RNG - Civ's Detractor?

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by BomberEscort


I understand perfectly what you are trying to say and you are in error. Please read my previous posts. The RNG is fine and this has been demonstrated several times by several different people. Its all mathematics... the RNG is not flawed, a basic understanding of mathematical statistics is required to see it though, personal experience and memory are unreliable over many trials. It's not a matter of opinion but fact.

did you read my last posts? I do not think so.......


WHO has demonstrated that the RNG is giving tan acceptable amount of randomness to make playing Civ3 fun?

now don't go implying I am an idiot just because your intellectual capabilities are not sufficient to get that I am talking about something esle - or is it that you cannot admit having misunderstood me? I take such behaviour as a personal insult, you obviously are not willing to discuss what I was talking about but what to snob me with your posts. let me tell you, I have been playing Civ and making tests on the RNG for longer than you imagine. I also found the RNG to even oput IN THE LONG RUN - but I still found that very often, the first (decisive) few battles were so far off the middle ground that the strategiy aspect of Civ was too unimportant for my liking.


Get it, reply to what I am talking about, or leave me alone..

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by col
I know that a series of wins that are against the odds can swing the game and that is what you hate cMM but in my opinion that is part of what makes the game interesting. Civ must have a chance for the underdog to win.

Of course it is a matter of subjectivity as to whether unlikely results happen too often or not. It may only need one battle at a key time to swing against the odds for the game to swing. Real battles may be like that too. Its better to be lucky than skilful

Strategically we need to plan for the possible outcomes of a battle. Sure we can attack at 60% odds in our favour or wait for 90% odds in our favour. Either carries gains and risks. I personally - and I suspect you too - tend to attack with the odds slightly in my favour. I think you have to acknowledge that this carries a big risk.

I think the RNG is fine. The odds of winning a victory ARE in line with what you would expect when it is trialled 100 times. Its just too bad if you happen to be unlucky. I want the rare events to occur with a probablity roughly what the A/D numbers suggest they should.

Civ contains that element of chance and I for one think it is a much better game for it.

col, I agree it is a matter of personal liking or disliking a certain amount of randomness. Nevertheless, the RNG is IMHO not balanced with unit costs and numbers.

Playing on very huge maps (200x200 tiles up) is fun for me - I can afford good and bad luck. But on smaller maps the RNG too often gives or takes too much. Maybe we'd need a factor for map size in the probabilities - the smaller the map (i.e. the more important each single battle) the more likely the 'expected' outcome.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by anarres


I think carlos means he still wants the numbers to be random (i.e. unpredictable from one to the next), but he doesn't want the underlying distribution they come from to be uniform.

Thanx, anarres. mabye the problem here is that I am a dumb Kraut and do not speak the most perfect language on earth rolleyes: ) well enough for bomber escorts liking - I simply do not know the terms that I'd need. All my three statistics courses at uni were in Kraut, after all.

 

[BomberEscort]

I agree with col... I don't believe it happens as much as you say. In reality two or three bad outcomes per game is what I have. I attribute it to exceptionally good units, or they had the element of surprise, etc... Maybe you are unlucky... But I submit that if the fate of one unit can turn the tide against you then you are either not planning well enough or you need to build more units. I always play small or tiny maps and have lots of units so it is possible. As for the attacks, you'd do well to remember who kept their cool... I disagree with you and your RNG theory... BTW I had no problem understanding your English or what you meant.

 

[Padma]

Calm down, carlos. I don't think BE is deliberately trying to goad you. I am sure he is not aware of your background in this subject. In any case, it is certainly not worth the shouting match, or worse, the ban you both could get as a "cooling off" period.

I think anarres' post above spells out both your positions pretty well. You're both using the same words, but with subtly different meanings.

FWIW, I am happy enough with the RNG as it exists. Would it be better as you describe it? I don't know. Maybe. I'd have to play with it like that to know for sure - but it sounds reasonable.

 

[Dr Alimentado]

And an easy way of providing a normal distribution (a bell-shaped distribution pattern) would be to generate 2 uniform random numbers and add them.

Eg: If the rng currently generates a number between 0.0 and 1.0 then it could generate 0.0-0.5 uniformally twice and add them... giving a normal distribution between 0.0 and 1.0. (I think that's right... statisticians feel welcome to correct me )

Although the rng dosen't bother me as such I think a normal distribution model would be better, hopefully firaxis will feel the same way for civ4.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by BomberEscort
I agree with col... I don't believe it happens as much as you say. In reality two or three bad outcomes per game is what I have. I attribute it to exceptionally good units, or they had the element of surprise, etc... Maybe you are unlucky... But I submit that if the fate of one unit can turn the tide against you then you are either not planning well enough or you need to build more units. I always play small or tiny maps and have lots of units so it is possible. As for the attacks, you'd do well to remember who kept their cool... I disagree with you and your RNG theory... BTW I had no problem understanding your English or what you meant.

I am not talking about one, but about 5 to ten in a ROW once or twice in an average game.

and it WAS you implying my mind isn't right. I did read that very well. And then, it seems YOU didn't understand that I said I lack the scientific terms - admittedly, I didn't say that verbatime, maybe that's why you didn't get it.


Padma: sorry, but I hate arrogance. And I hate having to shut up when someone gets on my nerves. I guess that is the reason why I left CFC for a while a while back - and why I am so fed up now
Thanx for doing a great mod job!

 

[carlosMM]

another thing, bomber escort: I'd be interested to know what level you play, and whether you reload...... before you imply I am a bad player.....

