The Dustbin

[rbodleyscott]

Division A

rbodleyscott (Germanic Horse Tribes + Carpi) defeated Questar17 (Ostrogoths + Franks) 45:16

[lydianed]

Division B

lydianed (Moors + Byzantines) defeated Schweetness101 (Byzantines) 62:49.

[cromlechi]

I think Mike_C has a point. I sense that quite a lot of those out there that like to perceive every stroke of game mechanics or bad luck against them as something sinister are now going to lose all control of their senses and believe everyone is cheating. Things are in danger of getting intolerable unless some clear reassurance can be given to allay the fears of those obsessed with malevolent machinators and machinations conspiring to thwart their dreams on the electronic field of glory.

[cromlechi]

Division B

lydianed (Moors + Byzantines) defeated Schweetness101 (Byzantines) 62:49.

Oh Damn

[lydianed]

Division B

lydianed (Moorish + Byzantines) challenges Nijis (Sassanid Persian)

PW: Nijis

PM sent.

[DanZanzibar]

RNG is fine. There aren’t far too high extreme probabilities. Let’s not conflate issues.

You sound like you know the exact probabilites. So I will ask you the same question, what are the odds of three consecutive double drops? In two cases the attacks were even and in one case my warband with general was attacking a superior warband with general. Terrain was not a factor. I have an approximate idea based on my knowledge of tabletop FOG but I suspect the tables are not the same so I do not want to guess.

Harvey

If those warbands lose impact combat, it's 42% (-3 CT) that they double drop... so for the evenly matched ones it's about 6% that a) you lose and b) you double drop. Against the superior warband with your general in your unit it's probably about 8%. Now you had 4 opportunities for this to happen 3 times which makes it far more likely than stating it happening 3 times in a row. While obviously unlikley and unlucky, you can see that this is not out of the realm of possibility. Those warbands are very fragile to CT's.

[DanZanzibar]

Nice job! Congrats

[Cunningcairn]

RNG is fine. There aren’t far too high extreme probabilities. Let’s not conflate issues.

Vast majority of players won’t cheat. We have a good community. The road some people are taking now (starting to consider luck as possible cheating) is unhelpful, I think. Warbands drop all the time. I have also seen warbands rally from routing more than other units. They also rally up in melee quite a lot.

Let’s trust in the community and Slitherine!

I also think the vast majority of players do not cheat and agree we have a great community. You keep bringing up the point about luck and RNG. That is NOT what is being said! It is unlucky or lucky if an event with a probability of 3 in 6 happens to you 4 in 6 times. What I am saying is that the 3 in 6 probability should be 2 in 6 or whatever. I brought this subject up before you started playing FOG2 and it was always fobbed off as some statistical phenomena. It isn't! The evidence is there despite your continuous denial. The only other alternative is widespread cheating which I hope and do not believe is the case. The probability of extreme events is a major contributing factor to the problem that is now out in the public. Yes the probability of rallying is also to high but not only for warband.

[Cunningcairn]

RNG is fine. There aren’t far too high extreme probabilities. Let’s not conflate issues.

You sound like you know the exact probabilites. So I will ask you the same question, what are the odds of three consecutive double drops? In two cases the attacks were even and in one case my warband with general was attacking a superior warband with general. Terrain was not a factor. I have an approximate idea based on my knowledge of tabletop FOG but I suspect the tables are not the same so I do not want to guess.

Harvey

If those warbands lose impact combat, it's 42% (-3 CT) that they double drop... so for the evenly matched ones it's about 6% that a) you lose and b) you double drop. Against the superior warband with your general in your unit it's probably about 8%. Now you had 4 opportunities for this to happen 3 times which makes it far more likely than stating it happening 3 times in a row. While obviously unlikley and unlucky, you can see that this is not out of the realm of possibility. Those warbands are very fragile to CT's.

Dan how dare you bring fact and logic into a good argument!

[SimonLancaster]

RNG is fine. There aren’t far too high extreme probabilities. Let’s not conflate issues.

