[Request] Less RNG swing system

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

hiro hito
Posts: 201
Joined: November 23rd, 2006, 8:00 am

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by hiro hito » May 6th, 2010, 7:29 pm

psychic wrote:
hiro hito wrote: All (nice) ideas about Luck System doesn't show the "time" or "turn" aspect of the game.
You suggest to reduce RNG swing for 1 attack from 1 unit.

IMHO, all we need is to reduce RNG swing between 2 turns from global units' sides...
It certainly more complicated but it will reduce successive unfair turns and keep some randomness.
I fail to understand how time or turn has anything to do with hit probabilities. Making global RNG swing corrections across more than 1 turn will allow players to make outrageous moves depending on a bad RNG turn(again positive or negative) or in other words game the system.
I try to be clearer:

What is bad with the actual system is that you can have +/-20% EV than your opponent and this during 2 (or more) turns. At this point the game is over.

If we want some changes for the fight system we have to keep in mind the original principle of our dear developpers: risk management.

If you reduce the RNG swing for each attack of each unit, you destroy this principle...

I don't think that miss ONE unit on bad defence terrain is a drama. Neither that if you manage one attack with several units it can fail and it's not a drama... What is annoying is after a failed attack or after successif misses, you keep to be unlucky... As I said if you have +/-20% EV than your opponent and this during 2 (or more) turns the game is completly broken and it's the limit of the main principle: if you are unlucky during too many turns you cannot manage risk because you can't do anything to manage systematic unluck with the actual game setting.

If you want a good strategic game, you have to think about all your units for at least thenext 2 turns... And if you want to keep the risk management to be active, then you have to reduce RNG swing for an entire army or an entire turn. In other words, you have to deal with luck for each player and not for each unit!

What I see at the moment is a solution to reduce RNG swing for 1 unit. What i propose is to "calculate" damage done for each turn and compare the result with the opponent's turn. If the difference is too big, then the " new algorithm" make the unlucker player more "lucky" for his next turn.

That way, we keep the main principle of the fight but all players have a chance to apply his own risk management.
"Of course His Majesty is a pacifist. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed.Thus, gradually, he began to lead toward war."-Emperor Shòwa (Enlightened Peace)'s chief cabinet secretary

User avatar
Gambit
Loose Screw
Posts: 3266
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:00 pm
Location: Dynamica
Contact:

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by Gambit » May 6th, 2010, 11:00 pm

psychic wrote:It is really cheap of you to advertise your idea here and claim that I have copied your idea without fully realising this fact.
No. That is not what he meant to do, or how it works. There is nothing wrong with linking to very similar discussions. This keeps everyone up to date with the same information/background and prevents us from repeating ourselves.

If the ideas are similar enough you can even re-apply any critique that may have been in the old thread.
In other words, you have to deal with luck for each player and not for each unit!
I agree here. It also removes the side effect of players being able to abuse the anti-swing mechanism in such a way like what they're currently discussing in the karma system thread.

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 4:24 am

Gambit wrote: No. That is not what he meant to do, or how it works. There is nothing wrong with linking to very similar discussions. This keeps everyone up to date with the same information/background and prevents us from repeating ourselves.

If the ideas are similar enough you can even re-apply any critique that may have been in the old thread.
5dPZ wrote: Also, I would like mention that the idea has been proposed by me before
If the above sentence does not denote that I have copied his idea, what does it mean?????????

That sentence followed by a link to his thread was the reason I made the above reply in the first place and my lack of post for 5dPZ's later post clarifying his true intentions should have made it clear that I understood his point.

So if you want to criticise my actions do so after reading the whole thing :)
Gambit wrote:
In other words, you have to deal with luck for each player and not for each unit!
I agree here. It also removes the side effect of players being able to abuse the anti-swing mechanism in such a way like what they're currently discussing in the karma system thread.
Has the above point got anything to do with what I have proposed? I fail to understand.

AI
Developer
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by AI » May 7th, 2010, 6:55 am

psychic wrote:
Gambit wrote: No. That is not what he meant to do, or how it works. There is nothing wrong with linking to very similar discussions. This keeps everyone up to date with the same information/background and prevents us from repeating ourselves.

If the ideas are similar enough you can even re-apply any critique that may have been in the old thread.
5dPZ wrote: Also, I would like mention that the idea has been proposed by me before
If the above sentence does not denote that I have copied his idea, what does it mean?????????

That sentence followed by a link to his thread was the reason I made the above reply in the first place and my lack of post for 5dPZ's later post clarifying his true intentions should have made it clear that I understood his point.

So if you want to criticise my actions do so after reading the whole thing :)
It means that he had the same idea before, nothing more. Ideas are cheap, people have them all the time. Ever heard of two (or more) scientists/inventors inventing the same thing independently? It happens all the time. (if all ideas were unique, the FPI list would he rather useless, wouldn't it?)

