[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
How to remove randomness
Forum Index » General Discussion
[Avatar]
Aristotle

Messages: 22,
Joined: May 27, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
Aristotle

Messages: 22,
Joined: May 27, 2016,
Offline
This post focus on damage formula with no random factor, discussing the alternatives for current random damage. If you want to say randomness is good and can't be changed, please do it in other posts, such as http://forum.uniwar.com/posts/list/2455.page , thank you.

Alternative A:
Double the HP, the damage and the repair. So that all unit have 20HP and the damage formula will be as follows:

A = Attack strength of the attacking unit
Ta = Terrain modifier for the attacking unit
D = Defense strength of the defending unit
Td = Terrain modifer for the defending unit
B = Gang up, re-surface, veteran bonus
H = The attacking unit's health points

Full Damage = A+Ta-D-Td+B+10
Real Damage = Full Damage*H/20

If Full Damage > 20, then Full Damage = 20
If Full Damage < 0, then Full Damage = 0

For example, if 20hp garuda(9/8) attacks 20hp helicopter(9/10) with no bonus, there remains 9hp garuda and 11hp helicopter. Another example, 20hp speeder(10/8) can kill 20hp engineer(0/0) on plain, but cannot do the same when the engineer is on base or the speeder only has 19hp.

This alternative is mainly based on the current damage formula. So there're no obvious differences in the combat outcomes between old and new formulas. No worry about the effects on balance. And because of the simple formula, we can calculate the damage without calculator or software. But 20hp is little different, which needs some time to adapt.

Alternative B:
Don't change the current formula, and always make sure the combat outcomes will be the one with the highest probability.

So, if 10hp garuda(9/8) attacks 10hp helicopter(9/10) with no bonus, there remains 5hp garuda and 6hp helicopter.

This alternative is easy to be understood and adapted as it changes the least things.

There must be other alternatives, welcome to share you ideas. Maybe a good alternative can persuade more people to support removing randomness.

Thanks for reading.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jun 21, 2016 23:40

[Avatar]
Aristotle

Messages: 22,
Joined: May 27, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
Aristotle

Messages: 22,
Joined: May 27, 2016,
Offline
There is one problem. As randomness removed, every attack has the certain result, then players can make the same moves in the mirror game if they have enough vision. In this way, weaker players copy their opponents' strategy, and make the match meaningless.

To prevent these happening, tournament rules need change. Only when both players end turn, can they see what opponent did last turn.
If player A end turn in advance, player B cannot see what moves did A make before B end turn. When B end turn 4h later, he can see it now but only 8h is left for him to make his decision.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jun 29, 2016 08:12

[Avatar]
wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline

[Avatar]
wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline
Unless you are playing with FOW off there is often no way to know what another player has built and moved until you meet his units. It is not normally possible to simply copy another players moves.
Porphyr

Messages: 55,
Joined: Apr 26, 2016,
Offline

Porphyr

Messages: 55,
Joined: Apr 26, 2016,
Offline
  Aristotle wrote:There is one problem. As randomness removed, every attack has the certain result, then players can make the same moves in the mirror game if they have enough vision. In this way, weaker players copy their opponents' strategy, and make the match meaningless.

To prevent these happening, tournament rules need change. Only when both players end turn, can they see what opponent did last turn.
If player A end turn in advance, player B cannot see what moves did A make before B end turn. When B end turn 4h later, he can see it now but only 8h is left for him to make his decision.


No, I think this problem does not really exist, it is already prevented by the way the turn timers work.

Example (let player B be the weaker player that wants to copy player A):
- Player A makes first move in game 1
- Player B waits for that and makes hist first move in game 2
- now the timer for B's first move in game 1 (i.e. his reply to A's first move there) expires before the timer for A's move in game 2
-> So B cannot copy this

So as long as the stronger player takes care not to move as fast as possible in all available games, he can prevent being copied.
Doing so would be recommended anyway, so the games don't get out of sync.
(it also works if B makes the first move - e.g. because it is obvious like capping initial bases - and attempts copying from second move -> this is also prevented)



[Avatar]
Aristotle

Messages: 22,
Joined: May 27, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
Aristotle

Messages: 22,
Joined: May 27, 2016,
Offline
  Porphyr wrote:
No, I think this problem does not really exist, it is already prevented by the way the turn timers work.

