Slitherine

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:42 pm I think my argument is probably misplaced, because it's not really the probability of an event occurring in isolation that bugs me, and I expect that might be true of others too, but the clustering of such events. If an event is very unlikely, then clearly it will still occur (hopefully rarely), but when there is a string of unlikely events, either occurring simultaneously (or nearly so) or over time but associated with an individual unit, that's what causes distress.

That's probably not very clear, so I'll try to illustrate the point.

Events over a period time, occurring to the same unit might include the situation where the unit which has a 58% chance of winning the melee fails to do so 18 melees in a row. The chance of that happening is a little less than 1 in 6 million (if I recall millennia ago maths lessons).

Event occurring simultaneously might be the situation I suffered recently, where a tight game, late on, with a small advantage to me, collapsed in a single turn because my opponent rallied almost all of his units eligible to rally. Not only those routing, but also those disrupted and fragmented, and then to add salt to the wound, he also won every single impact and melee on his turn, even those where the probability of that was highly unlikely. A tight game turned into a disastrous loss as a result of outlandish luck. Has that ever happened on a real battlefield? I’ll have to leave that question to the historians, but it certainly never happened in any of the limited number of battles I am aware of.

There often seems to be a disparity between the probabilities reported by the game and the results seen on the field of battle, but I say seems for good reason. I am beginning to suspect that the fault may lie not in the game mechanics (although we can still argue over the likelihood of any particular event occurring), so much as the fallibility of computers' random number generators hitting irregular patches.

I don’t know how this weakness can be overcome, unless there’s a way the game could create some novel technique to create a genuinely random number. I expect if that was possible whoever was responsible would become very rich. Beyond my ability, sadly.

So perhaps it’s not me who suffers ill fortune in war, perhaps it’s my computer. I’ve read many computer reviews, detailing many technical specifications, unfortunately luck has never been included amongst them.


Best Wishes

Mike

Tratmot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:07 pm Same impossible series happen to me too;
i think, after several try, disparity between the probability reported by game and real result, found is trouble in conversione from percentage number (58% ie), in d6 RNG simulation

Normal RNG system applied linear probability, BUT, when need to add 2 roll for result, and the second is dipendent for success from first, need to apply DIPENDENT Event Probability Formule.
Sorry, but my english is not good for this level of treath … but math works !

Tratmot (Cosimo)

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:15 pm

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:42 pmThere often seems to be a disparity between the probabilities reported by the game and the results seen on the field of battle, but I say seems for good reason. I am beginning to suspect that the fault may lie not in the game mechanics (although we can still argue over the likelihood of any particular event occurring), so much as the fallibility of computers' random number generators hitting irregular patches.

I don’t know how this weakness can be overcome, unless there’s a way the game could create some novel technique to create a genuinely random number. I expect if that was possible whoever was responsible would become very rich. Beyond my ability, sadly.

It is very unlikely that there is any such weakness in the random number generator algorithm.

The phenomenon you are seeing is called Poisson clumping, and is a feature of all random events, not just computer generated ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_c ... r%20bursts.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:11 pm

Tratmot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:07 pm Same impossible series happen to me too;
i think, after several try, disparity between the probability reported by game and real result, found is trouble in conversione from percentage number (58% ie), in d6 RNG simulation

Normal RNG system applied linear probability, BUT, when need to add 2 roll for result, and the second is dipendent for success from first, need to apply DIPENDENT Event Probability Formule.
Sorry, but my english is not good for this level of treath … but math works !

Tratmot (Cosimo)

The combat system is complex. The chances of a win, draw or loss is massively more complicated than the probability of a certain dice score. To avoid any possible miscalculations, the probabilities are not calculated mathematically at all. Instead the program runs the full combat calculation 1000 times, counts the number of wins, draws and losses, and reports the results as percentages.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:26 pm

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:42 pm I think my argument is probably misplaced, because it's not really the probability of an event occurring in isolation that bugs me, and I expect that might be true of others too, but the clustering of such events. If an event is very unlikely, then clearly it will still occur (hopefully rarely), but when there is a string of unlikely events, either occurring simultaneously (or nearly so) or over time but associated with an individual unit, that's what causes distress.

