Version 2.8 discussion

Hey Zappara, I found a bug.

On one of the tech's, you misspelled one of the Flavors.

Spoiler :
Code: 
		<TechInfo>
			<Type>TECH_UTOPIA</Type>
			<Description>TXT_KEY_TECH_UTOPIA</Description>
			<Civilopedia>TXT_KEY_TECH_UTOPIA_PEDIA</Civilopedia>
			<Help/>
			<Strategy>TXT_KEY_TECH_UTOPIA_STRATEGY</Strategy>
			<Advisor>ADVISOR_GROWTH</Advisor>
			<iAIWeight>0</iAIWeight>
			<iAITradeModifier>0</iAITradeModifier>
			<iCost>4800</iCost>
			<iAdvancedStartCost>100</iAdvancedStartCost>
			<iAdvancedStartCostIncrease>0</iAdvancedStartCostIncrease>
			<Era>ERA_INDUSTRIAL</Era>
			<FirstFreeUnitClass>UNITCLASS_GREAT_SPY</FirstFreeUnitClass>
			<iFeatureProductionModifier>0</iFeatureProductionModifier>
			<iWorkerSpeedModifier>0</iWorkerSpeedModifier>
			<iTradeRoutes>0</iTradeRoutes>
			<iHealth>0</iHealth>
			<iHappiness>0</iHappiness>
			<iFirstFreeTechs>0</iFirstFreeTechs>
			<iAsset>40</iAsset>
			<iPower>0</iPower>
			<bRepeat>0</bRepeat>
			<bTrade>1</bTrade>
			<bDisable>0</bDisable>
			<bGoodyTech>0</bGoodyTech>
			<bExtraWaterSeeFrom>0</bExtraWaterSeeFrom>
			<bMapCentering>0</bMapCentering>
			<bMapVisible>0</bMapVisible>
			<bMapTrading>0</bMapTrading>
			<bTechTrading>0</bTechTrading>
			<bGoldTrading>0</bGoldTrading>
			<bOpenBordersTrading>0</bOpenBordersTrading>
			<bDefensivePactTrading>0</bDefensivePactTrading>
			<bPermanentAllianceTrading>1</bPermanentAllianceTrading>
			<bVassalTrading>0</bVassalTrading>
			<bBridgeBuilding>0</bBridgeBuilding>
			<bIrrigation>0</bIrrigation>
			<bIgnoreIrrigation>0</bIgnoreIrrigation>
			<bWaterWork>0</bWaterWork>
			<iGridX>21</iGridX>
			<iGridY>19</iGridY>
			<DomainExtraMoves/>
			<CommerceFlexible/>
			<TerrainTrades/>
			<bRiverTrade>0</bRiverTrade>
			<Flavors>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_PRODUCTION</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>2</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_SCIENCE</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>2</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_CULTURE</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>3</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_GROWTH</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>1</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_ESPIONAGE</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>10</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_[B]MIILTARY[/B]</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>5</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
			</Flavors>
			<OrPreReqs>
				<PrereqTech>TECH_LABOR_UNION</PrereqTech>
			</OrPreReqs>
			<AndPreReqs/>
			<Quote>TXT_KEY_TECH_UTOPIA_QUOTE</Quote>
			<Sound>AS2D_TECH_UTOPIA</Sound>
			<SoundMP>AS2D_TECH_MP_UTOPIA</SoundMP>
			<Button>,Art/Interface/Buttons/TechTree/Communism.dds,Art/Interface/Buttons/TechTree_Atlas.dds,4,2</Button>
		</TechInfo>

MIILITARY should be MILITARY

Not a big deal, but I caught it using a Debug DLL.
 
Okay, well, the wikipedia link is so confusing, it might as well be in Ancient Sumerian.
As for Statistics, I just refuse to believe what is contrary to my personal experience. Which is that any less than 96% and you will lose a lot more than you should

I know that yes, 96% means you will win 96 out of a 100, I'm not ********. :)
It's just completely contrary to my experience. I know, that makes no sense.

OH, and I always play on the easiest difficulty. Anything else has never interested me.
 
DavidB1111 said:
As for Statistics, I just refuse to believe what is contrary to my personal experience. Which is that any less than 96% and you will lose a lot more than you should
Click to expand...

So if you lived in Africa, snow would be a myth? That's a very narrow world view.
I know that yes, 96% means you will win 96 out of a 100, I'm not ********. :)
Click to expand...
My point was that 96% in theory means that over time, it will average to be 96% of the battles, but in practice, it doesn't necessarily mean that. If you don't trust the game, just take a look at the code. It completely fair.
It's just completely contrary to my experience. I know, that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Your being irrational.
OH, and I always play on the easiest difficulty. Anything else has never interested me.
Click to expand...

I prefer losing to winning personally, but whatever makes you happy...
 
My official apologizes. THe last thing I want to do is come across as Irrational. :)
You're right.

I'm wrong. Let's just leave it as that.
As for other things, I just didn't phrase it right. THat's the main problem. I didn't phrase it the right way, no wonder you thought I had a narrow world view. :)
 
I've actually noticed the same thing as DavidB111. I've even tested it out over many attacks with random seeds renewing on loading. Either we just got bad random seeds and luck isn't in our favor (and thus doesn't match the experience of average probability one should have over the long term), or the percentage displayed doesn't match the actual percentage chance. I have no experience with the coding or the internal mechanics of the combat, so I leave those with better knowledge to tell me that the coding reflects exactly what is displayed. I wouldn't doubt it. But, after 3 years of playing (or however long it's been out) for me 70% displayed is 50/50 and it evens out around the mid 80s. Either way, I don't attack with less than 85% odds unless I plan to lose the attacking unit. IF it is all in my head, well then, hopefully the odds will catch up one day.
 
