The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[Geffalrus]

How does one have even distribution of chance without it seeming really artificial? How can the game truly determine what is crucial and what is not? You could say a double drop in cohesion, but if that happens to a unit alone in the open it's not nearly as crucial as it is when it's in a key part of your battle line. And what counts as a key part of your battle line is very subjective.

A lot of what we view as good luck and bad luck is as much a matter of perception, something that I am plenty guilty of indulging. Just ask devoncop how many times I carp about bad rolls during games. I get very salty. Sometimes those games end in a loss. Sometimes they end in a win. Any of the things I listed can decide a game.........or they might not matter at all. Or they might have the opposite effect if they cause the enemy to become overconfident or reckless. Battles are weird chaotic things that seem very different to either of the two opposing sides. Something I didn't fully understand until I compared battle notes with a friend after a battle. What I viewed as a close contest seemed like a forgone conclusion to him.

[paulmcneil]

How does one have even distribution of chance without it seeming really artificial?

by adjusting the chance factor for specific events to make sure there aren't fat tails of probability, specifically for double drops (which I would get rid of altogether) and rallies from rout, so that the distribution of probable outcomes is narrower.

[MikeMarchant]

Not sure I agree that unlikely events are happening in FoG2 more often than on the historical battlefield. Unreasonable panic and confusion were ever present.

Actually, having given this some thought, although luck has always played a part on the real battlefield, throughout history, I can't help thinking that if luck played as big a part on the real battlefield as it does in FoG, there'd have been no Alexanders, no Julius Caesars, no Napoleons... (I'm sure the list is really quite long).


Best Wishes

Mike

[Geffalrus]

Actually, having given this some thought, although luck has always played a part on the real battlefield, throughout history, I can't help thinking that if luck played as big a part on the real battlefield as it does in FoG, there'd have been no Alexanders, no Julius Caesars, no Napoleons... (I'm sure the list is really quite long).


Best Wishes

Mike

I mean, how statistically common were Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon? Does not their relative rarity speak to how difficult it is to beat the odds?

That being said, their success was due to a LOT more than just their own characteristics. Developed armies, talented subordinates, vulnerable enemies, etc. The matches we fight in FoG2 are very, very artificially balanced. In reality, things would have been much more uneven.

[General Shapur]

Some things that could work.

How about one combat re-roll per general. That could eliminate some of the offensive miss-rolls.

On the receiving end; maybe units stacked with a general can be exempt from double drops - presumably the general would be in a key position in the line.

Rally issues - must be in the range of a general to rally

[Karvon]

Difference of perception is a very good point. I can remember more than one game where my opponent or I thought the other was winning and then things swung the other way for one reason or another. Sometimes it was a mistaken or overlooked move, sometimes it was one, or more, of the possible random factors mentioned earlier.

In the more extreme cases, I've had players simply surrender when they thought they'd lost, even though most of their army was still intact. Thus, psychologically attacking your opponent by your deployment, redeployment and/or early initial successes and pressure them into making bad moves or create a hypnotic effect where they mostly sit and watch your plan unfold to their detriment.

Karvon

[devoncop]

For those who are so convinced there is so much RNG weirdness it unbalanced the game.....

How come the best players still end up winning in each Division every season ?

Just a thought.....

[MikeMarchant]

Actually, having given this some thought, although luck has always played a part on the real battlefield, throughout history, I can't help thinking that if luck played as big a part on the real battlefield as it does in FoG, there'd have been no Alexanders, no Julius Caesars, no Napoleons... (I'm sure the list is really quite long).


Best Wishes

Mike

I mean, how statistically common were Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon? Does not their relative rarity speak to how difficult it is to beat the odds?

That being said, their success was due to a LOT more than just their own characteristics. Developed armies, talented subordinates, vulnerable enemies, etc. The matches we fight in FoG2 are very, very artificially balanced. In reality, things would have been much more uneven.

Absolutely right, Geffalrus, most of a great general's success is not a function of the things modelled on a FoG battlefield. None of the politics, diplomacy, inspired leadership, mastery of logisitcs, grand strategy and much, much else, falls within FoG's domain, but does shape success in historical (and modenr) warfare. This is not a criticsim of FoG; FoG is not attmepting to model those things.

FoG is artificially balanced, and the names I mentioned often fought battles while hugely outnumbered, even if their armies might have been superior in other ways. I am not so sure that they're very rare, though. The three I picked stand out for the empires they created (If I can use that descritpion for Caesar). In terms of pure generalship (politics aside) there are many who have outsanding records on the battlefield, with few, if any losses. They're just not so famous.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

For those who are so convinced there is so much RNG weirdness it unbalanced the game.....

How come the best players still end up winning in each Division every season ?

Just a thought.....

A very tired old thought.

The best players win more often because they are the best players. Obviously. But that doesn't mean that the RNG does not decide a significant percentage of matches, particularly between players of a similar skill level.

[devoncop]

And it evens out.....

So much like a cup game in a one off contest unlucky rallies by an opponent may tip the scales but over the course of a season the position of the players in each Division will be about right .

I honestly think some folk do maybe need to be more phlegmatic about a unit that rallies or double breaks inconveniently .....they don't do this if there is a zero % chance of it happening. The reason that there is a small chance of it happening is because of factors a player has some degree of control over.

