It's just as basic RNG script that simulates a d10. Just pure chance.Īnd the thing is.the algorithim used is the same for BOTH the ai and the player, so it doesn't matter if the algorithim is flawed it's still being applied equally and you're just having bad luck. No algorithrims to blame, no cheating Ai to be there. I can roll a physical dice 100 times and still get ♥♥♥♥ results, and there's no fault there but pure chance. Originally posted by kaiyl_kariashi:100 battles is nothing and is a joke of sample size to even make a remote claim of something being wrong. which has always existed (but ♥♥♥♥ does happen so i havent been too upset about it) and it seems to have gotten worse after this latest patch. this coupled with the negative modifiers that i usually exploit indicates a flaw in the RNG logic. my point earlier (which i think you caught) was that out of 100 battles the AI had a +400 point advantage (cumulitive) on the rolls. I feel that 100 rolls is a decent sample even though statisticly 1,000 is the base sample size for credability. If I tossed a coin 100 times and didnt get a single heads, would you call that sample a joke? I am not a statistician, I was never that interested in it, but I recall using even fewer than 100 observations to make a statement like "based on the data and using 5% significance level we reject the hypothesis that the random variable follows normal distribution bla bla" Originally posted by ancistrus:The point I was trying to make is that 100 rolls actually might be a decent sample, provided that the observations are sufficiently different from what you would expect. Handling criticism doesn't seem to be your strongest suit either. That's what you get for starting a thread based on a hunch. You might also get more well-grounded responses. I recommend you to open a thread over at Paradoxplaza too, since you have a better chance of catching the eyes of a developer there. Since we don't have access to the code we can't know for sure. The change you propose probably will worsen the situation though. Yes, the results of 100 battles don't prove anything. but this can easily be countered with - if player X rolls 3 0s in a row add a plus 2 and re-roll any zeros for 2 rolls or w/e along those lines.Īlso thanks for not answering the question and contributing nothing.Īnd thank you ancistrus ill check into that. its based on an algorithm, and if its flawed (which they all are, to varying degrees) the results will be skewed. so if i posted 100 battles and they showed the AI rolled 436 points above (cumulative, which would show about a 19% preferance for teh AI) my rolls that wouldnt mean anything to you smarties? you cant have random rolls with a program. Originally posted by moshpitkosh:ya ya figured that was the response id get from the normies. So my question is does anyone know if paradox is going to do anything about this or are they just going to say "thats life, AI needs bonuses to be competitive. but small little armies WILL charge in against 60k strong armies AFTER the battle ended (they dont have the little locks so they can turn around, they just choose not to) when the enemy fights their forces all come running. yet we cant win a single battle due to dice roles and of course the AI ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ around on the other side of the map FAAAAR away from where the enemy is (northern germany vs northern italy. my coalition is 50k men stronger (200k vs 150k). no plan survives encounter with the enemy blah,blah,blah. i had a +1 bonus on fire, they had a +1 bonus on charge. that crosssed a rivver and assaulted a mountain pass. thus 50k men defending a mountain pass were defeated by 20k. Meanwhile the AI rolled 9 7 6 7 5 8 7 7 6. my record (in the past 3 days) so far is rolling (and this counts for the whole 3 tick cycle) 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |