side-steps the arguing and ranting and raving about dice and whatnot
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog If you want a good reference point for the “Stabilized Dice” feature you’re planning on implementing I’d recommend looking into the “Low Luck” (“LL” for short) house rule that this community has implemented over the years. In a nutshell, it works in the following way:
Each round, do the following:
Add up the Combat Value for all units in a fight on each side (ex. If I attack with 2 INF/1 ART/1 TANK against 4 INF, then the attacker’s “Combat Value” is 8 (1 (the unpaired INF) + 2 (the paired INF) + 2 (the ART) + 3 (the TANK) = 8 ) and the defender’s “Combat Value” is also 8 (2 (the INFs) * 4 = 8).
Divide the “Combat Value” of each side by 6 and note the remainder (Attacker would be 8/6 = 1 Remainder 2, Defender would be 6/6 = 1 Remainder 0).
The number you got when dividing the Combat Value by 6 is how many hits you score as a baseline.
For the remainder, roll a D6 and compare it to the remainder. If you rolled less than the remainder, you get one extra hit on top of the value you got in step “#3” above.
Both sides remove casualties, attack has the option to retreat (just like in regular A&A).
So basically, each side can get a rough estimate going in of exactly how a battle will play out. This makes the game more chess-like than normal A&A (where big swingy battles can single-handedly decide the outcome of the game), which has its own perks/flaws (the game’s a lot more predictable this way, for better or for worse).
I’d hesitate on having any mode with this setting replace the core “ranked” ladder though, as it’d be a good way to get purists mad. However, a separate ladder for low-luck may appeal to people who are upset by the dice (not naming any names, but you’ve been putting up with us long enough to get the idea).
Thanks as always for popping your head in here and taking the abuse you take. I don’t envy you.
EDIT: Minor cleanup of post structure.
Yeah, low luck is really tried and true. It’s amazing to me how bothered people get with “the dice” when they’re behaving exactly as defined. It’s like you have to design to human perceptions of what fair and random should be rather than true dice. Reminds me of the music shuffle button, which can’t be a fully randomized selection or people would complain about hearing the same song in quick succession.
@Boston_NWO I mean I get mad about getting diced but I just walk away and cool off rather than throw a fit.
@DoManMacgee My intent is not to accuse you. I’ve been engaged with many players the past two seasons and achieved a solid rank. Complaints about the dice doing something out of the ordinary, and almost always harming the poster’s game position, abound.
Yet if you look in aggregate, it’s a very consistent cohort of players who are at the top. We have had two major tournaments and the final 4 players in each are among the top 10-20 that I know of. I personally achieved a win record above 90% both seasons with over 40 games played. The variance in the dice are a factor in game outcomes, but player skill is the dominant factor on who wins.
@DoManMacgee said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
I’d hesitate on having any mode with this setting replace the core “ranked” ladder though,
“our development team is working on a “Stabilized Dice” option for the game.”
OPTION.
@DoManMacgee said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
side-steps the arguing and ranting and raving about dice and whatnot
Cute how you’re above it all. Well, you don’t have to get YOUR precious little hands dirty. Just leave that to ol’ aardvark.
@DoManMacgee said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
Thanks as always for popping your head in here and taking the abuse you take. I don’t envy you.
you’re welco-oh, wait, that wasn’t to me was it.
Wrap your head around this. I hit details up as much as I can, I don’t shirk. You can say I go on. You can say I’m outspoken. But just try to say I didn’t try to substantiate anything I said. If it’s called into question, or even if action isn’t taken, I dig in. I put in the time.
And what of others? They say they’re above the discussion! If they don’t personally think there’s an issue - even if there MAY be an issue - there IS no issue. Then some say there’s “ranting and raving” or “text walls” or pejoratives. It’s very unpleasant and insulting - and it’s MEANT to be unpleasant and insulting. That’s the PURPOSE.
Contrast to me. Oh yeah, I’m not very nice. But that’s a byproduct of natural response to seeing months of inaction, or to my belaboring the point to people that just don’t get it - and my resulting frustration (even if it IS just because I’m bad at explaining, I’m still frustrated that others don’t get it.)
Sure, I’m not the greatest. But I’m hardly the worst of the population by far.
