sumthinelse
civ investigator
Maybe Firaxis tried to fix the problem with too many barbs in a scenario and overdid it? But cracker says he gets barbs in his 1.21 scenario....
goody hut probabilities
- Thread starter sumthinelse
- Start date
Maybe Firaxis tried to fix the problem with too many barbs in a scenario and overdid it? But cracker says he gets barbs in his 1.21 scenario....
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Eagle, I assume you mean you get barbs from goody huts (not just popping up from somewhere beyond the horizon)?
But how can cracker be playing without modified rules if his unit has 100 moves ????
Thank for the help.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Cracker, Eagle's theory is that modified rules cause no barbs to be found in the goody huts, but you have a worker with 100 movement points and you still get barbs. Can you post your saved scenario? Your scenario would be a counter example to that theory, I think. It's possible that some rule modifications turn off barbs and others don't I guess.
I'll try what you said, what rules do you want me to modify? I'm guessing Cracker's not on-line now, so tell me what you want modified and i'll do it. perhaps its a bug, kinda like the army coming out of goody huts? I've heard it, but that one never happened to me...So maybe its something like that?
Besides I have got nothing to do until 1:00 which is 2 hours away.
Besides I have got nothing to do until 1:00 which is 2 hours away.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Hi PC. I confess that I am confused about this. I created a scenario without modified rules and I still don't get barbarians. I copied the unmodified 1.21f bic file to a file called vanilla.bic and just generated a map and edited it to put goody huts in it. I don't have custom rules or custom player data checked. Still I can't get barbs.
What I am concerned about is that I can't make goody huts in a scenario act like goody huts in a real game. If scenarios behave differently from real games we can't rely on them to test how the game works.
If you can figure out exactly:
- what makes barbarians emerge from goody huts in a scenario and
- what prevents them from emerging from goody huts in a scenario
I think that would help.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Thanks PC. My wife is giving me hints that it's getting late here (Bangkok Thailand). I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out.... 
Ozymandius
Prince
Do the % of barbs, gold, techs etc.stay the same if you wait for a desired result?
I use the spy/save option prior to opening a goodie hut. I find it critical to get a free settler early in the game because the AI always outbreed me. I normally play as the Egyptians, make four warriors and roam outward. I like the goodie huts that turm me elite. Occasionally the barbs kill me and my spy warns me of this. I waste a turn and next time there is a different outcome. I never accept a deserted hut and maps are a waste of a hut. If you wait long enough, there are results much better than your numbers suggest. ( I do not play Game of Month)
I once played as the Persians and got 7 settlers and an army (previous patch). Now I never get more than one settler, occasional warrior, no deserted villages or maps, and many techs.
I use the spy/save option prior to opening a goodie hut. I find it critical to get a free settler early in the game because the AI always outbreed me. I normally play as the Egyptians, make four warriors and roam outward. I like the goodie huts that turm me elite. Occasionally the barbs kill me and my spy warns me of this. I waste a turn and next time there is a different outcome. I never accept a deserted hut and maps are a waste of a hut. If you wait long enough, there are results much better than your numbers suggest. ( I do not play Game of Month)
I once played as the Persians and got 7 settlers and an army (previous patch). Now I never get more than one settler, occasional warrior, no deserted villages or maps, and many techs.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
Okay I gave the gave a few more whirls trying to find this cause:
trial one was a game with just a custum map (no modified rules)
trial two was the same as trial one, but with modified player rules to give me 25 MA
trial three was the same as trial two but civ3mod was modified to give MA 100 MP and increased A&D values by 10x
Tech: 5,18,16 ~5%
Gold 2,14,10 ~5%
Unit (settler) 2(1), 9(2), 9(0) ~5%
Barbs 26,145,101 ~50%
Nothing 14,81,55 ~30%
Map 5,12,4 ~5%
Again this is diety as Japan with raging barbarians and using patch 1.21 (downloaded a week after its release).
Based just on my results, I would conclude that there is a read error with regard to the barbarian precentages in the bic file, when the rules are read from a scenario file. However, as sumthinelse gets this with even scenario files with unmodded rules and PC Highway doesn't observe this at all, that simple explanation no longer holds.
while I don't believe it is a specific mod that causes trouble (since Sumthinelse is getting this with unmodded bic files) for the record the changes I made to the bic file that refused to generate barbs from huts was: archer +20 HP, 100 MP, treat all terrain as roads, blitz, 100A and 100D. And I gave player 1 3 archers.
