FfH2 0.23 Balance Feedback
- Thread starter jonottawa
- Start date
It should be an extremely unlikely occurrance to not lose a single 90% or greater battle in a game unless you manage to avoid combat. 90% odds should not be seen as a "sure thing."
salaminizer
Colorado Internacional
good to know more people in trouble with the odds are appearing, I just can't accept the nature of the odds as the reason for losing so many 90%+ battles AFTER .23.
Sureshot
Goddess
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,771
i mentioned my losing 4 90% battles in a row because it happens all too frequently, i was annoyed when it happened, but not terribly surprised, because losing at 90% is like losing at 20% to me nowadays.
im constantly losing 99.X% battles, such that, unless i have 100.0% odds (there was a time when those would lose, but i haven't lost one of those in a while) i assume its likely for me to lose.
another big problem is when attacking on low odds like 20-50% odds, i don't seem to do any damage at all anymore. this seems to be the case with attacking cities more than anything, or when defending in the wild.
when ive switched to BtS games, even FfH Age of Ice, or FfH BtS beta, there is a noticeable difference. i can actually attack on any odds greater than 0% and have some effect, and anything around 50% i win half the time (that was surprising considering how things usually go), and if its above 90% i tend to win often. all things you'd expect, that don't seem to be the case with 0.23 currently.
im constantly losing 99.X% battles, such that, unless i have 100.0% odds (there was a time when those would lose, but i haven't lost one of those in a while) i assume its likely for me to lose.
another big problem is when attacking on low odds like 20-50% odds, i don't seem to do any damage at all anymore. this seems to be the case with attacking cities more than anything, or when defending in the wild.
when ive switched to BtS games, even FfH Age of Ice, or FfH BtS beta, there is a noticeable difference. i can actually attack on any odds greater than 0% and have some effect, and anything around 50% i win half the time (that was surprising considering how things usually go), and if its above 90% i tend to win often. all things you'd expect, that don't seem to be the case with 0.23 currently.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
Well... hopefully Kael will find something as he goes through the conversion process.
vorshlumpf
Emperor
I haven't been noticing these issues, but I also haven't played as much as others on patch C. I did feel like I had more unlucky losses in my last game than normal, but this sort of feeling will always occur for about 1 game out of 10, or so, in my experience.
I don't suppose anyone is willing to actually record results from a sample of battles (maybe 100?) in their game to provide some concrete statistics? Unless that is done, these posts are simply expressing feelings, not facts.
I don't suppose anyone is willing to actually record results from a sample of battles (maybe 100?) in their game to provide some concrete statistics? Unless that is done, these posts are simply expressing feelings, not facts.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
I wonder if it would be possible to put a -1 diplomacy on chaos mauraders going barb in an ally's land?
I had to laugh, but in a rather pathetic way...
Several hours after writing my previous post on the combat odds here, I lost TWO battles where the odds were 100% in my favor within five turns.
Playing as Kandros Fir:
1. Boar Rider with Combat V, Shock I, loses to a barb Orc Spearman with no promotions on a no-bonus tile.
2. Dwarven Soldier with Combat V, Orcish, loses to a barb Lizardman on a no-bonus tile.
Both combat odds were listed as 100% in my favor.
I get tired of hearing the "Rounding Defense." OK, if that 100% is really not 100%, then round down dammit to show there actually is a chance of losing.
Otherwise, I expect to win EVERY battle where my combat odds are given at 100%.
It is so frustrating to build up units to a decent number of XP, and then to lose them in battles like this.
Several hours after writing my previous post on the combat odds here, I lost TWO battles where the odds were 100% in my favor within five turns.
Playing as Kandros Fir:
1. Boar Rider with Combat V, Shock I, loses to a barb Orc Spearman with no promotions on a no-bonus tile.
2. Dwarven Soldier with Combat V, Orcish, loses to a barb Lizardman on a no-bonus tile.
Both combat odds were listed as 100% in my favor.
I get tired of hearing the "Rounding Defense." OK, if that 100% is really not 100%, then round down dammit to show there actually is a chance of losing.