@Boston_NWO said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
if you look in aggregate, it’s a very consistent cohort of players who are at the top . . . The variance in the dice are a factor in game outcomes, but player skill is the dominant factor on who wins.
Suppose I re-interpret your statement. Would it be fair to say your claim is the same players consistently top the ladder, that you argue those players possess skill, and that consistent performance indicates skill must be the dominant factor determining rank?
You know me. I pick things apart. So if you agree here but disagree later - no problem. We’ll just say I didn’t convey the case properly.
But if you DO agree - there’s a few big gaps.
First - I don’t think rank is necessarily an accurate reflection of skill. I don’t mean to discount your 90% winrate. Sure, you are very skilled, well done and all. BUT consider. Rank degrades. Ranks measure wins and losses over time. Wins and losses can result from things other than simple skill at the game.
Such as? The 24 hour clock. Depending on your work, family, and other commitments you may not be able to make a particular check-in. And if you don’t check-in, you can lose not just one game - but all ongoing games.
Or wealth. Typically I have access to computers on different networks at different locations, and can travel between those locations at will. If my internet goes out at one location - I can just go to another location to do what I want to do.
Or time. If you don’t play a certain number of games, you just won’t get your rank up that high. But you can’t play those games if you just can’t make the time. You could be skilled as anyone, but if you just don’t play a lot of games, that skill won’t be reflected in your rank.
Or the rank decay system. Now, it’s not enough that a player plays games to get rank - they have to play games at the end of the season to minimize rank decay. That means control over one’s schedule.
Let’s assume the top players are skilled. All right. But the fact the top-ranked players doesn’t change much doesn’t mean dice results don’t matter. It may just as well mean that these other factors - clock, wealth, overall time, control over schedule - are also contributing factors, and those factors narrow the pool of players that may conceivably take the top spots.
Sure, dice effects would widen the pool. But other factors can narrow the pool.
The size of the population needs to be considered as well. If you’re consistently top ten out of a playerbase of a few hundred thousand, that’s different to being top ten out of a playerbase of a thousand.
So out of a population of a thousand - suppose we’re not asking who the most skilled players are. Suppose we ask of the reasonably skilled players, who has the wealth or connections to be able to travel at will to multiple locations and so avoid missing checkins due to network outages, a good deal of time on their hands so can play a great number of games necessary to achieving a high rank, control over their daily schedule so they can avoid missing checkins as a matter of routine, and control over their schedule as a whole so they can schedule more time to play more games at the end of a season? Might it be . . . . ten or twenty players?
Looking at things that way - sure. We can agree skill is a factor in game outcomes. But we can’t necessarily say that the same players topping the ranks each season is a result of skill outweighing dice, as there are other factors involved.
I could have made this post FAR shorter. But come on, do we really need a “git gud at logical arguments” post in addition to “git gud at dice” posts? Nah. And you know ol’ aardvark. I dunno about RAVING, but I do like me a good rant.
Anyways, congratulations on your 90% winrate and ranked placements in both seasons so far.
A consistent cohort of players are consistently winning and reaching high ranks, which makes it doubtful that the game outcomes are primarily driven by the volatility of dice outcomes. You’re posit skill, wealth, internet connection speed, or time commitment. I’m making a focused statement about dice variance with respect to likelihood of winning.
Folks, when you create tension and conflict that requires my intervention to figure out the whole thing, it upsets me. I don’t have this to be a babysitter. It’s also detrimental to the community. When a new users comes along and sees a forum with such animosity, they don’t stick around.
Are there good aspects to this conversation? Yes. Are there parts where people are being jerks? Yes. Do I have time and bandwidth to sort it out? No. Instead of reading through this mess, should I be working on improving the site or playing some A&A myself? Yes.
Maybe it’s not all that bad but holy crap, I have to set aside an hour of reading to figure it out? :angry:
Also, not naming names but there’s blame to be assigned all around here. Some folks are coming off as big jerks, some as small jerks, some as know-it-all jerks, some as being confusing in general (which can lead to jerk-ish reactions).
@aardvarkpepper I replied to you but deleted it because I didn’t see @djensen 's post asking everyone to knock it off and agreed with it. There’s no point in getting into a flamewar over dice RNG.
All I will say is that, if you’re that burnt out by bad dice, just take a break from the game dude.