And yep these barbarians that I finally did start getting are from the huts. I left the last map I played in a mass of barbarians from the huts, since each one generates 3.
I guess I could if there is interest post up the 2 bic files. The one that will not generate barbarians from goody huts and the one that will. That way we can at least rule out or in system dependent behavoir. This is shaping up to be a very tough bug to find and get rid of, since there seems to be at least three different types of behavoir being reported.
trial one was a game with just a custum map (no modified rules)
trial two was the same as trial one, but with modified player rules to give me 25 MA
trial three was the same as trial two but civ3mod was modified to give MA 100 MP and increased A&D values by 10x
Tech: 5,18,16 ~5%
Gold 2,14,10 ~5%
Unit (settler) 2(1), 9(2), 9(0) ~5%
Barbs 26,145,101 ~50%
Nothing 14,81,55 ~30%
Map 5,12,4 ~5%
Again this is diety as Japan with raging barbarians and using patch 1.21 (downloaded a week after its release).
Based just on my results, I would conclude that there is a read error with regard to the barbarian precentages in the bic file, when the rules are read from a scenario file. However, as sumthinelse gets this with even scenario files with unmodded rules and PC Highway doesn't observe this at all, that simple explanation no longer holds.
while I don't believe it is a specific mod that causes trouble (since Sumthinelse is getting this with unmodded bic files) for the record the changes I made to the bic file that refused to generate barbs from huts was: archer +20 HP, 100 MP, treat all terrain as roads, blitz, 100A and 100D. And I gave player 1 3 archers.
And yep these barbarians that I finally did start getting are from the huts. I left the last map I played in a mass of barbarians from the huts, since each one generates 3.
I guess I could if there is interest post up the 2 bic files. The one that will not generate barbarians from goody huts and the one that will. That way we can at least rule out or in system dependent behavoir. This is shaping up to be a very tough bug to find and get rid of, since there seems to be at least three different types of behavoir being reported.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
Originally posted by Ozymandius
Do the % of barbs, gold, techs etc.stay the same if you wait for a desired result?
I use the spy/save option prior to opening a goodie hut. I find it critical to get a free settler early in the game because the AI always outbreed me. I normally play as the Egyptians, make four warriors and roam outward. I like the goodie huts that turm me elite. Occasionally the barbs kill me and my spy warns me of this. I waste a turn and next time there is a different outcome. I never accept a deserted hut and maps are a waste of a hut. If you wait long enough, there are results much better than your numbers suggest. ( I do not play Game of Month)
I once played as the Persians and got 7 settlers and an army (previous patch). Now I never get more than one settler, occasional warrior, no deserted villages or maps, and many techs.
Well if you keep track of all results, including the ones you reject, then the precentages will line up. Otherwise, you are biasing your date, as since the selection is random what you got before has no effect on what you will get now.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
I am going to subscribe to the "another undocumented feature" theory versus any sort of bug.
I get lots of barbs with modified maps with lots of new units and lots of unit rules modifications. Also with new wonders and improvements
I don't dink around much with the basic tech tree or with government types because this is currently so limited by hardcoding stuff that it seems more like masturbation than anything remotely exciting or different.
I also have not dinked with custom player data and some of those features.
So I would use the "add things in layers" approach to figuring out why you do not seem to get barbs in your test case.
1) start with a map and add lots of huts plus modify the workers to have gazillion movement points.
**** if you get goody huts on that map
2) modify some other units to make them available right away. Try not to use the multitool to add units in your testing because when units are added there is something about them that does not let the program fully recognize them as belonging to your civ. Compare the military advisor unit count page to your actual totals as wells as the unit support costs and you will see this.
*** if you still get goody huts then
3) add changes slowly, one at a time or just one type of change at a time until you isolatet he point when barbs vanish as an option.
I get barbs at a high enough frequency (eg. about 40%) that I cannot usually go more than 5 or 6 huts without at least one angry warrior disturbance event.
I get lots of barbs with modified maps with lots of new units and lots of unit rules modifications. Also with new wonders and improvements
I don't dink around much with the basic tech tree or with government types because this is currently so limited by hardcoding stuff that it seems more like masturbation than anything remotely exciting or different.
I also have not dinked with custom player data and some of those features.
So I would use the "add things in layers" approach to figuring out why you do not seem to get barbs in your test case.
1) start with a map and add lots of huts plus modify the workers to have gazillion movement points.
