The game uses the profile of the UK player there because there are majorly UK ships in the zone. It can’t use the profile of the SU player for the sub and the profile of the UK player for the rest of the fleet as all the ships are one defender.
Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter
-
Patch 13 of Axis & Allies 1942 Online arrives today!
Get patch details & intel on future updates in our latest development letter:
https://www.beamdog.com/news/season-3-launch-patch-notes-development-letter/-
Season 3 Launch
-
Stability & Bug Fixes
-
Dice Development Plans
-
UI Overhaul News
-
-
annnnnnnnnnnd still no fix for the dice
-
Sorry, have you even read the link?
-
I have Julius
-
Sorry, then why did you comment that way?
-
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog If I missed something I’ll apologize but what I have seen is a promise of a new dice system that isn’t out yet.
Xorshift128+
PCG
MersenneTwisterAll three systems returned similar internal test results (which was the expected outcome).
Next, to help us verify whether or not we had a flaw in our game’s implementation of Xorshift128+, we decided to create a live, in-game experiment. With the release of each patch since February 2020, we’ve alternated between different PRNG systems to monitor whether the community feedback around the dice changed at all.
Community feedback remained relatively constant throughout the changes to different PRNG systems. As of Patch 12, we have rolled the PRNG system back to the original XorShift128+ algorithm, as it appeared to be the most stable of the three options.
As mentioned above, our development team is working on a Stabilized Dice option that controls for extreme outcomes. Stay tuned for more details on this…
I am asking politely what has changed? This section of the update seems to say to me that the system you shifted back to has been used previously, When? If it was used previously and there were no issues why did you change it? The deeper dive into the dice section also seems to say that no matter the system you used the criticism remained the same, so how is this a change? Again I am asking for an explanation, not launching an attack.
You have stated previously that the dev team was doing an investigation of the dice, what were the results of the investigation? The criticism over this last season was pretty withering and considering the dice affect the integrity of the entire game, I think it is fair to ask for the results of your investigation and why it took so much criticism from the players and Wargamer.com to elicit a response and if the criticism of the dice was valid why did it take so long?
-
We’ve heard you, and we understand that the randomness of the dice just doesn’t feel right.
Our goal is for the combat to feel satisfying and strategic while staying true to the element of chance at the heart of the board game. So, based on community feedback, our development team is working on a “Stabilized Dice” option for the game.
Results of the investigation: with the release of each patch since February 2020, we’ve alternated between different PRNG systems to monitor whether the community feedback around the dice changed at all. Community feedback remained relatively constant throughout the changes to different PRNG systems.
-
@Brian-Cannon said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
annnnnnnnnnnd still no fix for the dice
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
Sorry, have you even read the link?
@Brian-Cannon said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
I have Julius
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
Sorry, then why did you comment that way?
Have you read the link? He said there’s no fix for the dice and he’s right. There isn’t.
I commented https://steamcommunity.com/app/898920/discussions/0/2845669419703896735/
You can’t investigate PRNG validity if you don’t have data export, period. Data export is also necessary (there’s no substitute) if you want to screen for cheaters. Ideally - if you want to address the public relations which I said months ago was the heart of the matter - you need to have not only data export but tools for players to analyze data. And the developer letter has no mention of data export.
What we DO see is reference to a “stabilized dice” mode. That may address some concerns, but is NOT a proper response.
-
A separate mode is separate. It’s not the default mode, so is tainted. Better than nothing, but not the ideal.
-
The “proper” response is to PROPERLY analyze if the PRNG does or does not reasonably approximate real random numbers, in the context of Axis and Allies. That has not been addressed. And yes, I’ve read the development letter QUITE carefully.
"A DEEPER DIVE ON DICE
For those of you who are interested in the technical side of our dice investigations, here’s a deeper dive for you.Axis & Allies 1942 Online uses a fairly common PRNG called XorShift128+ to randomize its dice rolls (for more details on XorShift128+, check out our previous post on the topic).
[quote]In January 2020, we began to experiment with other algorithms— internally we were confident in our RNG system, but based on community feedback, we wanted to see if there were better options. Over the course of the Winter and early Spring, we compared three major PRNG algorithms:
Xorshift128+
PCG
MersenneTwisterAll three systems returned similar internal test results (which was the expected outcome).
Next, to help us verify whether or not we had a flaw in our game’s implementation of Xorshift128+, we decided to create a live, in-game experiment. With the release of each patch since February 2020, we’ve alternated between different PRNG systems to monitor whether the community feedback around the dice changed at all.
Community feedback remained relatively constant throughout the changes to different PRNG systems. As of Patch 12, we have rolled the PRNG system back to the original XorShift128+ algorithm, as it appeared to be the most stable of the three options.[/quote]
You may recall I said the testing regimen of just rolling a bunch of dice then counting the 1s, 2s, etc. was insufficient. I cited what I think IS a proper testing regimen in the Steam forum thread I referenced above. You need to draw from in-game data, you need to compare the results of groups of in-game data, parsed in groups that ARE meaningfully linked to in-game performance, against “ideal” projected calculation. It’s an entire order of complexity (at least) of difference.
What do we really see with “deeper dive on dice”? Frankly it’s just a backhanded subversive attempt to undermine complaints. Note how the ACTUAL testing regimen is never specified. “All three systems returned similar internal test results (which was the expected outcome).” It’s a mistake common in academia, “scientific analysis” that EXPECTS a particular answer does partial interpretation of data in a way that supports the expected findings - instead of ACTUALLY analyzing the data.
There’s been plenty of quotes that indicate that’s exactly what Beamdog did. I don’t want to throw stones here, but as recently as a month ago, Cody was saying things like PRNG outputs are incomprehensible to humans or something like that. What sort of scientific tests do you think could possibly be run if the lead on a task thinks the whole task is futile? And I could cite other quotes as well that indicate Beamdog never DID take the whole “analysis” thing seriously - quite apart from that section of the development letter, which is proof enough.
For goodness sake, I understand higher mathematics wasn’t a prerequisite for being a community manager. Nor was twenty plus years of playing Axis and Allies to get the contextual background to interpret reports. But when you ARE looking for community feedback, and different people are saying things, does it make sense to dismiss what those veteran players are saying out of hand? Or does it perhaps make sense to REALIZE - that though many players aren’t articulate, maybe there IS something to what they’re saying?
No no, let’s really look into this!