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 11:38 am

AI wrote:It means that he had the same idea before, nothing more. Ideas are cheap, people have them all the time. Ever heard of two (or more) scientists/inventors inventing the same thing independently? It happens all the time. (if all ideas were unique, the FPI list would he rather useless, wouldn't it?)
Please read my previous reply carefully

User avatar
Gambit
Loose Screw
Posts: 3266
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:00 pm
Location: Dynamica
Contact:

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by Gambit » May 7th, 2010, 12:43 pm

Please don't tell us what to read. We really don't reply without reading. Besides just correcting your behaviour, my post also serves as future reference for anyone who might stumble into this thread.
If the above sentence does not denote that I have copied his idea, what does it mean?????????
It means: "Hey I tried proposing this before. It didn't go very far, but you might be able to make use it." Also it's a loose fork requirement that your idea is turned down from core before it gets discussed here, so that could have been a good reason for the post. He (accidentally?) proved that this basic system was turned down. Nobody on these forums is ever intentionally hostile. They are just about always trying to help. Please, let's get back to the discussion now.

And on that note:
Has the above point got anything to do with what I have proposed? I fail to understand.
It was a short observation on a possible flaw in your proposed system. But that's just a flaw in his and my opinions, so if you don't agree then disregard and we won't bring it up again (since this is your idea).

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 2:16 pm

Gambit wrote:Please don't tell us what to read. We really don't reply without reading. Besides just correcting your behaviour, my post also serves as future reference for anyone who might stumble into this thread.
Since you are obviously failing to understand what I am trying to tell, let me use different words. Like you have been trying to explain what 5dPZ's sentence means to me, I would like you understand that his words can be taken/understood in a negative sense. He should have been more careful in choosing his words since this is the internet we cannot see his emotions in words.

I am again stating that I understood his true intentions after his second post and hence did not carry on that conversations after that. You are the one who is not able to understand this and extending the argument.
Has the above point got anything to do with what I have proposed? I fail to understand.
It was a short observation on a possible flaw in your proposed system. But that's just a flaw in his and my opinions, so if you don't agree then disregard and we won't bring it up again (since this is your idea).[/quote]

If you have got me wrong again, "I fail to understand" means I genuinly did not understand the possible flaw you guys are trying to show.

Daedal
Posts: 26
Joined: March 25th, 2009, 7:37 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by Daedal » May 7th, 2010, 2:32 pm

psychic wrote:
Daedal wrote:this system will only help units that have many hits per turn.
Please back up statements with numbers.
Just to clarify, the original quote is regarding a system where luck isn't carried over from one turn to the next and I stated that such a system would help only units with many hits per turn and thus harm those units with fewer hits per turn because they don't see the benefit. I'm not great with statistics so I don't think I could provide the numbers without spending an inordinate amount of time on it. If somebody else would like to take a stab at it, I agree that it'd be a useful calculation whether it proves my point or not. I'll try to reason out why I think having karma not carry over is a bad thing for balance.

Suppose you have a unit that gets a 40-1 attack and another unit that gets a 9-5 attack. I'm basing this roughly off the dwarvish dragonguard and the elvish champion, but to keep it simple I'll call them generic units and ignore everything except the fact that one gets a 40-1 attack and one gets 9-5. Suppose that the RNG is having a bad day. This is what we're trying to prevent. Both the 40-1 and the 9-5 are going to get 5 misses in a row according only to the RNG. However, the 40-1 has these misses spread out over 5 turns so unless the karma carries over there will never be any compensation for that bad luck. The 9-5 does see a karma bonus that increases throughout the turn and eventually should have enough of a bonus to overcome the bad RNG and get a hit.

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 3:01 pm

Daedal wrote: Just to clarify, the original quote is regarding a system where luck isn't carried over from one turn to the next and I stated that such a system would help only units with many hits per turn and thus harm those units with fewer hits per turn because they don't see the benefit. I'm not great with statistics so I don't think I could provide the numbers without spending an inordinate amount of time on it. If somebody else would like to take a stab at it, I agree that it'd be a useful calculation whether it proves my point or not. I'll try to reason out why I think having karma not carry over is a bad thing for balance.

Suppose you have a unit that gets a 40-1 attack and another unit that gets a 9-5 attack. I'm basing this roughly off the dwarvish dragonguard and the elvish champion, but to keep it simple I'll call them generic units and ignore everything except the fact that one gets a 40-1 attack and one gets 9-5. Suppose that the RNG is having a bad day. This is what we're trying to prevent. Both the 40-1 and the 9-5 are going to get 5 misses in a row according only to the RNG. However, the 40-1 has these misses spread out over 5 turns so unless the karma carries over there will never be any compensation for that bad luck. The 9-5 does see a karma bonus that increases throughout the turn and eventually should have enough of a bonus to overcome the bad RNG and get a hit.
Ah now I understand what you mean. I did have discussion about this with a few people. It was concluded that a situation to exploit this significantly is really rare. The only situation I can think of is getting 5 hexes to attack a single target with 5 thunderers(really unlikely in a standard 1v1). My view is that if the proposal is going to significantly improve the gameplay, it is worth sacrifising balance for such a remote case.

