@The Duke of Ben
The luck system and the round up system are 2 totally different things. Luck is just how much the deviation can be. That is done with a random number. Round up is just the chance of rounding up, again here is used a random number. Kinda same thing, but totally different objective. We don't really make it complex, cause only thing we do is add more random numbers and take the average of those numbers. There isn't much going on, but calculating it out requires a bit of probability study. Also, my suggestion works. Isn't that the main thing. Easy to program, handy to adjust and works good in gameplay.

Currently, the rounding system acts as if there is 100% luck present for any calculation that involves rounding numbers. All I am suggesting is to be able to change the luck for that rounded figure. I realize that they are not the same function.

How would you go about adjusting it? I'm not the best at math, but from what I can see, you are talking about changing how the background calculations work in a permanent fashion, not on a game to game fashion. If you are talking about making it available for game creators to adjust, then you just lost 90% of the players, because they have no idea what variables to put where in any of the calculations presented so far.

While there is nothing mutually exclusive about my idea and yours, Fizzer has mentioned before that he doesn't want to change any of the factors present in the single player games, which means no coding changes to how losses are calculated. That's the main reason that I offered an alternative to your system. The math can work the same as it does now, but with an added feature of being able to affect the rounded numbers in Member created games.

Monkey wrote:

You really need to exclude 0 from the random numbers

Isn't that a rather technical issue? Last I checked, the uniform distribution on the interval [0..1] has a zero chance of returning zero anyway. :p

Kingu wrote:

What the Wiki states is blatantly wrong. One army IS very significant in a lot of cases, especially with low luck settings. Even stronger: at 16% luck the random rounding is the dominant factor with small army attacks, not the luck factor itself!

What the Wiki states is that the "weighted rounding" exists to make sure every army matters, how is that at odds with "one army IS very significant"...!? If you were to switch to "normal rounding", then you get situations where extra armies don't matter. And, as far as I care, there's a pretty big difference between micromanaging "where to use my armies (because I never have quite enough of them)" and "which exact number of attackers should I use (to exploit the rounding mechanism)".

(@Duke of Ben: See Monkey's post directly above mine. Apart from me still wondering whether I like this suggestion, I completely agree with him.)

Hureuy wrote:

First off, my (user)name is Huruey, not apex. Apex is the name of my team/clan/group.

Then put it on square brackets already. ;)

First off, the 1 army from the luck is very significant. This 1 army can reduce the fun of the game.

There's nothing you can do about this (apart from playing with 0% luck and implementing Monkey's suggestion (and turning the slider to "infinitely many random numbers"). In every other case, you will always have one army which could go either way.

Firstly, it would be useful in order to have your troops finish in positions which will be useful on the next turn.

Oh come one, it obviously means it doesn't give you an attack advance (so you might as well deploy that reinforcement somewhere else). Sure, if there's already enough attackers (or you have absolutely no other place to deploy them to) then you might as well use all of them in the attack. But that's the same as saying a 101-vs-1 attack gives you an advantage over a 100-vs-1 attack; sure, it's an advantage if you consider the entire state of the game, but it's not an advantage in the attack itself.

I think a key issue with the current solution as described in the wiki is that it seems to assume that only a single global rounding function must be used exclusively. (..) However, is see no reason why players shouldn't be allowed to have the option to create a game with a deterministic rounding function.

The way I read the Wiki it only explains how the system works and why it works. I don't see any claim it's the only possible system which could work... Also, Monkey is proposing a tunable system, which can go all the way from the current situation to the (in my opinion broken) situation of "normal rounding".

The Duke of Ben wrote:

Currently, the rounding system acts as if there is 100% luck present for any calculation that involves rounding numbers. All I am suggesting is to be able to change the luck for that rounded figure. I realize that they are not the same function.

That's also what Monkey is proposing... (Well, technically Monkey's solution (for a finite number of random variables) is still 100% random, in the sense that the "decision" is entirely based on randomisation. However, it does address your issues with the current system.)

How would you go about adjusting it? I'm not the best at math, but from what I can see, you are talking about changing how the background calculations work in a permanent fashion, not on a game to game fashion. If you are talking about making it available for game creators to adjust, then you just lost 90% of the players, because they have no idea what variables to put where in any of the calculations presented so far.