And before digging into the development letter - I will point out that there’s a number of threads on Steam in which players say something, a developer response is made, then I write another response that actually addresses the concerns brought up in the original post. This is not a recent thing. It’s not something I really want to emphasize; you know I’m all about moving on. But we CAN’T move on if the people that need to do the job don’t see what needs to be done.
And note - I’m not talking about UNDERSTANDING there’s an issue but DECIDING not to address it because of outside limiting factors. I mean NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE (really not understanding!) And again - it’s not just me saying this.
"since February 2020, we’ve alternated between different PRNG systems to monitor whether the community feedback around the dice changed at all.
Community feedback remained relatively constant"
Okay. So here we have what I say is the typical developer response at this point - denial there’s an issue, no transparency into the actual testing procedures (so we’re really just supposed to accept developers at their word that there’s no issue - and mind, it’s not me that’s raising a fuss, it’s players, it’s posters, it’s your customers - if it WERE me, I’d be beating on stuff like inability to use allied transports and carriers (I’ve heard carriers will be implemented, but what about transports?), no live defender decisions (no seriously, it’s horribly limiting if you actually know how to play), removal of casualties after like-valued dice instead of at end of sub-phase. Those are my priorities. So all this - it’s just me saying “hey look devs, this is a thing, please look at it okay, it’s your customers.” It’s not FOR ME. Sadly.) Anyways all that, plus a smug little “ha ha we ran our little game on you and you didn’t even notice, there’s nothing wrong! lalala!”
But what DID we really see since February? Well I was there, wasn’t I. Been there quite a while. Players complained about dice. And those complaints? Were often nonspecific. Think about that. Remember that. Because we’ll be getting back to it.
Even in the case of players citing “industrial complex bombing” as having aberrant dice - and you may remember, I would repeat, again and again, players need to provide data! - those complaints were STILL nonspecific. Horribly so.
If you have nonspecific complaints, there’s no way to check for correlations based on those nonspecific complaints. So just HOW, based on nonspecific complaints that did NOT have the data that would be necessary to reasonably form, much less test, hypotheses, HOW COULD ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT POSSIBLY BE TESTED?!!! You literally have no specific criteria to test! How can you run legitimate tests to check for validity if you’re not even testing for specific criteria?!
. . . and the obvious answer? You can’t. And when you have a published letter saying that you CAN - all you do is lose any reputation for integrity. That’s the worst. The best you could hope for is people believing that even if you DO believe what you’re saying, that you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
As I wrote in other threads on Steam - set up data export tools, set up tools so players can analyze data. And as I wrote before - it’s not even that you need to legitimately analyze the data properly. If you don’t, you’ll get in trouble down the line, but all you REALLY need to do is to have tools to “massage” the data you DO get into the narrative YOU WANT TO SELL, and thread that through actually correct statistical practices. You don’t have to lie, but if you’re selective about what truths you emphasize and the order of what the truths you tell, you can really shape a narrative, especially with data “analysis”. Then, as I’ve said, you tack on “what can we reasonably do?” - you HAVE the complete data, you have a framework for analysis, and if there IS some practice that you can do to improve it, at least you have the tools you need to tackle a new task - but others need to specify exactly what to look for. See? So if someone wants to change the methodology or criteria tests, they have to be very specific about what changes they want to make and why - and most critics of a system will founder right there. If they don’t, it still doesn’t matter, because you can just address whatever issue they’re identifying in minutes - as you have the tools to do so. And if you have nice easy-to-understand graphical representations of data that indicate there’s no problems, that’s a sellable narrative.
Mind, there IS a possibility there really IS something wrong with the PRNG. But if you have the data to know WHAT is wrong, then at least you’re looking at an addressable problem - you know WHAT needs to be fixed, instead of the developer’s response that “you can’t analyze numbers” - ugh, that was bad.
But suppose that isn’t in the budget? Okay. Then - instead of trying to spin the narrative that there’s nothing wrong, there’s not even CONCEIVABLY anything wrong - because if you’re not running credible tests you have no way of knowing - then you reply though there are legitimate concerns over the PRNG (note ACKNOWLEDGING LEGITIMACY OF COMPLAINTS), xorshift128+ is what will be used. Then you pop on a little addendum with REAL DATA about computation times, costs of outsourcing to get random numbers based on atmospheric noise, and the REAL LEGITIMATE REASONS why xorshift128+ in particular is being used despite its shortcomings. Then all the discussion stops right there - people don’t need to shout that no, it IS a serious concern, why won’t you take things seriously, irate aardvarks stop typing text walls explaining and substantiating positions - you just say look okay, we understand, you’re right, but this is how it has to be - and that’s pretty much it. Of course things can be re-opened at need, but eh.
Note a previous developer response DID say “we’re not going to get into it”. But then too? That same response ALSO kept saying “there’s nothing wrong”. The developers handled the situation in an unsatisfactory way so customers didn’t allow the matter to close - and I don’t mean just me. There were responses on Steam forums like “I don’t care what the developers say, the dice are ****” or similar. Clearly that response wasn’t to the part of the developer statement that said the PRNG wouldn’t be changed. It was to the part of the developer statement that denied there was an issue.
-
-
(continued)
And if some really nasty and disturbing allegations pop up? Say it’s alleged players are possibly reverse engineering the PRNG and exploiting it to get wins? You just take that head on and say something like “we agree that’s something that we don’t want happening” (again, acknowledging legitimacy) then say politely that basically nothing IS going to be done at this time, then move on.
And yeah, okay, that’s not “nice”, you’ll get flak. But what’s the alternative? If you don’t acknowledge legitimacy, you get it brought up again and again and perhaps in great detail what exactly SHOULD have been done, then instead of people seeing “oh okay, that’s just how it is, we can all move on”, then people start thinking about the legitimacy of complaints - focusing on the wrong thing. Then from there the integrity and competency of developers starts to be called into question.
Blanket denials CAN work early on, especially if there’s not much to feed the fire. But we’re past that point, there’s just too much history of legitimate concerns being played off, denied, or ignored.
Suppose a higher-up had pushed for this switching between PRNG nonsense. Well, you don’t want to tell your boss “this is ****”, you kinda have to carry out orders right? But then, you have to anticipate the legitimate complaints and not compose a reply that has you walking face-first into a counter.
So what IS the legitimate complaint? As I wrote, the complaints about PRNG tend to be nonspecific - but you must have specific criteria to test. If you don’t, you have no test! And if you say you tested without testing and can’t back it up when questioned - well.
