Slitherine

melm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:51 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:07 am It is certainly not because I am jealously hoarding knowledge, I can tell you that. Those videos you see took a lot of time and effort to make. Especially the AARs. It doesn't help that I am no good at video editing so it probably takes me a lot longer than it should because I am a dummy at it. But you can blame RBS instead for not expediting a replay function.

A replay viewer that allows you to replay the game and is pause-able, re-windable, and can be advanced or re-winded one move at a time would be the ideal. But right now I would take any kind of replay feature. In the mean time, start taking screenshots of your own game and post them in AAR to get feedback.

Lol. RBS is innocent. Battle Academy does not have Reply function all these years. It's the game engine that needs to be updated. But I strongly advocate replay function. It's the only way to make this MP-heavy game flourish.

To be 100% accurate, Battle Academy uses a different engine to FOG2, the STUB engine. Field of Glory 2 uses the Archon engine, which is much newer, still no replay function though.

Paul59 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:54 am

melm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:51 am

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:07 am It is certainly not because I am jealously hoarding knowledge, I can tell you that. Those videos you see took a lot of time and effort to make. Especially the AARs. It doesn't help that I am no good at video editing so it probably takes me a lot longer than it should because I am a dummy at it. But you can blame RBS instead for not expediting a replay function.

A replay viewer that allows you to replay the game and is pause-able, re-windable, and can be advanced or re-winded one move at a time would be the ideal. But right now I would take any kind of replay feature. In the mean time, start taking screenshots of your own game and post them in AAR to get feedback.

Lol. RBS is innocent. Battle Academy does not have Reply function all these years. It's the game engine that needs to be updated. But I strongly advocate replay function. It's the only way to make this MP-heavy game flourish.

To be 100% accurate, Battle Academy uses a different engine to FOG2, the STUB engine. Field of Glory 2 uses the Archon engine, which is much newer, still no replay function though.

I see. I used to regard BA as FOGII's ancestor.

I can understand why you thought that, as the games do have a similar structure, but apparently the engines are different. What I don't know is if Archon is a development of STUB.

Paul59 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:50 am I can understand why you thought that, as the games do have a similar structure, but apparently the engines are different. What I don't know is if Archon is a development of STUB.

It is. Much enhanced, but backwards compatible.

Archon can do non-BA style games.

i am suspecting that light inf vs light inf calculations are weird


it could be just me but it seems that light inf often lose combat at 9-15% chances (typical skirm vs skirm situation)
also when they lose they seem to fragment way too many times

Replay feature or riot

lapdog666 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:45 pm i am suspecting that light inf vs light inf calculations are weird


it could be just me but it seems that light inf often lose combat at 9-15% chances (typical skirm vs skirm situation)
also when they lose they seem to fragment way too many times

Fragmentation is probably be due to the lack of any CT bonuses, and the odds due to unit strengths rarely being similar at the start of melee since light units usually receive some missile fire before melee.

lapdog666 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:45 pm i am suspecting that light inf vs light inf calculations are weird


it could be just me but it seems that light inf often lose combat at 9-15% chances (typical skirm vs skirm situation)
also when they lose they seem to fragment way too many times

If they don't have close combat capabilities they are getting an extra -1 on their CT. This is intended to make them break more easily, so if they are, it is WAD.

Well, I was just basically accused of cheating by my opponent after he suffered a few double-breaks in the same turn.
He surrendered, and added a message saying “don’t accept any more of my challenges, I won’t play you again. You are far, far, far, far too,lucky”.
I understand only too well the frustration when things go against you...but this message really annoyed me. Am I reading it right? I know tone is hard to detect in text, but it really sounds like he thinks I somehow cheated.
I guess he didn’t see this thread about these kind of events...

Tresantes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:54 pm Well, I was just basically accused of cheating by my opponent after he suffered a few double-breaks in the same turn.
He surrendered, and added a message saying “don’t accept any more of my challenges, I won’t play you again. You are far, far, far, far too,lucky”.
I understand only too well the frustration when things go against you...but this message really annoyed me. Am I reading it right? I know tone is hard to detect in text, but it really sounds like he thinks I somehow cheated.
I guess he didn’t see this thread about these kind of events...

You can't do anything about that. Find any gambling game and you will see all sorts of irrational behaviors. Lucky hats or chits, slagging dealers, posting about rigged software, etc etc. This extends to anything controlled by RNG. The human mind is not built to deal with randomness and is driven to find meaning or explanation to things.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:53 am

Tresantes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:54 pm Well, I was just basically accused of cheating by my opponent after he suffered a few double-breaks in the same turn.
He surrendered, and added a message saying “don’t accept any more of my challenges, I won’t play you again. You are far, far, far, far too,lucky”.
I understand only too well the frustration when things go against you...but this message really annoyed me. Am I reading it right? I know tone is hard to detect in text, but it really sounds like he thinks I somehow cheated.
I guess he didn’t see this thread about these kind of events...

You can't do anything about that. Find any gambling game and you will see all sorts of irrational behaviors. Lucky hats or chits, slagging dealers, posting about rigged software, etc etc. This extends to anything controlled by RNG. The human mind is not built to deal with randomness and is driven to find meaning or explanation to things.