The mathematical solution proposed by Monkey could be used either to change the settings for each game (Fizzer chosen a variable and uses that for all games) or to allow players to choose it themselves. What gets implemented depends on what people vote on UserVoice and what Fizzer thinks himself of course.

While there is nothing mutually exclusive about my idea and yours, Fizzer has mentioned before that he doesn't want to change any of the factors present in the single player games, which means no coding changes to how losses are calculated. That's the main reason that I offered an alternative to your system. The math can work the same as it does now, but with an added feature of being able to affect the rounded numbers in Member created games.

Huh?? At least Monkey's approach lets people change it gradually (like luck factor, and offence/defence kill rates), you propose two entirely different systems people have to choose from (like whether or not multi-attack is on). However, both proposals allow people (or, single-player templates) to choose the current setting, so on that count, it doesn't matter at all. Also, I see no particular reason why this should become a members-only feature...?

but since it's only one army it's not too significant

This is the part of the Wiki's explanation I'm referring to, not what you mention.

I understand the argument against using deterministic rounding. In most cases, you'd just want to use the minimum amount of armies needed to guarantee a takeover, so you'd try to calculate it in such a way that you just make it round up. But this argument kind of falls apart when you consider that at 'normal', or 75% luck, the luck factor dominates so much that you cannot play on just making the rounding or not. For casual play, the rounding is just swamped by it, so players will hardly notice it.

The place where the rounding is dominant, however, is in competitive low-luck play. Here, games are ideally won through superior skill instead of randomness. You need this if you ever want a truly competitive metagame. Here you can assume that both players are highly competent and have their micromanagement skills 'down to a t'. And a possible exploit here isn't an exploit anymore if both players are completely aware of it and use it. It just becomes integrated in the metagame and players handle accordingly. Moreover, in cases of doubt, one can just check with the analyzer tool, which eliminates the need of a calculator as losses can be entirely determined from the graph.

So yeah, in short the luck factor does a pretty brilliant job of separating casual and competitive play, and it counters the 'deterministic rounding exploit' quite perfectly. Your exploit just becomes one of the 'rules of the metagame' someone would need to understand to become a top player. There is nothing wrong with that.

And, to add on your latest post, the reason I would personally propose it to be a member-only feature is precisely because it's closely tied with the luck factor. A rounding slider wouldn't have very much of an effect if the luck modifier isn't changed accordingly. To avoid confusion and needlessly complicate the interface, I'd lock it for non-members.

but since it's only one army it's not too significant

I thought you meant a one army difference in the number of attackers.

this argument kind of falls apart when you consider that at 'normal', or 75% luck, the luck factor dominates so much that you cannot play on just making the rounding or not

But you can still calculate how many armies you need when the 75% luck part of the equation "is against you".

a possible exploit here isn't an exploit anymore if both players are completely aware of it and use it.

But then people have to (partially) relearn the game once they switch from casual play to highly competitive play...

in cases of doubt, one can just check with the analyzer tool, which eliminates the need of a calculator as losses can be entirely determined from the graph.

Except that the analyser is not perfect either...

the reason I would personally propose it to be a member-only feature

Ah okay, that makes a lot of sense, good point.

. >There's nothing you can do about this (apart from playing with 0% luck and implementing Monkey's suggestion (and turning the slider to "infinitely many random numbers"). In every other case, you will always have one army which could go either way.

The whole point I, and others, are making with the deterministic solution is that you CAN do something about it, i.e. allow for the use of a deterministic rounding function. :P

. >Oh come one, it obviously means it doesn't give you an attack advance (so you might as well deploy that reinforcement somewhere else). Sure, if there's already enough attackers (or you have absolutely no other place to deploy them to) then you might as well use all of them in the attack. But that's the same as saying a 101-vs-1 attack gives you an advantage over a 100-vs-1 attack; sure, it's an advantage if you consider the entire state of the game, but it's not an advantage in the attack itself.

Maybe you don't yet understand the significance of having your spares well placed. The wiki suggested that an attack of 4 would NEVER be required. I offered a situation in which it could in fact be very useful. It doesn't matter if its an "advantage on the attack itself", its a situation in which making an attack of 4 is better than making an attack of 3, and that is all that matters.