**** if you get goody huts on that map
2) modify some other units to make them available right away. Try not to use the multitool to add units in your testing because when units are added there is something about them that does not let the program fully recognize them as belonging to your civ. Compare the military advisor unit count page to your actual totals as wells as the unit support costs and you will see this.
*** if you still get goody huts then
3) add changes slowly, one at a time or just one type of change at a time until you isolatet he point when barbs vanish as an option.
I get barbs at a high enough frequency (eg. about 40%) that I cannot usually go more than 5 or 6 huts without at least one angry warrior disturbance event.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Ozymandius,
I think you did not grasp the concept of the questions being asked here.
Yes, we probably recognize that if you choose to turn off the "preserve Random Seed" option and then just reload and reopen the same huts again and agian then you can expect the outcomes to change, and then if you only count the outcomes that you like and that you keep, then your data would be a lot different.
If you say things like "I always just reload until I get a settler, so I think the outcomes from goody huts will be 100% settlers" this makes you look silly!.
I think you did not grasp the concept of the questions being asked here.
Yes, we probably recognize that if you choose to turn off the "preserve Random Seed" option and then just reload and reopen the same huts again and agian then you can expect the outcomes to change, and then if you only count the outcomes that you like and that you keep, then your data would be a lot different.
If you say things like "I always just reload until I get a settler, so I think the outcomes from goody huts will be 100% settlers" this makes you look silly!.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
In looking at mine and Sumthinelse's data, I think I have an idea of what is going on here. If you pull out the barbarian appearances then the numbers we got for maps that produce barbs and ones that don't produce barbs match.
Basically the barbarian precentage is stored separetly, and the others are applied to the huts that don't produce barbarians and add to 100%. This actually makes sense, as for expansionist civs the barb percentage is set to zero (this also would allow the barb percentage to maybe be dependent on the barb activity value).
So here is the rule (using values at diety):
Set the barb percentage value (55% for non-expansionist civs)
From the remaining (rounding to the nearest 5%):
55% is an deserted site
10% is a tech
10% is a Unit
10% is a map
15% is gold
Then for barbs at 55% this gives
barbs =55%
deserted = 25%
tech = 5%
unit = 5%
map = 5%
gold = 5%
which agrees with sumthinelse's and my findings
And when barbs are at 0% this becomes:
barbs = 0%
deserted = 55%
tech = 10%
unit = 10%
map = 10%
gold =15%
Whether this is a game bug, an editor bug, an unattended consequence, or something else still remains to be seen. However, for me at least the barb value only gets set to 0 if I use a scenario with custom rules.
I had thought it might be the barbarian activity in the scenario properties. However, changing that from the default did not prevent barbarians from appearing in the scenario that does get barbarians.
However, I did discover one thing: Barbarians will not appear till after you have settled your first city.[/blue] I popped around 70 huts with no barbarians, but then started getting barbarians after I planted my first city.
Basically the barbarian precentage is stored separetly, and the others are applied to the huts that don't produce barbarians and add to 100%. This actually makes sense, as for expansionist civs the barb percentage is set to zero (this also would allow the barb percentage to maybe be dependent on the barb activity value).
So here is the rule (using values at diety):
Set the barb percentage value (55% for non-expansionist civs)
From the remaining (rounding to the nearest 5%):
55% is an deserted site
10% is a tech
10% is a Unit
10% is a map
15% is gold
Then for barbs at 55% this gives
barbs =55%
deserted = 25%
tech = 5%
unit = 5%
map = 5%
gold = 5%
which agrees with sumthinelse's and my findings
And when barbs are at 0% this becomes:
barbs = 0%
deserted = 55%
tech = 10%
unit = 10%
map = 10%
gold =15%
Whether this is a game bug, an editor bug, an unattended consequence, or something else still remains to be seen. However, for me at least the barb value only gets set to 0 if I use a scenario with custom rules.
I had thought it might be the barbarian activity in the scenario properties. However, changing that from the default did not prevent barbarians from appearing in the scenario that does get barbarians.
However, I did discover one thing: Barbarians will not appear till after you have settled your first city.[/blue] I popped around 70 huts with no barbarians, but then started getting barbarians after I planted my first city.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
etj4eagle and sumthin,
All these numbers look great, but I am going to need a larger statistical sample and some more controlled results to believe that the "deserted village" outcome would be programmed to be anywhere near 55% of the non-barbarian expectations.
This sounds like fitting an answer to a situation that reflects way too small of a set of results to be valid.
