The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[MikeMarchant]

Mike all that has been said is obviously true with regards statistical phenomena. The phenomena that you experience would not be that noticeable if the probability of the events occurring was higher. The underlying problem remains that the probability attributed to certain events is too high. Play the mod as the clumping phenomena has not occurred but in saying that I don't believe enough games have been played to be certain.

Let's be more precise in our wording so we don't keep talking past each other, yes? Why is this an "underlying problem"? No one has yet managed to make the case that it is a "problem".

If it isn't a problem then you have a game mechanic preference issue which isn't so much a problem as you want the game to do something else due to taste. This isn't a concrete issue like a clear mathematical discrepancy in point costing or closing up ZoC loopholes in existing rules. This is a game design issue and if RBS is firm on this, you should respect that and stop making it out like it is anything other what it is. We all have things we don't like about the game. Schweet and Pete are making a cool mod and you seem to have played it quite a bit and enjoy it. That is cool too and when the Mod tournament starts, if everyone flocks to that instead of Vanilla then great. If not, then oh well.

Winning a game when your opponent has outmanoeuvered you and has done evrerything necessary to deserve a win, is a problem.
Losing a game similarly, is a problem.
Coming away from the game have invested time and effort and not had an enjoyable experience is a problem.
Being so fed up with it that you want to never play the game again, is a problem.

None of those problems are explained away by discussions of statistics and probability. If a game fails to reward good play often enough, there is clearly a problem wth the game. Although we might disagree over 'how frequently' constitutes a problem, there is cleary a sufficently large number of people who feel disaffected in thsi way for it to be taken seriously.


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

Winning a game when your opponent has outmanoeuvered you and has done evrerything necessary to deserve a win, is a problem.
Losing a game similarly, is a problem.
Coming away from the game have invested time and effort and not had an enjoyable experience is a problem.
Being so fed up with it that you want to never play the game again, is a problem.

None of those problems are explained away by discussions of statistics and probability. If a game fails to reward good play often enough, there is clearly a problem wth the game. Although we might disagree over 'how frequently' constitutes a problem, there is cleary a sufficently large number of people who feel disaffected in thsi way for it to be taken seriously.


Best Wishes

Mike

Not wanting to interrupt this interesting exchange of views I would point out to Mike (Marchant rather than Mike C ) that coming up to three years after release FoG2 has a "Very Positive" rating on Steam from 385 reviews and the same rating from 15 recent reviews.

I am not sure what numbers are involved with the "large number of people" who are allegedly dissatisfied but I doubt more than 10 people could be named so there is a certain amount of personal bias being transferred across in analysing player opinion I would suggest unless there has been an independent poll conducted of players I am unaware of.....

[stockwellpete]

Not wanting to interrupt this interesting exchange of views I would point out to Mike (Marchant rather than Mike C ) that coming up to three years after release FoG2 has a "Very Positive" rating on Steam from 385 reviews and the same rating from 15 recent reviews.

I am not sure what numbers are involved with the "large number of people" who are allegedly dissatisfied but I doubt more than 10 people could be named so there is a certain amount of personal bias being transferred across in analysing player opinion I would suggest unless there has been an independent poll conducted of players I am unaware of.....

But now you are distorting Mike M's views. He said, "there is clearly a sufficiently large number of people who feel disaffected in this way for it to be taken seriously", not that there is a large number of people dissatisfied with the game. These are two completely different things. "A sufficiently large number" just means that there are enough people dissatisfied to have produced two people from the group who are prepared to spend some time developing a mod. So Mike M's statement is absolutely true. But no-one has said "large numbers of people" are dissatisfied with the game.

[devoncop]

Fair enough.

I thought he was saying more than a small minority were unhappy.

In which case your mod and similar efforts on behalf of such folk are an ideal way to address such concerns. My impression was he was trying to persuade RBS to change the mechanics of a core game that most appear very happy with. As if we don't have enough real world examples of vocal minorities trying to push a silent majority into accepting a course of action they are not in agreement with......(everyone can choose their own e.g. of this phenomenon).

[MikeC_81]

I've found that paying much notice to the predictions of combat outcome is very similar to someone telling a six foot man that it's safe to wade across a river because it's only four feet deep on average. (Metric measurements are also available).