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by carlosMM
I am not talking about one, but about 5 to ten in a ROW once or twice in an average game.

This does not happen to me. Must be bad luck. I also don't believe that this happens to the majority of Civ III players... Like I said two or three bad outcomes per game, but not 10-20... This discrepancy could come from the fact that I play small/tiny maps and you may not. More accurately I'd say that this a 'bad unexpected outcome' happens 1 in 300 encounters.

Originally posted by carlosMM
...and it WAS you implying my mind isn't right...

I said "It's in your mind... the RNG is fine", in the context of our conversation I was commenting in general on the ability of people to see patterns where none exist and more specifically this tendency that I saw in you. Outside of this context, nothing was implied about the quality or lack thereof of your mind.

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by carlosMM
...I'd be interested to know what level you play, and whether you reload...... before you imply I am a bad player.....

Monarch/Emperor
Small/Tiny maps
Continents usually, sometimes P or A

Have I ever reloaded, Yes. When I was learning. Do I make it a habit now, No.

 

[carlosMM]

try deity, pangae, any start you get handed. You will soon see that the RNG hands too many bad (up or down) results I think. Be glad if you do not see them on the maps you play.

 

[BomberEscort]

AFAIK RNG numbers or combat outcomes are uneffected by difficulty level... so level should not matter in individual battle outcomes. On higher levels the AI typically has more units and may, statistically speaking, defeat you superior lower number units with his massive inferior troops.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by BomberEscort
AFAIK RNG numbers or combat outcomes are uneffected by difficulty level... so level should not matter in individual battle outcomes. On higher levels the AI typically has more units and may, statistically speaking, defeat you superior lower number units with his massive inferior troops.

you should havce realized by now that I know all this. The point is that at deity level, the AIs can afford to fight you with 30% success chance - if THEN, 4 or 5 of you precious Knights or so die to less than 5% chances in a row you have lost - period. At least, when it happenes twice. And I encounter that in - say - every second to third game. very frustrating, especially as on huge mpas the game gets very slow.

Doubling the HP makes it bearable - then, it is within acceptable levels - you win some, you lose some. but just today I lost 8 warriors in a row to one, then lost another two with superior HP on defence - that is no fun anymore. And certainly not what Civ is about - right?

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by carlosMM
...At least, when it happenes twice. And I encounter that in - say -every second to third game. very frustrating, especially as on huge mpas the game gets very slow.

I see how this can be frustrating. I just don't see how it is the RNGs fault. This is where we agree to disagree. I'd say to Firaxis, program a better AI and don't give it bonuses... but this is asking alot.

Originally posted by carlosMM
Doubling the HP makes it bearable - then, it is within acceptable levels - you win some, you lose some. but just today I lost 8 warriors in a row to one, then lost another two with superior HP on defence - that is no fun anymore. And certainly not what Civ is about - right?

Do you have the 8 warrior game? That is just amazing... not that I don't believe you, but maybe if I saw it with my own eyes I'd understand better. This has never happened to me and I'd like to analyze the details of the situation. Also, do you ever have those kind of outcomes go in your favor...

 

[Melifluous]

How about recently I attack 3 fortified regular spearman in a city.

They get a +50% bonus to befence yeah?

8 veteran horsemen attack and I fail to kill a single spearman.

I reload and skip a turn.

3 of those 8 spearmen attack and kill all three spearmen.

Losing 8 spearmen that early in the game is a game changing moment.

Should I reasonably expect 8 horse to fail to take out 3 spearmen? No.

The RNG needs to be a little less random in its randomness.

2 six sided dice produce nice clustered results around the value 7 and 3 six sideed dice would do better.

Melifluous

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by BomberEscort


I see how this can be frustrating. I just don't see how it is the RNGs fault. This is where we agree to disagree. I'd say to Firaxis, program a better AI and don't give it bonuses... but this is asking alot.

I never said it was the RNG! It is the combination of RNG and game mechanics! The RNG sucks for Civ, or Viv for the RNG. Sorry, should have been clearer on that!

Do you have the 8 warrior game? That is just amazing... not that I don't believe you, but maybe if I saw it with my own eyes I'd understand better. This has never happened to me and I'd like to analyze the details of the situation.

sorry, no, that was a test game for a mod (I was testing UUs for a few civs) and I didn't save at all.

nex time I hit a streak like that I will save it for you. I had a similar thing in a 362x362 game, losing three tanks with 4 HP each to an elite Spear - but there the impact was only on a small campaign, not on my entire empire - due to the map size. I may still have a save, but the loading time is around 15 minutes and I have no idea is I can recreate the battle sequence

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by Melifluous
...8 veteran horsemen attack and I fail to kill a single spearman...

I agree, that is odd. The horseman collectively lose 32hp while the spearman at most loses no more than 2hp. The odds on this is very rare, but I also bet its only happened once. Post the game if you have it...

 

[carlosMM]

Bomber Escort: I can distinctly remember at least 20 instances where I swore and swore on MSN to the delight of my fellow players about a combat result with a 0% chance on the CFC combat calc.... I even once lost an army of4 MA against a 2 HP Pike in the open - even 2 MA would have made it a 100& thing, rounding error given.

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by carlosMM
...losing three tanks with 4 HP each to an elite Spear...

This is like 1-in-a-million (assuming unfortified on grassland)... extremely bad luck.. ouch! If you have the game I'd love to see it. Maybe we can start a thread of the worst luck in Civ III battles, with saved games... I like it!

 

[carlosMM]

BE: deal! let's do that!


edit: done! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65535