There are lots of outcomes that would not give a significant advantage to the player without giving the player more of feeling of just wasting their time as in the case of deserted villages. Even though maps of areas that you can already see are just as bif of waste of time as deserted villages, they feel and sound different and the maps at least have some potential value.
I would just say we need a more controlled set of results before we could begin to draw a conclusion like this.
The conclusion about not being able to pop barbarians from the huts before the first city is settled may be valid based on some other observations where we have not seen examples of settlers and warriors popping out of huts before the first city is settled.
Again we need some more controlled results to confirm these hypotheses.
All these numbers look great, but I am going to need a larger statistical sample and some more controlled results to believe that the "deserted village" outcome would be programmed to be anywhere near 55% of the non-barbarian expectations.
This sounds like fitting an answer to a situation that reflects way too small of a set of results to be valid.
There are lots of outcomes that would not give a significant advantage to the player without giving the player more of feeling of just wasting their time as in the case of deserted villages. Even though maps of areas that you can already see are just as bif of waste of time as deserted villages, they feel and sound different and the maps at least have some potential value.
I would just say we need a more controlled set of results before we could begin to draw a conclusion like this.
The conclusion about not being able to pop barbarians from the huts before the first city is settled may be valid based on some other observations where we have not seen examples of settlers and warriors popping out of huts before the first city is settled.
Again we need some more controlled results to confirm these hypotheses.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
Cracker, a data set of 525+ events may not be enough to definitively say that you get a deserted village 55.00% of the non barbarian times on Diety (while I say 55% I could also accept 60% as well from the data). However, it is enough to get a good feeling of the value (especially since I am figuring that the developers kept things simple and worked with 5% intervals). Also remember that this is the diety value, my results of (a much smaller data set) shows a substantially lower value at regent.
Remember that you can draw conclusions with any number of trial, you just may have large error bars. A stat expert would need to give me the formula to calculate the 95% confidence interval exactly on this data, but I doubt by doing tens of thousands of tests we will find a different value, only determine this value more exactly.
Also in analyzing this data, one element that I kept in mind was using Ocram's Razor, as it seemed much more reasonable for the developers to program in 5% intervals than say 6.235568%.
Maybe the developers should have programmed in a higher map precentage, instead of having so many deserted villages. However, from all the goody huts that I popped I tended to find it to be deserted a little more than half the time when I didn't get a barbarian hoard.
Now it could be that me and Sumthinelse are just seeing really screwy results, but that would require some very unprobable happenings. It is more reasonable that the two of us are at least seeing something that resembles the truth.
On no barbarians before you build your first city, I have now had close to a 100 camp poppings with no barbarians on diety. Based on seeing them 55% if I had founded the city first on that map, this has a probability around 2.1x10^-35. I have, however, gotten units before the founding of my first city.
Looking at this it is actually quite reasonable. Before you found your city, your civ in effect has the expansionist trait. Why this is the case, is because it would kind of suck to be eliminated from the game on your first turn (which could happen if you popped barbarians with a goody hut next to your start position and did not build on that turn, oops there goes the settler).
Then once you build your first city, if you don't have the expansionist trait, the "can pop barbarians" flag is activated and the game now checks for barbarians as well as the rest of the possibilities.
Looking at the skill levels a 55% barbarian chance on diety leads me to postulate the following:
On Chieften you will get barbarians 5% of the time
On Warlord you will get barbarians 15% of the time
On Regent you will get barbarians 25% of the time
On Monarch you will get barbarians 35% of the time
On Emperor you will get barbarians 45% of the time
And we know that on Diety barbarians occur 55% of the time
Which is a nice linear progression
One interesting thought from this is that the Expansionist civ ability is far more useful on higher skill levels.
Remember that you can draw conclusions with any number of trial, you just may have large error bars. A stat expert would need to give me the formula to calculate the 95% confidence interval exactly on this data, but I doubt by doing tens of thousands of tests we will find a different value, only determine this value more exactly.
Also in analyzing this data, one element that I kept in mind was using Ocram's Razor, as it seemed much more reasonable for the developers to program in 5% intervals than say 6.235568%.
Maybe the developers should have programmed in a higher map precentage, instead of having so many deserted villages. However, from all the goody huts that I popped I tended to find it to be deserted a little more than half the time when I didn't get a barbarian hoard.
Now it could be that me and Sumthinelse are just seeing really screwy results, but that would require some very unprobable happenings. It is more reasonable that the two of us are at least seeing something that resembles the truth.