Suppose someone says “bombing is bad”. Does that mean INDUSTRIAL BOMBING AS A WHOLE is bad? Clearly not. The player is complaining about THEIR EXPERIENCE. But what does that mean? Perhaps a player REALLY means that AXIS bombing is bad. Or ALLIED bombing. There is a difference. More on that later.
If you’re testing for industrial bombing, you have to remember the source of the report. Maybe a player plays Axis preferentially. (And doesn’t Beamdog’s own data support this?) Or maybe a player plays Allies preferentially. So when a player reports bombing issues - is Beamdog checking that specific player’s faction preference? And is Beamdog looking at that specific player’s data?
I imagine not. But that’s okay - depending on how the response is worded.
I mentioned there could be a difference between Axis and Allied bombing. Now I know, sometimes I get into these details and it’s probably tough to follow along. But here we go, so try.
PRNGs calculate a sequence of numbers off a time seed. Repeated calls to the PRNG return later numbers in the sequence. Correct?
Now it gets a bit tricky. We have to combine that with what we “know” about PRNG behavior, and 1942 Online’s implementation specifically.
Let’s say that there’s what I call “second order complexity” - in line with what I wrote in that referenced Steam thread. Roughly, it means looking at the behavior of not a single dice, but an undifferentiated mass of dice. As I understand it, that is what Beamdog’s testing has constituted to this point.
What DID Beamdog’s testing indicate? Something like a reasonably (?) equal(ish) distribution of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s. Yes?
And this is exactly how I stated PRNGs ought to work. They’re SUPPOSED to do something like that. But - you remember I stated PRNG validity tests typically do NOT test for what I called the third order of complexity? You remember locking that Steam thread from another poster that referenced
As I wrote in other threads, the IMPLEMENTATION of PRNGs often tweaks the behavior to be satisfactory - and it is those TWEAKS that very much define the behavior of the output. That poster just cited a particular example, but it really IS how it works all over the place.
So what we’re looking at is - we don’t HAVE tweaks to the output (though we will with “stabilized dice”). But as I wrote also, stabilized dice are off-brand so carry a stigma - and you’re still not addressing the fundamental validity of the core.
Returning to what I call second-order behavior. So things are acting “predictably” or whatever on the second order. So it’s okay, right? Wrong. Because it’s the third order that matters.
To use an analogy - suppose you test to see if a tree seed will sprout. What I call first order is you see if a single seed sprouts. Second order is you see if a lot of seeds sprout together. But you don’t run a farm on second order. If you just threw seeds randomly, you’d get clusters of plants, some plants would choke off nutrition to others. It’s only when you look at the third order - which is the farm in application - that you can test if the farm works.
And we ARE testing for the farm. We’re not looking for ordered rows of crops - but we’re looking for an arranged group of distributions of groups of dice. If we were looking at a seed planter, THEN we might be able to stop at second order, by looking at the precise distribution of seeds at particular intervals. But the problem we have isn’t that simple.
I wrote that third order works intuitively on a level similar to how HUMANS parse information. But you need to understand it isn’t the HUMAN component that’s the determinant for whether a dataset is aberrant or not. It’s the COMPUTATIONAL component that can be examined that is the determinant. There ARE criteria for “aberrant” and “non-aberrant”
And what’s ALSO important is to understand - the model PREDICTS that PRNG behavior in application will NOT be like real random numbers.
What? But . . . PRNGs are SUPPOSED to be like real random numbers. How can a model POSSIBLY predict that PRNG behavior is NOT like real random numbers unless that model is WRONG?
But the model isn’t wrong. Just follow along.
Suppose you have real random numbers. Real random numbers have “clusters”. Now the argument diverges. If PRNGs don’t generate clusters then PRNGs don’t properly emulate random numbers, argument ends (PRNGs are a problem). Agreed? So let’s look at what happens if PRNGs do generate clusters.
I forget if it was the fictional Malcolm in Crichton’s “Jurassic Park” that used this example - but suppose you have twist a string. After a while, the string doubles back on itself and bunches up. If you keep going, those bunches themselves bunch up. You might not be able to predict how and where the first bunches form, or how and where the second bunches form, but there are common elements between one bunched string and another.
So if PRNGs generate clusters, think about it like this. Suppose you “cut” the cluster by generating a new time seed. But you can’t take for granted that a new time seed is going to “solve” the problem. Unless you look at the behavior - and I mean really look - for all you know, the new behavior parallels the old. And if you don’t cut the cluster by generating a new time seed, that also may create problems.
So what about the actual implementation of 1942 Online? I recall it being said that the game generates a new PRNG off time seed - but when and how exactly does that happen? (That’s a rhetorical question. Though I wouldn’t object to its being answered.)
Suppose - just for argument’s sake - that the PRNG only references a time seed once, when a game is created. Then - again for argument’s sake - suppose the time seed effectively differentiates between only two states. We’re assuming that PRNG outputs cluster. So what happens if BOTH PRNGs cluster at similar points?
If you didn’t think PRNGs could have problematic outputs before - that should give you pause. If it doesn’t, try reading that again until it really makes sense. If it doesn’t make sense, well, sorry, it’ll have to because it’s fundamental - and correct by the way.
If you understand the string analogy, then you KNOW it’s not a question of “if”. We KNOW PRNG results bunch up - it’s even a prerequisite for this branch of the argument - and we know the bunched results themselves bunch up in turn. So it’s not a question of WHETHER both PRNGs cluster at similar points. It’s only a question of HOW MUCH they cluster.
. . . and you can say the time seed differentiates between ten states or sixty states or whatever. It doesn’t matter. The issue is each generated sequence of numbers WILL bunch, and does that bunching behavior work analogous to real random numbers?
But it almost certainly doesn’t.
How can we know?
If we have limited time seeds, then we have a limited number of generated PRNG sequences. Since we know there’s clustering - and clustering of clusters - we know that that limited series of sequences has some “bias” in the numbers - and again, if it DOESN’T then that ITSELF is a problem. There’ll be more “1’s”, say, than normal, or more “6’s” - or whatever. Yes? Agree on that much? Again - it’s true, and fundamental.
So IF you agree - and you must, because you should understand that is NECESSARILY the case - then the question is how does this behavior MANIFEST in a game? And that’s the third order question, and the reason why there IS real potential legitimacy to complaints about PRNGs.