. >The way I read the Wiki it only explains how the system works and why it works. I don't see any claim it's the only possible system which could work... Also, Monkey is proposing a tunable system, which can go all the way from the current situation to the (in my opinion broken) situation of "normal rounding".

The wiki presents the two functions the (random rounding and straight rounding) as alternatives. In the same paragraph it suggests that the random function is important because the deterministic function has problems. To make such a case assumes that there must be mutual exclusivity in their implementation, because if they could coexist, then you cannot use a disadvantage of one to justy the use of another.

Maybe you don't yet understand the significance of having your spares well placed. The wiki suggested that an attack of 4 would NEVER be required.

the point is that the advantage of having a 4v2 over a 3v2 is the same relative advantage as having an 8v2.. you are only placing the extra armies in anticipation of future attacks, or in anticipation of an enemy attack.. for pure expansion, examples being with no fog/light fog, or good use of intel cards, you would use almost entirely 3v2, because using 3 4v2's would mean that you are not expanding in one direction that you could be despite having a 100% chance of success since 3v2 with 16% luck deal a minimum of 1.512.. and the fact of expanding slower is the exact reason people use 3v2's now despite the chance of failure, to out-grow their opponents..

RvW wrote:

But then people have to (partially) relearn the game once they switch from casual play to highly competitive play...

But that's already what you have to do. 16% luck, the standard for competitive play, completely changes the battlefield already. There are different 'rules' about expanding, attacking and defending. You need to understand the subtleties of cycle order (if used), the pick order algorithm, etcetera. A lot of things that are not much of an issue in casual games matter a great deal competitively. But that's the case for every game.

You can play through every single Pokémon game without ever learning about EVs, IVs, natures and whatnot, but if you want to play it competitively PvP those are among the first things you need to know. Familiarity with the mechanics is a requirement for becoming a competitive player, simple as that.

The whole point I, and others, are making with the deterministic solution is that you CAN do something about it, i.e. allow for the use of a deterministic rounding function. :P

Only in combination with 0% luck (if you only ever use low numbers of armies a few percent of luck would also work). Even with deterministic rounding, at some point you'll need to have a "cut-off" between rounding up or rounding down. You can put it anywhere you want, but unless you use 0% luck, the attack might still end up killing either just below or just above that cut-off point.

Do keep in mind that if you do this, it might be possible (I don't have a proof or example, just a gut instinct and not nearly enough motivation to look for an example :p ) that you could "trick" the average offence kill ratio to be higher than the average defence kill ratio. (This is most likely to be possible when you mainly perform attacks with very low numbers of armies.) This also seems undesirable.

Maybe you don't yet understand the significance of having your spares well placed.

I was trying to explain it wasn't talking about any other considerations, only about the chance of a successful attack. And in that case, the difference between 3vs2 and 4vs2 is the same as between 3vs2 and 3000vs2: none at all.

The wiki presents the two functions the (random rounding and straight rounding) as alternatives. In the same paragraph it suggests that the random function is important because the deterministic function has problems. To make such a case assumes that there must be mutual exclusivity in their implementation, because if they could coexist, then you cannot use a disadvantage of one to justy the use of another.

The Wiki is not proposing Monkey's solution, Monkey is! I agree with the Wiki that straight rounding has downsides. I also think Monkey's alternative has those same downsides (albeit less severe, since in a very real way it's a compromise between the current system and straight-rounding).

Okay, so if we take the parameter of Monkey's approach and set it to 1, we have the current situation. If we set it very high it becomes very close to straight rounding (in fact, if we'd set it at positive infinity, it actually is straight rounding). But since it kind of make a whole lot of sense that properties change when a parameter changes, I fail to see how this would imply a "mutual exclusivity in their implementation" (to be fair though, I'm not entirely sure what that even is...).

And maybe the most important point:

Even though I don't like Monkey's solution, disagree the situation he wants to solve is a problem in the first place and am unlikely to use this even if it were implemented,
I do think his mathematics checks out, it would solve the "problem" (if you think there is one) and it is probably feasible to implement.