Otherwise, I expect to win EVERY battle where my combat odds are given at 100%.
It is so frustrating to build up units to a decent number of XP, and then to lose them in battles like this.
This is making me want to cry. I'm serious! I haven't noticed the same problem with my combat odds, but I strongly suspect that is only because I have failed to pay proper attention.
In a recent MP game, I lost my hero to another player's hero despite having a 98% chance of success. I took the loss stoically, and refused his offer to delete his own hero. But now I wonder if the game just screwed me when I originally thought my loss was just an exceptionally unfortunate occurrance.
Missing from my experince (I think!) is the consecutive bad odds resolutions. It's seems to only happen here and there for me, and that allowed me to believe I just got really unlucky results a little more often than what should have been expected.
PS- I am perfectly happy to lose a 98% battle if the result was generated correctly. Uncertainty spices games up, just like it does real life. "Miracles" happen all the time, and even those can be roleplayed.
PPS- Does anyone else agree that four 90% battles lost in a row represents 1 in 10,000 odds? I still think my math is off.
In a recent MP game, I lost my hero to another player's hero despite having a 98% chance of success. I took the loss stoically, and refused his offer to delete his own hero. But now I wonder if the game just screwed me when I originally thought my loss was just an exceptionally unfortunate occurrance.
Missing from my experince (I think!) is the consecutive bad odds resolutions. It's seems to only happen here and there for me, and that allowed me to believe I just got really unlucky results a little more often than what should have been expected.
PS- I am perfectly happy to lose a 98% battle if the result was generated correctly. Uncertainty spices games up, just like it does real life. "Miracles" happen all the time, and even those can be roleplayed.
PPS- Does anyone else agree that four 90% battles lost in a row represents 1 in 10,000 odds? I still think my math is off.
sixs_monkey
Warlord
Elsewhere, it has been noted that Combat (Star) promos -seem- to be misbehaving. There is at least one very capable rigorous tester who contributed to the "How combat works" thread (regarding Vanilla Civ IV's mechanics). Perhaps he could be recruited to check out various battles in Fire, but FfH is still only about half done so I'd counsel patience and alternate strategies instead.
If it is the stars' fault, that ought to be fairly testable and avoided until it gets better.
If it is the stars' fault, that ought to be fairly testable and avoided until it gets better.
My girl friend and me have the same problems with the combat odds and while she is playing FFH at the moment, i am playing BTS and I realised a big difference how the combats behave. The second thing is that right at the beginning of an FFH game when i dont have any promos the results feel OK, later on with a lot of promos lots and lots of 98+% battles are lost. FFH doubles the strength of boni for promos (+20% for combat instead of +10% for example) Could it be that the likely combat result is shown caculating the +20% or whatever bonus and the engine calculated bonus is only +10% for example ? That somehow the engine does not take the correct values when performing the battle ?
Its just a guess, no testing has been done...
Foro
Its just a guess, no testing has been done...
Foro
Jenaelha
fields of Elanor
I also sense a combat problem in FfH, particularly when compared to BTS. It used to be, back a few version in FfH, that you couldn't risk any attack under 75% because FfH 75% was realy like 33%. Is this true? Hasn't FfH always had an issue with combat? Now, somehow, it's worsened. I imagine mathmatic algorithms are the most tedious to unravel and the least transparent of code.
Jono
Emperor
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,521
Any comments on this?
I hate to say it, but my response to the crazy combat results has been...to cheat.
Yes, now I find myself quick-saving before any battle of consequence and with units I don't care to lose.
It slows down the game and takes some of the fun 'surprise factor' away, but you just get tired of losing an inordinate number of battles you should have won.
Yes, now I find myself quick-saving before any battle of consequence and with units I don't care to lose.
It slows down the game and takes some of the fun 'surprise factor' away, but you just get tired of losing an inordinate number of battles you should have won.
TeraHammer
Prince
You could also look at the statistics this way: If you have 6 times a 90% battle, chances are at ~50% you lose one or more.
Spoiler :
Similar threads