The combat predictor is accurate to within several percent. The issue is that people frequently equate 65% chance to win as 100% and then feel "robbed" when one of them doesn't go their way. It happens in every game with variance. XCOM players meme about the 5% miss. Poker players "flip tables" over having their Aces cracked. Not paying attention to baseline odds is a good way to lose games.

Snugglebunny, and this not an attack on him in any way, posted a few posts saying that he had just finished playing X number of games and that he had only had Y number of rallies. At the same time he posted this I was recording an average of 3 rallies per turn in the 4 games I was playing and logging. To be more accurate these rallies were logged in the end phase of battles where I had routed large number of troops. In one of these games my opponent had conceded yet 5 turns later won the game. There is a greater frustration out there than is realised because a lot of players cannot be bothered even visiting the forum let alone commenting. The mods do remove a lot of the perceived issues being discussed at the moment. I don't want to argue about this as there is no need. The proof is there for everyone to try. Finally I don't think anyone wants this to be a competition between the vanilla and the mod and if push came to shove I would support vanilla if I thought it was splitting the community.

I think Snuggles' experience in contrast to your own is precisely what I have been trying to point out. There will be people who experience far more than the normal distribution of a particular event and people who experience far less of the same event. For whatever reason, you seem to be severely unlucky. We commented on this the last time we played in the DL when my offensive spears were charging your Lancers in a most futile manner trying to escape the ZoC locks when you replied that most of your games somehow saw spearmen breaking your lancers despite charging into them and it was a refreshing change to see my spearmen do nothing.

Now to answer your question. The underlying problem is the problem that events that should be extremely rare are occurring very frequently. Making the case for stating a fact? What has been said is what has happened. The standard answer after the initial derogatory remarks implying the complainant is fabricating the story is that it is statistical clumping or some other statistical phenomena. That is extremely rude and uncalled for. There are many here that understand statistics, maths and many other things. Yes I fully understand that these events have not been experienced by everyone as yet but it is happening to many players. None of us know how many games are being played by players complaining or defending the issue so to argue about it is a statistical nonsense. What is real is a number of players who play a lot of games are experiencing these issues. If nothing is going to be done about that is fine until a new player raises the issue again. We then go through the same cycle again and again and again. I am now tired of it and Mike I really don't have anything against you and don't want to argue with you. You have done great things for the game and I have much respect for that. Join the league again and let's leave the conflict for the FOG battlefield.

This next part is very important to what I have been saying.

I never thought we were arguing. A difference of opinion or views isn't an argument. The only thing I will say is that we have gone over the possibility of the RNG generator being broken before with the Double Drop tests and despite a ton of tests run by Pete, we could not find the anomaly. I think is important to separate is the stance of these RNG events "removing skill from the game" (as in overriding skill as charged by many players like Mike M most recently) vs a stance that these events are annoying to deal with and unsatisfying gameplay-wise. If it is the latter, then I have zero problems with it. I only ever comment when, in the course of players trying to effect change in the game, they bleed their arguments to the former or outright state it as such (like Mike M and Paul M did within the past 5 pages) to try and strengthen their argument for a change in the rules. That is a far more serious charge to the integrity of the game and requires them to produce much more evidence and explain the continued and sustained success of certain players.

As for returning to the league, that will probably wait until RBS puts out a new DLC for us. I play random pickups for fun when I see interesting armies on the menu or do beta testing when an interesting change occurs. I am just tired of seeing "camping" in rough terrain or extreme fortress defensive play all over a 10 dollar voucher. Also a lot of times I may have only one or two armies I really want to play but the nature of army selection means I might not get it and now I am obligated to play 9 games with something I didn't really want to play, to begin with.

That's not going to happen. The mod is not being set up to challenge the vanilla game, it is just offering an alternative for those who are ready to try something a bit different every now and then. I will not be organising any separate tournaments with the mod and all my focus will be on running the vanilla FOG2DL and KO Tournaments. Hopefully, anyone who decides to set up a small tournament using the mod will time it so that it mostly takes place in the gaps between the FOG2DL seasons (i.e. in January, May and September).

