asperon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jun 01, 2003 - 17:09 |
 
|
If we are to keep the luck calculation (which in no means is accurate since it doesn't take into account when you are (un)lucky, ie, if it is a cricical moment or not), then it needs to spice up the % for 1 and 6, since a one is even the best team fails on a 1 and even the worst team succeds on a 6 they need to be correctly wighted. For example, right now rolling 5+5 is as "lucky" as rolling 4+6, which in fact, in game terms, it isn't.
/Asperon |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
The luck value doesn't care what the actual roll is.
It looks at the probability of a success, failure and optionally something in between (called a neutral).
For example, for a block: attacker down: failure, none down/pushback: neutral and defender down: success.
The probabilities of succeeding are calculated and depending on the actual outcome, it builds up a cumulative luck value.
I honestly don't remember the exact formula of it.. It's designed so that succeeding with the expected number of rolls will result in a 50% luck, succeeding all rolls is 100% and failing all rolls is 0%.
-- Christer |
|
|
asperon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2003 - 20:23 |
|
Ok, not completely sure if i am following you, either it is based on the rolls, ie, the fact that you need 5+ to succed, and that means that you only succed 1/3, and if you do you are lucky or, i have missundetstod how it works, but then it aint realy luck that is messured, since "good" teams will more often succed in doing things then "bad" teams, so there for a elf team should always have a higher luck % then say a human team. If it is the first case, then i think the calc needs to start taking into account of rolling more then one die, ie, if you are making a 2+ dodge roll with dodge and you fail, its something that should happen 1/36, ie, your luck kinda sucks. Same thing if you roll 2xskull (which i did 7 times my last game, and still had a 51% luck after the game, which had me starting to think about this).
Ie, if it is the chance of probability, then it cant take into account the fact that you have skills and/or rerolls, ie, it is worse if you fail a 2+ dodge with a reroll then without, the luck indicator should reflect this.
Just my 2 cc
/Asperon |
_________________
anything with two wounds will have a lot going for it |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
What you have to realize is that the luck value isn't accurate with low numbers of rolls.
Your 5+ example is entirely irrelevant if you only look at that one particular roll. A single successful 5+ roll will show 100% luck, just like a single successful 2+ roll.
However, make 100 of those 5+ rolls and your luck value will be 50% if you succeeded with 33 of them. Higher if you succeeded with more and lower for less succeeded rolls.
For 100 2+ rolls, you'd be at 50% if you succeeded with about 83 or them.
Rerolls are not really handled in the luck system as such.. It will register both rolls just as if they had been played out. So, a failed 2+ with reroll will lower your luck value more than a failed 2+ without reroll.
-- Christer |
|
|
Deleroache
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2003 - 21:20 |
|
does the luck system take block for example into account if you roll a 2 while blocking and both players dont have it? |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Yes it does. It figures is either, both or no player falls over.
-- Christer |
|
|
Dfygrvty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2003 - 21:42 |
|
cool, always wanted to know how you calculated that.
what it sounds like is that some people want a "Luck" index along with a percentage. It sounds like people want to watch the net number of succeeds for their team go up and down as they play.
Luck index = Running Sum of all action results so far //succeeds +neutrals (pointless) - failures
that gives people the chance to watch the number go up and down play by play. That can make you feel better if you are having a bad game.
I don't see the "luck index" as adding anything new to the client, its probably already in there to come up with the percent. I think its a personality thing whether you like the Luck % , or a Luck Index style.
I don't care about luck too much, b/c you can't control it, and I never look at the column b/c for every game you get hammered into the ground, you will eventually return the favor. I don't need either column myself.
devils advocate, what about a Missed actions Index?
Missed Actions = Running Sum of the # of players not moved per team per turn.
that is heavily mixed with a nooB coaches stupidity mind you, but my idea behind this one is you can use this to determine if it was a Clutch Play. If a move may cause a coach to not use half his team, but he does it anyway, odds are it was a clutch play, or he is stupid. either of which is cool to know. however, un-needed, I love the client. keep up teh good work |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
If anything, I would want a "risk" number that displays how many "chances" a coahc has taken.
Any dieroll that can fail should increase this number.. More if it's a 6+ roll done as the first roll of a turn and less if it's a tripple-die block...
Haven't put all that much throught into the specifics of this, but it would be a very good number to have.. I'd be willing to bet that successful coaches play in a way that would minimize the risks...
-- Christer |
|
|
ryani
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2003 - 22:16 |
|
| Christer wrote: | For 100 2+ rolls, you'd be at 50% if you succeeded with about 83 or them.
Rerolls are not really handled in the luck system as such.. It will register both rolls just as if they had been played out. So, a failed 2+ with reroll will lower your luck value more than a failed 2+ without reroll. |
I don't think it's affected enough in this case, though. Failing a 2+ dodge roll with a guy with dodge is failing a 1/36 event, which is much different than failing two separate 1/6 events.
The nature of the game is such that bad rolls close to each other are much more un-lucky than bad rolls spread out a bit, even if you get the same number of good rolls total. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Well, a failed 2+ at the start of a turn is rather unlucky as well. The luck system isn't nowhere near perfect and should not be treated as a scientific value.