See, I'm not the only one. I've played over 1000 battles as well. :) so, yeah, weird.

Also, statistics are useless at a very small selection of results. Ideally you want 10,000 battles to test whether or not it works.

That's just what I've learned.
For example, PhantomEFX, a game company who makes slot machines, test their payout rates at 10,000 or more spins. Anything less is useless as statistics.

Then again, I'm probably wrong. But when two people show up who are showing a different view, then that should let you know it's not all in my head.
 
Dharmaserf said:
I've actually noticed the same thing as DavidB111. I've even tested it out over many attacks with random seeds renewing on loading. Either we just got bad random seeds and luck isn't in our favor (and thus doesn't match the experience of average probability one should have over the long term), or the percentage displayed doesn't match the actual percentage chance. I have no experience with the coding or the internal mechanics of the combat, so I leave those with better knowledge to tell me that the coding reflects exactly what is displayed. I wouldn't doubt it. But, after 3 years of playing (or however long it's been out) for me 70% displayed is 50/50 and it evens out around the mid 80s. Either way, I don't attack with less than 85% odds unless I plan to lose the attacking unit. IF it is all in my head, well then, hopefully the odds will catch up one day.
Click to expand...

Guys, this all amounts to it the common effect of remembering bad events more than good ones. If you win the battle with 50/50 odds, you don't really remember the battle 30 min later. If you lose, you will probably remember more.

Summery: It's all in your head.
 
It's related to the Gamblers' Fallacy, where people think that percentages change based on previous occurrences. For instance, if I flip a fair coin 10 times and get heads 10 times, the chance of getting an 11th head is still only 50%, even if the chance of 11 heads in succession before you start is 2048 to 1.
 
I have played a thousand plus battles, and lost only a few. It is not in my head. :)

Although, it's possible still. I know it has to do with the Gambler's Fallacy though.

Anyhow, you're right, I, er, we're wrong. And you're mean. :)
 
Arakhor said:
It's related to the Gamblers' Fallacy, where people think that percentages change based on previous occurrences. For instance, if I flip a fair coin 10 times and get heads 10 times, the chance of getting an 11th head is still only 50%, even if the chance of 11 heads in succession before you start is 2048 to 1.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I'm glad someone else here know some statistics too. Anyways, can we please get back on topic. If a mod ever sees this thread...:lol:
 
Zappara, just a heads up, a new UP was released, and fixes the national wonder limit bug and the weird -:mad: bugs in the civic screen.
 
When the 2.8 final will be released?
probably has already been written somewhere in this thread, but it's so long that cannot find it.
I have some crash problems with the Beta.
 
Aenarion said:
When the 2.8 final will be released?
probably has already been written somewhere in this thread, but it's so long that cannot find it.
I have some crash problems with the Beta.
Click to expand...

2.8 will be released after the next RevDCM is released. The next RevDCM will be released in a week or two.
 
scribbler said:
Hah, got one better. Back in '96 or so I wrote a QBasic memory game in high school with a half-decent (ie. half-assed) GUI but a bunch of manga babes on the cards :mischief: Thank God I had a friend that got me that image load code off the nets. And I even managed to get it in under 1000 lines of code with a bit of finagling. :king:
Click to expand...

hell no, i am going to be king of OFF TOPIC -- damn you statistical debaters! :scan:

in BasicA/GWBasic me and my brother wrote a complete Car Wars (Steve Jackson Games) game. it included random encounter vehicles and expanded into a basic basic graphic of driving down the road.

-- this is the segue into the statistical argument off topic posts --

statistically, the best thing [this also comes from the AD&D world] about random "die rolls"? is that old 00 roll... nothing beats a GWBasic table based on a randnum that generates a 00 result and goes into a subtable (e.g. gosub/goto)...

long live the 1% effect... :king: and subsequent subtables...

oh, on a side not that is on topic, when 3 of us played RoM on DirectIP we find that we get OOS errors when we are all on the same team and not when we play independently... when individualized the game runs without any OOS problems.
 
Crud, you mean I have to wait two weeks to play Version 2.8? Mostly because Zappara has to not upload it to some server besides useless AtomicGamer which I can't download from. :(

And why wait on RevDCM anyway? BAH! Another reason why I hate Revolutions.
 
DavidB1111 said:
Crud, you mean I have to wait two weeks to play Version 2.8? Mostly because Zappara has to not upload it to some server besides useless AtomicGamer which I can't download from. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, we should really start distributing RoM (and the ModMods) by torrents, it's much better in my opinion for temporary solutions (like RoM 2.8 without new Rev), as it serves the scene faster and continually - in combination with a IRC #RiseOfMankind that could be perfect.
 
That's a good idea. I like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SeBounart
Do you think a post-modern era could be added to the game?
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
5K
reddishrecue
reddishrecue
M
Eras Expanded instead of new ones
Replies
8
Views
769
luca 83
luca 83
H
Custom music folder troubleshooting
Replies
1
Views
461
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
G
Civ VII difficulty/boredom?
Replies
9
Views
791
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
Praetyre
Praetyre's Ultimate Musical Experience (PUME) [Work In Progress]
Replies
1
Views
150
Praetyre
Praetyre
Back
Top Bottom