Don't trust the odds (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire



Message

MtnPatriot -> Don't trust the odds (7/18/2020 7:41:11 AM)

I'm a relative newbie to the game, so I've been savescumming a bit. If that bothers you in regards to a single player game, save me the hate and find another thread.

Anyways, I've found that I don't really trust the odds presented. I know, I know, small sample size, statistics, I'm aware. Hence the post.

Situation: wanna get some spies in my nearest major. Odds as presented: 105 vs 1d100+20. Tough, right, but possible. 21-120 vs 105. How many tries to get 106(86),right? Still to be determined.

I haven't counted the tries yet, but it's many dozens. Bad luck? Maybe, but I noticed something curious: One number keeps popping up. I've gotten precisely 101 many times, but nothing over.

Despite the presented odds, I think this action is impossible. When you get 101 as the highest adjusted roll, 2 out of 10 tries, across many dozen tries, something hidden is at play, capping the roll. Makes me wonder what other hidden caps are present, and more importantly, why are they hidden?



Malevolence -> RE: Don't trust the odds (7/18/2020 8:56:12 AM)

For reference, https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4840556

In any event, I wouldn't attribute to malice what is more likely an interface and reporting problem.

Maybe put in a bug report and offer the savegame.



lloydster4 -> RE: Don't trust the odds (7/18/2020 5:05:19 PM)

What is your relation score with the person making the roll?



MtnPatriot -> RE: Don't trust the odds (7/18/2020 6:43:12 PM)

Thanks for the link. Interesting read, but I'm still not clear on what's giving the observed results. And no thoughts of malice at play, moreso an oversight on the way +/- adjustments are applied to the roll vs how it is presented to the player.

As for relation: 99. Mr Sidewalker was just appointed, so he loves me right now. However, despite decent potential, he is green as a grassy lawn. His CovOp score is precisely zero. Is this score responsible for a penalty that isn't being factored in to the tooltip?



Malevolence -> RE: Don't trust the odds (7/18/2020 7:31:17 PM)

To avoid repeating myself regarding the details -- please, see this thread...

[1.04b8] Grand Convention critical success do not applied to relationships



demiare -> RE: Don't trust the odds (7/19/2020 10:24:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MtnPatriot

Thanks for the link. Interesting read, but I'm still not clear on what's giving the observed results.


Random isn't pure, it's weighted AND limited by your relationship with leader. So great relationship - you could expect near top rolls. Bad relationship - only natural 1 [:D] (I'm exaggerating here ofk).

In your initial example seems that relationship with leader set a max roll result limit to 81. How much your relationship was? Around 70?

Personally I dislike this system a lot as it's work is completely obscure to player (and it's funny to have a protection from too lucky rolls with stratagems while initial starting location is pure random and could lead to losing game in few turns), but forced to deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MtnPatriot

As for relation: 99. Mr Sidewalker was just appointed, so he loves me right now. However, despite decent potential, he is green as a grassy lawn. His CovOp score is precisely zero. Is this score responsible for a penalty that isn't being factored in to the tooltip?


No, skills are completely included in tooltip and work as plain bonus +X to result of roll.



MtnPatriot -> RE: Don't trust the odds (7/19/2020 4:33:33 PM)

My initial example is the only example given and the relation score is 99 as seen in the second quote. He had just been appointed during previous turn, so not sure if that has some impact.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375