind as you don't believe us. Try it. Put your money where your mouth is :)

    I'll trust your results, if you post the spreadsheets.

    100% spot on, and thanks, I like sims by 2s, how does that compare to 1s from your testing?
  • 100% enjoy this change. I always sim on max.
  • FrankLynn
    10 posts Member
    edited March 17
    As I said in this thread:
    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/198072/node-simming-defaults-to-max-value#latest
    FrankLynn wrote: »
    I see what they're going for here, and maybe I just need more time to get used to the change, but I have a better idea.
    They should revert the change ONLY for battles that don't reward any char shards. So gear only battles would default to 1 attempt, and char battles would default to max.
    This would be perfect because when you're farming gear, more often that not, you're trying to go one battle at a time until you get the piece you need. Whereas with char farming, you're usually trying to spend as much energy as you have until you run out of attempts.
  • Rath_Tarr
    1756 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Malahmen wrote: »
    Another money grab for anyone who's distracted and just wanted to simulate less than max...

    Anyone who wanted to sim less than max, but not 1, is unaffected by this change. They would have to use the slider no matter what.

    The affected group are the ones who only sim 1, and between muscle memory and distraction are wasting more energy than they wanted to.

    Surprisingly enough not everything is a money grab, nor meant to be bad in any way.

    They decided to make a chnage based on whatever reasoning they have that would allow some percentage of the player base to have less clicks to do what they normally do.
    Coin flips are independent, random events.

    A Random Number Generator is not truly random. It repeatedly performs a set of mathematical operations on the previous result to create a sequence of values which kinda sorta look random.

    When you send a multi-sim request you get a sequence of linked pseudo-random events.

    When you send single requests, the events are still pseudo-random but they are no longer directly linked so you get closer to the coin flip analogy.

    That is not true, the next operation has no link to the previous answer. Statistics dont have a "memory ".

    RNG systems can work from random sets, but that is a different conversation, and yes they can be completely random.

    Also, if a system is built to have a certain average, you cant "game it", in the end it works out to that average, that's how it works.
    When you instantiate an RNG object you give it a seed value, typically the system time in ms. Each time you request a random number from the object it performs the same set of hashing operations.

    The first time it uses the seed value but the second and subsequent times it uses the previous result so yes, sequential events from a random number generator are linked rather than being truly independent events like a coin flip or a dice roll.
  • CosmicJ
    140 posts Member
    You'll get used to it.
  • Anrath
    216 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Malahmen wrote: »
    Another money grab for anyone who's distracted and just wanted to simulate less than max...

    Anyone who wanted to sim less than max, but not 1, is unaffected by this change. They would have to use the slider no matter what.

    The affected group are the ones who only sim 1, and between muscle memory and distraction are wasting more energy than they wanted to.
    ...
    They decided to make a chnage based on whatever reasoning they have that would allow some percentage of the player base to have less clicks to do what they normally do.

    That is incorrect.
    Using the slider to go from MAX to 2 takes more clicks/time in nearly every case then going from 1 to 2. If it didn't I wouldn't be as **** off by the change as I am.
    So it affects everyone that only wants to SIM 1,2, or 3 at a time only (if max MAX is 8).

    Plus it increases the risk of a mistake that blows your whole energy load on one node.

    Also there is no guarantee that each "SIM" is an independent roll. The game may treat 8 "SIM 1"s as different from 1 "SIM 8". Though I am not sure how this would effect the statistics I know it would. I am guessing it would change the number of sims one would have to do before you would see the expected "average".
  • Oh, I wish I would get used to it soon...
    Yesterday I had a nearly perfect run of not accidentally leaving it on max on their new money maker, the slide bar...only did it once but didn't have a ton of energy left so, it wasn't so painful.
    But this morning while doing my daily activities, the 1st thing I did was go for the mods task because I was excited about slicing one of Asajj's mods trying to squeeze more speed out of it and I only needed 1 more slicing power flow control chip...so from the nearly maxed out mod energy that had been building up all night...BOOOOM! Gone in a blink. I just needed 1. Just 1. I was planning on farming for better offense mods for Yoda, but guess what, can't do it. Not improving my quality of life, only aggitating me...and turning many of us against each other like a bunch of rabid dogs.
    Bravo and congrats to those who have perfect memory and attention 100% of the time and have been able to retrain their muscle memory to turn around on a dime.
    I am trying to get used to this, the thing is...I shouldn't have to.
  • Kyno
    20132 posts Moderator
    Anrath wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Malahmen wrote: »
    Another money grab for anyone who's distracted and just wanted to simulate less than max...

