the way you said it was totally wrong. a certain instance cannot increase and decrease the chances of winning
I did not say it wrong; you confused a roll of the dice with the totality of victory or defeat. And of course discrete moments can affect the final outcome, it is the accumulation of them that decides the matter.
you have two buttons. one says: win 90%, lose 10%. other says: win 60% later, lose 40% later. which button do you press? which one?
This is still pointless. Why should it be 60/40, frex? You're cherrypicking an entirely self-serving scenario. Not that it even matters, because whatever choice here doesn't justify giving any player victory on a plate that they did not themselves achieve.
How on earth can you pretend to be arguing in favour of competitiveness if you want some sort of hippy moral "justice" to determine who wins, instead of play of the game?
Now we should have established what the better decision is....what i argue is, that such sitauations are so important in a game, that if risk is involved, the game is not competetive. you can point out as long as you want that it is risky, but that doesnt change that point that it is a good decision
This is pure sophistry, because you're still trying to redefine a decision that LOSES a game as being "good", for which reason the result should be "fixed" to produce the "correct" outcome. That's sheer nonsense.
LOL. you know, in 90% one wouldnt even notice pRNG ingame (if it is implemented well). do you think that 90% or your coh2 games are a "slide show of set pieces"????
This is your own scenario, and it's what I'm working with - however ludicrous it may be.
have you ever watched poker? each time the players get a hand, a win percentage shows up, which changes depending on the open cards. im talking about that. and no, there is "situation is not resolved" after a round of coh2, you either won or lost. your example does have another option, therefore it is absolutely not accurate.
You are clearly mistaken. What I said was that the RNG in CoH2 produces events in game that are mostly predictable but with some surprising ones. Among those result,s any given one among them may contribute variably to the final result, and specific choices made can easily have the effect of both winning the game in this particular mechanical resolution, or losing it in that resolution.
having a player lose, although he made the right decisions is bad game design. or at least not competetive game design
But they did not make the right decision. They made a reckless decision and paid the price.
so overall the player not diving is the worse player. he wins 50% of the time, while the other wins 90% of the time. i honestly dont know how you can still think that not basediving is the better option....
What I've been pointing out is that it is a RISKY decision. And that you cannot then complain if you take a risk and lose. That's what risk is. You keep trying to claim that merely because you consider the decision "good" it should therefore be guaranteed to succeed, but there is no reason that this should be so.
do you want a game where in ?10%? of the cases the clearly better player looses due to RNG?
Claiming they are the "better player" is relying on a fact not in evidence. The situation is that the player is confronted with a risk that they can choose to take, or not. If they are so afraid of the 10% chance of losing that they decide not to gamble, that is NOT a bad decision. It is a choice, and many players with different play styles, more or less aggression, will weight the options differently. That's a GOOD thing, and much more fun the pre-scripted outcomes you seem intent on imposing.
if yes, no point to argue with you anymore, as you have clearly no intent to make a game competetive, which pRNG is trying to achieve
I want games in which players can show off their courage, their grasp of circumstance, or their force-conserving caution, because this is more interesting, and more entertaining. I do not want to see the game reduced to a slide show of set pieces, as you seem to.
if ones has a 75% chance of winning, then one has a 25% chance of losing. the enemy then has a 75% chance of losing and 25% of winning. its PROBABILITY, so it IS A ZERO SUM GAME. probability always adds to 1, therefore if you lose percentage, the enemy gains the equal amount.
Your ignoring outcomes where "the situation is not resolved". We're discussing game mechanics here, not only win loss resolutions. I've given you a perfectly good example of a mechanic that allows both.
yes, i knew the risks. but it was the best decision i could make. if a game does not reward me for good decision, i can complain.
No, you can't. Because you "good" decision was to risk everything on one decision. To RISK everything on one decision. And that necessarily implies the possibility that you might lose.
it seems to me like you want a game where the worse players wins a significant amount of time. try hearthstone, it might be made for you.
Well even if that were true, it still wouldn't support your argument, because it would only confirm that there is a good sized audience for games with more chance in them than you happen to prefer.
However, that isn't true; because you could have played more cautiously, you could have preserved your units, you could have decided that the gamble wasn't worth it. And at some practical level, the abandonment mechanic is there precisely to punish players for making such overly ambitious thrusts, although we probably don't need to muddy the waters by getting into that.