However, if one encounters 20 rallies in 6 turns for the opponent, I'm sure he will be irritated although he understands RNG.

Tresantes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:54 pm Well, I was just basically accused of cheating by my opponent after he suffered a few double-breaks in the same turn.
He surrendered, and added a message saying “don’t accept any more of my challenges, I won’t play you again. You are far, far, far, far too,lucky”.
I understand only too well the frustration when things go against you...but this message really annoyed me. Am I reading it right? I know tone is hard to detect in text, but it really sounds like he thinks I somehow cheated.
I guess he didn’t see this thread about these kind of events...

Count yourself even luckier that you don't have to play him again

I would love to see what numbers the RNG is coming up with as I do not think it is as random as many people think. An RNG is code and requires a base value and the base value may not be random.

gamercb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:16 pm I would love to see what numbers the RNG is coming up with as I do not think it is as random as many people think. An RNG is code and requires a base value and the base value may not be random.

If you go back to page 4 of this thread you will see the results of the extended test that I did showing how the RNG works in practice.

gamercb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:16 pm I would love to see what numbers the RNG is coming up with as I do not think it is as random as many people think. An RNG is code and requires a base value and the base value may not be random.

The random number generation is perfectly random for practical purposes. Any errors in the distribution are so small that you will never roll enough results to point out any bias that doesn't fall within margin of error and you will never be able to figure out a pattern without hacking skills that would be far better utilized in espionage or cybercrime than cheating at FoG2.

Experiences of biased RNG like "Why did I get 4 same unlikely results on three different occasions" are perfectly normal and almost always baseless. RNG is not intuitive to healthy human as the highly patterned spread that people would consider "random" is anything but. I already posted a link to reddit discussion about the more human-sensitive RNG used in XCOM2. Another good example is the Spotify shuffle that was originally random but was changed to much less random procedural generation that should appear more "consistently random". If something feels properly random, it probably isn't.

If you really meticulously look at results of a true or pseudo-random RNG (without any computer program for analysis); and it seems perfectly random to you with no patterns, bias or inconsistencies; you are not looking hard enough, have some cognitive disorder, or are a Cylon sleeper agent. Properly breaking a random generator in desktop application (we already know there are no simple errors like inclusive/exclusive limit mixup) would require some major flaws in thoroughly tested programming languages or hardware.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:52 pm If something feels properly random, it probably isn't.

This reminds me of a story I heard, about a math teacher. He gave his pupils a task. Each was to throw coin a hundred times and write down each result. Afterwards he was able to tell who really did that and who cheated and just made up results - because the made up results had much fewer and shorter streaks for any side of the coin than what can be expected from real results.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:50 am

gamercb wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:16 pm I would love to see what numbers the RNG is coming up with as I do not think it is as random as many people think. An RNG is code and requires a base value and the base value may not be random.

If you go back to page 4 of this thread you will see the results of the extended test that I did showing how the RNG works in practice.

If I understand you figures correctly, when two equal warbands clash there is around a 1 in 3 chance that one or other of them will have to take a cohesion test.

gamercb wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:33 pm If I understand you figures correctly, when two equal warbands clash there is around a 1 in 3 chance that one or other of them will have to take a cohesion test.

Yes, something like that. War bands are among the most volatile units in the game. But the key findings for me were that that although the RNG was working correctly, it could quite decisively favour one player over the other for quite short sequences of results that would often be decisive in the context of a real game. Also, the test showed the RNG could favour one player over the other over a much longer sequence of results. So those of us who are observing that "luck", or whatever you want to call it, is a big factor in some of our matches are not imagining things, as has been suggested by some other posters on here. When I raised the possibility that the RNG might be adjusted, I was told that this was not going to happen rather than it could not be adjusted. Given that mathematics and computer science are not remotely strong subjects of mine, I found all this very interesting.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:57 am Yes, something like that. War bands are among the most volatile units in the game. But the key findings for me were that that although the RNG was working correctly, it could quite decisively favour one player over the other for quite short sequences of results that would often be decisive in the context of a real game. Also, the test showed the RNG could favour one player over the other over a much longer sequence of results. So those of us who are observing that "luck", or whatever you want to call it, is a big factor in some of our matches are not imagining things, as has been suggested by some other posters on here. When I raised the possibility that the RNG might be adjusted, I was told that this was not going to happen rather than it could not be adjusted. Given that mathematics and computer science are not remotely strong subjects of mine, I found all this very interesting.

I mean, a couple people have already mentioned that true randomness does actually result in clusters like you describe. And the developer is not interested in instituting fake randomness to give players a false sense of variety when they're already getting real variety (in RNG).

Additionally, it seems pretty clear that while warbands are, on average, more vulnerable to swings of RNG fortune (due to a lack of cohesion test bonuses combined with the impact penalties), this is actually working as intended for the developer. On a completely flat map with no other terrain and with opponents of - exactly - equal skill, yes the battle will be completely in the hands of the gods when the order to charge is given. But throw in terrain and a skill differential, and you have plenty of ways for players to mitigate the wild swings of fortune that can happen with warbands.