Suggestions

Always support for something that changes eyes up. My prefered choice would also be the exalting route but I honestly would be happy if staff just said "We're neer ever changing things because of [reasons]" or something.

Right now, the eyes are only fully enjoyale for people that like surprises and breed a lot. A big part of the comunity is left with a frustrating mechanic or a non-existant one.

Mathematically espeaking, RNG is incredibly fair. Thing is it doesn't feel fair, and game feel is far more important than if your calculus say that it isn't. It's not fair that someone dedicates YEARS to never hatch their dream dragon. It's not fair that someone can put time, money, and effort just to get nothing. Mathematically speaking it might bee fair but sure it doesn't feel like it is.

I really like the exalt/baldwin variants of this suggestiong. It makes hatching any kind of rare eyes feel good an exiting, unlike now where getting them on the wrong dragon feels like a slap in the face. It would also revitalize the rare eye market and give those dragons with unfortunate colors some more value than just fodder.

[quote name="Luca20" date="2021-04-18 13:28:06" ] Mathematically espeaking, RNG is incredibly fair. Thing is it doesn't feel fair, and game feel is far more important than if your calculus say that it isn't. It's not fair that someone dedicates YEARS to never hatch their dream dragon. It's not fair that someone can put time, money, and effort just to get nothing. Mathematically speaking it might bee fair but sure it doesn't feel like it is. [/quote] I really like this point. FR is a game; its primary job isn't to be mathematically fair, it's to be fun for the players. Sometimes that means allowing things to be done multiple ways, sometimes it means that pure "fair" isn't what players are looking for, or isn't the only thing. If players have played for five years and then suddenly the game changed in a way that was no longer fun for them, then that's the game not doing its job.

Mathematically fair doesn't mean IRL fair. RNG is not a guarantee.

If this is something FR had wanted from the very beginning, some type of RNG aspect mutation, they really should have mentioned it at some point. They've told us numerous things they've planned on doing--coding overhaul, adventure mode, new genes (still waiting on Point here), teasers of new breeds etc. There was never once a hint that such an RNG heavy aspect would be added to the site's breeding. Obviously, this lack of knowledge profoundly effected many people's decisions: from what dragons they bought to if they even joined the site in the first place. If people like RNG, that's fine--they can continue to breed. But many players joined FR because of a lack of RNG.

And I will say this as many times as needed: RNG is inherently not fair. It doesn't matter if on paper everyone has a 0.5% of breeding primal. In reality, it will not work out that way. Some people will hatch dozens of primals. Others won't see any. Some people will put in no effort and heap a great reward. Others will work hard on FR the whole life of the site and not get the same result. That is the reality of RNG. It is not fair.

Nice thread, it's good to have all the reasons in one place instead of scattered across 50 different posts full of people arguing.

I think the best method for a fix would be literally anything that works as a treasure sink. I initially wanted something that would be a rare coli drop(s), but the site needs more things to counter inflation.

Also, I've recently begun breeding some of my own fodder, and I think I would pull my hair out if I got multigaze/facet/primal on the ugly pairs. And I really, really need the ugly pairs so I don't keep every other offspring because I think it looks half decent. Any fix I think would help to counteract the fact that more times than not getting special eyes is frustrating.

I really wish they would just announce that they're going do something about it though, even if it takes a while. It feels like whenever they get quiet like this when we're mad, that they're doubling down on something that negatively impacts most of us. If they do decide to do nothing that's going to make a lot of people extremely bitter. I wouldn't be surprised if it would cause long time players to leave the site. Personally I'm opting to not spend any real money on gems until theres a fix.

Somewhat on the topic of RNG, every now and then I see someone compare natural eye types to Imperials, saying that “You can’t breed-change a dragon to an Imperial; the eyes aren’t any different.” And I kinda get the comparison, but 1) They’re a KS breed- unlike eye types, we’ve known that Imperials were going to be exclusive since before FR even started. Is it legal to reprint KS-exclusive rewards? I don’t remember. But still, they’re a lot different from the eyes, which randomly popped into existence (alongside the unannounced standardization of the old eye art to Common) after people had been collecting dragons for 5 years. and 2) You can still reliably breed for Imperials. Sure, you might never be able to turn a dragon into an Imperial, but you can still make Imperial breeding pairs to get hatchlings. You can breed two Imperials for a 100% chance, an Imperial/Noc pair for a 50% chance, or a Wildclaw-Coatl/Imperial pair for an almost-100% chance. Eyes aren’t like that. If you want Uncommon, it’s completely up to the RNG. So not only can you not change your dragon’s eyes to Uncommon, there’s nothing you can do to influence your nest to hatch more Uncommon babies. You just have to toss your pair on a nest every 15-35 days, pray for a decent clutch size, and then pray that you get the eye type you want (and gender, if you’re breeding for that). It’s extremely weird to me that eye types- a comparatively small part of the dragon, especially the tints- are even more exclusive than FR’s [i]Kickstarter-exclusive breed[/i]. Like... why? [emoji=guardian confused size=1]