User avatar
krotop
2009 Map Contest Winner
Posts: 433
Joined: June 8th, 2006, 3:05 pm
Location: Bordeaux, France

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by krotop » May 7th, 2010, 3:35 pm

I did not understand that answer.
psychic wrote:It was concluded that a situation to exploit this significantly is really rare.
Please elaborate what is being exploited. I know it's supposed to be in Daedal's message but I can't put my finger on it. :)
psychic wrote:The only situation I can think of is getting 5 hexes to attack a single target with 5 thunderers(really unlikely in a standard 1v1)
I'm not sure to have understood that either. I thought that the "total damage remaining" in the formula was reset after each attack, so unless I misunderstood none of the 5 thunderers will benefit from your less-luck formula.
Don't trust me, I'm just average player.
***
Game feedback for the Nightmares of Meloen
Art feedback by mystic x the unknown

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 5:00 pm

The thunderers do not benefit. Like Daedel indicated single attack units do not benefit from this system since the correction ends within the same attack.

My example was for a situation when this will have a significant say in the outcome of a battle like 5 thunderers hitting a single target continously during which they will be at a disadvantage compared to units having more strikes. Most mp dwarf games have hardly more than 2 thunderers on one front most of the times and hence my take is that the game balance will not be significantly affected.

The way thunderers are used generally also needs a mention here, not as wall breakers or reliable attackers but opportunity creators. If it hits/misses further plans are made.

5dPZ
Posts: 198
Joined: July 11th, 2006, 7:20 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by 5dPZ » May 7th, 2010, 5:06 pm

To: psychic

Sorry that if my words are misleading - I never intent to say that you are copying my idea, I meant that our ideas are similar to each other: at least that we have the same concept (adjust hit% according to the result of previous strike) with different formulae.

I linked my post here not to advertise my idea, but because I found a logic flaw in your formula (aka, you are limiting the potential that a unit can ever do more than average), so I pointed out my earlier formula which does not have this problem.

Sorry again and good luck.

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 5:27 pm

5dPZ I immediately understood your intentions after your second post, sorry to you also if my words were harsh.

If attack limit or damage limit is a problem with 0%/100% limits, why not use the 20%/80% limits?.

5dPZ
Posts: 198
Joined: July 11th, 2006, 7:20 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by 5dPZ » May 7th, 2010, 5:52 pm

psychic wrote:5dPZ I immediately understood your intentions after your second post, sorry to you also if my words were harsh.

If attack limit or damage limit is a problem with 0%/100% limits, why not use the 20%/80% limits?.
As I said, any preset value would reduce the reward being on better defence:

let's say 4-4 attacked on 50% def, and you get first two hits:
50%, 33% (hits! expected value reached), 20% (base), 20% (base)

compared with 70% def:
30% (hits! lucky! reached expected value), 20% (base), 20% (base), 20% (base)

So, in this case, player who managed to stay on 70% def almost only rewarded a tiny bit (13% on the 2nd attack) more than 50% if the first hit hits. You see, instead of current view that 70% def much better than 50%; players who played enough of your system will tend to think "huh, since 70% only offers better defence on the first strike, it doesn't really matter where I put my units")

psychic
Posts: 86
Joined: July 30th, 2009, 10:18 pm

Re: [Request] Less RNG swing system

Post by psychic » May 7th, 2010, 8:53 pm

5dPZ wrote: As I said, any preset value would reduce the reward being on better defence:

let's say 4-4 attacked on 50% def, and you get first two hits:
50%, 33% (hits! expected value reached), 20% (base), 20% (base)

compared with 70% def:
30% (hits! lucky! reached expected value), 20% (base), 20% (base), 20% (base)

So, in this case, player who managed to stay on 70% def almost only rewarded a tiny bit (13% on the 2nd attack) more than 50% if the first hit hits. You see, instead of current view that 70% def much better than 50%; players who played enough of your system will tend to think "huh, since 70% only offers better defence on the first strike, it doesn't really matter where I put my units")
Sorry to sound vague, I feel something is not right with your argument but not able to pick that exactly.

Like you mentioned the terrain advantage is quite significant if the first hit does not land and the probability of the first hit not landing is quite high (70%), so the terrain advantage is still quite significant imo.

Besides strategy and tactics are almost always more important than terrain anyway by which I mean I dont see a situation where this affects game balance a lot.

Post Reply