Double-Breaks Far too Frequent

[melm]

Sorry, but I am totally bewildered now. Maths is not my strongest subject. I wrote this earlier, which I assume is now wrong . . .

"Presumably the % is the same for close order war band units? So, on average, a double drop should happen once every 25 times in impacts between similar war band units?

Probability should not be interpreted like this.

If you say 4% is something once every 25 times, how about changing it to twice every 50 trials, or four times every 100 trials? They all give you the same probability.

Using "four times every 100 trials" case, you may have 4 "bad events" at the very start of these 100, i.e., 4 in your first 25. But you can't say "oh it shouldn't happen that a lot" because if you play 100 turns, none "bad events" may come out after that 4 "bad events". It also could be that you have none "bad events" in your first 25 trials, when you expect it "should" happen once. We all need to think twice on our intuition.

Probability distribution tells you the odds in the long run. Same as expectation. It is also an average on the long run. In math, we shall say that long run means t -> infinity.

I think that most players understand probability ratios. A number of players including myself are getting numbers far greater than 4% though. I'm not bemoaning bad luck as the percentage of double drops is a percentage of double drops for the number of combats for both sides and should not be counted for just one side. In an earlier post someone, I don't remember who, got about 30% during testing. If this the case then either their is a bug in the combat resolution code or the RNG is not functioning correctly.

I am skeptical on such small sample size. And even with such small size, I saw nothing with the hypothesis testing with proper null hypothesis and alternative.
You know, sample result also follows a distribution. In simple word, it's random.

[stockwellpete]

It's definitely not a game of chess.

No-one is asking for a game of chess.

[TheGrayMouser]

Oh for the love of Ares, Mars, Loki and other assorted gods of war and misfortune, not this tired old theme again. “Im a tactical genius and should have won if not for rng” said every wargamer at least once in their career... It’s ok to gripe about it here and there , ie grognard griping, but this wanting to change rules to “enhance” so called skill based play (chess anyone?) or investigate code for perceived rng injustice is just crazy. S**t happens, soldier on.

[MikeC_81]

To be fair we should do a rigorous test of the Win Draw Loss RNG and the CT test RNG. I mean that will settle it once and for all. Bugs in code do exist

[melm]

To be fair we should do a rigorous test of the Win Draw Loss RNG and the CT test RNG. I mean that will settle it once and for all. Bugs in code do exist

The tooltip is said to be the result of 1000 trials' result. The ideal way is to do more than 1000 to see whether the result is in accordance with the tooltip figures.

But that may mean we need script to do it other than manually testing more than 1000 times.

[76mm]

I'd be happy to help with testing, although probably not 1000 times... Is there any reason to think that single player tests would have different results from multiplayer?

Probably just bad luck but I do think it is worth investigating a bit.

[stockwellpete]

Oh for the love of Ares, Mars, Loki and other assorted gods of war and misfortune, not this tired old theme again. “Im a tactical genius and should have won if not for rng” said every wargamer at least once in their career... It’s ok to gripe about it here and there , ie grognard griping, but this wanting to change rules to “enhance” so called skill based play (chess anyone?) or investigate code for perceived rng injustice is just crazy. S**t happens, soldier on.

You are missing the point and misrepresenting the argument entirely. No-one is claiming that they are an unlucky player, but we are saying that that, in some games, the RNG favours one side or the other too much and it spoils them. Nobody is asking for FOG2 to be like chess (yawn!).

[stockwellpete]

Is there any reason to think that single player tests would have different results from multiplayer

Yes, I would like to know this as well. If I create a scenario 20 v 20 war bands and use hot seat, is the RNG the same as in multiplayer?

[rbodleyscott]

Warbands are not supposed to behave like sturdy shieldwalls. These will come in the Dark Ages DLC, and they will have a much much lower chance of double dropping, because they will have +1 for being heavy foot, and no -1 for fighting impact foot.

From what you have previously told me, that is the style of warfare that you really wanted, and you only did the Warband vs Warband scenarios because the later period wasn't yet in the game.

Hang on. Do different units have different penalties for fighting impact foot?

No, but there are very few troops rated as Impact Foot in the Dark Ages era.

[rbodleyscott]

It also seems odd that all of the results in Pete's tournament were so lopsided--if the double-breaks were randomly distributed between both sides, you would expect the effect to be roughly the same, and therefore games to be closer, and yet they were not.

I am sorry, but Pete's argument that games between players of similar skill should be closer on average otherwise there is too much RNG is a complete crock, because of the snowballing effect once one player gains an advantage for whatever reason. Mostly when this does not happen it is the Pyrrhic situation where one side wins on one wing and the other on the other wing.

And I would dispute that the players in the FOG2DL divisions are in fact of such similar skill. I know that many of the players in my division are of higher skill than me, and my defeats are recognisably down to their more skillful play and not RNG. Where the skill levels seem to be more even, so do the results - but not in every game, due not to RNG but to the snowballing effect. Of course, if my skill level was just a bit lower, so that I did not recognise my errors, I might attribute my defeats to RNG.

[rbodleyscott]

The relatively high odds of untouched warbands double dropping cohesion on first impact sounds a bit rough for multiplayer

Only because the scenarios in question contain almost nothing but warbands on both sides! These are edge case scenarios.

