High Percentage misses

[BigJim]

It seems like the number of 60 to 99 percent shots that miss have increased alot since the patch. By "miss" I mean no damage or out right miss, or stopped but still active to fire. These misses seem to come a critical times vs the AI's "key" assests???

Anyone else notice this???

[DRG]

There wasn't any change to the code that influences the to-hit chance for v2. However, this seems to be just another way you can re-introduce your theory that there is one set of code for the AI and one for the Human player and I have stated previously that there isn't and I'll say it ONE more time.........the game has no cheat code for the AI. It doesn't get a different line of code to read when it's the AI's turn to shoot or when it's the AI's turn to calculate damage, or when it's the AI's turn to spot or when it's the AI's "critical assets" that are being fired on.

"These misses seem to come a critical times vs the AI's "key" assests??? " gimme a frigging break. You really are just a BIT too paranoid. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting we have added code to this version of the game that makes it more difficult to kill off specific AI units?

Does ANYONE else actually belive this?

Don

[troopie]

Big Jim,

Ever been so blerrie sure you were right, so blerrie sure you can hit the target, that you turn out to be as wrong as rats? That's what, to me, missing at a high percentage. I notice also, that while don't get as many low percentage hits as the AI, the ones I do get are more damaging.

troopie

[BigJim]

I will give you a "friggin" break DRG as you say, if you think that this stuff is NOT happening then either you are so full of yourself that you cannot see the trees for the forest or you never set down and played the game. I have no interest in continuing any type of discussion where the reply is so caustic. Rest assured your attitude ensures that I will never spend a dime with you OR Shrapenel Games

This is my last post have a nice day

[Marek_Tucan]

The only set of data different for the AI and the player is the AI picklist;o)

OK, now seriously, while high % misses and low % fatal hits can be very annoying sometime (just like today, lost my Peruvian AMX-13/90 to a 15% hit from M41, and I may add that the enemy was human, too, and then another M41 took three hits to blow - one by HEAT 57mm rockets causing **, second by 90mm gun causing again ** and third from 90mm causing it to blow for good), it is just life...
As long as I do play SP, I didn't get the feeling the AI is somewhat preferred in this matter. And from my experience again, it seems that low % hits and high % missed against me are occuring rather in PBEM or hotseat games;o) But the same feeling is on the other side, so I assume it is just OK.

[Pyros]

BigJim,

There are several ways to investigate such an issue.

First of all you must be in position to compare the "high percentage misses" between solitaire games (vs AI) and Pbem games (vs Human).
The above is somehow difficult (because of many reasons) and the most crucial factor is the experience of the player in both type of games (vs Pbem, vs AI).

What I propose you to do, is to experiment with test scenarios, in which you will create corridors (small maps) and you will choose and deploy the exact units (nation, type etc.)

Then you will start the game with player1 as human (player2 AI) and after several replays you will start the game with player2 as AI (player2 human).

The difference between these two modes is that the player who takes the first shot will also be the player who will make the "high percentage misses".

If you carefully examine the results of a series of these tests you will understand that there is no modification in the code (between the AI and Human).

In order to help you I did one series of tests with 6 Greek tank against the same Greek tanks (hit probability 62%-67%). My conclusion is that the game engine treats equally the Human and the AI.

cheers,
Pyros

here are the settings of the test:

[hveldenz]

I cannot help but ask a few questions in regards to this thread, as it seems to be a recurring theme of prior threads (which is related to my continuing observation of the Uber ATGM sole survivor phenomenon). I have seen "99%" hit Hellfire B's in a solitaire campaign miss sometimes 4 times in a row - from a combination of evasion, arena fire, a non penetrating hit (actually a 'hit', but not the kill), or a straight out miss. I also seem to experience (with no testing like suggested) where the 66-69% numbers especially seem to come up the "Miss", or the "rally Failed" 8-10 times in a row.