[quote name="Ningyo" date="2021-04-20 15:31:38" ] Somewhat on the topic of RNG, every now and then I see someone compare natural eye types to Imperials, saying that “You can’t breed-change a dragon to an Imperial; the eyes aren’t any different.” And I kinda get the comparison, but 1) They’re a KS breed- unlike eye types, we’ve known that Imperials were going to be exclusive since before FR even started. Is it legal to reprint KS-exclusive rewards? I don’t remember. But still, they’re a lot different from the eyes, which randomly popped into existence (alongside the unannounced standardization of the old eye art to Common) after people had been collecting dragons for 5 years. and 2) You can still reliably breed for Imperials. Sure, you might never be able to turn a dragon into an Imperial, but you can still make Imperial breeding pairs to get hatchlings. You can breed two Imperials for a 100% chance, an Imperial/Noc pair for a 50% chance, or a Wildclaw-Coatl/Imperial pair for an almost-100% chance. Eyes aren’t like that. If you want Uncommon, it’s completely up to the RNG. So not only can you not change your dragon’s eyes to Uncommon, there’s nothing you can do to influence your nest to hatch more Uncommon babies. You just have to toss your pair on a nest every 15-35 days, pray for a decent clutch size, and then pray that you get the eye type you want (and gender, if you’re breeding for that). It’s extremely weird to me that eye types- a comparatively small part of the dragon, especially the tints- are even more exclusive than FR’s [i]Kickstarter-exclusive breed[/i]. Like... why? [emoji=guardian confused size=1] [/quote] I think, when I looked it up, that, via kickstarter, it would be legal for them to rerelease KS rewards. Basically, kickstarter doesn't care once the KS is over. However, that doesn't release them from the chance that, were they to release something that was labeled as 'exclusive to kickstarter backers', the *backers* themselves could initiate legal actions against Flight Rising. It is pretty much a murky grey area in that kickstarter themselves don't care as long as the campaign is finished and all obligations are fufilled. (ie all rewards sent out and what was promised is given and so on). However, since certain things were promised as KS exclusive to people who paid real money for them, there could potentially be legal action brought up by backers who felt that FR has broken the contract they had with them. However, as said, the eyes are completely different. They are simply another mechanic on the website, and no one paid real money (and could only pay real money) to add them/obtain them/etc... Also, with regards to Imperial Scrolls being compared to Eyes, my opinion is that if how imperial scrolls were handled, then it doesn't make it right to add MORE mechanics/items like them. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right, and if imperials were wrong, adding eye types that are functionally similar to imperials doesn't make either the eyes or the imperial business right.

[quote name="Anjoulas" date="2021-04-14 13:14:44" ] [quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-04-14 13:07:21" ] Of course RNG is unequal. Even if the odds are the same, that doesn't mean everyone who puts forth the same effort winds up with the same results. It's not as if there's a guarantee. "Flip a coin ten times, and by the tenth time you're guaranteed Rare." It's not. As I said before, someone could get primal with the first hatch while someone else, with the exact same odds, could be here for years and never get primal. That is not fair. An example of fair is everyone being able to buy the same gene for 185K treasure or 1500 gems. It costs the same for everyone. But RNG isn't. It doesn't cost the same in terms of treasure or gems or time or effort for everyone--the cost is wildly different from person to person. And that is not fair. [/quote] No. Just... no. I know it's your opinion and all and it is valid you think it, but that is sadly not true. It's math. I am aware I cannot change your stance on this so I won't go further into it, just know that every math teacher would tell you otherwise. [/quote] Rather late, but hold up--I think that [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/sug/2992830/12#post_47251988]Luca20 and BlueJaysFeather's point about "fairness" in game design being a player experience[/url] is the important one anyway, but I think I must be misreading this and I'm very confused. A 10% chance does not mean that in 10 tries you're guaranteed to get that outcome 1 time. You might get it a couple of times; you might take well over ten tries to get it at all. If two players each hatch 200 eggs, they [i]might[/i] each get exactly one primal, exactly one multi-gaze, and so forth on down the rarity tiers, but that is not a guarantee. What the percentage odds really mean is that for every 1,000,000 hatched eggs, there will probably be roughly 5,000 primals, 5,000 multi-gazes, etc., with everything settling closer to those ratios the larger the population. What about that would every math teacher contradict, and why?