[rbodleyscott]

To be fair we should do a rigorous test of the Win Draw Loss RNG and the CT test RNG. I mean that will settle it once and for all. Bugs in code do exist

The tooltip is said to be the result of 1000 trials' result. The ideal way is to do more than 1000 to see whether the result is in accordance with the tooltip figures.

But that may mean we need script to do it other than manually testing more than 1000 times.

That code only tests the Win:Draw:Lose ratios, it does not test CT results.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd be happy to help with testing, although probably not 1000 times... Is there any reason to think that single player tests would have different results from multiplayer?

No, the same RNG is used.

[rbodleyscott]

Is there any reason to think that single player tests would have different results from multiplayer

Yes, I would like to know this as well. If I create a scenario 20 v 20 war bands and use hot seat, is the RNG the same as in multiplayer?

Yes

[stockwellpete]

I am sorry, but Pete's argument that games should be closer on average otherwise there is too much RNG is a complete crock, because of the snowballing effect once one player gains an advantage for whatever reason. Mostly when this does not happen it is the Pyrrhic situation where one side wins on one wing and the other on the other wing.

Well, I haven't actually made my argument in that way, have I, Richard? What I have said is that the RNG appears to be impacting on a significant number of matches disproportionately in favour of one player (maybe in around of a third of matches). In the other matches the RNG is fairly neutral. I would have expected some of those 8 war band quarter-final match-ups in the Themed Event to be closer. But the sequence of results was 70-6, 56-20, 47-13, 54-21, 39-7, 40-11, 40-12 and 55-29. So none of them can be described as "close matches" even though the players participating in them were fairly evenly matched.

[rbodleyscott]

I am sorry, but Pete's argument that games should be closer on average otherwise there is too much RNG is a complete crock, because of the snowballing effect once one player gains an advantage for whatever reason. Mostly when this does not happen it is the Pyrrhic situation where one side wins on one wing and the other on the other wing.

Well, I haven't actually made my argument in that way, have I, Richard? What I have said is that the RNG appears to be impacting on a significant number of matches disproportionately in favour of one player (maybe in around of a third of matches). In the other matches the RNG is fairly neutral. I would have expected some of those 8 war band quarter-final match-ups in the Themed Event to be closer. But the sequence of results was 70-6, 56-20, 47-13, 54-21, 39-7, 40-11, 40-12 and 55-29. So none of them can be described as "close matches" even though the players participating in them were fairly evenly matched.

So what? What I am saying is that to say this is due to too much RNG is a complete non-sequitur, because it ignores the snowballing effect of an early lead. And if that early lead was indeed due to RNG, what in the name of all that is holy do you expect in scenarios where both sides have almost nothing except close order warbands in their armies?

Really, those scenarios are very bad examples on which to base your case.

[stockwellpete]

And I would dispute that the players in the FOG2DL divisions are in fact of such similar skill. I know that many of the players in my division are of higher skill than me, and my defeats are recognisably down to their more skillful play and not RNG. Where the skill levels seem to be more even, so do the results - but not in every game, due not to RNG but to the snowballing effect. Of course, if my skill level was just a bit lower, so that I did not recognise my errors, I might attribute my defeats to RNG.

I would say games in the FOG2DL tend to be more evenly matched than the average pick-up game, or most of the matches in the automated tournament, for that matter. But, of course, there is still a spread of skill levels in each division.

[stockwellpete]

So what? What I am saying is that to say this is due to too much RNG is a complete non-sequitur, because it ignores the snowballing effect of an early lead. And if that early lead was indeed due to RNG, what in the name of all that is holy do you expect in scenarios where both sides have almost nothing except close order warbands in their armies?

Really, those scenarios are very bad examples on which to base your case.

I am not basing my whole case on them though, am I? I just used them as an illustration of my more broader point. My own view is that when shock troops fight each other then maybe there is a case for cancelling the -1 penalty for the CT because both sides have equal ferocity. It would be interesting to see how that affected the outcome of these battles.

[melm]

To be fair we should do a rigorous test of the Win Draw Loss RNG and the CT test RNG. I mean that will settle it once and for all. Bugs in code do exist

The tooltip is said to be the result of 1000 trials' result. The ideal way is to do more than 1000 to see whether the result is in accordance with the tooltip figures.

But that may mean we need script to do it other than manually testing more than 1000 times.

That code only tests the Win:Draw:Lose ratios, it does not test CT results.

My bad. I confused the objective of testing. Yes, it has nothing to do with the tooptip figures but what we need is to test the CT results, i.e. whether the probability for passing or failing the CT is working as intent. Two different probabilities.

[stockwellpete]

To be fair we should do a rigorous test of the Win Draw Loss RNG and the CT test RNG. I mean that will settle it once and for all. Bugs in code do exist

The tooltip is said to be the result of 1000 trials' result. The ideal way is to do more than 1000 to see whether the result is in accordance with the tooltip figures.

But that may mean we need script to do it other than manually testing more than 1000 times.

That code only tests the Win:Draw:Lose ratios, it does not test CT results.

Sorry, but I don't know about the structure of computer games, but you seem to be saying that there are a number of different RNG's operating in the game at the same time. Have I understood that correctly? If so, do they operate autonomously from each other? I would presume that they do. So, it is possible in some matches that a majority of these separate RNG's are tending to favour one player over the other, I guess. Maybe this is what we are picking up on?