| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are you in favor of revamping the chit tower? |
| Yes, it's time to change it. |
|
37% |
[ 19 ] |
| No, it's fine the way it is. |
|
62% |
[ 32 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 51 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Raven
Joined: 13 Apr 06
Posts: 10
Location: 45deg north lat, 122deg west lon
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nearsider wrote: | | Raven, I don't think people are advocating eliminating randomness entirely, I think they're complaining that the probabilities online are different than those offline. |
I know, but as Golux13 also pointed out, it is impossible, without a NOAA supercomputer, to calculate everything that's going on inside the tower. Therefore, IMHO the best solution is to accept that your 12 armies were defeated by your opponant's 3 armies because...(insert 'bad luck' event here)
_________________
"What is it about slime that chicks don't dig?"
-Milhouse Mussolini Van Houten |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
freduk
Joined: 18 Jan 06
Posts: 433
Location: Bristol, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In all this arguing about statistics, a more significant statistic is that after 30 votes, 23 have voted to keep it the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bkruppa
Joined: 08 Nov 05
Posts: 241
Location: Fremont, Ca, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But that is after the votes went through the tower!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nearsider
Joined: 22 Jan 06
Posts: 42
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven wrote: | | nearsider wrote: | | Raven, I don't think people are advocating eliminating randomness entirely, I think they're complaining that the probabilities online are different than those offline. |
I know, but as Golux13 also pointed out, it is impossible, without a NOAA supercomputer, to calculate everything that's going on inside the tower. Therefore, IMHO the best solution is to accept that your 12 armies were defeated by your opponant's 3 armies because...(insert 'bad luck' event here) |
Just because it's impossible to model it compeltely doesn't mean that it's not worth it to try to model it better than it is currently, or to even determine if the current model is accurate.
It's imposible to completely model the weather, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nearsider
Joined: 22 Jan 06
Posts: 42
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| craw-daddy wrote: | | I think you'd also need to test a larger range than 1-10 cubes in the tower. I haven't played Wallenstein much, but the few times I did there were certainly times when there were more than ten. And then would you want to test it when there are x red, y black, z yellow, etc. cubes in the tower? (And when I chuck in x' black, y' black, z' yellow, etc?) |
Good point with the more than 10 in the tower. Perhaps 15 would do. The important thing here is that with 1-10 in the tower you could run a regression and determine how much cubes in the tower effect the results. If the odds are the same with 1 in the tower vs. 10 in the tower for a cube getting stuck or not, then you probably don't need to test for more in the tower than that. But the effect might not show up until there are many in the tower.
As for x red, y black, z yellow, you only need to compare whether or not the cubes going in the tower are different than the ones coming out. Putting in 1 color or 3 colors or having 2 colors or 4 colors stuck in doesn't make a difference in the probability of what comes out. I think we can agree that a red cube has the same chance of getting stuck as a blue cube. Thus you just need to test if a cube going in is the same as the cube coming out, meaning that you only need to toss in cubes of a different color than what is stuck in the tower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craw-daddy
Joined: 09 Feb 06
Posts: 59
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: Let's revamp the chit tower!!!! |
|
|
| Alashar wrote: |
<snip>
A couple of examples: In Big Brawl VI, I launched an attack with 12 armies to which 1 was added from the cup. Only 5 came out of the chit tower. In the same season, another player was defending a territory with 10 armies to which 2 were added from the cup: only 3 of his armies fell out of the tower. I've seen worse examples and they happen too often.
<snip>
|
Hmmm, the more I go back and read this post, the more I'm failing to see what is the original point being made here. I'm assuming there's none of the appropriate color of chit already in the tower (as none was mentioned). Given a 30% chance of coming out of the tower when tossed in (independently of each other in the web version here), if you throw in 13 armies, then the expected number (i.e. average) you will see is 13*3/10=3.9. The chance that exactly five come out is C(13,5)*(.3)^5*(.7)^8 ~ 18%. As a comparison, you'll see four (about the average) chits coming out with C(13,4)*(.3)^4*(.7)^9 ~ 23% probability, and six with C(13,6)*(.3)^6*(.7)^7 ~ 10% chance.
Throwing 12 in, you'll expect to see 12*3/10 = 3.6 chits coming out. The probability of seeing exactly three come out is C(12,3)*(.3)^3*(.7)^9 ~ 24%. Hardly an unlikely occurrence, no? (If you roll a d6, then you have 1/6 chance (approximately 17%) chance of rolling any particular side.)
And as someone else has pointed out, whatever the rule happens to be, it affects both you and your opponent(s) in the same fashion.
You can certainly argue whether the probabilities of 30/70 are "right", but I'm failing to see, given the 30/70 chances, how the examples cited are somehow "extraordinary". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nearsider
Joined: 22 Jan 06
Posts: 42
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Let's revamp the chit tower!!!! |
|
|
| craw-daddy wrote: | Given a 30% chance of coming out of the tower when tossed in (independently of each other in the web version here), if you throw in 13 armies, then the expected number (i.e. average) you will see is 13*3/10=3.9. The chance that exactly five come out is C(13,5)*(.3)^5*(.7)^8 ~ 18%. As a comparison, you'll see four (about the average) chits coming out with C(13,4)*(.3)^4*(.7)^9 ~ 23% probability, and six with C(13,6)*(.3)^6*(.7)^7 ~ 10% chance.
|
It's a 30% chance that a cube going in will get stuck, not come out.