On no barbarians before you build your first city, I have now had close to a 100 camp poppings with no barbarians on diety. Based on seeing them 55% if I had founded the city first on that map, this has a probability around 2.1x10^-35. I have, however, gotten units before the founding of my first city.
Looking at this it is actually quite reasonable. Before you found your city, your civ in effect has the expansionist trait. Why this is the case, is because it would kind of suck to be eliminated from the game on your first turn (which could happen if you popped barbarians with a goody hut next to your start position and did not build on that turn, oops there goes the settler).
Then once you build your first city, if you don't have the expansionist trait, the "can pop barbarians" flag is activated and the game now checks for barbarians as well as the rest of the possibilities.
Looking at the skill levels a 55% barbarian chance on diety leads me to postulate the following:
On Chieften you will get barbarians 5% of the time
On Warlord you will get barbarians 15% of the time
On Regent you will get barbarians 25% of the time
On Monarch you will get barbarians 35% of the time
On Emperor you will get barbarians 45% of the time
And we know that on Diety barbarians occur 55% of the time
Which is a nice linear progression
One interesting thought from this is that the Expansionist civ ability is far more useful on higher skill levels.
Ozymandius
Prince
Sorry cracker,
I don't want to be silly, I just want and get only 1 settler per game. Unless I save/reload and get a settler I'm at 2800 BC with only 1 city. Somehow the other civs always get more. I expect one of my four warriors to get one settler from the huts in my "hinterland"
The other point that was mentioned was that there should be some hard coding or counter of what the goodie huts could provide. Being a non-expansionist puts me at a disadvantage early on. I meet some of the civs and they're 4 - 5 techs ahead of me by 3000 BCas a result of their goodie huts. By waiting near a hut until I get a tech I'm only a couple behind.
Is it common practice among this exalted group that you play with iron resolve and don't save/reload when an event is non-random ie 5 deserted goodies in a row, or only barbarians...etc?
I don't want to be silly, I just want and get only 1 settler per game. Unless I save/reload and get a settler I'm at 2800 BC with only 1 city. Somehow the other civs always get more. I expect one of my four warriors to get one settler from the huts in my "hinterland"
The other point that was mentioned was that there should be some hard coding or counter of what the goodie huts could provide. Being a non-expansionist puts me at a disadvantage early on. I meet some of the civs and they're 4 - 5 techs ahead of me by 3000 BCas a result of their goodie huts. By waiting near a hut until I get a tech I'm only a couple behind.
Is it common practice among this exalted group that you play with iron resolve and don't save/reload when an event is non-random ie 5 deserted goodies in a row, or only barbarians...etc?
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Oops!!!!! I take back what I said. After I found a city I do get barbs in the "vanilla" (no custom rules/data) scenario!!! When I wasn't generating barbs I was using my settler to explore and hadn't founded a city yet!!!!
Sorry guys, with only the 2 default units I was using both of them to explore....
I guess the game knows that if it released barb hordes before I had a city I would be up Defecation Creek [punch]
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Cracker, remember my results are for deity level only! . Of course you would not expect to get sh***y results like that on regent. I will start regent testing when I get a chance and I hope Eagle will want to do the same....
I think you are looking at Eagle's numbers for a "buggy" scenario where there are no barbs but there seems to be a typo. I think it should say "barb+deserted %" not "barb %"
:"barb+deserted" is more accurate I think
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Startling numbers from deity+expansionist civ!
deserted 208 times, 49%
tech 111 times, 26% !!!!!!!!
unit 50 times, 12%
map 28 times, 7%
gold 27 times, 6%
Total: 424 goody huts explored.
I was Zulu.
This could play a huge factor on a huge world. Remember, we got about 5% techs with a non-expansionist civ. In deity, the human can use all the help he can get
As Eagle speculated, before you found your first city you are kind of like an expansionist civ (no barbs from goody huts). I wonder if a non-expansionist civ gets 25% techs from goody huts before the 1st city????
I wonder if a commercial civ would get more gold?
deserted 208 times, 49%
tech 111 times, 26% !!!!!!!!
unit 50 times, 12%
map 28 times, 7%
gold 27 times, 6%
Total: 424 goody huts explored.
I was Zulu.
This could play a huge
factor on a huge world. Remember, we got about 5% techs with a non-expansionist civ. In deity, the human can use all the help he can get As Eagle speculated, before you found your first city you are kind of like an expansionist civ (no barbs from goody huts). I wonder if a non-expansionist civ gets 25% techs from goody huts before the 1st city????
I wonder if a commercial civ would get more gold?
Similar threads