    Anyone who wanted to sim less than max, but not 1, is unaffected by this change. They would have to use the slider no matter what.

    The affected group are the ones who only sim 1, and between muscle memory and distraction are wasting more energy than they wanted to.
    ...
    They decided to make a chnage based on whatever reasoning they have that would allow some percentage of the player base to have less clicks to do what they normally do.

    Also there is no guarantee that each "SIM" is an independent roll. The game may treat 8 "SIM 1"s as different from 1 "SIM 8". Though I am not sure how this would effect the statistics I know it would. I am guessing it would change the number of sims one would have to do before you would see the expected "average".

    Without knowing exactly how its coded, we can all debate the different ways to program this and the details within the methods, but that's just an open debate.

    In the end, how you get to the average doesnt matter, because we all end up at the average. Simming 1,2,3 or max each time, doesnt change the average you will get, and therefore makes it a non factor. It can make you feel better or make it feel faster, but if you average 33%, you average 33%. Everyone that has posted data has shown this and many have also shown subsets of 'the last few shards', simming low vs high, and other superstitions. No one has posted data showing one method deals a higher average.

  • Yes return slider to 1.
    Accidentally simed à whole 120 energy for 2 pieces...
  • Terzana wrote: »
    Back when they first introduced the multi-sim, we tested it in my old guild. Each of us in the experiment had to run a specific number of Sims for a 7 day week. I was the "unlucky" one who had to sim one at a time, and I was not happy about it.

    At the end of the week, I had more shards and gear than the others. At least 2 more drops per energy run on avg. I've simmed one at a time since.

    That was a long time ago, but we tested the numbers ourselves, and if you don't believe it, test it yourself for a 7 day week. This is not a hard experiment to run. Keep a spreadsheet. Post the results and prove your theory that is the same.

    It's not the same. But only you can convince yourself. None of the rest of us can change your mind as you don't believe us. Try it. Put your money where your mouth is :)

    I'll trust your results, if you post the spreadsheets.

    100% spot on, and thanks, I like sims by 2s, how does that compare to 1s from your testing?

    I'm very sorry, I don't remember. Man, right about now I'm wishing I had kept a copy :(
  • Kyno
    20132 posts Moderator
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    Common sense practice would be to set the default to the safest possible option. In this case, safest possible option is 1 sim. There's no accident in simming once by muscle-memory clicking. Yeah it'll be frustrating that you have to do it again and then adjust the slider, but it's better than what they gave us. Particularly after years of it being the opposite.

    I had max cantina energy saved for the next Guild Activity and went to do one attempt to keep me under the 144. Instead I did 9 and all that potential guild currency awarded tomorrow is gone.

    Wouldnt common sense push a default to the most commonly used choice? From a UX perspective that would make the most sense. Just like leaving the last node used as the selected node when entering a table, even though the person may not always hit that piece of gear of toon first, it still makes more sense than to set it to a low energy node, which would be the "safest".
  • Common sense, if they won't give us a toggle, would dictate defaulting to the most popular option, whether it's safest or not.
  • this sim to the max default setting is pure garbage
    but it's generating more cristal consumption, and as we know the only thing that matters is not the gamer's quality of life, but the "give me more $" quality of EA/Disney life <3
  • Rath_Tarr
    1756 posts Member
    CazNeerg wrote: »
    Common sense, if they won't give us a toggle, would dictate defaulting to the most popular option, whether it's safest or not.
    Yeah, you try telling that to the FDA or the FAA when you are trying to get safety-critical software cerfitifed. :D
  • Nihion
    1215 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    Common sense practice would be to set the default to the safest possible option. In this case, safest possible option is 1 sim. There's no accident in simming once by muscle-memory clicking. Yeah it'll be frustrating that you have to do it again and then adjust the slider, but it's better than what they gave us. Particularly after years of it being the opposite.