My argument instead is that judging risk, stacking odds, etc, is part of what make a good player. There would be nothing wrong with a player look at that scenario and deciding that however tempting and juicy the bait, the 1-in-10 odds of losing everything are too bad. To have been willing to do it with another, expendable unit, if one had been available, but not the one they absolutely couldn't lose. I don't share your view that taking this chance should automatically be regarded as the best decision available. And therefore I do not share your view that this is a problem in need of fixing.
you either win or lose a round of coh2, therefore the sum of winning and losing is one. no point to argue here
Correct, but we were talking about the CHANCE of winning, which is not zero sum.
you are mixing up the chance of winning and the standart deviation. and btw, the situation i described does not broaden the standart deviation by too much, because bad results are so unlikely
No, I'm not. I invoked the standard deviation only in the context of specific outcomes, not of game win or loss.
you either dive him, win in 90% of the cases or dont dive him and win in 50% of the cases. do you dive him or not? you do
Fine, sure, as I've already agreed. What you DON'T do is cry that RNG must be "fixed" if the 10% case happens to come up and you lose. You knew the risks.
one increases the chance of winning and losing? dude, show me how that works and you will win a noble prize!!
This is not a hard concept. The probability of winning and that of losing are not necessarily a zero sum game, in many circumstances.
here's an easy example: roll 1d6, you win on 6 and lose on 1; reroll on anything else. You have an option to "Go Big Or Go Home"; if you choose to GBOGH, you win on a 5 or 6, but lose on a 1 or 2; you reroll on 3 or 4.
Thus, as you can see, it is quite possible to increase both the chance of winning, and the chance of losing, simultaneously.
And this is exactly what happens in the scenario you describe, in which a player risks the one unit they absolutely, positively, cannot afford to lose in the hopes of closing the game down here and now. It's a perfectly reasonable decision to make - but it does increase the chance of both winning, and losing too.
on a more serious note, it can only increase or decrease your chance (5th grade mathematics) and this specific call increases it.
Clearly 5th grade math isn't adequate for the task. At a more advanced level, there are a whole bunch of effects that can flatten a distribution curve, thus making both top end and bottom end outcomes more likely.
please, dont talk about universe or courage or that shit, it really doesnt help making a clear point
I'm afraid these are quite relevant concepts. This is a game played for the joy of competition, in large part - and that requires that the risks be real, so that people can claim the kudos due for mastering them. That is quite literally a huge chunk of the reason people play: bragging rights.
now, i agree that RNG can make a game more interesting, but good game design makes it that the better player still wins because he adapts better. now in such a case there are way too few possibilites to adapt, therefore one has to cut the amount of RNG involved
In the particular scenario you proposed, sure, there is no opportunity to recover - because you specified that if they lost that unit, they also lost the game. That's a very good reason to NOT take such a risk.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
a call you make that increases your chance of winning is a good call.
But you don't want to increase your CHANCE of winning, you want it to GUARANTEE winning. Otherwise you should be able to accept that the gamble may not pay off. That's what chance means.
And no, it's still not a good call. You increased your chance of winning, and also your chance of losing. Well guess what, shit happens sometimes. The universe doesn't owe you success. You can take the risk, and show your courage, but I see no reason you should have any right to expect the outcome be assured for you.
and btw, that adage is often very wrong. if you are on the losing side and you play safe, most often you dont have a chance of winning. a gamble is the only option to increase your chnaces of winning
If you are already losing, there isn't anything you can't afford to lose, is there? So the desperation play is entirely sensible.
and please, stop using "you". its not me, it is a hypothetical player (i want that to be clear because it means that im not rageposting).
The repetitions part. This is a function of build order, positioning, etc.
thats just wrong
No, it isn't.
what this situation describes is a player making a good call (because diving the base and killing his only tank increases your chance of winning quite a bit on average) and getting punished for that because of bad RNG.
But it's NOT a good call. There's an old adage that you should not gamble what you cannot afford to lose. If you lost a game because you carelessly threw away the one unit you couldn't afford to lose, that's your fault. Your mistake. The safer option was available to you, and you didn't take it. Learn your lesson and make a better strategic choice next time. Or at least, own the fact that you are taking destiny in your hands, and don't be a sore loser about what "should" have happened.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
