Licinia Eudoxia
Empress
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 424
And you're still missing the entire the point of the exercise.
Good job.
While my example is still correct, SevenSpirits constructed an example that is easier to understand.
Start Bias
- Thread starter KahunaGod
- Start date
And you're still missing the entire the point of the exercise.
Good job.
While my example is still correct, SevenSpirits constructed an example that is easier to understand.
Abraxis
☮
Dear OP
these are from three rome starts in a row, the first three I tried, you are being so obnoxious I figured maybe i should give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe there really was something wrong with rome.
Buuut, no, there isn't. it's you.
"Obviously your PC doesnt compute random generators correctly. You are cursed, and God hates you, or the Devil hates you."
Sorry to say it OP, but you really are the problem here. It's something you're doing with your settings, or you torture kittens in your spare time and the universe hates you.
Moderator Action: These sorts of comments are not called for, and the mudsling 'obnoxious'. If you can't post in a civil manner, don't post at all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
btw, these were with 20 civs, large, small continents, wet rainfall and normal resources (one may have been sparse, just out of habit).
Love, Abraxis
Tried 2 starts with Rome. Huge map, emperor difficulty, 22 city states, Fractal mapscript.
1st one had 19 civs
2nd one had 22 civs (according to setup screen, but I don't know how it can be done)
1st one had 19 civs
2nd one had 22 civs (according to setup screen, but I don't know how it can be done)
Spoiler :
KahunaGod
Warlord
Abraxis - Try starting with a fractul map with max civs on huge. If you refuse to compare apples to apples 
.Hey, POM! At least you got the apples to apples correct. I wish I could play those maps. Even yours as well Abby.
Prime Example of tundra and desert
Spoiler :
Ridiculas
Spoiler :
what a fugly start!
Spoiler :
This one an admittedly weak sample.
Spoiler :
Just did this one right now, not too bad but still have a little desert and tundra at pole, but livable and very playable. Not something i would have complained about normally.
Spoiler :
EDIT: HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, perhaps I should gen all my maps at 2am. Rome was placed nicely and Babylon was given the ol'shaft, proverbially.
Spoiler :
Well there you have it. Myth busted.
Sarcastic or not math is not an opinion but a fact.
After lot of games and I had of course always the same opponents, despiting I selected " random " on each of the 6 opponents each game I played.
I would suggest to switch the label " random " with " Shafer rule ", I would feel less fooled this way.
After lot of games and I had of course always the same opponents, despiting I selected " random " on each of the 6 opponents each game I played.
I would suggest to switch the label " random " with " Shafer rule ", I would feel less fooled this way.
Do you happen to know how a RNG works? Most of them (or at least all good ones) are designed to not have a memory of past rolls (this is not strictly true, but for all intents and purposes we think of it this way).
This is why sometimes in civ4 you will lose a a few 95%+ battles in a row, or why in a music player with a shuffle option you might hear the same track twice in a short space of time (e.g. inside 1 hour). In fact, this is why more modern music player software have options to customize this functionality, and for example will allow you to make tracks from the same album more likely to play together, or make tracks with a higher user-rating more likely to play.
The fact is that the RNG that picks civs in civ5 is almost certainly working bug-free. A few vague observations from a disgruntled civfanatic does not make for much evidence of a bug. You need to have an objective test methodology if you want to actually identify/isolate bugs. Because this is not something that can be demonstrated with a savegame or screenshots, it makes it more difficult to prove.
Considering you're about the only one who is sticking to this complaint pretty much insisting it's a bug, it's more reasonable to assume that either you're a little biased in your reporting of the evidence or you've just had a bad run of luck, than to assume that no one else has noticed this 'bug'.
Finally, there is the option in the advanced setup screen to select the leaders you play against. I would suggest that if truly random civs is really not what you want, then just pick ones that you haven't yet seen in the game. In my first game with Mongolia, I specifically chose him to be in the game, and all other leaders random. If you really can't stand to know what civs are going to be in the game, you can get the nearest person to select the civs for you while you aren't looking. That way you can tell them exactly which civs should not be chosen.