It only gives a rough indication of the dice. Anything less then 40% is bad dice, anything above 60% is good dice. In between.. well.. it's pretty much what you would expect. I'm sure noone disagrees that dice are bad when the luck value is at 35% and that they are good with 75% luck...
The only reason it's there is because it's sort of fun. If you don't agree with it, simply ignore it.
-- Christer |
|
|
AlphaX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2003 - 23:52 |
|
First action in a game: make a block - get a pair of skulls - luck % stays the same - reroll and get a "POW" result - luck goes to 100%. (Is that 100% success?)
kick off - result blitz - hum - that seems fairly lucky. luck % changed ? Nope. I'm sure the same is true for a pitch invasion... but team which gets smacked doesn't feel so lucky.
Personally - I'd like to see mondo in game stats. Per team and per player stats for blocks, gfi's, catching, td's, injuries, shadowing, interceptions, regeneration, ofab, etc... (for example a question comes to mind when I am playing an undead team just how many casualties have I inflicted on them?)
would be sweet to have the stats saved or exportable. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| AlphaX wrote: | First action in a game: make a block - get a pair of skulls - luck % stays the same - reroll and get a "POW" result - luck goes to 100%. (Is that 100% success?)
|
That's a bug.
| AlphaX wrote: |
kick off - result blitz - hum - that seems fairly lucky. luck % changed ? Nope. I'm sure the same is true for a pitch invasion... but team which gets smacked doesn't feel so lucky.
|
Kickoffs are not incorporated in the luck value. Mostly for technical reasons.
| AlphaX wrote: |
Personally - I'd like to see mondo in game stats. Per team and per player stats for blocks, gfi's, catching, td's, injuries, shadowing, interceptions, regeneration, ofab, etc... (for example a question comes to mind when I am playing an undead team just how many casualties have I inflicted on them?)
would be sweet to have the stats saved or exportable. |
Sure. I'd be happy to try storing that stuff if it was provided. This has been discussed before and SkiJunkie has said he will look at implementing it if he gets a list of things to keep track of and full explanation on how things should be calculated. For example, a stat showing how many squares a player has moved the ball. Does it count only moving "ahead"? Does it count negative for moving it back etc.
Noone has presented a list like that as of yet. *hint*
I'd be happy to extend the .xml format to include this stuff. The beauty of xml makes this fairly easy as well and making fumbbl.com store this stuff is almost trivial.
-- Christer |
|
|
Dfygrvty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 02, 2003 - 04:20 |
|
| Christer wrote: | If anything, I would want a "risk" number that displays how many "chances" a coahc has taken.
Any dieroll that can fail should increase this number.. More if it's a 6+ roll done as the first roll of a turn and less if it's a tripple-die block...
Haven't put all that much throught into the specifics of this, but it would be a very good number to have.. I'd be willing to bet that successful coaches play in a way that would minimize the risks...
-- Christer |
ya, you summed up exactly what i was hoping the missed actions index would point towards, how smart the coach is. I know coaches that have terrible W-L records, but they will cut a new guy to shreds if they ever play a new guy.
if you are an awesome coach, your missed actions would be very low. Obviously the same with teh Risk index, b/c that idea is better and more accurate.
what makes a risky move (any combination of the list below, tentative) :
- high failure chance (is this statistically smart)
- Would cost lost moves for other men on the field (should you be doing this move right now? Do statistically easier moves exist first?)
can anyone think of anything else that can't be derived from these two? |
|
|
ryani
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 02, 2003 - 04:56 |
|
Well, a lot of times the other moves are irrelevant to the play. It's turn 8 of the half and you have to stop them from scoring. Are you going to do a 2+ dodge to get a guy who is too far away from the play off of his mark? I'm sure not going to. I'm going to do whatever it takes to block off the potential chances for the score, no matter how risky they are, and anything that's not related will not get done, because it makes it just that much more likely that I'll fail early. |
|
|
Dfygrvty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 02, 2003 - 06:17 |
|
ya i thought of that, I figured that maybe the risk factor would turn itself off if the other team is in scoring position. throw risk out the window, the smart move is to stop the td. how that is determined... a little rough for the elf, handoff, pass, scenario, but ... if you end up next to the guy with the ball the riskiness is ignored?
obivously, too much AI analyzing if that was the best way to get next to the ball to see if that truly was risky is out of the question, i think that the risk factor 'code' turning itself off in scoring situations may be accurate enough to get an idea how Risky a coach plays all the time.
I have to do risky stuff to stop people from scoring all the time, devils advocate, maybe it is a sign of the coaches ability how often he must be risky in the end zone and therefore it should be counted in the risk factor. or is it a credit towards the coach you are playing? so maybe we are looking at this wrong.
if you have to make a risky move, we'll assume you only do it if its necessary, it counts towards your opponents risk factor
(this reverses the idea, in preivous posts, lower was better, but if we reverse it, higher is better b/c that means you force your oppenents to be risky.)
reversing it takes the situation out of play, if its risky, the client assumes you're doing it for a reason, and then gives your opponent the credit b/c of that.
how to calculate the value of a one risky move over another thats going to take some people who have played blood bowl longer than I have. 
you'll have to forgive me, i love thinking this kinda stuff out. what if what if what if. ultimately, i'm just an average Joe User of the client by night, and i'm software engineer during the day.
this si the last one for tonight, i'm going to bed |
|
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season CI
Search