Vast majority of players won’t cheat. We have a good community. The road some people are taking now (starting to consider luck as possible cheating) is unhelpful, I think. Warbands drop all the time. I have also seen warbands rally from routing more than other units. They also rally up in melee quite a lot.

Let’s trust in the community and Slitherine!

I also think the vast majority of players do not cheat and agree we have a great community. You keep bringing up the point about luck and RNG. That is NOT what is being said! It is unlucky or lucky if an event with a probability of 3 in 6 happens to you 4 in 6 times. What I am saying is that the 3 in 6 probability should be 2 in 6 or whatever. I brought this subject up before you started playing FOG2 and it was always fobbed off as some statistical phenomena. It isn't! The evidence is there despite your continuous denial. The only other alternative is widespread cheating which I hope and do not believe is the case. The probability of extreme events is a major contributing factor to the problem that is now out in the public. Yes the probability of rallying is also to high but not only for warband.

Who cares how long I have been playing a game. Don't start talking about luck in a cheating thread! You have a certain view on it and we know that but it really has nothing to do with cheating!

[Cunningcairn]

Half of the Digital League uses large armies so it is already there.

Correction, 9/21=43% of Digital League uses 1600 point armies, 57% uses 1200 point armies. In this poll 56% informed they would want to use larger armies. That is quite a difference, one would like to say the exact opposite.

I don’t know what you mean. Two sections use 1600 and two sections use 1200. There is Themed which I didn’t count. What is that? Yes, as I said, strong support on both sides.

The Themed event is another section. Three sections use 1200 points and 2 sections use 1600 points yet the majority of players prefer 1600 points. As stated by Swuul it should be the other way around.

[Cunningcairn]

RNG is fine. There aren’t far too high extreme probabilities. Let’s not conflate issues.

Vast majority of players won’t cheat. We have a good community. The road some people are taking now (starting to consider luck as possible cheating) is unhelpful, I think. Warbands drop all the time. I have also seen warbands rally from routing more than other units. They also rally up in melee quite a lot.

Let’s trust in the community and Slitherine!

I also think the vast majority of players do not cheat and agree we have a great community. You keep bringing up the point about luck and RNG. That is NOT what is being said! It is unlucky or lucky if an event with a probability of 3 in 6 happens to you 4 in 6 times. What I am saying is that the 3 in 6 probability should be 2 in 6 or whatever. I brought this subject up before you started playing FOG2 and it was always fobbed off as some statistical phenomena. It isn't! The evidence is there despite your continuous denial. The only other alternative is widespread cheating which I hope and do not believe is the case. The probability of extreme events is a major contributing factor to the problem that is now out in the public. Yes the probability of rallying is also to high but not only for warband.

Who cares how long I have been playing a game. Don't start talking about luck in a cheating thread! You have a certain view on it and we know that but it really has nothing to do with cheating!

The point I was making is that that these bizarre events have been discussed far longer than you have been playing and is not something that has just become a problem. You reference everything to YOU and take it that I meant that I have been playing longer than you and should know better? Get a grip lad!

[DanZanzibar]

You sound like you know the exact probabilites. So I will ask you the same question, what are the odds of three consecutive double drops? In two cases the attacks were even and in one case my warband with general was attacking a superior warband with general. Terrain was not a factor. I have an approximate idea based on my knowledge of tabletop FOG but I suspect the tables are not the same so I do not want to guess.

Harvey

If those warbands lose impact combat, it's 42% (-3 CT) that they double drop... so for the evenly matched ones it's about 6% that a) you lose and b) you double drop. Against the superior warband with your general in your unit it's probably about 8%. Now you had 4 opportunities for this to happen 3 times which makes it far more likely than stating it happening 3 times in a row. While obviously unlikley and unlucky, you can see that this is not out of the realm of possibility. Those warbands are very fragile to CT's.

Dan how dare you bring fact and logic into a good argument!

Haha I know, it truly has no place!

But I have to agree with SLancaster. This is very much off topic in this thread... even if there is some loose connection between the conversations. Getting the system sorted out to prevent cheating is a high priority and maybe this discussion of unlikely events should be tabled or moved elsewhere for now.