If the mod is a success and there is a large pool of players that prefer it over Vanilla, then there is no reason to hide it imo. If it is a smashing success then it might be a sign for RBS and co. as well as other ruleset developers to look at when doing new or updated rulesets.

If a game fails to reward good play often enough, there is clearly a problem wth the game. Although we might disagree over 'how frequently' constitutes a problem, there is cleary a sufficently large number of people who feel disaffected in thsi way for it to be taken seriously.

I invite you to respond to this post I made earlier.

Mike I don't think anyone is suggesting that good players win most of the time against lesser opponents despite these rules. Read Stockwellpete's posts above. Every time this is brought up the argument against a change is that Pantherboy, Dkalenda and Nosy_Rat still win most games. It isn't relevant. What is wrong with making the probability of a double drop less than it is at the moment? What is wrong with dropping the probability of units rallying when not in command range of a general? Why should a rallied unit out of sight at the other end of the battlefield save a defeated army?

Nothing is wrong with any of those suggestions and I did read Pete's as well as everyone else's posts carefully. The reason why Pantherboy and friends always get brought up is because the topic invariably begins with some form of 'I lost x game because y unit double dropped!' with the usual unsaid implication being that they were somehow robbed and proceeds down the well-trodden path of 'there is too much RNG negating skill'. Paul straight up said this. Snuggles quoted it. The standard response at this point is that if RNG is negating skill, then the Pantherboy phenomenon needs to be explained.

There are 3 possible explanations.

1. RNG is not enough to override skill gaps as the primary determinant of games so the original assertion is false. I tend to fall into this camp.

2. RNG is enough to override skill gaps as the primary determinant of games and pure luck is responsible for this convergence of players repeatedly winning tournaments or placing very highly. I find this unlikely however I do agree that you cannot be unlucky and still win a tournament unless you are much better than your peers).

3. RNG is enough to override skill gaps as the primary determinant of games and these players are getting to the top consistently by save-scumming to mitigate bad RNG when it happens. I find this answer to be unlikely although imo, from what is known about the system, it is my belief you can save scum with enough regularity to affect the outcomes of games without being flagged.

You get to pick which option you want to believe in.

However, you can be firmly in camp 1 and still be against double drops. You simply might not like where the RNG is being served up and that is a game design issue and you can keep articulating to RBS if you want. Or you can do what Pete and Schweet is doing and make a mod and play that. Or you can find another game where the RNG is to your liking. All those options are available but if you are in camp 1 and believe skill matters, don't say things like this:

Combination of double drops and lopsided rallies from rout decides a huge number of games, de-skills and passes outcome to chance.

[Cunningcairn]

Snugglebunny, and this not an attack on him in any way, posted a few posts saying that he had just finished playing X number of games and that he had only had Y number of rallies. At the same time he posted this I was recording an average of 3 rallies per turn in the 4 games I was playing and logging. To be more accurate these rallies were logged in the end phase of battles where I had routed large number of troops. In one of these games my opponent had conceded yet 5 turns later won the game. There is a greater frustration out there than is realised because a lot of players cannot be bothered even visiting the forum let alone commenting. The mods do remove a lot of the perceived issues being discussed at the moment. I don't want to argue about this as there is no need. The proof is there for everyone to try. Finally I don't think anyone wants this to be a competition between the vanilla and the mod and if push came to shove I would support vanilla if I thought it was splitting the community.

I think Snuggles' experience in contrast to your own is precisely what I have been trying to point out. There will be people who experience far more than the normal distribution of a particular event and people who experience far less of the same event. For whatever reason, you seem to be severely unlucky. We commented on this the last time we played in the DL when my offensive spears were charging your Lancers in a most futile manner trying to escape the ZoC locks when you replied that most of your games somehow saw spearmen breaking your lancers despite charging into them and it was a refreshing change to see my spearmen do nothing.

