Jump to content

[BUG QUERRY]Missiles & Nukes & Explode-y Things


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So I'm wondering if a decimal point got placed in the wrong spot in coding or something like this.

So far, I have had 2 missiles fired upon me that hit and destroyed an improvement while having the ID project and Guardian DP. This is quite literally a 5.8824% chance of happening (aka extremely unlikely and nearly unheard of). Then it gets worse…Aurora's MA head, CholanK, fired 6 missiles at an enemy with an ID and only 1 of them hit; after this, he fired 3 nuclear weapons at an opponent who had VDS with none of them hitting. These are mathematical anomalies that are seriously screwing up gameplay. Are you sure that there isn't something wrong in the code? We're talking numbers in the "99%+ range that "x" event should not happen."

Edited by Alexander the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Completely agree, it's not just missiles and nukes for me, it's also espionage operations, the dude has 20 spies I had 60, along with covert, and I failed to sabotage planes twice... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian does not stop missiles or nukes from destroying improvements, it only helps prevent you losing an improvement when ground and naval attacked.

Its how probability works, one war my VDS blocked 4 of 46 nukes, this war it has blocked 5 of 15 nukes, over a longer sample size the percentages will even out.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Guardian does not stop missiles or nukes from destroying improvements, it only helps prevent you losing an improvement when ground and naval attacked.

Its how probability works, one war my VDS blocked 4 of 46 nukes, this war it has blocked 5 of 15 nukes, over a longer sample size the percentages will even out.

Excuse me?!?!?! Pardon my french, but why in the actual and unironic [email protected]#$ would guardian not prevent missile and nuke improvement destruction and not even state that?!?!?!?!?!? That. Is. Not. Acceptable. By. Any. Means. Fix that. Whatever else is done, fix that $#!^. Do not sit there telling me that I can put a 50% chance of not having improvements damaged and then, for no reason whatsoever, trick me about it. That is an extreme issue. Make a note on guardian that says "This does not apply to missiles and nuclear attacks" or change it to work with them. Period. Please & thank you.

Edited by Alexander the Great
Look ma, I "FIXED" it
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In fact, without it applying to missiles and nuclear weapons, that effectively makes Guardian one of the absolute WORST policies in the game, it is pointless. No one cares that they lost an improvement in a ground/naval attack—we do care about losing them to missiles and nukes, especially whenever there is no guaranteed way of stopping those two styles of attack. The counter-play to ground and naval is that gasp you can build up forces to prevent this occurring. There is no counter-play to missiles and nuclear weapons outside of %-chances that they won't hit; Guardian fits this logic PERFECTLY and for it to not be applied here is shocking, appalling, and illogical.

Edited by Alexander the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian is the policy of protecting improvements. This War Policy halves the chance of an opponent destroying an improvement in Ground and Naval Battles. The downside is that the nation loses 20% more loot in Ground Battles (including Victory and Alliance Bank loot.)

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, donsberger said:

Guardian is the policy of protecting improvements. This War Policy halves the chance of an opponent destroying an improvement in Ground and Naval Battles. The downside is that the nation loses 20% more loot in Ground Battles (including Victory and Alliance Bank loot.)

Note how this literally says nothing at all about it not applying to missiles and nuclear weapons. image.png.38c35b5d1b3895fe006e16e1fb83a40d.pngTHAT is the actual text, screenshotted that I just put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Its how probability works, one war my VDS blocked 4 of 46 nukes, this war it has blocked 5 of 15 nukes, over a longer sample size the percentages will even out.

I understand how probability works, but there are mathematical anomalies that are an issue here. You saying that your VDS and blocking 4/46 and 5/15 nukes only serves to prove my point, to be honest. From a mathematical perspective, you're figuratively trying to reason-out and explain how you rolled a "20" on a d20 four times in a row without the die being loaded or sanded (the odds are greater of you winning the multimillion dollar lottery exactly than this occurring naturally, if you're a bit confused).

Edited by Alexander the Great
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Alexander the Great said:

EXCUSE ME?!?!?! PARDON MY FRENCH, BUT WHY IN THE ACTUAL AND UNIRONIC [email protected]#$ WOULD GUARDIAN NOT PREVENT MISSILE AND NUKE IMPROVEMENT DESTRUCTION AND NOT EVEN STATE THAT?!?!?!?!?!? THAT. IS. NOT.  ACCEPTABLE. BY. ANY. MEANS. FIX THAT. WHATEVER ELSE IS DONE, FIX THAT SHIT. DO NOT SIT THERE TELLING ME THAT I CAN PUT A 50% CHANCE OF NOT HAVING IMPROVEMENTS DAMAGED AND THEN, FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER, LIE ABOUT IT. THAT IS AN EXTREME ISSUE. MAKE A NOTE ON GUARDIAN THAT SAYS "THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MISSILES AND NUCLEAR ATTACKS" OR CHANGE IT TO WORK WITH THEM. PERIOD. THANK YOU.

your cap locks is broken.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you click the question mark that gives more information about the war policies, you will see that what don said is correct.

