Slitherine

There's exactly one game I remember feeling that I lost primarily due to luck. And that was mainly due to my lancer line spontaneously combusting.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:51 am

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:50 pm

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:27 pm

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

Here, here.


Best Wishes

Mike

If that's the case why do dkalenda and pantherboy keep trashing me over and over again? Seems to me like the game rewards skill more than anything still.

You're comparing the specific to the generic, that's a logical fallacy. The chance factor in this game is subject to fat tails, that leads to disproportionate differences in many games of the chance factor itself, and makes the biggest difference in the closest games.

The reason that players like dkalenda, Nosy_Rat and pantherboy win most of their matches is because they are better players than everyone else. Luck can become an increasingly important factor though between players of fairly similar skill levels. If the top players just played each other and no-one else for a while they would quickly come to understand what many players further down the ratings have known for some time - that luck can often play quite a big part in deciding the outcome of particular battles.

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:42 am and makes the biggest difference in the closest games.

Yes, exactly right.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:47 am

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:42 am and makes the biggest difference in the closest games.

Yes, exactly right.

Well obviously. If a game was otherwise exactly equal, the only thing that could decide it is RNG.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:53 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:47 am

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:42 am and makes the biggest difference in the closest games.

Yes, exactly right.

Well obviously. If a game was otherwise exactly equal, the only thing that could decide it is RNG.

Confirmation Bias

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:02 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:53 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:47 am

Yes, exactly right.

Well obviously. If a game was otherwise exactly equal, the only thing that could decide it is RNG.

Confirmation Bias

My above statement is a simple logical fact, not an empirical observation. As such, it is not subject to confirmation bias.

For example, take two lines of equal units and smash them into each other. The only thing that can decide the result is RNG. The closer a game comes to this situation, the higher the influence of RNG.

However, I do agree that confirmation bias plays a large part in people's differing views on this issue.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:12 am

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:02 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:53 am

Well obviously. If a game was otherwise exactly equal, the only thing that could decide it is RNG.

Confirmation Bias

My above statement is a simple logical fact, not an empirical observation. As such, it is not subject to confirmation bias.

However, I do agree that confirmation bias plays a large part in people's differing views on this issue.

Your confirmation of my confirmation of confirmation bias. Can we get someone to confirm this?

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:24 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:12 am

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:02 am

Confirmation Bias

My above statement is a simple logical fact, not an empirical observation. As such, it is not subject to confirmation bias.

However, I do agree that confirmation bias plays a large part in people's differing views on this issue.

Your confirmation of my confirmation of confirmation bias. Can we get someone to confirm this?

1. The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world consists in the totality of facts and not of things.
.
.
.
.
.
7. That whereof we canno speak, thereof we should be silent.


Best Wishes

Mike

RNG is very well balanced in FoG2, ie. skills are critical.
Throwing the dice and witnessing their positive or negative impact is a big part of the fun, when playing this game.
Some prefer playing draughts, others poker...

Does anyone know why pike in suqare are not given a penlty in melee?

They seem to get their full bonus for being pike and the full bonus for being deep pike (assuming they are deep pike).


Best Wishes

Mike

These are the type of results that drive me crazy.

What is the Additional Modifier to take me to-3 total? Surely the fact that the combat went badly when I charged and I lost badly and lost against Lancers is sufficient.

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:48 pm Does anyone know why pike in suqare are not given a penlty in melee?

They seem to get their full bonus for being pike and the full bonus for being deep pike (assuming they are deep pike).


Best Wishes

Mike

Because otherwise they would a walkover in melee, and they weren't. (e.g. the Seleucid pikes in square at Magnesia that the Romans did not engage until the elephants went berserk).

gamercb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:59 pm These are the type of results that drive me crazy.

What is the Additional Modifier to take me to-3 total? Surely the fact that the combat went badly when I charged and I lost badly and lost against Lancers is sufficient.

-1 Significant melee casualties received this turn
-1 Lost close combat round badly
-1 Fighting lancers

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:05 pm

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:48 pm Does anyone know why pike in suqare are not given a penlty in melee?

They seem to get their full bonus for being pike and the full bonus for being deep pike (assuming they are deep pike).


Best Wishes

Mike

Because otherwise they would a walkover in melee, and they weren't. (e.g. the Seleucid pikes in square at Magnesia that the Romans did not engage until the elephants went berserk).

Thanks, Richard.


Best Wishes

Mike

Skillful players maximize their luck and minimize the luck of their opponents. Or said differently, minimize their risk and maximize their opponents risk. It is true that rallying troops can turn the tide in close fights, but skillful players always preserve some skirmishers or light cav to keep their opponent's routed (superior) line troops running until disbursement; skillful players see that a battle may be influenced by rally rolls so they may divert a general from the line to help get some rallies. Rally risk can be controlled like other risks. BTW, the rally rules are another factor that makes medium lists formidable...all those units that rout means a lot more opportunities for rally rolls to make a difference.

At the core, I don't think the issue being debated is the nature of luck but what the modifiers may be that tilt luck one way or the other. I can see an argument being made that a unit that is out of command range of a general does not have a chance to rally. Hence the posts I find most compelling are those that offer a rational, based on either history and/or the best gaming experience (fun), for a change in the modifiers that impact luck/risk or other coding aspects.