    I had max cantina energy saved for the next Guild Activity and went to do one attempt to keep me under the 144. Instead I did 9 and all that potential guild currency awarded tomorrow is gone.

    Wouldnt common sense push a default to the most commonly used choice? From a UX perspective that would make the most sense. Just like leaving the last node used as the selected node when entering a table, even though the person may not always hit that piece of gear of toon first, it still makes more sense than to set it to a low energy node, which would be the "safest".

    I think Vendi is trying to say that although the bar is set to max attempts which saves time for a good amount of players, it’s unsafe, as we can see that people are accidentally hitting max when they don’t want to waste all their energy. Muscle memory exists, and we can see that this is happening. What would make sense is to set the slider to 1, as it was previously, which is the most protective of the players energy. If someone wanting max attempts accidentally hits sim 1, there is no reason to worry, it’s just a little extra work to do it again. As we’ve seen from multiple sources in this thread, the number of sims done at a time should not matter, rewards should be relatively the same. Others have shown that less sims at a time leads to more rewards. Either way, setting the slider to 1 guarantees the safest default for all players. I know that moving the slider every time can be annoying, I’m lazy too. But I’d rather have the option that protects my energy the most, so that I can’t destroy myself with muscle memory. An even better fix would be adding a “Max Sim” button.
  • Kyno
    20132 posts Moderator
    Terzana wrote: »

    "Wouldnt common sense push a default to the most commonly used choice? From a UX perspective that would make the most sense. Just like leaving the last node used as the selected node when entering a table, even though the person may not always hit that piece of gear of toon first, it still makes more sense than to set it to a low energy node, which would be the "safest"."

    No. First, you would have to prove that it's the most common choice. And second, all games should have defaults set to what's easiest for new players, as we always need new players. People who have been playing a long time know the game and how they like to play it. A mistake shouldn't cost so much.

    Common sense would be to make it a personal choice, with a setting we can adjust once, and move on. Choice is what is lacking here. The game is now set so that a mistake costs money, it time, or both.. That a pretty convenient error for the devs lol. Funny how that works out in their favor, not the players.

    Don't you think?

    Which is why this particular change was made later and not this way from the beginning.

    I would say it's a wash for new players, they "dont know any better" and will learn what works best for them as the progress through the game. They will also have no muscle memory and learn the behaviour that suits them.

    I agree that having an option to set it ine way or the other would solve this issue for many players.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    CazNeerg wrote: »
    Common sense, if they won't give us a toggle, would dictate defaulting to the most popular option, whether it's safest or not.
    Yeah, you try telling that to the FDA or the FAA when you are trying to get safety-critical software cerfitifed. :D

    Really, you are going to compare QoL features in a mobile game to *actual* safety? You don't think different standards apply?
  • Nihion
    1215 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Terzana wrote: »

    "Wouldnt common sense push a default to the most commonly used choice? From a UX perspective that would make the most sense. Just like leaving the last node used as the selected node when entering a table, even though the person may not always hit that piece of gear of toon first, it still makes more sense than to set it to a low energy node, which would be the "safest"."

    No. First, you would have to prove that it's the most common choice. And second, all games should have defaults set to what's easiest for new players, as we always need new players. People who have been playing a long time know the game and how they like to play it. A mistake shouldn't cost so much.

    Common sense would be to make it a personal choice, with a setting we can adjust once, and move on. Choice is what is lacking here. The game is now set so that a mistake costs money, it time, or both.. That a pretty convenient error for the devs lol. Funny how that works out in their favor, not the players.

    Don't you think?

    Which is why this particular change was made later and not this way from the beginning.

    I would say it's a wash for new players, they "dont know any better" and will learn what works best for them as the progress through the game. They will also have no muscle memory and learn the behaviour that suits them.

    I agree that having an option to set it ine way or the other would solve this issue for many players.

    But they know full well that some of us have been building muscle memory for 3 year, and I’m sure they realized that this change would generate mistakes. I can only wonder why they implemented this a week before DR, just after he is announced...
  • Kyno
    20132 posts Moderator
    Nihion wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    Common sense practice would be to set the default to the safest possible option. In this case, safest possible option is 1 sim. There's no accident in simming once by muscle-memory clicking. Yeah it'll be frustrating that you have to do it again and then adjust the slider, but it's better than what they gave us. Particularly after years of it being the opposite.