Example (let player B be the weaker player that wants to copy player A):
- Player A makes first move in game 1
- Player B waits for that and makes hist first move in game 2
- now the timer for B's first move in game 1 (i.e. his reply to A's first move there) expires before the timer for A's move in game 2
-> So B cannot copy this

So as long as the stronger player takes care not to move as fast as possible in all available games, he can prevent being copied.
Doing so would be recommended anyway, so the games don't get out of sync.
(it also works if B makes the first move - e.g. because it is obvious like capping initial bases - and attempts copying from second move -> this is also prevented)


Yes, you're right. It can be prevented if we make moves and don't end until opponent ends.
Mantzikert

Messages: 7,
Joined: Jul 07, 2013,
Offline

Mantzikert

Messages: 7,
Joined: Jul 07, 2013,
Offline
I don't know all the intricacies of this. I do know my brother has stopped playing this game because he got tired of being beaten by players who were obviously redoing their turn until they got the results they needed. He is in his mid 40s with huge gaming experience.
[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1021,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1021,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
  Mantzikert wrote:I don't know all the intricacies of this. I do know my brother has stopped playing this game because he got tired of being beaten by players who were obviously redoing their turn until they got the results they needed. He is in his mid 40s with huge gaming experience.


You don't get different random numbers when you redo your turn.

You have the same random sequence even if you hit turn redo. NOW, you can use that same sequence more efficiently to gain a better turn.

But, I absolutely didn't know anything about that until I got to rank 2000.... There is a player named GOUT, who made a new account to play without ANY turn undo. He made it up to rank 2200 (and counting)

So, can it be an advantage? Absolutely yes. But not seemingly in the way your brother thought.
C4ve

Messages: 6,
Joined: Dec 31, 2015,
Offline

C4ve

Messages: 6,
Joined: Dec 31, 2015,
Offline
As long as there is randomness in the game, no matter how large or small this randomness will be, those players who spend enough time to find an optimal attack sequence have an advantage. Additionally, as already pointed out by others, although figuring out the best sequence, you can still be unlucky not to kill a unit or not to uncap a base. This is a fact.
Playing a tournament, in which you have 12 hours time to submit a move, especially when 7 hours are already lost during sleep and you need to go to work early, you sometimes have not the time to search for the best combination, especially if you have a lot of units and therefore a lot of possibilities to try out (this might take 20 mins or longer for a single match!).
For these reasons and also for the reason that I just don't want to waste my time to do monkeys' work by figuring out the best sequence and not the best strategy, I'm in favour of removing randomness completely.
If this is not desired by the community, I would suggest the following to keep randomness but reduce the amount of wasted time by trying out the best combinations: each unit gets a label by random at the beginning of each turn, if it makes weak, normal or critical hits, no matter at which position this unit is attacking. So each match remains unique due to changing randomness from match to match, but you can focus on your strategy and not on figuring out the optimal sequence.
[Avatar]
wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline

[Avatar]
wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline
I would like that too. Keep randomness for each turn but always apply the same random values to the same units during a turn when you undo.

I think simplifying the whole random calculation could make things easier too. Just store 1 random value for each unit at the start of the turn +/- 100%. use that value to modify attack and defence. You could then easily show which units this turn are having a good day and which are not.

Android 9. Samsung Galaxy A50
[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1021,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1021,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
  wookieontheweb wrote:I would like that too. Keep randomness for each turn but always apply the same random values to the same units during a turn when you undo.

I think simplifying the whole random calculation could make things easier too. Just store 1 random value for each unit at the start of the turn +/- 100%. use that value to modify attack and defence. You could then easily show which units this turn are having a good day and which are not.


Yeah if that were an option, I would be good with that.

I can't imagine that entirely changing the way the attack values are calculated would be an easy prospect though ... And honestly I am very okay with things the way they are now (though I understand C4ve's point)
Forum Index » General Discussion
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website