D20 Variance in practice

[kyoryu]

Or imagine if PAC Man only had an 80% chance to actually eat the dots he moved over. Or a game with "double jump" had it only work 80% of the time.

Actually reliable abilities are a different situation. I guess I'm making two related points:

1) If the chance of something happening is supposed to be a factor, making it happen 100% of the time subverts that part of the game design.
2) High percentages lead people to assume it's actually 100%, and then bitch when it isn't.

"Do I eat the dot" isn't a factor in Pac-Man, therefore neither of those apply.

On topic, if Brigandine used a d20 instead of a d100, and "99%" was rounded to 100% chance to hit? I don't think that the game would lose much, except that small tension of, "am I *actually* going to miss this 99% attack?!".

No, but then what happens on the 98% chance? Where do you draw the line?

[DwarfFighter]

No, but then what happens on the 98% chance? Where do you draw the line?

At 90%, of course. :)

-DF

[DwarfFighter]

Xcom lies on percentages.
It is intentional: they adjust percentages over time to keep the game experience fun but writes the same constant percentages displayed.
So when you read 5% it might actually be 50% and trying to make you feel lucky and think you had only 1/20 chance to succeed while you had 1/2 chance of success.

If I say your rolls have a 50% chance of success, but you pass 90% of your rolls, if you never see the rolls, how do you know if the game is rigged, or if you're just lucky? :)

[kyoryu]

At 90%, of course. :)

-DF

That's probably a reasonable place, tbh.

[Quertus]

No, but then what happens on the 98% chance? Where do you draw the line?

… I thought a) basic rules of rounding were still taught to grade schoolers; b) that people who aren't me can actually convert bases in their head; C) that the Playground would have no difficulty with assuming and applying the inheritance concept of "use base rule if no rules given".

So… rounding to 1's, it breaks at .5; rounding to 5's, it breaks at 2.5.

So 97.5-100=100-> a 1+ (or 20-) on the d20,

92.5-97.499999 =95-> a 2+ (or 19-) on the d20,

Etc.

(Not that the decimals matter, as Brigandine only uses (displays) whole integer percentage numbers)

Clear as mud?

[martixy]

If I say your rolls have a 50% chance of success, but you pass 90% of your rolls, if you never see the rolls, how do you know if the game is rigged, or if you're just lucky? :)

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: I think they were asking what granularity is appropriate, not what the granularity of a d20 is. If you are going to express things in percentages, I think 10% increments are fine. I like fractions here for some reason, but 1/10 is a good step.

Wesnoth also used to either lie like dog or miscalculate.

I think they have fixed that. Or everyone who has ever looked at the source code is in on the lie because they claim that it is fair. The Battle for Wesnoth is my favourite game I never play.

[noob]

If I say your rolls have a 50% chance of success, but you pass 90% of your rolls, if you never see the rolls, how do you know if the game is rigged, or if you're just lucky? :)

Because some devs leaked that fact.
It is not hard to know if developers from the game tells you (this information is not written in the game help itself but the information can be found).

[kyoryu]

… I thought a) basic rules of rounding were still taught to grade schoolers; b) that people who aren't me can actually convert bases in their head; C) that the Playground would have no difficulty with assuming and applying the inheritance concept of "use base rule if no rules given".

So… rounding to 1's, it breaks at .5; rounding to 5's, it breaks at 2.5.

So 97.5-100=100-> a 1+ (or 20-) on the d20,

92.5-97.499999 =95-> a 2+ (or 19-) on the d20,

Etc.

(Not that the decimals matter, as Brigandine only uses (displays) whole integer percentage numbers)

Clear as mud?

Let's go with d) not everyone was assuming a d20-based context.

[Quertus]

Let's go with d) not everyone was assuming a d20-based context.

I mean, just because a d20 is the thread topic, I'll agree, that isn't sufficient to guarantee that someone - especially me - is actually talking about a d20. However,

On topic, if Brigandine used a d20 instead of a d100,

Bolded for emphasis.

[kyoryu]

I mean, just because a d20 is the thread topic, I'll agree, that isn't sufficient to guarantee that someone - especially me - is actually talking about a d20. However,


Bolded for emphasis.

Yeah, but we were talking about high percentages to hit in games like XCom. Come on, man.