Now to answer your question. The underlying problem is the problem that events that should be extremely rare are occurring very frequently. Making the case for stating a fact? What has been said is what has happened. The standard answer after the initial derogatory remarks implying the complainant is fabricating the story is that it is statistical clumping or some other statistical phenomena. That is extremely rude and uncalled for. There are many here that understand statistics, maths and many other things. Yes I fully understand that these events have not been experienced by everyone as yet but it is happening to many players. None of us know how many games are being played by players complaining or defending the issue so to argue about it is a statistical nonsense. What is real is a number of players who play a lot of games are experiencing these issues. If nothing is going to be done about that is fine until a new player raises the issue again. We then go through the same cycle again and again and again. I am now tired of it and Mike I really don't have anything against you and don't want to argue with you. You have done great things for the game and I have much respect for that. Join the league again and let's leave the conflict for the FOG battlefield.

This next part is very important to what I have been saying.

I never thought we were arguing. A difference of opinion or views isn't an argument. The only thing I will say is that we have gone over the possibility of the RNG generator being broken before with the Double Drop tests and despite a ton of tests run by Pete, we could not find the anomaly. I think is important to separate is the stance of these RNG events "removing skill from the game" (as in overriding skill as charged by many players like Mike M most recently) vs a stance that these events are annoying to deal with and unsatisfying gameplay-wise. If it is the latter, then I have zero problems with it. I only ever comment when, in the course of players trying to effect change in the game, they bleed their arguments to the former or outright state it as such (like Mike M and Paul M did within the past 5 pages) to try and strengthen their argument for a change in the rules. That is a far more serious charge to the integrity of the game and requires them to produce much more evidence and explain the continued and sustained success of certain players.

As for returning to the league, that will probably wait until RBS puts out a new DLC for us. I play random pickups for fun when I see interesting armies on the menu or do beta testing when an interesting change occurs. I am just tired of seeing "camping" in rough terrain or extreme fortress defensive play all over a 10 dollar voucher. Also a lot of times I may have only one or two armies I really want to play but the nature of army selection means I might not get it and now I am obligated to play 9 games with something I didn't really want to play, to begin with.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks for you response. I think a lot of players are looking forward to the new DLC and before anyone says anything I don't know what percentage "a lot" represents it is purely based on my observations Mike again not wanting to argue but this is an official definition of an argument, "an exchange of diverging or opposite views" It is not a negative thing until someone becomes personal and rude and I don't think you and have done that to each other. Bring on the new DLC!

[MikeMarchant]

I agree with Martin on the nature of argument. Coming from a philosphical backgroumd, argument is the normal method of discourse in order, not only to persuade but also to explore and to learn. In any argument I hope to learn something of my interlocutor's position. My position often shifts as a result, and sometimes changes completely. And in this particular argument I have learnt a lot, particularly from RBS. Ideally it is a learnign experience for both sides.

Having thought on the issue of Poisson distribution, which I can't enageg with from a mathematical point of view but can from a philosiphical viewpoint, I ask the following: Statistical clumping is a phenomenon which can and does occur naturally. Statistical clumping is also a phenomenon which can and does occur as a result of a fault in the system responsible for generating the data. How, as an observor of the data, can one determine whether the statistical clumping is the result of a natural phenomenon or as a result of a fault in the system?

As Pete commented, by 'sufficiently large' I didn't mean to imply large, because I simply don't know how many people feel the same way I do. The reason that the game has such a large number of very positive reviews on Steam is because it's an excellent game, I am not arguing the contrary. I am simply arguing that it could, and should, be better. Having just spent a little time skimming through the reviews, I do notice that there are comments about the luck factor being too great, and comments about specific flaws in the game that I would agree with. Not all of the complaints about the luck factor are from negatvie reviews, some are also in the positive reviews. But, when all is said and done, we only know the views of those who speak out. We can neither of us claim that those who don't speak out are on our side.

Surely there's nothing intiniscally wrong with being a vocal minorty, is there? Vocal minorities won the vote for the common man and for women. Vocal minorities abolished slavery, established equal rights in many areas, won the right for same sex marriage, etc. Of course vocal minorities have also influenced directions we migh not approve of, but that is not the consequence of being a vocal minority.


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

So vocal minorities "won the vote for common man and women"....they "abolished slavery and established rights in many areas. You agree with these measures so are happy to give vocal minorities the credit for bringing them about.

