MVP7 wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:34 pm
The 60 chip system wouldn't have much effect outside of situations that are already extremely rare. It would be placebo more than anything. Even if such system prevented some unlucky series of events (with no-one paying attention of course), those would still happen occasionally and feel just as unfair.
Well, the "60 chips" was just used to illustrate the method. It could equally be 30 chips or 90. You would have to know how many die rolls there were in particular types of battle and how many rolls should occur before "the bag" was filled up again. The merit of it would be to suppress the possibility of the RNG favouring one side over the other but, yes, it would not remove the problem entirely because that is an impossibility to achieve. No-one is asking for a game with no RNG effects.
Again, I don't accept that what we might term as "RNG events" are extremely rare in certain types of battle. If you look at my first 10 sets of the sample I did yesterday, you can see that in 8 of these sets there were clusters of "red results" that potentially could be decisive in a match. And yes, I do understand that the RNG is performing exactly as it should be, and that we are using data from a war band match-up that is among the most volatile in the game.
.* indicates a combat where the cohesion test was passed
Set 1 - F . D . . .* . D . F D (6 red results in 11 rolls, RNG neutral)
Set 2 - F . D D D . . D . .* D . F (8 red results in 13 rolls, RNG neutral)
Set 3 - F . . F . D . F (4 red results in 8 rolls, RNG biased)
Set 4 - F . . D . . .* D . . D D . .* F .* (9 red results in 16 rolls, RNG neutral)
Set 6 - F F . . . F (3 red results in 6 rolls, RNG biased)
Set 8 - D .* . D F . . .* (5 red results in 8 rolls, RNG biased)
Set 9 - .* . F . * . D (4 red results in 6 rolls, RNG neutral)
Set 10 - D . D . .* F D . F .* .* . . F D (10 red results in 15 rolls, RNG neutral)
Obviously to get a fuller picture you would need to do similar trials for the other main troop types in the game, particularly other shock troops, because these war band results will be at the top end of the range.
It's much more effective to recognize gambler's fallacy and hindsight bias in your own thinking and start looking at the various probabilities as the independent events that they are.
I don't think that I am particularly afflicted with either of these two modes of thinking. My point has always been that the "various probabilities" can mitigate, or sometimes overwhelm, the skill element in the game. It has always been a question of balance.
In addition to reserves, flanking is one good way for mitigating the effect of RNG as the cohesion drop is always certain.
That might work in single-player. You rarely will get a chance to maintain a reserve and deploy a flanking force in multi-player (unless you have a RNG event in your favour at the start of the battle)