I also do not believe there is intentional coding biases to the AI. However, if a developer can comment on :

1. Is the "to hit" number, or the rally percentage we see the actual final number rolled against by the random number generator? If not, it could be a partial explaination.
2. If the number %s are not what we the player sees - what goes on after the number displays, but before the die roll (Unit experience modifiers for example?)
3. How are random numbers generated in the game? The old days of coding random numbers in Basic or Fortran (from school days) involved selecting a seed number that directs into predetermined series of numbers. This essentially means that all random numbers are "predetermined", but not preselected until a seed number starts a chain of number results. The other method used in the past, IIRC, is a timing of a key press versus the computer clock speed to get to a seed or number. Does the random number algorithm have instead of true randomness like the perfect six sided die, just a large listing of numbers to read down in sequence (who remembers old PBM wargames using the stock tables and seed numbers to resolve a turn?)

I do appreciate the feedback from the programmers and developers, and also their collective effort.
Thanks.

[DRG]

When Andy gets back on line, which hopefully will be sometimes this week, I have him provide the exact details but ...

1] Yes a random number generator is used but he can provide more detail than I as to the order it is used

2] as above

3] as above.

I could give generalities but Andy can give the details so let's wait for the details. What I DO know and HAVE stated already on this forum to this same original poster is there is NO AI advantage built into the game. It uses the same code to determine it's hits and penetrations and it does your hits and penetrations. It's totally impartial in that regard and follows the same set of code rules. For anyone to suggest that we would code the game so that the AI is given the ability to shield it's "key" assets is insulting and absurd ESPECIALLY as I have already told anyone willing to listen that this does not happen. There is NO purpose in my lying about something like that. There is no benefit either personally or economically. The "profit" we make from this game wouldn't keep some people in beer for a year. Some people don't want to listen........ that's fine by me they can find something else to play.

Don

[Weasel]

HI; You can check out the informal study I did on page 2 which was titled "low percentile hits". It will give you some idea of how often high to hit chances actually do hit, and how often they miss. I agree with you though, the lower the % the better the chance to hit it seems to me. I don't think it is a cheat or anything, just maybe a formula goof or something. That is just my opinion though.

[Mobhack]

hveldenz said:
I cannot help but ask a few questions in regards to this thread, as it seems to be a recurring theme of prior threads (which is related to my continuing observation of the Uber ATGM sole survivor phenomenon). I have seen "99%" hit Hellfire B's in a solitaire campaign miss sometimes 4 times in a row - from a combination of evasion, arena fire, a non penetrating hit (actually a 'hit', but not the kill), or a straight out miss. I also seem to experience (with no testing like suggested) where the 66-69% numbers especially seem to come up the "Miss", or the "rally Failed" 8-10 times in a row.

I also do not believe there is intentional coding biases to the AI. However, if a developer can comment on :

1. Is the "to hit" number, or the rally percentage we see the actual final number rolled against by the random number generator? If not, it could be a partial explaination.
2. If the number %s are not what we the player sees - what goes on after the number displays, but before the die roll (Unit experience modifiers for example?)
3. How are random numbers generated in the game? The old days of coding random numbers in Basic or Fortran (from school days) involved selecting a seed number that directs into predetermined series of numbers. This essentially means that all random numbers are "predetermined", but not preselected until a seed number starts a chain of number results. The other method used in the past, IIRC, is a timing of a key press versus the computer clock speed to get to a seed or number. Does the random number algorithm have instead of true randomness like the perfect six sided die, just a large listing of numbers to read down in sequence (who remembers old PBM wargames using the stock tables and seed numbers to resolve a turn?)

I do appreciate the feedback from the programmers and developers, and also their collective effort.
Thanks.

1) it's the base to-hit before randoms f0r a few things that cannot be determined before the actual shot attempt (leader rating, random chance for a nearby HQ overriding the leader etc). (If it calculated the randoms, you would get a different to-hit every time you selected with the 'T' key, as you went back and forwards, and none would agree withthe rolled number. The actual number is posted on the shot attempt.

2) some random rolls for experience and chance - which are usually shown (depends on the delay) - missile supression etc seems to show more often for example.

3) was adressed earlier - and results from the RNG published, showing a flat distribution, and no "runs" of either high or low numbers.

4) the base to hit disregards stuff like ATGM avoidance, VIRSS and so on.

Cheers
Andy
(not on-line yet, just using a dial-up as some clown cut the Glenrothes blueyonder fibre optic cable the day BY installed my new kit - 49Kbips - we used to use that in 1998 .. !