Where vocal minorities "influenced directions we might not approve of" this is apparently "not the consequence of being a vocal minority"

Convenient

[MikeMarchant]

So vocal minorities "won the vote for common man and women"....they "abolished slavery and established rights in many areas. You agree with these measures so are happy to give vocal minorities the credit for bringing them about.

Where vocal minorities "influenced directions we might not approve of" this is apparently "not the consequence of being a vocal minority"

Convenient

No, that wasn't my point.

My point was that being a vocal minorty is not, in and of itself, a good thing or a bad thing. As I began - 'there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a vocal minority'. Vocal minorities have achieved both good and bad. and so to criticse a group for being a vocal minority is misplaced.


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

Fair enough.

So we are left with the position of the status quo without any evidence that beyond such a minority there is any demand to change that status quo.

After all, as someone who sets such store by "winning the vote for the common man and women" I am sure you would never want to ignore the majority opinion which according to the only gauge of opinion we have on the game (user reviews) remains very happy with the game mechanics as does that game creator......

Interesting stuff though.

[MikeMarchant]

Fair enough.

So we are left with the position of the status quo without any evidence that beyond such a minority there is any demand to change that status quo.

After all, as someone who sets such store by "winning the vote for the common man and women" I am sure you would never want to ignore the majority opinion which according to the only gauge of opinion we have on the game (user reviews) remains very happy with the game mechanics as does that game creator......

Interesting stuff though.

No, I disagree.

The idea of simply agreeing with the majority because they are the majority is daft. If we did that the sun would orbit the earth, which would be flat, and we'd be enjyong all the benefits of capital punishment. Agreement should be based on the argument not the numbers.

By the way, who doesn't set such store by "winning the vote for the common man and woman"? Does that mark me out as unusual?


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

Supporting universal sufferage is certainly not unusual.

Supporting it and then wanting to subvert the result shouldn't be unusual either but your views on this matter are increasingly common too sadly.........

Still we shall agree to differ on this point and at least agree that FoG2 is a fine game (even though my record is on the poor side of mediocre....nothing to do with RNG by the way...just ineptitude)

All the best

Ian

[MikeC_81]

Having thought on the issue of Poisson distribution, which I can't enageg with from a mathematical point of view but can from a philosiphical viewpoint, I ask the following: Statistical clumping is a phenomenon which can and does occur naturally. Statistical clumping is also a phenomenon which can and does occur as a result of a fault in the system responsible for generating the data. How, as an observor of the data, can one determine whether the statistical clumping is the result of a natural phenomenon or as a result of a fault in the system?

This is a complicated topic. It will never be possible to be sure whether any generator of random events or selection is truly random or not with 100% confidence. This is why you see polls conducted, even when meeting the strict scientific definition of a random selection of participants, always is qualified with the statement of 'accurate to within plus or minus x percentage points, y% of the time. Then we get into how most computer games generate random numbers. Most engines use some form of Psuedo Random Number Generator program or subroutine. It usually an arithmetic formula that spits out a number based on an initial seed parameter. It is called "psuedo" because the sequence of numbers that the formula spits out is entirely dependant on the initial seed value. Indeed you can reconstruct the entire sequence of numbers the formula spits out as long as you know the formula and have possession of the initial seed value. The seed value could be anything. For example, some PRNGs simply use the time and date when the request for a number or series of numbers is asked for as the initial seed value. I am unaware of how the PRNG works in FoG2 but it is most likely some tried and true formula.

It is important to note that they are not "truly" random since they are deterministic. You literally feed values into the generator and you know exactly what comes out as long as you know how it works. What is important to note though is that they are generally good enough with respect to what games are trying to accomplish. A lot of FoG2 is dice rolling with the exception of the rather opaque and complex combat calculator. But for the purposes of the discussion at hand, rallying troops is literally rolling two 2d6 and seeing if it meets or exceeds a required number based on various factors. The expected frequency of outcomes for 2d6 is child's play and everyone in this forum knows it (1/36 for 2 and 12, 2/36 for 3 and 11, etc etc). If you believe the PRNG is broken in this game, you can set up very simple tests for this, log results, and compare them against the distribution of outcomes. The Law of Large Numbers will kick in very quickly and expose any weakness in either the PRNG or the code using the PRNG (ex say RBS messed up and things are rallying on rolls of 3 rather than 4).