That's probably not very clear, so I'll try to illustrate the point.

Events over a period time, occurring to the same unit might include the situation where the unit which has a 58% chance of winning the melee fails to do so 18 melees in a row. The chance of that happening is a little less than 1 in 6 million (if I recall millennia ago maths lessons).

Event occurring simultaneously might be the situation I suffered recently, where a tight game, late on, with a small advantage to me, collapsed in a single turn because my opponent rallied almost all of his units eligible to rally. Not only those routing, but also those disrupted and fragmented, and then to add salt to the wound, he also won every single impact and melee on his turn, even those where the probability of that was highly unlikely. A tight game turned into a disastrous loss as a result of outlandish luck. Has that ever happened on a real battlefield? I’ll have to leave that question to the historians, but it certainly never happened in any of the limited number of battles I am aware of.

There often seems to be a disparity between the probabilities reported by the game and the results seen on the field of battle, but I say seems for good reason. I am beginning to suspect that the fault may lie not in the game mechanics (although we can still argue over the likelihood of any particular event occurring), so much as the fallibility of computers' random number generators hitting irregular patches.

I don’t know how this weakness can be overcome, unless there’s a way the game could create some novel technique to create a genuinely random number. I expect if that was possible whoever was responsible would become very rich. Beyond my ability, sadly.

So perhaps it’s not me who suffers ill fortune in war, perhaps it’s my computer. I’ve read many computer reviews, detailing many technical specifications, unfortunately luck has never been included amongst them.


Best Wishes

Mike

This is the concept of independence of the events in probability theory : if 12 planes are to crash throughout a year, the probability that they crash the same day is the same as any other order, such as one plane crashes each month or ten crash in June and two in December.

Yet ppl's mind often tends to link these independent events.

(edit)
I did not notice Richard replied before me...

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 9:53 pm

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:26 pm

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:42 pm I think my argument is probably misplaced, because it's not really the probability of an event occurring in isolation that bugs me, and I expect that might be true of others too, but the clustering of such events. If an event is very unlikely, then clearly it will still occur (hopefully rarely), but when there is a string of unlikely events, either occurring simultaneously (or nearly so) or over time but associated with an individual unit, that's what causes distress.

That's probably not very clear, so I'll try to illustrate the point.

Events over a period time, occurring to the same unit might include the situation where the unit which has a 58% chance of winning the melee fails to do so 18 melees in a row. The chance of that happening is a little less than 1 in 6 million (if I recall millennia ago maths lessons).

Event occurring simultaneously might be the situation I suffered recently, where a tight game, late on, with a small advantage to me, collapsed in a single turn because my opponent rallied almost all of his units eligible to rally. Not only those routing, but also those disrupted and fragmented, and then to add salt to the wound, he also won every single impact and melee on his turn, even those where the probability of that was highly unlikely. A tight game turned into a disastrous loss as a result of outlandish luck. Has that ever happened on a real battlefield? I’ll have to leave that question to the historians, but it certainly never happened in any of the limited number of battles I am aware of.

There often seems to be a disparity between the probabilities reported by the game and the results seen on the field of battle, but I say seems for good reason. I am beginning to suspect that the fault may lie not in the game mechanics (although we can still argue over the likelihood of any particular event occurring), so much as the fallibility of computers' random number generators hitting irregular patches.

I don’t know how this weakness can be overcome, unless there’s a way the game could create some novel technique to create a genuinely random number. I expect if that was possible whoever was responsible would become very rich. Beyond my ability, sadly.

So perhaps it’s not me who suffers ill fortune in war, perhaps it’s my computer. I’ve read many computer reviews, detailing many technical specifications, unfortunately luck has never been included amongst them.


Best Wishes

Mike

This is the concept of independence of the events in probability theory : if 12 planes are to crash throughout a year, the probability that they crash the same day is the same as any other order, such as one plane crashes each month or ten crash in June and two in December.