Say someone strategic bombs. What does that mean? REALLY?
Before that, a bit of recap. We’re assuming the PRNG generates a limited number of sequences, each of which has clustering, each of those clusters also have clusters, and as we do have a limited number of sequences, invariably the clustering CANNOT parallel actual random numbers. What we want, though, isn’t an exact parallel, but a reasonable emulation.
(continued)
-
(continued)
So again. Strategic bombing. Now think about 1942 Online - the game. The meta. The actions of the players. How does it manifest?
The Russia player opens with a triple attack or a double attack (say West Russia / Ukraine) or a single attack (say West Russia). The meta being what it is, I say triple attack is too risky, and I say MOST players will do a double attack. (Agree, disagree, it doesn’t matter - this is for illustrative purposes, the important concept is the R1 meta stabilizes around relatively few lines of play. Which it does. Especially without a preplaced bid. Sorry, just my little jab there.)
That’s an important point. If players literally had an infinite number of valid choices, then that would change the actions - which would change the particulars of dice calls - which would mean lines diverge. But players do NOT have infinite valid choices. Just a few. Their behavior “clusters” - which is different to random number clustering, but to be noted.
So let’s say in a particular game, R1 West Russia attack rolls 13 dice for attackers, 6 dice for defenders (or whatever), then 11 dice for attackers, 3 dice for defenders (or whatever). Let’s say the R1 attack resolves after 45 dice are rolled.
Then let’s say in ANOTHER game, an identical R1 attack resolves after 41 dice are rolled, another game 47 dice - whatever.
Then let’s say in ANOTHER game a slightly different R1 attack on West Russia resolves after 43 dice . . .etc.
What I’m getting at is even in all these different games, you get convergence of the number of dice rolled - and even though you have “randomness” in the PRNG, the game mechanics themselves lead to convergence. If the PRNG DOES generate something like X hits of Y attempts for infantry SOMEWHAT “fairly”, then with a great amount of data, results converge - just like how large amounts of data of binomial events converge on the binomial distribution.
And yes, probability is what it is so there’s no “certainty” - but as I wrote many many months ago, though you can’t definitively declare “our tests show there is no issue” (remember that?), you CAN say things like “our tests with this dataset indicate there’s a 99.999999999% of there not being an issue”. And please understand, I literally mean that last number can be COMPUTED AND MATHEMATICALLY DEMONSTRATED - unlike other “references” that I’ve seen from developers stating there’s a “99.999% whatever”, which I’m quite sure are NOT actually calculated.
Right. So we know human player actions cluster, we know the PRNG clusters, we know the PRNG generates a limited range of sequences of numbers, we know mathematically this MUST result in bias. The question is, again, though - not whether there is bias - but is there bias in EXPRESSION?
. . .and the answer is chained to the IMPLEMENTATION of the PRNG.
Suppose you say that the PRNG grabs a new time seed every time. You may recall the developers releasing a statement they tested whatever billion or something PRNG outputs. And . . . . that was drawn from in-game data? (Maybe not). Contextual data? (Almost CERTAINLY not.) What was the period of the data? That is, say the first hundred numbers in ten million separate PRNG generated sequences of numbers were taken for analysis. But if the game doesn’t call through an entire first hundred numbers then that’s quite useless for testing the validity of the PRNG in actual application. And if the game doesn’t jump to a random point in that hundred number sequence, then you’re going to get clustering. And if the game DID jump to a “random” point, then of course that “random” point is itself determined by a PRNG, so you’re back to clustering of clustering problems again.
So back to the expression. You remember I said we can EXPECT to see PRNG output clustering (and if we can’t, again, that of itself is a problem). And I said human behavior means inputs to the PRNG are also clustered. So that means if a player IS strategic bombing, they’re probably pursuing much the same strategy time and again. Make sense? So depending on how exactly the PRNG does manifest, it is entirely possible that the player will be punished for, say, strategic bombing, time and again.
You could point to second order analysis, you could say all the numbers come out in the wash - but they DON’T, not really. It IS possible that a player’s strategic bombers get shot down again and again and again - and given the described implementation you should be able to see that IS a distinct possibility because of clustering of clusters - then of course they’re going to think there’s an issue. Because there IS ACTUALLY AN ISSUE, STATISTICALLY - even if second-order analysis simply doesn’t detect the issue at all. And I’ll say AGAIN - it depends on a particular player, how they particularly play, because their clustering of behavior changes the calls to the PRNG which is itself clustered - so a reported issue from one player that IS statistically legitimate will not be able to be replicated by players that don’t emulate exactly the same behavior. (See, again? You must have data export.)
So returning to what I said was the public address. Rather than saying “we looked at customer complaints and switched out our PRNG (tee hee!)” I’d set up a REAL battery of tests using the ACTUAL data from complaining players - and if that wasn’t in the budget, I’d just not say anything - at least not without written records that I had protested, and written orders TO say what was said. Because again - if you want to do blanket denials, that DOES work in SOME situations, but when there’s legitimate complaints that remain unanswered for months, something else needs to be done.
==
Look. I get that if Beamdog doesn’t want to put out tools, okay. That’s a lotta work. Expensive. But if you’re seriously going to go with “xorshift128+ did nothing wrong”, you’re going to have to draw data from IN-GAME. There’s just way too many holes in the methodology if you don’t. (And I’ll note - if you do draw data, best have separate tests for platinum, gold, silver, bronze, and wood. I won’t elaborate here unless asked).
If you want to put out a statement addressing those that DO want to look into it - you’ll want to say something like how many time seeds the PRNG uses, how the time seed is generated (whether it’s on the second, whether each battle uses a different time seed, or when exactly the time seed argument is passed to the PRNG). The obvious problem is people will say if you put out that information, that’s going to potentially give hackers more information - but for heaven’s sake if they’re reverse engineering they can work it all out anyways, plus it’s already been released that xorshift128+ is the core, if people are going to hack a wee bit of general information that they probably already have (and more besides) shouldn’t make a difference.
And for heaven’s sake, in most Western cultures replies like “have you even read the link?” and “why did you comment that way?” are interpreted as NOT at all being sincere. They’re read as combative passive-aggressive rhetorical questions along the lines of “you haven’t read the link” and “you shouldn’t have commented that way (if you’d even bothered to read, which you didn’t.)”