[quote name="nonisland" date="2021-04-20 17:51:39" ] [quote name="Anjoulas" date="2021-04-14 13:14:44" ] [quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-04-14 13:07:21" ] Of course RNG is unequal. Even if the odds are the same, that doesn't mean everyone who puts forth the same effort winds up with the same results. It's not as if there's a guarantee. "Flip a coin ten times, and by the tenth time you're guaranteed Rare." It's not. As I said before, someone could get primal with the first hatch while someone else, with the exact same odds, could be here for years and never get primal. That is not fair. An example of fair is everyone being able to buy the same gene for 185K treasure or 1500 gems. It costs the same for everyone. But RNG isn't. It doesn't cost the same in terms of treasure or gems or time or effort for everyone--the cost is wildly different from person to person. And that is not fair. [/quote] No. Just... no. I know it's your opinion and all and it is valid you think it, but that is sadly not true. It's math. I am aware I cannot change your stance on this so I won't go further into it, just know that every math teacher would tell you otherwise. [/quote] Rather late, but hold up--I think that [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/sug/2992830/12#post_47251988]Luca20 and BlueJaysFeather's point about "fairness" in game design being a player experience[/url] is the important one anyway, but I think I must be misreading this and I'm very confused. A 10% chance does not mean that in 10 tries you're guaranteed to get that outcome 1 time. You might get it a couple of times; you might take well over ten tries to get it at all. If two players each hatch 200 eggs, they [i]might[/i] each get exactly one primal, exactly one multi-gaze, and so forth on down the rarity tiers, but that is not a guarantee. What the percentage odds really mean is that for every 1,000,000 hatched eggs, there will probably be roughly 5,000 primals, 5,000 multi-gazes, etc., with everything settling closer to those ratios the larger the population. What about that would every math teacher contradict, and why? [/quote] If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that RNG/stats/odds are better at understanding a very large sample than a specific experience? As in, if there were a billion eggs hatched and all the eye results calculated, it would roughly equal 0.5% with primal, 0.5% with multi, etc, as defined by the site? Whereas, if the sample were only 5,000 eggs, stats would have a hard time having precisely 0.5% primal etc because of the smaller sample size. And then, per any one individual user, who hatches as many eggs as he or she can, it would be very extremely unlikely that that user would have precisely 0.5% of the hatches be primal due to the extremely small sample size. Thus for each user who wants eyes, RNG does no favors at all due to it being RNG. Some people get lucky, some people don't. Throughout the whole site, we might see "fairness" in that 0.5% primal from all hatches exist--but the distribution of those hatches would be rather arbitrary as it would be at the whims of RNG.

[quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-04-20 18:08:55" ] [quote name="nonisland" date="2021-04-20 17:51:39" ] [quote name="Anjoulas" date="2021-04-14 13:14:44" ] [quote name="gemajgall" date="2021-04-14 13:07:21" ] Of course RNG is unequal. Even if the odds are the same, that doesn't mean everyone who puts forth the same effort winds up with the same results. It's not as if there's a guarantee. "Flip a coin ten times, and by the tenth time you're guaranteed Rare." It's not. As I said before, someone could get primal with the first hatch while someone else, with the exact same odds, could be here for years and never get primal. That is not fair. An example of fair is everyone being able to buy the same gene for 185K treasure or 1500 gems. It costs the same for everyone. But RNG isn't. It doesn't cost the same in terms of treasure or gems or time or effort for everyone--the cost is wildly different from person to person. And that is not fair. [/quote] No. Just... no. I know it's your opinion and all and it is valid you think it, but that is sadly not true. It's math. I am aware I cannot change your stance on this so I won't go further into it, just know that every math teacher would tell you otherwise. [/quote] Rather late, but hold up--I think that [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/sug/2992830/12#post_47251988]Luca20 and BlueJaysFeather's point about "fairness" in game design being a player experience[/url] is the important one anyway, but I think I must be misreading this and I'm very confused. A 10% chance does not mean that in 10 tries you're guaranteed to get that outcome 1 time. You might get it a couple of times; you might take well over ten tries to get it at all. If two players each hatch 200 eggs, they [i]might[/i] each get exactly one primal, exactly one multi-gaze, and so forth on down the rarity tiers, but that is not a guarantee. What the percentage odds really mean is that for every 1,000,000 hatched eggs, there will probably be roughly 5,000 primals, 5,000 multi-gazes, etc., with everything settling closer to those ratios the larger the population. What about that would every math teacher contradict, and why? [/quote] If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that RNG/stats/odds are better at understanding a very large sample than a specific experience? As in, if there were a billion eggs hatched and all the eye results calculated, it would roughly equal 0.5% with primal, 0.5% with multi, etc, as defined by the site? Whereas, if the sample were only 5,000 eggs, stats would have a hard time having precisely 0.5% primal etc because of the smaller sample size. And then, per any one individual user, who hatches as many eggs as he or she can, it would be very extremely unlikely that that user would have precisely 0.5% of the hatches be primal due to the extremely small sample size. Thus for each user who wants eyes, RNG does no favors at all due to it being RNG. Some people get lucky, some people don't. Throughout the whole site, we might see "fairness" in that 0.5% primal from all hatches exist--but the distribution of those hatches would be rather arbitrary as it would be at the whims of RNG. [/quote] Exactly. I can't figure out what in your initial "you're not guaranteed a Rare by the tenth hatch" it is that Anjoulas says is obviously flawed, but I've also never taken more than an intro-level statistics class so I don't want to charge in going "no, you're wrong" in case I'm about to get my hindquarters served to me on a platter with garnish. (In my day job I do sports journalism, which means I once saw someone eventually delete their twitter account because they told a professor of mathematics who does sports analytics for fun that he clearly didn't "understand the stats", and resolved immediately to never be this person.)