Yet ppl's mind often tends to link these independent events.

(edit)
I did not notice Richard replied before me...

Most planes crashed occur in March and April, because they are not random events, there are other forces acting upon them. I'm not splitting hairs here, the point is that in FoG, these are not random events either, they are events generated with influences which should have a significant impact on the outcome. In either case, though, given all possible outcomes, the set of ordered outcomes is a very small subset of the total. People often tend to find patterns in these things because they are looking too hard.

If your coincidence is based on the fact all plane crashes involved aircraft where the integer of the square root of their registration numbers eqauled the cube root of the sum of the passengers ages, then you're probably looking too hard, and with that kind of effort will always find a pattern no matter how random the events. If on the other hand your coincidence is based on the fact all the pilots were alcoholics, you might be onto something.


Best Wishes

Mike

Morbio wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:47 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:41 pm

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:11 pm

I know of two offhand.

Thanks for answering Mike. The Magnesia example isn't exactly what I was referring to as there was "friendly interference" in the rally. However that aside, it still only gives 2 examples over a period of approximately 1800 years. And that is the point. The probability of it happening was exceptionally low.

While I tend to agree, I think this is a bold statement just because Mike only listed 2 examples. I don't think Mike really was stating this was all, it was just 2 offhand, and I don't suppose all the examples in history are either documented (with accuracy) or that anyone would know of them all if they were documented.

You are correct my response wasn't well thought out. My thinking had been that no-one in the group has ever given an answer and yet are quick to reference things on other points hence it didn't happen that often. I still don't think it did and believe the issue is being avoided by distraction purely because the change isn't wanted.

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 9:53 pm

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:26 pm

MikeMarchant wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:42 pm I think my argument is probably misplaced, because it's not really the probability of an event occurring in isolation that bugs me, and I expect that might be true of others too, but the clustering of such events. If an event is very unlikely, then clearly it will still occur (hopefully rarely), but when there is a string of unlikely events, either occurring simultaneously (or nearly so) or over time but associated with an individual unit, that's what causes distress.

That's probably not very clear, so I'll try to illustrate the point.

Events over a period time, occurring to the same unit might include the situation where the unit which has a 58% chance of winning the melee fails to do so 18 melees in a row. The chance of that happening is a little less than 1 in 6 million (if I recall millennia ago maths lessons).

Event occurring simultaneously might be the situation I suffered recently, where a tight game, late on, with a small advantage to me, collapsed in a single turn because my opponent rallied almost all of his units eligible to rally. Not only those routing, but also those disrupted and fragmented, and then to add salt to the wound, he also won every single impact and melee on his turn, even those where the probability of that was highly unlikely. A tight game turned into a disastrous loss as a result of outlandish luck. Has that ever happened on a real battlefield? I’ll have to leave that question to the historians, but it certainly never happened in any of the limited number of battles I am aware of.

There often seems to be a disparity between the probabilities reported by the game and the results seen on the field of battle, but I say seems for good reason. I am beginning to suspect that the fault may lie not in the game mechanics (although we can still argue over the likelihood of any particular event occurring), so much as the fallibility of computers' random number generators hitting irregular patches.

I don’t know how this weakness can be overcome, unless there’s a way the game could create some novel technique to create a genuinely random number. I expect if that was possible whoever was responsible would become very rich. Beyond my ability, sadly.

So perhaps it’s not me who suffers ill fortune in war, perhaps it’s my computer. I’ve read many computer reviews, detailing many technical specifications, unfortunately luck has never been included amongst them.


Best Wishes

Mike

This is the concept of independence of the events in probability theory : if 12 planes are to crash throughout a year, the probability that they crash the same day is the same as any other order, such as one plane crashes each month or ten crash in June and two in December.

Yet ppl's mind often tends to link these independent events.

(edit)
I did not notice Richard replied before me...