    I had max cantina energy saved for the next Guild Activity and went to do one attempt to keep me under the 144. Instead I did 9 and all that potential guild currency awarded tomorrow is gone.

    Wouldnt common sense push a default to the most commonly used choice? From a UX perspective that would make the most sense. Just like leaving the last node used as the selected node when entering a table, even though the person may not always hit that piece of gear of toon first, it still makes more sense than to set it to a low energy node, which would be the "safest".

    I think Vendi is trying to say that although the bar is set to max attempts which saves time for a good amount of players, it’s unsafe, as we can see that people are accidentally hitting max when they don’t want to waste all their energy. Muscle memory exists, and we can see that this is happening. What would make sense is to set the slider to 1, as it was previously, which is the most protective of the players energy. If someone wanting max attempts accidentally hits sim 1, there is no reason to worry, it’s just a little extra work to do it again. As we’ve seen from multiple sources in this thread, the number of sims done at a time should not matter, rewards should be relatively the same. Others have shown that less sims at a time leads to more rewards. Either way, setting the slider to 1 guarantees the safest default for all players. I know that moving the slider every time can be annoying, I’m lazy too. But I’d rather have the option that protects my energy the most, so that I can’t destroy myself with muscle memory. An even better fix would be adding a “Max Sim” button.

    The statement was made in a general sense, which is why my response was also. When we develop a product for our customers, there is always a run through of what the defaults should be, and many of them are not what we think they should be, due to the feedback from what our customers will want to see or use more often. I know this is not safety related (safety related things in my work are not up for debate), but from a UX standpoint, the interface should either be setup or to some extent customizable to what they customer would normally want to do. In many cases there will be a majority, and you will not be able to please everyone, but customization options can help.
  • Terzana wrote: »
    First, you would have to prove that it's the most common choice.

    Assuming they track everything we do in the app, they *know* what the most common choice is; and that's all that is necessary, for them to know. They don't need to share the data with us.
  • Nihion
    1215 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nihion wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    Common sense practice would be to set the default to the safest possible option. In this case, safest possible option is 1 sim. There's no accident in simming once by muscle-memory clicking. Yeah it'll be frustrating that you have to do it again and then adjust the slider, but it's better than what they gave us. Particularly after years of it being the opposite.

    I had max cantina energy saved for the next Guild Activity and went to do one attempt to keep me under the 144. Instead I did 9 and all that potential guild currency awarded tomorrow is gone.

    Wouldnt common sense push a default to the most commonly used choice? From a UX perspective that would make the most sense. Just like leaving the last node used as the selected node when entering a table, even though the person may not always hit that piece of gear of toon first, it still makes more sense than to set it to a low energy node, which would be the "safest".

    I think Vendi is trying to say that although the bar is set to max attempts which saves time for a good amount of players, it’s unsafe, as we can see that people are accidentally hitting max when they don’t want to waste all their energy. Muscle memory exists, and we can see that this is happening. What would make sense is to set the slider to 1, as it was previously, which is the most protective of the players energy. If someone wanting max attempts accidentally hits sim 1, there is no reason to worry, it’s just a little extra work to do it again. As we’ve seen from multiple sources in this thread, the number of sims done at a time should not matter, rewards should be relatively the same. Others have shown that less sims at a time leads to more rewards. Either way, setting the slider to 1 guarantees the safest default for all players. I know that moving the slider every time can be annoying, I’m lazy too. But I’d rather have the option that protects my energy the most, so that I can’t destroy myself with muscle memory. An even better fix would be adding a “Max Sim” button.

    The statement was made in a general sense, which is why my response was also. When we develop a product for our customers, there is always a run through of what the defaults should be, and many of them are not what we think they should be, due to the feedback from what our customers will want to see or use more often. I know this is not safety related (safety related things in my work are not up for debate), but from a UX standpoint, the interface should either be setup or to some extent customizable to what they customer would normally want to do. In many cases there will be a majority, and you will not be able to please everyone, but customization options can help.