That being said, you probably do have a legit complaint that it should be more clear when you select Guardian in your edit screen.  I wont comment on your opinion about the game balance and usefulness of guardian as a war policy.

And from a mathematical standpoint if you take all the nukes launched against a VDS and all the nukes blocked against a VDS its sitting somewhere between 18-22 percent.  Someone ran the numbers on it a few years ago.  You are using anecdotal evidence to try to prove a bug, but your problem is just that your sample size is not large enough.

Its like flipping a coin, just because it landed on head 10 times in a row, on the 11th flip your chance of it landing on tails is still 50/50.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If you click the question mark that gives more information about the war policies, you will see that what don said is correct.

That being said, you probably do have a legit complaint that it should be more clear when you select Guardian in your edit screen.  I wont comment on your opinion about the game balance and usefulness of guardian as a war policy.

And from a mathematical standpoint if you take all the nukes launched against a VDS and all the nukes blocked against a VDS its sitting somewhere between 18-22 percent.  Someone ran the numbers on it a few years ago.  You are using anecdotal evidence to try to prove a bug, but your problem is just that your sample size is not large enough.

Its like flipping a coin, just because it landed on head 10 times in a row, on the 11th flip your chance of it landing on tails is still 50/50.

Anecdotal evidence is reliable    
When the outcomes of the problem are predictable in the absence of a counter-measure (IDVDS, Guardian, Covert)    
When the effects of the error are large  
When the effects of the error are immediate    
When the effects of the error can be confirmed by repetition 
When the effects of error can be confirmed by an ‘N of 1’ trial   

This situation meets 3 and arguably 4 of those criteria. To go with your coin example, we're saying in this case that I somehow managed to flip a perfectly weighted coin [for simplicity's sake we could use a virtually generated coin] (or multiple coins) and get heads 9 out of 10 times; that's mathematically highly improbably to an n-th degree for something that is 50%. 

I.r.t. Guardian: once again, the entire point of the policy is based on increasing the probability that your opponent will not damage your improvements; affording someone a simple weapon (two in this case) that can circumvent this is denotatively illogical and counter-productive to the balance and design of the game—unless the balance and design of the game is simply to allow the person with the most missiles and nuclear weapons to win all wars, which would be objectively idiotic. This is logically saying, "I am willing to sacrifice 20% more loot to ensure that whatever my opponent throws at me will have half of its normal chance of destroying an improvement." 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

your cap locks is broken.

 

Hold on, I'll "fix" it.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I went to a website that does random coin flips, I had it flip a coin 200 times (its max) during that stretch of 200 flips, it had a stretch of 13 tosses that came up heads 12 times and tails came up once. It had another stretch over 10 tosses tails came up 9 times and head came up once.  Does that mean the program is broken? no its just how it works.  So if your guys keeps launching missiles and nukes (please do those are loser weapons which is good for us!)  His success rate will move back to the mean.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

So I went to a website that does random coin flips, I had it flip a coin 200 times (its max) during that stretch of 200 flips, it had a stretch of 13 tosses that came up heads 12 times and tails came up once. It had another stretch over 10 tosses tails came up 9 times and head came up once.  Does that mean the program is broken? no its just how it works.  So if your guys keeps launching missiles and nukes (please do those are loser weapons which is good for us!)  His success rate will move back to the mean.

You are conflating every toss together with individual tosses. Each person's individual missile strike command is supposed to have a 50% chance of hitting each time (assuming that ID is in effect). This is like going to Google's coin flipper and expecting to flip 9 heads or tails in a row (out of 10). Try it. See how that works for you. The probability of that is 0.1953125%. This means that you could expect to do the entire exercise nearly 100 times to even fit the criteria of having a chance of seeing it occur.

Edited by Alexander the Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Other people have complained about this too recently, and I ran all the numbers, including tabulating every player's success rate with missiles/nukes. It's all working as expected, there are just some unlucky outliers, sounds like yourself included.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Alexander the Great said:

You are conflating every toss together with individual tosses. Each person's individual missile strike command is supposed to have a 50% chance of hitting each time (assuming that ID is in effect). This is like going to Google's coin flipper and expecting to flip 9 heads or tails in a row (out of 10). Try it. See how that works for you. The probability of that is 0.1953125%. This means that you could expect to do the entire exercise nearly 100 times to even fit the criteria of having a chance of seeing it occur.

That was literally the experiment i ran, I went to a website and had it flip a coin 200 times, and within those two hundred flips I found two outliers that are statistically unlikely to happen.  I didn't even look thru the entire sample either, I just scrolled around till I found where either heads or tails went on a streak.  So like i stated before if you keep using missiles and nukes, you will eventually start to move back to the mean.

Also looks like Sheeps came in with the mic drop and confirmed what I am trying to explain to you.  (Does that help or hurt my argument? I'll let the reader decide.)

 

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Alex said:

Other people have complained about this too recently, and I ran all the numbers, including tabulating every player's success rate with missiles/nukes. It's all working as expected, there are just some unlucky outliers, sounds like yourself included.

Thanks Alex, I just know sometimes that a decimal point going from "0.5" to ".05" or "0.2" to ".02" can have a big effect in certain instances!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.