Sorry. I meant to say "your confusion about the quote." That's what I get for not quoting.
And I hate to say it, but I think you missed my point.
To some people, totally predictable means when a unit has a chance of winning, it wins. So my interpretation of: "But then, I don't mind the occasional unbelievable result - if I knew ahead of time how everything ended, I wouldn't waste my time playing" is not that people are saying they don't want to play if they know the odds. I read those comments as people saying that they don't want to play if every time they think the odds are in their favor they win. It's just a different interpretation of "predictability".
As for how outcomes "generally go", when I was double checking my Excel Civ calculations, I had to up my simulation numbers to the order of 10,000 battles before my simulated breakdown percentages came close to my theoretical ones. Generally speaking, it's tough making general observations on statistical matters with small, non-randomly selected sample sizes.
And I hate to say it, but I think you missed my point.
To some people, totally predictable means when a unit has a chance of winning, it wins. So my interpretation of: "But then, I don't mind the occasional unbelievable result - if I knew ahead of time how everything ended, I wouldn't waste my time playing" is not that people are saying they don't want to play if they know the odds. I read those comments as people saying that they don't want to play if every time they think the odds are in their favor they win. It's just a different interpretation of "predictability".As for how outcomes "generally go", when I was double checking my Excel Civ calculations, I had to up my simulation numbers to the order of 10,000 battles before my simulated breakdown percentages came close to my theoretical ones. Generally speaking, it's tough making general observations on statistical matters with small, non-randomly selected sample sizes.