I mean, I should know. You may recall my saying “some reading needed to be done” or similar on Steam forums and being warned for being “offensive”. So if I’m “offensive” if I’m a person that’s not representing an entity and I have documentation to back up that reading wasn’t done - then what of someone that IS representing an entity combatively asking if someone even read something, but then actually looking into it and seeing yes probably the reading WAS done?
You can see how that’s much worse, yes?
Look, I know, I’m disconcertingly up-front. But I want to be clear I’m not trying to get you in trouble. If I had that in mind, I’d just grab a load of screenshots and contextual documentation, add a summary and commentary, and send it on all over the place. The way I figure it, you’ve got a tough job, and at least even if you don’t have all the mathematical or contextual background, you HAVE at least been around for months - and if you were replaced, who’s to say the replacement would be any better? So if I can help by maybe answering questions that I think were left unanswered okay, I don’t have to make a big thing of it, you know? I do what I can, you do what you can, let’s all get along, etc.
But I can’t do anything about stuff like not getting the legitimate mathematics and argument behind complaints - nor can I do anything about combative responses like “have you even read the link?” Nor can I really play off blanket denials and evasions over the course of months as being a good answer.
And think, am I just pretending to try to be fair-minded? When I say the developers don’t do certain things, you know I don’t say things like “ach, the developers are hopeless idjits”? I always say things like “developers have to set priorities given their budget”. True. Am I endlessly pestering for transparency and dates? Months ago when it was said a developer response on dice was upcoming - I COULD have cited your and Cody’s later responses and made a big point of how the developers were up to their usual denial games (you remember a response (not you) that said something like “PRNGs can’t be distinguished from random numbers by humans”.) Goodness knows I COULD have ripped into that, I WANTED to - and you know that’s EXACTLY the sort of thing I CAN and HAVE jumped all over - but I didn’t. I just shut my mouth and waited for the developer response. I reasoned I didn’t need to feed any controversy, if the developer response was good (and I bet it wouldn’t be, but I didn’t SAY that at the time), then great. If the developer response was NOT good, then I could take it up at the time. Is that the behavior of someone with an axe to grind, or the behavior of someone that DOES want to give the developer a fair opportunity to respond (and even MORE than fair I’d say really.)
I could have played it very hard, but I didn’t. Not at all. So when I say let’s try to work it out, is that just me playing games, or is that how it is?
But then, if I am trying to work things out - if I say that things could be improved in the public relations department, if I say there is a legitimate case which isn’t understood - perhaps instead of dismissing what I’m saying out of hand, you might try to believe I’m NOT actually trying to rake you over the coals - maybe I REALLY DO believe what I’m writing. (Which I do.)
And I’d say even if you are being told by some people that there isn’t an issue - I’ll respond - do those people have a heavy mathematics background? Twenty plus years of experience with Axis and Allies? What of training in psychology? Marketing? Programming? Understand my responses typically combine all these disciplines. That’s perhaps why I see issues where others don’t - not because there ARE no issues, but because I just have more experience in different disciplines.
For example? You remember I said months ago that the PRNG issue was a public relations issue. That didn’t mean it could be answered with simply “public relations” - as with any question of practical issues, that meant the practical aspect had to be addressed. If a local politician has a “public relations” issue with not being able to obtain federal grant allocation, they can’t just respond all the time with a blanket “it was looked into, it just didn’t work out”. The REAL issues need to be looked at - WHY did federal grants go to surrounding counties but NOT the local? Why couldn’t this be resolved? Is it because the county in question didn’t have the same level of infrastructure as other counties? Or did other counties call in political favors? What was the real reason? And even if the REAL reason can’t be mentioned for political reasons - at LEAST a reason that SOUNDS real needs to come out. That’s public relations.
So there I said - look. How do people parse information? I say they’re not looking at individual dice results, they are looking at outcomes of groups of dice. Is that reasonable? Yes. It is. Then I say testing needs to be done on that basis (which as far as I know it totally wasn’t). Is THAT reasonable? Yes.
Then I say HOW you PRESENT that information. And I know binomial distributions create a curve, I know actual data differs to calculated projected - even if we’re not talking about real live situations with unknown variables, you ARE going to get deviation between the two. So then I said - what? Instead of citing arcane things like Dickey-Fuller (which I don’t think really answer the question anyways) or “internal testing” - I said you present the information VISUALLY - which means people WITHOUT mathematical backgrounds can look at it. And yes, you could possibly create a false narrative with the data. I never said you couldn’t.
And of course - mathematically - and you would need mathematics to know this - you can’t determine the validity or invalidity of a dataset to a given degree of precision if you don’t have a sufficient sized dataset to test. So you incorporate that as well.
But returning to the psychology aspect - instead of having arcane non-answers which don’t work out mathematically for those that do understand the mathematics, and look like evasions to those that don’t understand the mathematics - you have VISUAL representation. If the datasets indicate there is no problem (which might NOT be the case - but again, if you have the datasets and analysis protocols that’s a lot of the work that needs to be done for an actual fix right there) - anyways, that VISUAL representation convinces a lot of people right there. And for those that DO dig deeper, the onus of alternate models is on them - because you CAN say (provided you DID have data exportation and analysis tools and visual representation) that the developers did everything that could reasonably be expected.
As to programming experience - well, I wrote how PRNGs work in concept, and isn’t that true? Mathematics - clustering, isn’t THAT true? And twenty plus years of Axis and Allies experience - well when I say there’s no substitute for live defender decisions, I already outlined months ago how you CAN create a complete substitute but that’s so cumbersome to use it’s just as bad as the current situation, and if you do NOT have live defender decisions that changes defender ability to respond - and that affects everything from removing 2 fighters then 1 carrier then 2 fighters then 1 carrier etc if defending fighters don’t have a safe landing zone to taking preferentially Russian or UK or US troops as casualties, changing the units available to potentially do territory trading with air backup, to wanting subs NOT to submerge for a main fleet, but wanting them to ALSO submerge at other areas on the same round. Those distinctions aren’t something that very casual players are going to think important - but they ARE a distinct part of Axis and Allies play for veterans - and as I said, if you DID want to have a “casual” oriented Axis and Allies fine, but saying the online version is based on the 1942 v2 board game when there are actually a lot of differences! - well.