I think 12 months ago we had another RNG discussion where it was charged that Double Drops were occurring more often than the underlying formula should say it should be happening. I sat down with the rules and figured out what the percentages should be and Pete provided the raw data by smashing hundreds of Warbands against each other. The result was that there was no noticeable weakness in either the PRNG generator or the morale calculation code. You can find my conclusion here. viewtopic.php?p=775756#p775756

If there was a weakness in the PRNG, it should have shown up in these tests but it doesn't. We rapidly got results that converged to the best theoretical results we could come up with, given win/draw/loss percentages are not 100% known and only approximated through empirical means. I find it unlikely that FoG2 would randomly use two different PRNGs in the game so that half is safe. If rallies are happening too often beyond what the code says should happen then the error would be with the rally calculation. You can sit down and test this too. Ask Pete to whip up a scenario for you and simply grind the numbers and see if they fit.

PRNGs do have weaknesses in that they are not truly random and for people in the scientific fields with super-precise measurements and predictions, they have to rely on a very solid one, and their work needs to be rigorously tested by others to make sure PRNG weakness didn't taint results. But for the purposes of rolling two dice, inherent PRNG misbehaviour is a nonissue.

As Pete commented, by 'sufficiently large' I didn't mean to imply large, because I simply don't know how many people feel the same way I do. The reason that the game has such a large number of very positive reviews on Steam is because it's an excellent game, I am not arguing the contrary. I am simply arguing that it could, and should, be better. Having just spent a little time skimming through the reviews, I do notice that there are comments about the luck factor being too great, and comments about specific flaws in the game that I would agree with. Not all of the complaints about the luck factor are from negatvie reviews, some are also in the positive reviews. But, when all is said and done, we only know the views of those who speak out. We can neither of us claim that those who don't speak out are on our side.

Surely there's nothing intiniscally wrong with being a vocal minorty, is there? Vocal minorities won the vote for the common man and for women. Vocal minorities abolished slavery, established equal rights in many areas, won the right for same sex marriage, etc. Of course vocal minorities have also influenced directions we migh not approve of, but that is not the consequence of being a vocal minority.


Best Wishes

Mike

You are trying to equate vocal minorities with respect to moral judgements vs empirical truth? There is a vocal minority for the earth being flat too!

[MikeMarchant]

Supporting universal sufferage is certainly not unusual.

Supporting it and then wanting to subvert the result shouldn't be unusual either but your views on this matter are increasingly common too sadly.........

Still we shall agree to differ on this point and at least agree that FoG2 is a fine game (even though my record is on the poor side of mediocre....nothing to do with RNG by the way...just ineptitude)

All the best

Ian

Democracy is not about the majority expressing their view and then expecting everyone who disagrees to shut up. To disagree with the majority is not subversive. Heavens above, the world we live in today was built by people disagreeing with the majority, from Socrates onwards.

No matter what the majority say, anyone who disagrees has every right to express their disagreement and to argue their case - that is fundamental to democracy - in fact, not just a democratic right, but also a democratic duty. On the other hand, seeking to shut down democratic debate is subversive.

FoG 2 is a fine game; if it wasn't I wouldn't care enough to bother criticising it, I would unistall it.

My record is also entirely mediocre, which is contributed to in both directions by RNG - but mostly a result of ineptitude.


Best Wishes

Mike

[MikeMarchant]

Having thought on the issue of Poisson distribution, which I can't enageg with from a mathematical point of view but can from a philosiphical viewpoint, I ask the following: Statistical clumping is a phenomenon which can and does occur naturally. Statistical clumping is also a phenomenon which can and does occur as a result of a fault in the system responsible for generating the data. How, as an observor of the data, can one determine whether the statistical clumping is the result of a natural phenomenon or as a result of a fault in the system?