Most planes crashed occur in March and April, because they are not random events, there are other forces acting upon them. I'm not splitting hairs here, the point is that in FoG, these are not random events either, they are events generated with influences which should have a significant impact on the outcome. In either case, though, given all possible outcomes, the set of ordered outcomes is a very small subset of the total. People often tend to find patterns in these things because they are looking too hard.

If your coincidence is based on the fact all plane crashes involved aircraft where the integer of the square root of their registration numbers eqauled the cube root of the sum of the passengers ages, then you're probably looking too hard, and with that kind of effort will always find a pattern no matter how random the events. If on the other hand your coincidence is based on the fact all the pilots were alcoholics, you might be onto something.


Best Wishes

Mike

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 9:21 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:43 am 3) Lack of tactical steps to prevent rallying, or re-rout the Fragmented enemy if it occurs. (Skirmishers. Light Horse!)

I will stick a post-it with this tip on my screen.
Always saying to myself : don't let the routed enemy at ease.
Yet always keeping my light troops near the main melee.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:48 am 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.

Tratmot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:07 pm Same impossible series happen to me too;
i think, after several try, disparity between the probability reported by game and real result, found is trouble in conversione from percentage number (58% ie), in d6 RNG simulation

Normal RNG system applied linear probability, BUT, when need to add 2 roll for result, and the second is dipendent for success from first, need to apply DIPENDENT Event Probability Formule.
Sorry, but my english is not good for this level of treath … but math works !

Tratmot (Cosimo)

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:39 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:48 am 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.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:39 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:48 am 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.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:39 am. . . and when the Mod tournament starts, if everyone flocks to that instead of Vanilla then great. If not, then oh well.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:25 am What is real is a number of players who play a lot of games are experiencing these issues.

Swuul wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:52 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:25 am What is real is a number of players who play a lot of games are experiencing these issues.

How much is a lot of games? I don't know how many games I've played, but according to Steam I have played 333 hours. Probably not a lot then, as to the best of my knowledge, I have never witnessed 3 or 4 broken units rally on same turn. I can not even remember any game where 4 broken units would have rallied during the whole game. Statistically, if none of the four units are low strength and they each have 3 rounds to attempt to rally and they all are average or better quality and none of them are a general, that should happen in aprox 0.4% of the games, ie once in 250 games you should expect to see it about once. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it is bound to happen in some of the thousands of matches played.

And in the tens of thousands of matches played, there are going to be matches were four broken units rally on same turn, even though the possibility for that gets astronomically low. But to have it happen twice in row in two games, well, the odds for that is something that would fuel the infinite improbability drive for quite the leaps.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:21 pm

Swuul wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:52 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:25 am What is real is a number of players who play a lot of games are experiencing these issues.

How much is a lot of games? I don't know how many games I've played, but according to Steam I have played 333 hours. Probably not a lot then, as to the best of my knowledge, I have never witnessed 3 or 4 broken units rally on same turn. I can not even remember any game where 4 broken units would have rallied during the whole game. Statistically, if none of the four units are low strength and they each have 3 rounds to attempt to rally and they all are average or better quality and none of them are a general, that should happen in aprox 0.4% of the games, ie once in 250 games you should expect to see it about once. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it is bound to happen in some of the thousands of matches played.

And in the tens of thousands of matches played, there are going to be matches were four broken units rally on same turn, even though the possibility for that gets astronomically low. But to have it happen twice in row in two games, well, the odds for that is something that would fuel the infinite improbability drive for quite the leaps.

Embarrassingly according to Steam I've played 6,647 hours I think I need a break LOL! I don't ever switch the game off when I'm not playing so maybe that isn't game time. I don't know how they measure time played.

desicat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:45 am

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 9:21 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:43 am 3) Lack of tactical steps to prevent rallying, or re-rout the Fragmented enemy if it occurs. (Skirmishers. Light Horse!)

I will stick a post-it with this tip on my screen.
Always saying to myself : don't let the routed enemy at ease.
Yet always keeping my light troops near the main melee.

Always chase and harass Broken Elephant units - always!