    So you’re saying that EA/CG prefers shortcuts over safety? I also think a customizable option is best, and I normally sim at max, but why not, from a reliable business standpoint, choose a safer option that protects player money? Just a question, I’m not trying to hate on EA/CG. I’m also a noob, so what is a UX standpoint?
  • Rath_Tarr
    1756 posts Member
    CazNeerg wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    CazNeerg wrote: »
    Common sense, if they won't give us a toggle, would dictate defaulting to the most popular option, whether it's safest or not.
    Yeah, you try telling that to the FDA or the FAA when you are trying to get safety-critical software cerfitifed. :D

    Really, you are going to compare QoL features in a mobile game to *actual* safety? You don't think different standards apply?
    Just using a counterpoint to illustrate the ridiculousness of your statement.

    Of course you don't ignore safety in favor of a QoL usability feature, particularly one as contentious as this.
  • Also, when the game is updated, the defaults go back to the safest mode. Example, speed of teams goes down to 1×, while most of the players I know, have their game set on 4×. Why do you suppose they do that? Because it's the safest default for new players.

    None of us scream and yell about having to reset the default, safe, option. We understand. This was a deliberate choice designed to cost money to those of us that spend.

    The exact same way that the only energy that earns raid tickets is regular and cantina. Because you will go through more refills to make the daily 600, and still buy refills for mods etc. But if it all counted, then once I had my 600 from mods, I would stop, instead of running through a few refills to get to 600 in the way is set up now. That was smart.

    It's amazing to me that people thinks devs are angelic beings who work for us, to make our lives better and happier lol. I'm sure they're all communistic at heart lol. I'm sure they don't even hire industrial psychologists to tell them what makes us spend.

    Gaming is after all a not for profit buisness, right?

  • leef
    11984 posts Member
    Terzana wrote: »
    Also, when the game is updated, the defaults go back to the safest mode. Example, speed of teams goes down to 1×, while most of the players I know, have their game set on 4×. Why do you suppose they do that? Because it's the safest default for new players.

    None of us scream and yell about having to reset the default, safe, option. We understand. This was a deliberate choice designed to cost money to those of us that spend.

    The exact same way that the only energy that earns raid tickets is regular and cantina. Because you will go through more refills to make the daily 600, and still buy refills for mods etc. But if it all counted, then once I had my 600 from mods, I would stop, instead of running through a few refills to get to 600 in the way is set up now. That was smart.

    It's amazing to me that people thinks devs are angelic beings who work for us, to make our lives better and happier lol. I'm sure they're all communistic at heart lol. I'm sure they don't even hire industrial psychologists to tell them what makes us spend.

    Gaming is after all a not for profit buisness, right?

    Is it so hard for you to imagine the devs actually want to improve the QoL to keep players happy, playing and spending?
    No one thinks they're not in it for the money, literally no one. So it's kinda amazing that you're amazed by people thinking the devs are angelic beings when no one actually thinks that.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • Nihion
    1215 posts Member
    leef wrote: »
    Terzana wrote: »
    Also, when the game is updated, the defaults go back to the safest mode. Example, speed of teams goes down to 1×, while most of the players I know, have their game set on 4×. Why do you suppose they do that? Because it's the safest default for new players.

    None of us scream and yell about having to reset the default, safe, option. We understand. This was a deliberate choice designed to cost money to those of us that spend.

    The exact same way that the only energy that earns raid tickets is regular and cantina. Because you will go through more refills to make the daily 600, and still buy refills for mods etc. But if it all counted, then once I had my 600 from mods, I would stop, instead of running through a few refills to get to 600 in the way is set up now. That was smart.

    It's amazing to me that people thinks devs are angelic beings who work for us, to make our lives better and happier lol. I'm sure they're all communistic at heart lol. I'm sure they don't even hire industrial psychologists to tell them what makes us spend.

    Gaming is after all a not for profit buisness, right?

    Is it so hard for you to imagine the devs actually want to improve the QoL to keep players happy, playing and spending?
    No one thinks they're not in it for the money, literally no one. So it's kinda amazing that you're amazed by people thinking the devs are angelic beings when no one actually thinks that.

    I think this fix shocked Terzana into reality, so they are just sharing their view of the devs before they came to the dark truth of the forums.
Sign In or Register to comment.