And to wrap up - I know it’s a lot of text here. But let’s not shoot the messenger okay? I tried short versions, all the time. I asserted allied carrier use was important. Wasn’t accepted, so I wrote a whole treatment of the issue (and more besides). I said PRNG was a public relations issue. Wasn’t accepted so I wrote out the details of how I think it should be treated. I said the developers needed to hire a competent statistician to look at things. Wasn’t done. So what can reasonably be done? I stated things in brief, they don’t get traction. I say hire professionals, it doesn’t happen. I write out a great amount of detail - NOT EXHAUSTIVE by any means, but just the bare minimum to shape and inform the case - and I get called out for text walls. It’s like really now. I don’t have any skin in the game, is it expected that I personally underwrite the bills for the research or for hiring experts or to do the work myself?
I understand I can’t expect people to understand decades of context from a few paragraphs. I understand even if the game generated up to four million in revenue that’s spoken for (to generate profits, if nothing else - and since it’s always a case of comparison with investments, maximum profit for minimum resource allocation is a reasonable goal). And I understand people don’t want to read a load of text. But reasonably, what else should I do or can I do?
To quote Tolkien’s “The Hobbit”
“What else do you suppose a burglar is to do?” asked Bilbo angrily. “I was
not engaged to kill dragons, that is warrior’s work, but to steal treasure. I made
the best beginning I could. Did you expect me to trot back with the whole hoard
of Thror on my back? If there is any grumbling to be done, I think I might have a
say. You ought to have brought five hundred burglars not one. I am sure it
reflects great credit on your grandfather, but you cannot pretend that you ever
made the vast extent of his wealth clear to me. I should want hundreds of years
to bring it all up, if I was fifty times as big, and Smaug as tame as a rabbit.”It worked out for Bilbo and the dwarves; maybe things will all work out here too.
-
@Brian-Cannon said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
annnnnnnnnnnd still no fix for the dice
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
Sorry, have you even read the link?
@Brian-Cannon said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
I have Julius
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
Sorry, then why did you comment that way?
I figured if I’m going to criticize a response - as I’ve always said, it’s very easy to criticize - much harder to state a specific course to follow that doesn’t likewise have issues. I cited what I considered wrong before, but not terribly detailed about why and what to do instead.
“annnnnnnnnnnd still no fix for the dice” - drawing out the “annnnnnd” you could characterize as an attack - but consider the speed of developer response (months and months) and the evasion (even if not deliberate) and denial (even if the issue wasn’t understood). When one party behaves unreasonably, it’s not reasonable to act as if that party HAD been reasonable. So best - considering the context - just to let it pass. (Even without context, it’s STILL best just to let stuff like that go, if you’re representing a company).
“Sorry, have you even read the link?” - terrible terrible response. Leading with “Sorry” could be a lead-in to an apology so is polite/neutral of itself. But the rest is just a vicious backhand. “Have you even read the link?” Not “Have you read the link”, which would be bad enough! But have you EVEN read the link? Did you EVEN bother to do the smallest modicum of what’s reasonable and appropriate? That’s the takeaway. As to “have you read the link” - of itself, that’s frankly insulting.
You could perhaps get away with that level of insult on some level if the development letter REALLY DID exhaustively address a “fix for the dice”. But it doesn’t.
Note there’s a difference between a representative of a company making an insulting assertion contrary to documentation, and a customer making an assertion that can be taken as insulting but that has LOADS of documentation.
What would have been an appropriate response?
- Lead with thanking the person for their time, and acknowledging the legitimacy of the inquiry.
Companies pay big money for metrics, and here’s someone that took their time - no matter how brief - to provide feedback. That’s stuff companies fight over, pay for, there’s scandals about people surrendering data - and here’s data, at someone else’s time and expense, provided to you, for free. That’s the mindset you need at the core. If you don’t have it, it’s going to reflect in your actions.
- If it is NOT POSSIBLE to acknowledge the legitimacy of the inquiry (for political reasons or whatever - say you don’t understand what they mean, or suppose you’re under orders not to respond directly to particular topics) - deflect. Not a blunt deflection that denies legitimacy - rather, a tailored deflection that acknowledges the question without directly responding, pointing to some way the customer feedback IS making a REAL difference, and pointing to some positive action that the developers DID take.
(Note - even tailored deflections frankly wear thin after a while. Especially after months. There is really only so much you can do, and you really need written orders or a voice recording of orders telling you to use even tailored deflections if it’s on a months-long basis. You have to cover yourself after all).
Example - suppose you can’t address the legitimacy of the dice at all (orders). Say you can’t mention the development team won’t be coming out with export tools (orders). Say all you can say is the team is looking at “stabilized dice”.
“Thanks for continuing to provide your valued feedback. We continue to track and monitor all feedback for future development of 1942 Online and other potential Axis and Allies titles. At this time, the development team is working on planning and implementing a “stabilized dice” option that we hope players will enjoy.”
And that’s it. Nothing more. If you get responses like “the development team didn’t do a good study” - don’t reply. Because you’re under orders not to - right? That’s why we’re assuming you didn’t answer that directly in the first place. (We could say you didn’t understand, but that’s less flattering so let’s just leave it, especially as the recommended action doesn’t change on that basis anyways). You tell the customer they’re valued. You say their reports make a difference. And on some level that’s true. If you’re just throwing out reports, surely you must empty your trash folder every so often. Or maybe you’re angry that you have to deal with so much whatever stuff. On some level - on SOME level - customer reports ARE being monitored. And if there were no customer feedback, you’d be out a job, and you don’t want that. So you DO appreciate and monitor feedback - on SOME level. SOMEHOW. That’s the truth. And if some legitimate offer comes along to pour two million dollars into the project (say), of course you’d bring it to your bosses (it would be weird that they weren’t approached directly, but whatever.) So yeah. You ARE monitoring feedback and providing it to the ones that are making decisions. On SOME level. This is just truth, okay. I don’t know how much repackaging it requires to BE the truth, but what does it matter? Then you end by saying the developers did something. And that’s the end.
And when posters give you and the development team flak for not addressing this and that and the fifty thousand other things - JUST SAY NOTHING. If nothing is being done, they’re absolutely right to complain. Blanket denials work in SOME situations, but not after months of the same issue being brought up. It’s really a question of acknowledging or denying now - and if you answer a question but “evade”, it’s even WORSE than a TOTAL NON-ANSWER because once you go with a pseudo-response you’re digging yourself either into the hole of losing integrity, or making people think you don’t know what’s going on. Rather than dig yourself into that hole, you just stand on the ground you CAN be sure of - repeat again and again, this is what’s being done, we’re monitoring things, then after some months people will give you flak for literally nothing happening or even being announced, but what are you going to do? You don’t have an answer. So don’t try to give an answer. Just say this is what there is to be said, that’s an end of it, if you MUST acknowledge things, don’t attack their legitimacy, that just invites discussion and controversy and a whole bag of things you don’t want to deal with. Just leave it.