[Cunningcairn]

If those warbands lose impact combat, it's 42% (-3 CT) that they double drop... so for the evenly matched ones it's about 6% that a) you lose and b) you double drop. Against the superior warband with your general in your unit it's probably about 8%. Now you had 4 opportunities for this to happen 3 times which makes it far more likely than stating it happening 3 times in a row. While obviously unlikley and unlucky, you can see that this is not out of the realm of possibility. Those warbands are very fragile to CT's.

Dan how dare you bring fact and logic into a good argument!

Haha I know, it truly has no place!

But I have to agree with SLancaster. This is very much off topic in this thread... even if there is some loose connection between the conversations. Getting the system sorted out to prevent cheating is a high priority and maybe this discussion of unlikely events should be tabled or moved elsewhere for now.

Do you disagree that there is more incentive for cheating if there is a high probability of getting a different result by replaying the turn?

[SimonLancaster]

I also think the vast majority of players do not cheat and agree we have a great community. You keep bringing up the point about luck and RNG. That is NOT what is being said! It is unlucky or lucky if an event with a probability of 3 in 6 happens to you 4 in 6 times. What I am saying is that the 3 in 6 probability should be 2 in 6 or whatever. I brought this subject up before you started playing FOG2 and it was always fobbed off as some statistical phenomena. It isn't! The evidence is there despite your continuous denial. The only other alternative is widespread cheating which I hope and do not believe is the case. The probability of extreme events is a major contributing factor to the problem that is now out in the public. Yes the probability of rallying is also to high but not only for warband.

Who cares how long I have been playing a game. Don't start talking about luck in a cheating thread! You have a certain view on it and we know that but it really has nothing to do with cheating!

The point I was making is that that these bizarre events have been discussed far longer than you have been playing and is not something that has just become a problem. You reference everything to YOU and take it that I meant that I have been playing longer than you and should know better? Get a grip lad!

Mr Cairn, stop talking about luck and RNG and somehow connecting it to cheating! Stay on track! Nothing to do with the point... dangerous path.

[DanZanzibar]

No of course not. If there were no possibility of a different outcome then no cheating could occur. But I don’t want the rules of the game or the chances of events to be determined by what makes the game hardest to cheat in the current save/load exploitable format. That should be determined (as it has) by what the developers think makes a good game.

[Cunningcairn]

No of course not. If there were no possibility of a different outcome then no cheating could occur. But I don’t want the rules of the game or the chances of events to be determined by what makes the game hardest to cheat in the current save/load exploitable format. That should be determined (as it has) by what the developers think makes a good game.

OK I see your point. Yes the elimination of cheating should not be the determinant of what the probability of events should be. I think there is consensus that it should be historical precedent. So my point is why not kill two birds with one stone

[Ludendorf]

I agree that changing the element of luck in the game shouldn't influence the discussion. There is maybe grounds to discuss that on its own merits, but it warrants its own thread.

[harveylh]

It actually was three consecutive attacks. The fourth attack did not cause any checks. Doing the math of 6% x 6% X*8% you get the probability of about 1 in 3500. However I don’t think you took into account all three double drops were in range of a general in combat which gives the additional +1 to avoid the double drop. This significantly increases the odds I believe to well over 1 in 10,000. However just because an event is low probability does not mean it can’t happen. Someone has to win the lottery and I won the triple double drop one last week. This was the problem with playing dkalenda, these kind of low probability events happened nearly every game with him.

Harvey

[SimonLancaster]

The argument proposed by Cairn and whoever else seems nonsensical to me. I really don't know how it can be connected to cheating.

Take warbands.. let's say they are easy to break but they don't break. The cheater just tries again and eventually gets his reward. Let's say that warbands are actually not so easy to break. The cheater will just keep trying (like 225 times!!) and eventually get his reward.

The actual stats, percentages and probabilites have nothing to do with the actual motivation to cheat. If it can be done then the cheater will do it.