I may not like Monkey's idea, but I do not think it's a bad idea (which is an entirely different and near-unrelated matter).

If you go back, you will notice that once I correctly understood what Monkey is proposing (this post), I stopped objecting to it, even pointing out that the option to use a parameter to keep the current situation is a good thing. (Just about everything I posted in this thread after that is to explain the Wiki is not "blatantly wrong".)

@Kingu, regarding partially relearning the game:
You do have a point. However, unless there's a very good reason (and we seem to disagree whether this is) I think it would be better if there were as few of those "subtle changes with considerable impact" as possible.

Another thing we seem to disagree about is the need to eliminate every last bit of luck from the game. Sure, there are games which get very, very close to removing luck from the game (chess and go come to mind, where only "who plays the first move" remains), but many other games and sports don't even attempt to "outlaw" the luck factor. Any game involving dice (like, to take a not-so-random example, Risk) by definition relies at least in part on luck. Any realtime computer game (both shoot-em-ups and RTS) cannot possibly remove chance from the game (even if it was just because of variations in packet delay on the network, or the chance of a disconnect occurring in a situation where some people think one of the players had practically lost, while other people think he still had a realistic chance).

Do keep in mind that if you do this, it might be possible (I don't have a proof or example, just a gut instinct and not nearly enough motivation to look for an example :p ) that you could "trick" the average offence kill ratio to be higher than the average defence kill ratio. (This is most likely to be possible when you mainly perform attacks with very low numbers of armies.) This also seems undesirable.

I don't think so. The best case scenario is pretty much a 1v2 attack, which would then guarantee 1 kill on either side. The 0.6 ratio of the attack rounds up while the 1.4 kills of the defence rounds down. That's the biggest abuseable I see here: keep throwing armies of 1 at a defending stack to whittle it down. Effectively, you'd "trick" the offensive ratio to be 1. Of course 1v1 becomes an impossibility, so in the end you'd still have to attack 2v1 in order to take a territory, but it would be an efficient way of weakening a defensive stack before throwing your main stack at it. You would need fewer armies to take a territory that way.

Example: A territory with a defensive stack of 11 would need at least a stack of 18 attackers to fall (10.8 kills). However, if you would attack with 1 beforehand from an adjacent territory, you would guarantee 1 enemy kill, turning it into a stack of 10. But this stack only needs 16 attackers to fall (9.6 kills). So effectively it takes one less army to take that territory than you'd expect. The losses are in both cases 7.7 armies (8 after rounding), so there is no downside for the attacker. Perhaps this is the exploit your gut instinct warns you about :P

And @RvW, regarding your latest post: I do not feel that there is a need to eliminate luck from the game completely. I fully acknowledge that it is just not possible, and that at the start you'd need to make two coinflips anyway (one for determining pick order, a second for starting the cycle round). Moreover, even then there is luck involved that isn't part of the game engine: luck in correctly predicting the enemies' movements and correctly countering them. You can 'read' your opponents to some degree (even moreso if you have played against them previously, or by looking at previous games they've played in a tournament), but you can never be certain he's going to do what you have prepared for. Whether you classify this as 'luck' or not is a rather murky philosophical point I'd rather not discuss, but even I will from time to time flip a coin when I have to choose between two options. For instance, when I can break an enemy bonus by attacking one of two territories in that bonus I can reach. Both are equally valid but my opponent can only defend one of two successfully. In such a case I will often just flip a coin. The random decision has the added benefit of making myself unable to be completely 'read' by the enemy.

But I digress. My point is: I am not arguing for completely removing luck. If that's the idea you got from my posts, my bad. The only problem I have with it right now is just the fact that the random rounding has a pretty big impact on early-game expansion speed, and can be potentially decide competitive games on luck alone. And that is something it may never do. Game results may be impacted by luck, but not be dominated by it. It's very frustrating to lose a pefectly symmetrical game by turn 3 just because you have a string of max losses while your opponent has minimal deaths. Such results are undesirable if you want to have an interesting competitive scene for your game, since the outcome of that game was completely beyond the player's control. And I do feel that Monkey's suggestion is on the right track of lessening the chances of this occuring immensely, which is why I am arguing in favour of it.