“I have Julius” - straight. Hopefully you don’t find that insulting.
“Sorry, then why did you comment that way?” - ugh. If I say “Sorry, why are you such a tremendous troll?” “Sorry, why are you a so and so?” Sorry, etc.". helps nothing - it just comes off worse.
Here, you’re questioning why someone commented the way they did. If you genuinely don’t understand something, then you do have to ask a question. But saying “why did you comment that way” is normally interpreted as saying “you should not have commented that way, now provide justification for what you did (and even after you provide justification you’re STILL wrong).” Really! There’s a power dynamic involved, and nobody likes being stepped on - yet that’s exactly what you’re doing to others when you do that. Especially when it’s shaped as a question. Oh my, yes.
So you have to write it differently. How? Again, remember - you want to acknowledge the legitimacy of what people are saying. You want to make them feel like their input is not only valued, but used in a way that makes a difference. Then you want to wrap it up trying to say the developers are doing their best and are, in fact, performing to reasonable expectations. Even if they aren’t. Especially if they aren’t.
So - and again hopefully this isn’t following an unfortunate exchange involving something like “Sorry, have you even read the link?” - how WOULD you impart a question in a respectful way, if the act of questioning can itself be insulting? You have to make STATEMENTS.
In this hypothetical - let’s someone said an issue wasn’t addressed. Suppose you thought it was. You asked for confirmation, they provide confirmation.
At that point - you MUST NOT respond saying things like “why did you comment that way”? They made a statement. You HAD YOUR CHANCE to reply and inquire and shape the narrative. When they blandly repeat their original statement (even if in slightly different words), you MUST NOT repeat what you wrote. You HAD YOUR CHANCE. Whether it’s your fault for not imparting your meaning or their fault for not understanding, you’re the representative of the company. The question of who was ultimately responsible is irrelevant - as it’s going to land in your lap REGARDLESS. You’re the one that has to act in a professional manner. Only you! Doubling down and questioning customer actions is NOT the thing to do, ESPECIALLY not with a literal question that implies a power dynamic, and sticking a “Sorry” in front of that just comes off as a backhanded slap.
Instead, lead with a statement that acknowledges what they wrote, and leaves the onus of not understanding on you. (Which is where it really is anyways.) Something like “Sorry, I thought by “fix for dice” you meant positive developer action to address possible differences between PRNG output and actual random numbers, which is something we intend to address with “stabilized dice”. I understand now that is not what you meant, but so I may address your question correctly, may I ask what, exactly, you mean by “fix for dice”? Please provide as much detail as possible so I may correctly understand and address your concern.”
Again, a question is a power dynamic - but since it’s prefaced with an apology and a statement to clear up understanding that puts the onus of responsibility on you rather than the poster, it’s a soft sincere question instead of a hard confrontational question. Then at the end you again place the responsibility of understanding on you by saying you want to correctly understand and address the concern - the subtext is that you’re asking for details ONLY BECAUSE IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (which it is, especially if you don’t understand what they mean, which IS the case if they’re just repeating themselves).
And notice how exactly “I understand now that is not what you meant, but so I may address your question correctly, may I ask what, exactly, you mean by “fix for dice”?” is structured.
You lead with implication that YOU were at fault “I understand now” means you did NOT understand THEN. Then you say “so I may address your question correctly” - acknowledging that YOU are responsible for answering THEIR question, not the other way around. Only THEN, with those things ESTABLISHED, with the fault and onus ON YOU, do you ask what they mean. Which you did before, but you pack that all in one summary sentence to restate the point, make it REALLY clear you only ask a question in the interests of serving them - it’s not that they have any obligation to explain themselves to you.
==
And with all this I want to make the point - this is out of Western cultural expectations for customer service. If you’re fluent in English, but operating out of Eastern Europe, say, then namby pambying around can be seen as weakness that wastes everyone’s time. Or if you’re operating out of China or India, you just say “this is how it is” and the subtext is “and be grateful you’re getting even this much!” Even in Western cultural expectations, operating a business often cuts to the point (especially if you have leverage). But this is Western cultural expectations for customer service, and you don’t have leverage.
-
side-steps the arguing and ranting and raving about dice and whatnot
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog If you want a good reference point for the “Stabilized Dice” feature you’re planning on implementing I’d recommend looking into the “Low Luck” (“LL” for short) house rule that this community has implemented over the years. In a nutshell, it works in the following way:
Each round, do the following:
-
Add up the Combat Value for all units in a fight on each side (ex. If I attack with 2 INF/1 ART/1 TANK against 4 INF, then the attacker’s “Combat Value” is 8 (1 (the unpaired INF) + 2 (the paired INF) + 2 (the ART) + 3 (the TANK) = 8 ) and the defender’s “Combat Value” is also 8 (2 (the INFs) * 4 = 8).
-
Divide the “Combat Value” of each side by 6 and note the remainder (Attacker would be 8/6 = 1 Remainder 2, Defender would be 6/6 = 1 Remainder 0).
-
The number you got when dividing the Combat Value by 6 is how many hits you score as a baseline.
-
For the remainder, roll a D6 and compare it to the remainder. If you rolled less than the remainder, you get one extra hit on top of the value you got in step “#3” above.
-
Both sides remove casualties, attack has the option to retreat (just like in regular A&A).
So basically, each side can get a rough estimate going in of exactly how a battle will play out. This makes the game more chess-like than normal A&A (where big swingy battles can single-handedly decide the outcome of the game), which has its own perks/flaws (the game’s a lot more predictable this way, for better or for worse).
I’d hesitate on having any mode with this setting replace the core “ranked” ladder though, as it’d be a good way to get purists mad. However, a separate ladder for low-luck may appeal to people who are upset by the dice (not naming any names, but you’ve been putting up with us long enough to get the idea).
Thanks as always for popping your head in here and taking the abuse you take. I don’t envy you.
EDIT: Minor cleanup of post structure.