This is a complicated topic. It will never be possible to be sure whether any generator of random events or selection is truly random or not with 100% confidence. This is why you see polls conducted, even when meeting the strict scientific definition of a random selection of participants, always is qualified with the statement of 'accurate to within plus or minus x percentage points, y% of the time. Then we get into how most computer games generate random numbers. Most engines use some form of Psuedo Random Number Generator program or subroutine. It usually an arithmetic formula that spits out a number based on an initial seed parameter. It is called "psuedo" because the sequence of numbers that the formula spits out is entirely dependant on the initial seed value. Indeed you can reconstruct the entire sequence of numbers the formula spits out as long as you know the formula and have possession of the initial seed value. The seed value could be anything. For example, some PRNGs simply use the time and date when the request for a number or series of numbers is asked for as the initial seed value. I am unaware of how the PRNG works in FoG2 but it is most likely some tried and true formula.

It is important to note that they are not "truly" random since they are deterministic. You literally feed values into the generator and you know exactly what comes out as long as you know how it works. What is important to note though is that they are generally good enough with respect to what games are trying to accomplish. A lot of FoG2 is dice rolling with the exception of the rather opaque and complex combat calculator. But for the purposes of the discussion at hand, rallying troops is literally rolling two 2d6 and seeing if it meets or exceeds a required number based on various factors. The expected frequency of outcomes for 2d6 is child's play and everyone in this forum knows it (1/36 for 2 and 12, 2/36 for 3 and 11, etc etc). If you believe the PRNG is broken in this game, you can set up very simple tests for this, log results, and compare them against the distribution of outcomes. The Law of Large Numbers will kick in very quickly and expose any weakness in either the PRNG or the code using the PRNG (ex say RBS messed up and things are rallying on rolls of 3 rather than 4).

I think 12 months ago we had another RNG discussion where it was charged that Double Drops were occurring more often than the underlying formula should say it should be happening. I sat down with the rules and figured out what the percentages should be and Pete provided the raw data by smashing hundreds of Warbands against each other. The result was that there was no noticeable weakness in either the PRNG generator or the morale calculation code. You can find my conclusion here. viewtopic.php?p=775756#p775756

If there was a weakness in the PRNG, it should have shown up in these tests but it doesn't. We rapidly got results that converged to the best theoretical results we could come up with, given win/draw/loss percentages are not 100% known and only approximated through empirical means. I find it unlikely that FoG2 would randomly use two different PRNGs in the game so that half is safe. If rallies are happening too often beyond what the code says should happen then the error would be with the rally calculation. You can sit down and test this too. Ask Pete to whip up a scenario for you and simply grind the numbers and see if they fit.

PRNGs do have weaknesses in that they are not truly random and for people in the scientific fields with super-precise measurements and predictions, they have to rely on a very solid one, and their work needs to be rigorously tested by others to make sure PRNG weakness didn't taint results. But for the purposes of rolling two dice, inherent PRNG misbehaviour is a nonissue.

As Pete commented, by 'sufficiently large' I didn't mean to imply large, because I simply don't know how many people feel the same way I do. The reason that the game has such a large number of very positive reviews on Steam is because it's an excellent game, I am not arguing the contrary. I am simply arguing that it could, and should, be better. Having just spent a little time skimming through the reviews, I do notice that there are comments about the luck factor being too great, and comments about specific flaws in the game that I would agree with. Not all of the complaints about the luck factor are from negatvie reviews, some are also in the positive reviews. But, when all is said and done, we only know the views of those who speak out. We can neither of us claim that those who don't speak out are on our side.

Surely there's nothing intiniscally wrong with being a vocal minorty, is there? Vocal minorities won the vote for the common man and for women. Vocal minorities abolished slavery, established equal rights in many areas, won the right for same sex marriage, etc. Of course vocal minorities have also influenced directions we migh not approve of, but that is not the consequence of being a vocal minority.


Best Wishes

Mike

You are trying to equate vocal minorities with respect to moral judgements vs empirical truth? There is a vocal minority for the earth being flat too!

Yes, it is a complicated subject. I don't know how FoG generates its random number, but I would guess it requests a random number from the OS. Most computers these days have chips that have RNG generated by the hardware. All modern Intel chips have this functionality built in. Some more sophisitcated chips use light levels or humidity levels, or some other non-deterministic influence to increase the degree of randomness. This is becoming ever more important with regards encryption.