KahunaGod
Warlord
The exception that proves the rule!
Nyah Nyah LOL 
I still stand behind my own research. 17 Deserts in a row on huge fractul with all civs.
7 Huge Fractul with standard civ count (12 I think) with expected results, no obvious repetition.
9 Huge Fractul with 17 (middle road) and got 4 Deserts and 5 varied between forest, plains, grasslands.
The cause of these results is still a question, but I have my own opinions to that, but currently lack the knowledge/skill to create a truly unbiased test for it. But I will be picking up some programming for dummies books this week (not joking, I am looking at changing career fields) and maybe and I can get a little more scientifiky with my attempts at science.
I have some ideas about the RNG's. Some of the best in the world still have a few repetition problems, but the variance is very small.
My own observations of resource placement makes me question the civ5 generator, as it seems to me that certain resources are crowded together in bunches. Perhaps this was purposely meant in a "standard" concept, since in reality some natural resources are abundant in some regions and completely absent in others. But if so, then I just feel like this is a case where reality and game mechanic doesnt balance well. I am going to try the strategic balance and random resource setting and make some observations.
Sorry, this post was more than a little scatterbrained. I am distracted by the elections and the bloodbath apparently taking place in the US House of Representatives (but lets please not talk about it).
@KahunaGod
Not sure this was already addressed but the world age affects number of mountain tiles and possibility of mountain ranges.
I normally choose 3 billion years because then I get some massive mountain ranges (on Pangea) which affect the overall game play ie choke points and natural defences. Had few games where building fortresses were critical to my survival
Not sure this was already addressed but the world age affects number of mountain tiles and possibility of mountain ranges.
I normally choose 3 billion years because then I get some massive mountain ranges (on Pangea) which affect the overall game play ie choke points and natural defences. Had few games where building fortresses were critical to my survival
People can create map after map after map but the fact remains that in my last 10 tries I had 10 ridiculous civ placements. Every time 2-3 CS are way too close and 1-2 civ's are way to close. It can be better or it can be worse but the placement is definitly screwed. Or to put it in other words, I get a crappy map very often.
In my current map, that I will be playing, Egypt is 5 hexes to the south, and 2 CS are 8-9 hexes to the east. Luckily there is tundra up north (no civ's) and water to the west. So I'll play with it but the other civ's really have a lot of room to expand in.
I've tried every setting, all on Large map with and without the standard number of civ's. Starting bias tried on and off. It's wierd, but it could be random. However I did not have this problem pre-patch, civ's and cs could be close but never boxed you in. And pre-patch I always played with 12 civ's - 20 cs on a large map.
In my current map, that I will be playing, Egypt is 5 hexes to the south, and 2 CS are 8-9 hexes to the east. Luckily there is tundra up north (no civ's) and water to the west. So I'll play with it but the other civ's really have a lot of room to expand in.
I've tried every setting, all on Large map with and without the standard number of civ's. Starting bias tried on and off. It's wierd, but it could be random. However I did not have this problem pre-patch, civ's and cs could be close but never boxed you in. And pre-patch I always played with 12 civ's - 20 cs on a large map.
Do you have any non-original maps in your maps folder? either in mydocs or in the install directory?
Yes, I adjusted the earth map so everyone could start in their historical locations. However because of some fluke I've saved this over the original earth map (large). But how could this influence all other random maps that are not the earth map?
I don't know. It's just a suspicion I have at the moment. Since I made sure my maps folders were completely empty of anything else, and like they were originally, I haven't seen that bug again.
I've also noticed that hall of fame often has the wrong map on it. I played an Earth map and it shows up as an Ice Age map in HoF. I have wondered whether this is related. Something like an index alignment bug.
I've also noticed that hall of fame often has the wrong map on it. I played an Earth map and it shows up as an Ice Age map in HoF. I have wondered whether this is related. Something like an index alignment bug.
Similar threads