-
-
Yeah, low luck is really tried and true. It’s amazing to me how bothered people get with “the dice” when they’re behaving exactly as defined. It’s like you have to design to human perceptions of what fair and random should be rather than true dice. Reminds me of the music shuffle button, which can’t be a fully randomized selection or people would complain about hearing the same song in quick succession.
-
@Boston_NWO I mean I get mad about getting diced but I just walk away and cool off rather than throw a fit.
-
@DoManMacgee My intent is not to accuse you. I’ve been engaged with many players the past two seasons and achieved a solid rank. Complaints about the dice doing something out of the ordinary, and almost always harming the poster’s game position, abound.
Yet if you look in aggregate, it’s a very consistent cohort of players who are at the top. We have had two major tournaments and the final 4 players in each are among the top 10-20 that I know of. I personally achieved a win record above 90% both seasons with over 40 games played. The variance in the dice are a factor in game outcomes, but player skill is the dominant factor on who wins.
-
@DoManMacgee said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
I’d hesitate on having any mode with this setting replace the core “ranked” ladder though,
“our development team is working on a “Stabilized Dice” option for the game.”
OPTION.
@DoManMacgee said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
side-steps the arguing and ranting and raving about dice and whatnot
Cute how you’re above it all. Well, you don’t have to get YOUR precious little hands dirty. Just leave that to ol’ aardvark.
@DoManMacgee said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
Thanks as always for popping your head in here and taking the abuse you take. I don’t envy you.
you’re welco-oh, wait, that wasn’t to me was it.
Wrap your head around this. I hit details up as much as I can, I don’t shirk. You can say I go on. You can say I’m outspoken. But just try to say I didn’t try to substantiate anything I said. If it’s called into question, or even if action isn’t taken, I dig in. I put in the time.
And what of others? They say they’re above the discussion! If they don’t personally think there’s an issue - even if there MAY be an issue - there IS no issue. Then some say there’s “ranting and raving” or “text walls” or pejoratives. It’s very unpleasant and insulting - and it’s MEANT to be unpleasant and insulting. That’s the PURPOSE.
Contrast to me. Oh yeah, I’m not very nice. But that’s a byproduct of natural response to seeing months of inaction, or to my belaboring the point to people that just don’t get it - and my resulting frustration (even if it IS just because I’m bad at explaining, I’m still frustrated that others don’t get it.)
Sure, I’m not the greatest. But I’m hardly the worst of the population by far.
-
@Boston_NWO said in Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter:
if you look in aggregate, it’s a very consistent cohort of players who are at the top . . . The variance in the dice are a factor in game outcomes, but player skill is the dominant factor on who wins.
Suppose I re-interpret your statement. Would it be fair to say your claim is the same players consistently top the ladder, that you argue those players possess skill, and that consistent performance indicates skill must be the dominant factor determining rank?
You know me. I pick things apart. So if you agree here but disagree later - no problem. We’ll just say I didn’t convey the case properly.
But if you DO agree - there’s a few big gaps.
First - I don’t think rank is necessarily an accurate reflection of skill. I don’t mean to discount your 90% winrate. Sure, you are very skilled, well done and all. BUT consider. Rank degrades. Ranks measure wins and losses over time. Wins and losses can result from things other than simple skill at the game.
Such as? The 24 hour clock. Depending on your work, family, and other commitments you may not be able to make a particular check-in. And if you don’t check-in, you can lose not just one game - but all ongoing games.
Or wealth. Typically I have access to computers on different networks at different locations, and can travel between those locations at will. If my internet goes out at one location - I can just go to another location to do what I want to do.
Or time. If you don’t play a certain number of games, you just won’t get your rank up that high. But you can’t play those games if you just can’t make the time. You could be skilled as anyone, but if you just don’t play a lot of games, that skill won’t be reflected in your rank.
Or the rank decay system. Now, it’s not enough that a player plays games to get rank - they have to play games at the end of the season to minimize rank decay. That means control over one’s schedule.
Let’s assume the top players are skilled. All right. But the fact the top-ranked players doesn’t change much doesn’t mean dice results don’t matter. It may just as well mean that these other factors - clock, wealth, overall time, control over schedule - are also contributing factors, and those factors narrow the pool of players that may conceivably take the top spots.
Sure, dice effects would widen the pool. But other factors can narrow the pool.
The size of the population needs to be considered as well. If you’re consistently top ten out of a playerbase of a few hundred thousand, that’s different to being top ten out of a playerbase of a thousand.
So out of a population of a thousand - suppose we’re not asking who the most skilled players are. Suppose we ask of the reasonably skilled players, who has the wealth or connections to be able to travel at will to multiple locations and so avoid missing checkins due to network outages, a good deal of time on their hands so can play a great number of games necessary to achieving a high rank, control over their daily schedule so they can avoid missing checkins as a matter of routine, and control over their schedule as a whole so they can schedule more time to play more games at the end of a season? Might it be . . . . ten or twenty players?
Looking at things that way - sure. We can agree skill is a factor in game outcomes. But we can’t necessarily say that the same players topping the ranks each season is a result of skill outweighing dice, as there are other factors involved.
I could have made this post FAR shorter. But come on, do we really need a “git gud at logical arguments” post in addition to “git gud at dice” posts? Nah. And you know ol’ aardvark. I dunno about RAVING, but I do like me a good rant.
Anyways, congratulations on your 90% winrate and ranked placements in both seasons so far.
-
A consistent cohort of players are consistently winning and reaching high ranks, which makes it doubtful that the game outcomes are primarily driven by the volatility of dice outcomes. You’re posit skill, wealth, internet connection speed, or time commitment. I’m making a focused statement about dice variance with respect to likelihood of winning.
-
Folks, when you create tension and conflict that requires my intervention to figure out the whole thing, it upsets me. I don’t have this to be a babysitter. It’s also detrimental to the community. When a new users comes along and sees a forum with such animosity, they don’t stick around.
Are there good aspects to this conversation? Yes. Are there parts where people are being jerks? Yes. Do I have time and bandwidth to sort it out? No. Instead of reading through this mess, should I be working on improving the site or playing some A&A myself? Yes.
Maybe it’s not all that bad but holy crap, I have to set aside an hour of reading to figure it out? :angry:
-
Also, not naming names but there’s blame to be assigned all around here. Some folks are coming off as big jerks, some as small jerks, some as know-it-all jerks, some as being confusing in general (which can lead to jerk-ish reactions).
Suggested Topics