The empirical testing you've done, with data from Pete, is a powerful argument and I am happy to accept that. It doesn't contribute anything to the argument about whether double drops are too common in the game, but it does convincingly end the argument that double-drops occur too often as a result of a faulty RNG process. So, I suppose, the question now is whether the objection to the frequency of double-drops is based on an ignorance of the historical form or whether it's based on its influence on an anjoyable game. Either way, it seems to me wrong that player A can completely outplay player B and then the dice are rolled...

I am not objecting to luck being a part of the game. I'm not sure how the game could work without it. The argument for me, and I suspect for others, is about how much luck is good and how much is bad, and I also suspect there as many different views on this as there are players. My view is not the right view, nor is it superior to anyone else's view, but it is, crucailly, my view and it would make no sense for me to argue any other.

I wasn't intending to associate vocal minorites with moral judegements, it's just that those examples sprange to mind first. I might have mentioned any number of Humanists or Tycho Brahe or Copernicus, or Einstein or Bohr or many, many others. A vocal minority for the Earth being flat is fine. I am happy to argue the case with them.

Having said all that, I am not entirely sure what you mean by empirical truth. The empirical method denies the possibility of truth, doesn't it? It allows only for increasingly convincing hypothesese; truth is not within its jurisdiction.


Best Wishes

Mike

[General Shapur]

The double drops seem to plague pictish troops and those warbands - probably other things too. So much so I command them less aggressively than they really would have been, hanging the army back until the last half dozen turns if possible. What I'd like is for double drops to be disabled on the charge in non-raw troops - this would encourage more aggressive gameplay. Less of an issue in large games, but one double drop can ruin a medium or small game I think.

[Cunningcairn]

The double drops seem to plague pictish troops and those warbands - probably other things too. So much so I command them less aggressively than they really would have been, hanging the army back until the last half dozen turns if possible. What I'd like is for double drops to be disabled on the charge in non-raw troops - this would encourage more aggressive gameplay. Less of an issue in large games, but one double drop can ruin a medium or small game I think.

Absolutely.

[paulmcneil]

The double drops seem to plague pictish troops and those warbands - probably other things too. So much so I command them less aggressively than they really would have been, hanging the army back until the last half dozen turns if possible. What I'd like is for double drops to be disabled on the charge in non-raw troops - this would encourage more aggressive gameplay. Less of an issue in large games, but one double drop can ruin a medium or small game I think.

Anecdotally (so I guess that I'll be told that I'm mistaken or exaggerating) I see Warbands getting frequent double drops, more so than other troop types, and it has put me off using Galatians for example, even though I did reasonably well with them in the last DL, which is a shame. I don't mind if this is a function of Warbands (i.e. a feature rather than a bug, as IBM support would say) but if so, could this have a greater reflection in the points costs of Warbands?

[rbodleyscott]

Anecdotally (so I guess that I'll be told that I'm mistaken or exaggerating) I see Warbands getting frequent double drops, more so than other troop types

You are not mistaken - it is because (a) they don't get +1 CT modifier for being Heavy Foot, (b) they are often fighting Impact Foot (-1 CT modifier)

It is a WAD feature of Warbands - as previously discussed in the double drop thread that Mike_C referenced above. See the comparison between warband vs warband combats and offensive spear vs offensive spear combats.

viewtopic.php?p=775756#p775756

[Schweetness101]

The double drops seem to plague pictish troops and those warbands - probably other things too. So much so I command them less aggressively than they really would have been, hanging the army back until the last half dozen turns if possible. What I'd like is for double drops to be disabled on the charge in non-raw troops - this would encourage more aggressive gameplay. Less of an issue in large games, but one double drop can ruin a medium or small game I think.

so something like, no double drops for (steady?) non-raw troops on impact?

What would you think instead about a rule that only permits double dropping when the unit matchup is one where the loser is at significant combat disadvantage? IE two steady close-ish in quality units (whether warband vs warband or warband vs hastati or whatever) would never double drop, but you could still get double drops from say hitting an average occupied unit in the rear with superior lancers, or charging raw shields with legions etc...