Thus if you throw in 13 armies you should expect about 4 to get stuck, not 4 to come out. If 13 armies are tossed in the chances of C(13,5)*.7^5*.3^8 ~ 1.4%. Quite different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craw-daddy
Joined: 09 Feb 06
Posts: 59
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oops, my bad. Well, it's still going to happen sometimes.  The occurrence of outlying events isn't sufficient evidence to argue that the model is wrong, because they are going to happen. I'd want to see the evidence of performance here compared to the "real thing" to judge whether or not there's merit to changing it.
As I said, I think we tend to remember the times that "strange" things happen, overlooking all the times that things go (nearly) as planned or nothing special happens. I mean, you probably don't remember all those days when you woke up and it was sunny or a bit cloudy out, but you'll likely remember when you were woken up by the golf-ball sized hail that was coming down.  But I'm probably rambling at this point... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| craw-daddy wrote: | Oops, my bad. Well, it's still going to happen sometimes. The occurrence of outlying events isn't sufficient evidence to argue that the model is wrong, because they are going to happen. I'd want to see the evidence of performance here compared to the "real thing" to judge whether or not there's merit to changing it.
As I said, I think we tend to remember the times that "strange" things happen, overlooking all the times that things go (nearly) as planned or nothing special happens. I mean, you probably don't remember all those days when you woke up and it was sunny or a bit cloudy out, but you'll likely remember when you were woken up by the golf-ball sized hail that was coming down. But I'm probably rambling at this point... |
Well, a little.  That was basically the bulk of this discussion: whether the SbW algorithmic tower is or is not a reasonable simulation of the real-world tower. I had not mentioned the psychological/selective memory issue, but that is clearly a factor in why people might think the algorithm needs to be changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snaporaz
Joined: 16 Oct 06
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I initally voted yes (Feeling the same way as the topic creator) but after reading all the posts I have to conclude that I just don't like the game and the implementation is fine...excellent actually. Certainly not worth the calories to tweak. I'm anxious for Maharaja, a game unplayed on my shelf.
SbW rules!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gamersteve1940
Joined: 15 Oct 06
Posts: 4
Location: Lansing
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Me and my boardgame friends find that the chit tower is more random than playing the actual board game. Also, if one knows the exact probability of coming out of a battle with, it would mess up all the startegy of it. One person I know (will not reveil) has used the knoledge about the 30% and has used it against his opponents and I feel that is unfair.
An administrator needs to get rid of this thread so that no other people will be "cheating" at a fun game. Some have turned this game into a chess match. The better you know the game, the better you will do, and I think that is wrong. If nobody knew the stinking probablities or checked this thread, Wallenstein would be a lot more fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gamersteve1940 wrote: | Me and my boardgame friends find that the chit tower is more random than playing the actual board game. Also, if one knows the exact probability of coming out of a battle with, it would mess up all the startegy of it. One person I know (will not reveil) has used the knoledge about the 30% and has used it against his opponents and I feel that is unfair.
An administrator needs to get rid of this thread so that no other people will be "cheating" at a fun game. Some have turned this game into a chess match. The better you know the game, the better you will do, and I think that is wrong. If nobody knew the stinking probablities or checked this thread, Wallenstein would be a lot more fun. |
With all due respect, I think the notion that it is somehow "cheating" to use freely available knowledge to calculate your odds in a battle is completely wrongheaded. Knowing the "exact probability" is not the same as knowing the outcome. It just makes it possible to calculate approximately how big a favorite or underdog you are in any given battle. Which you should be doing anyway. Anybody who doesn't try to figure out the odds of an attack is playing like an idiot, and the same goes for anybody who looks only at the cubes on the board and in the cup and doesn't try to figure out what's in the tower.
I can't envision any way in which a player can use his knowledge of the probabilities against his opponents. Are you saying he somehow knew better how many armies to devote to an attack? Good for him. This is a game of planning and strategy, not "roll the dice and hope for the best."
The line "Some have turned this game into a chess match" is mystifying. First off, it is a strategy game. Secondly, the randomness (of the tower) that prevents Wallenstein from being purely a chess game exists whether or not you know what the probabilities are. (As does the chaos of the other players' simultaneous planning.) Finally, what's wrong with chess? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimPAX
Joined: 30 Jun 05
Posts: 9
Location: Chicagoland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: Oh. .. .God. . .oh, god, ohhhhh god! |
|
|
gamersteve is being ironic, isn't he? Isn't he?!!!!
Oh, God! Please say he's being ironic. Knowing how to better play a game makes it less fun?
Oh. God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nearsider
Joined: 22 Jan 06
Posts: 42
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is the internet. There's no such thing as sarcasm here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HappyProle
SBW Developer
Joined: 28 Oct 05
Posts: 409
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So did this die or are the interested parties too busy throwing cubes in a tower and recording the results meticulously in a marble-patterned lab book to comment any further? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Your Games
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