If you don't want a routed unit to rally charge it with some cheap light horse...if you don't have any it is because you either chose not to get any at the start of the battle, have lost them during the battle of picked an army without any......All your own choices....

I play with a Jewish revolt army and accept they have no useful cavalry or much that can stand up to anything decent in the open....

[Geffalrus]

But that doesn't mean that the RNG does not decide a significant percentage of matches, particularly between players of a similar skill level.

But what else could and should decide matches between players of similar skill level? As you approach absolute skill parity, the more important other factors become. Is one side more stressed than the other and thus doesn't spend as much time thinking through their moves? Is the map generation more suited to one person's play style than the other. Does the initial clash go in one person's favor resulting in a snowball effect? Small disparities can turn into big disparities even in the most balanced of games. Just look at high level play in Starcraft 2 for pete's sake. One person gets a 2 drone lead and that leads to ultimate victory.

Everyone here has gotten the short end of the RNG stick. It's a sucky experience. But to a certain extent, that's part of the game. So long as people aren't using illicit means to manipulate luck to their advantage, it seems to me that swings of fortune in battle are more authentic than overly predictable outcomes. I say this as someone who gets a big sad face when my 96 point veteran pikes attack a 30 point Irregular Foot and roll Indecisive for 5 rounds of combat.

Also, let's raise a glass to Light Horse. Just a fantastic unit for dealing with Fragmented units at every point during a battle.

[stockwellpete]

And it evens out.....

So much like a cup game in a one off contest unlucky rallies by an opponent may tip the scales but over the course of a season the position of the players in each Division will be about right .

Well, you are arguing against your own position now. I don't think anyone is arguing that some players are lucky and others are unlucky and that this affects the standings in the league tables to any great extent. More it is the case that RNG can spoil some matches so the game overall is less enjoyable than it might be. And do some players stop playing because of this? Yes, they do. And are sales of DLC's affected by this? Yes, they are. The only thing we don't know is to what extent these things are happening, but I would suggest that the turnover in players participating in the FOG2DL since Season 1 is far from negligible.

[stockwellpete]

But what else could and should decide matches between players of similar skill level?

What about skill deciding a greater proportion of matches than happens right now? What about having a greater proportion of matches where both sides fight each other to a standstill and both bust 60% losses?

[devoncop]

Establishing cause and effect is horrendously difficult.

As you can tell I have no problem at all with the RNG aspect of the game yet this season will be my last in the League due to structural changes in the way it is organised. (Many folks will love them or not be bothered either way so I wouldn't claim to be representing anyone but myself on this issue) but my point is that if a player decides not to return to the League to ascribe this as being down to issues with RNG is maybe more an example of confirmation bias.......

You may be 100% correct but there is no way of ever knowing.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I, too have absolutely no problem with the level of rng in game, and would resist the introduction of greater predictability. A large part of the fun for me is trying to plan for or deal with the unexpected.

[Karvon]

I, too have absolutely no problem with the level of rng in game, and would resist the introduction of greater predictability. A large part of the fun for me is trying to plan for or deal with the unexpected.

A very good point. Dealing with disaster is a fundimental function of generalship. Reserves, pre-planned rally points and plan B's are all elements helpful in containing such fiascos.

[rbodleyscott]

For those who are so convinced there is so much RNG weirdness it unbalanced the game.....

How come the best players still end up winning in each Division every season ?

Just a thought.....

A very tired old thought.

The best players win more often because they are the best players. Obviously. But that doesn't mean that the RNG does not decide a significant percentage of matches, particularly between players of a similar skill level.

The % of battles being "decided by the RNG" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I, too have absolutely no problem with the level of rng in game, and would resist the introduction of greater predictability. A large part of the fun for me is trying to plan for or deal with the unexpected.

A very good point. Dealing with disaster is a fundimental function of generalship. Reserves, pre-planned rally points and plan B's are all elements helpful in containing such fiascos.

Exactly.

[stockwellpete]

The % of battles being "decided by the RNG" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

So what is the percentage then?

[rbodleyscott]

The % of battles being "decided by the RNG" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

So what is the percentage then?

As I say, it is in the eye of the beholder.

In my view (and that of many others) it is extremely small, you and the rest of the "too much RNG" lobby, of course, disagree.

Both these views are of course genuinely held. Someone must be wrong.

[stockwellpete]

As I say, it is in the eye of the beholder.

In my view (and that of many others) it is extremely small, you and the rest of the "too much RNG" lobby, of course, disagree.

Both these views are of course genuinely held. Someone must be wrong.

OK. I asked the question because if anyone knows the answer then it would be you. So now we know no-one knows, but most of us accept that RNG does affect a certain proportion of matches. Some of us would also say that some players stop playing (partly or wholly) as a result of this randomness because we all have different tolerance levels for this sort of thing. I for one have stopped playing, apart from testing my scenarios. And, of course, other players stop playing for completely different reasons, not least because there are so many other wonderful games being released each year (FOG Empires seems to be such a game even though I am unlikely to purchase it).

But the pertinent question as far as I am concerned is in relation to paulmcneil's excellent point . . . "The random factors need to be toned down, so that chance operates around the edges of the game, rather than being the core of the outcome" . . . is whether some sort of adjustment in this direction would help to retain rather more players than it would cause new players to leave.