The main beef I have with the game is that the manual is not updated. I think newbies may get turned off by the walloping they get from experienced players because they dont understand how Pike POA degrades or how bow list are more mortal with the nerfing that has been implemented. I dont think it is reasonable to expect people to know where to look for information so they can know the elements they must consider when wanting to put their skills to the multiplayer test.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:52 pm It seems to be like the old argument about RNG.. I think that the game is okay regarding double drops and rallies. Yes, chance but nothing on the battlefield in real life was precisely premeditated and exact.

It isn't the RNG at all it is the probability of silly things happening. If you play games with the mods currently being created by schweetness you will see that skill is the deciding factor and not one in a lifetime events that happen once or twice a game. The argument about real life isn't valid. Everyone knows that life throws curve balls but it is the frequency that they occur that is the issue. The mods probably still need a bit of tweaking but they are a vast improvement on certain aspects.

harveylh wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:39 am

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:51 am

If that's the case why do dkalenda and pantherboy keep trashing me over and over again? Seems to me like the game rewards skill more than anything still.

And let's not forget Nosy_Rat. And I agree with SnuggleBunnies, they beat me more often than not. However Cunningcain has a point in that close games can be decided by luck. And luck usually averages out in my experience.

Yes it does sometimes even out. But it isn't about the luck. The highly improbable happens far too often and games ARE decided by them. I think the issue with rallies is something else though. Yes they can happen far too much but it is when they happen so far away from the action and save a defeated army that it makes no sense.

It is amusing to see this topic roll up again with the same old arguments.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:45 am The reason that players like dkalenda, Nosy_Rat and pantherboy win most of their matches is because they are better players than everyone else. Luck can become an increasingly important factor though between players of fairly similar skill levels. If the top players just played each other and no-one else for a while they would quickly come to understand what many players further down the ratings have known for some time - that luck can often play quite a big part in deciding the outcome of particular battles.

It would seem to indicate then that better play yields more favourable results more often than not? You do understand that any game system that has any degree of randomness, or any amount of hidden information, that affects the final outcome will have this feature right? The only way in which equal players, playing equal forces, in equal form playing a game against each other to NOT be the result of RNG would be if the system HAS no RNG at all. Luck not only "can become an increasingly important factor", but it logically must be the *ONLY* factor which drives the final outcome in such scenarios where the game has any degree of RNG in it. Similarly in games where players have imperfect information as to their opponent's specific capabilities at any point in time and must make a decision before knowledge is revealed then luck also will be the major determinant, assuming all things being equal. An example being a goalkeeper being forced to commit to one side of the net or the other in the fraction of a second before the shot is struck on a penalty kick and must rely on luck to some degree to have guessed right and be in a position to stop the ball assuming that the shooter didn't miss. Otherwise, if it wasn't for luck deciding outcomes between two equal opponents, what other factors could be possible here?

Given that you are one of the two authors of the alternate gameplay mod which specifically includes anarchy and refusal of charing, it may be that you are simply unsatisfied with where the RNG is being applied? I personally don't see how one can reconcile approving of troops moving without orders or refusing to obey orders and yet be unapproving of disastrous consequences in a unit to unit engagement otherwise.

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:42 am

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:51 am

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:50 pm

Here, here.


Best Wishes

Mike

If that's the case why do dkalenda and pantherboy keep trashing me over and over again? Seems to me like the game rewards skill more than anything still.

You're comparing the specific to the generic, that's a logical fallacy. The chance factor in this game is subject to fat tails, that leads to disproportionate differences in many games of the chance factor itself, and makes the biggest difference in the closest games.

While you are technically correct on the fallacy, you didn't address Snuggles' specific comment on why the same players keep winning. Are you proposing that they are skating by on pure chance alone? This could be possible, but unlikely. IE, If we were to hold a 64 man coin flipping tournament 5 times, it is not impossible, but also HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that the same group of individuals keep showing up at the top of the standings. If your belief isn't that it is pure chance, then it would presumably run counter to your original claim that those things "de-skills and passes outcome (of the game) to chance".

I personally think in any given game has a big luck factor in it. Like on any given Sunday, a top-end division A player can be brought down by a mediocre to decent players like myself or even a Div C player. But the odds of that happening over and over again throughout multiple tournaments? Feels unlikely. The skill gap has compressed though over the past two years for sure and I am unsure how high the skill ceiling is for players to keep improving before we get to a state where RNG regularly becomes a dominant factor for winning tournaments even in Div A. I would not be surprised if Div B and C tournaments are almost completely decided by RNG at this point. Enough seasons have passed by that players that don't belong there have long since rocketed up the tables out of those divisions.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:53 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:47 am

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:42 am and makes the biggest difference in the closest games.

Yes, exactly right.

Well obviously. If a game was otherwise exactly equal, the only thing that could decide it is RNG.

It isn't the RNG it is the probability of these events happening that is the problem. I refer here mostly to double drops and units rallying although LH sticking is a personal bugbear. In one of Schweetness' mods I think casualty mitigation helped prevent the frequency of the double drop but I am not 100% sure what mod it was. With the rallying issue the fix could for example be as simple as only being able to rally when in command range of a general or dropping the probability to 1 in 1000 if not.