Coin Flip option

[mapguy]

My argument for the coin flip or something like it has not been addressed.
I see all kinds of odds quoted here and there, but none of that goes to my main point, which is that with a coin flip or a bet on the wheel, THE PLAYER IS THE ONE THAT IS PICKING AND DECIDING.

 

[WidowMakers]

Picking a coin flip is the same odds as just flipping a coin.
And each previous flip does not affect the outcome of the next so same odds.

If a player guesses TTTTTTT
and the coin goes HHHHHHH
......they will hate the system

If a player guesses THTHTH
and the coin goes HTHTHT
......they will hate the system

Guessing the flip does nothing to improve the streakyness.

And being able to wager before an attack does nothing but INCREASE the luck and disproportional outcomes of the attack.

 

[Badorties]

I think all systems that rely on chance will have the same level of streakiness. whatever streakiness is. the only way to reduce it is to introduce non chance elements, wither with a total non chance system or a hybrid.

 

[mapguy]

My point is still failing to be recognized. "streakiness" as Bad says will exist with any system of chance that you use. I am NOT saying that it can be eliminated with the Coin Flip.

I am only trying to point out the fact that with a Coin Flip the player is actively involved, and his or her brain is being used to make certain decisions that ultimately determine the outcome of each attack. With dice the player can not choose to roll sixes. He simply decides where to attack from and to. then clicks the attack or auto attack. The computer then decides the outcome. But when you introduce a choice of Heads or Tails, or Red or Black with a roulette spin, you bring the player into the game more. He becomes an active participant in deciding the outcome of the attack.

Now please do NOT get me wrong, I have played this game for over 40 years, and I like the dice method just fine. However, I do NOT like computer dice very much. I suppose that there is a way to make computer dice more realistic and bring in more player participation. The solution is to adopt something like that old TV Game Show that allowed the player to hit a button to stop the flashing numbers on the board. I can not remember what the name of the show was, but you tried to avoid the "Whammies". My point is, The computer is involved, but is NOT the one, that is in control of the decision making.

 

[zspBANNED]

mapguy, your argument has been addressed by multiple people in multiple different ways.

I think I understand your point. I believe you're saying the player is more involved b/c he/she is picking heads or tails. That selection, at that moment, is the equivalent of deciding to roll the dice (whether it be attack or blitz) because you are only attempting to attack another person's region in either case.

With the coin flip option, the idea is to pick heads or tails in hopes that you choose the right side of the coin to conquer another person's region. The act of choosing either side of the coin is the only "active involvement" of the player.
With the dice, the idea is to get higher individual die than the other player. Clicking attack or blitz to roll the dice, in this case, is the only "active involvement" of the player.

In each case, the player is equally involved. Also in each case, the COMPUTER still decides the outcome. The player chooses to roll the dice or flip the coin, and that's where the player's active involvement ends; the computer decides the outcome after that.

No one took your argument that you were saying the coin flip eliminated streakiness altogether. What they are arguing is that it would be pointless to include yet another means to conquer territories by chance, where streakiness will still occur.

And it's EXTREMELY ironic that you mentioned the "whammy" game..b/c it's called PRESS YOUR LUCK! hahah Just b/c more stuff is happening (like watching random objects get highlighted and hope you stop the light on something that's not a whammy) doesn't mean the player is more actively involved. In the end, he/she can only rely on the results of the computer.

 

[mapguy]

mapguy, your argument has been addressed by multiple people in multiple different ways.

I think I understand your point. I believe you're saying the player is more involved b/c he/she is picking heads or tails. That selection, at that moment, is the equivalent of deciding to roll the dice (whether it be attack or blitz) because you are only attempting to attack another person's region in either case.

With the coin flip option, the idea is to pick heads or tails in hopes that you choose the right side of the coin to conquer another person's region. The act of choosing either side of the coin is the only "active involvement" of the player.
With the dice, the idea is to get higher individual die than the other player. Clicking attack or blitz to roll the dice, in this case, is the only "active involvement" of the player.

In each case, the player is equally involved. Also in each case, the COMPUTER still decides the outcome. The player chooses to roll the dice or flip the coin, and that's where the player's active involvement ends; the computer decides the outcome after that.

No one took your argument that you were saying the coin flip eliminated streakiness altogether. What they are arguing is that it would be pointless to include yet another means to conquer territories by chance, where streakiness will still occur.

And it's EXTREMELY ironic that you mentioned the "whammy" game..b/c it's called PRESS YOUR LUCK! hahah Just b/c more stuff is happening (like watching random objects get highlighted and hope you stop the light on something that's not a whammy) doesn't mean the player is more actively involved. In the end, he/she can only rely on the results of the computer.

The computer is NOT deciding the outcome. The computer is only deciding the outcome of the flip (heads or tails). It s the players bet and whether he is right or wrong with his guess on the heads or tails outcome. You guys are confusing this fact with the random nature of the odds of the roll generator.

Maybe it would help if you were to look at it this way. Lets say the coin is flipped but hidden from view. Now the computer has done its random generating job and its decision input is over. Now the decision input turns to the player to try to guess the correct outcome (heads or tails). His odds are 50/50, but HE is the one, and NOT the computer that is making the only decision that matters. Logic tells us that in the long run a players guessing record will be in the range of 50%. But it will be a compilation of right and wrong guesses of the player, NOT the computer. The computer is only flipping the coin. It has zero input in how well the player is at guessing.

You can also look at it this way, Imagine a lottery ticket that had a heads and tails area to choose from. Every ticket IS a winner, but you must correctly guess which one to scratch off, Heads or tails, it is totally up to you to choose. Some of the tickets will have winner under the heads and the others will be under the tails. The ticket does NOT decide if you win or loose, YOU DO.

 

[Shepherd]

The computer is NOT deciding the outcome. The computer is only deciding the outcome of the flip (heads or tails). It s the players bet and whether he is right or wrong with his guess on the heads or tails outcome. You guys are confusing this fact with the random nature of the odds of the roll generator.

I get where you're coming from, mapguy. I totally do. But I still disagree that this will solve the problem any.

The way it works now, Player X makes an attack that he thinks he should win - say, 10 v 2. He loses, and curses at the computer, but moves on. Later that day he loses another attack when the odds were in his favor. "Shitake!" he yells. The third time it happens, he decides that either the random die generator is flawed and that the outcome of the dice rolls is skewed against him. He posts this, and suggests that the system be replaced with something that will better reflect the odds.

In the coin toss scenario, Player X sends his 10 troops against 2, and guesses the toss wrong every time. "Wow, what crappy luck I have!" he tells himself. Later that day he again guesses wrong in a shockingly bad series of bad choices. "Fiddlesticks!" he screams at his monitor. Then later that same game it happens again - 8 out of 8 predictions come down wrong. Since this kind of bad guessing is impossible, he reasons, there must be something wrong with the system. Instead of being random, it is seeing his guess and giving him the opposite outcome. Player X goes to the forums and declares shenanigans, claiming that the system is fixed to give the opposite result of the guess.

The coin flip analogy doesn't apply here, because in this case Player X doesn't have a coin under a cup that has already been flipped: Player X is guessing which way the computer is GOING to flip the coin. And maybe the coin was already flipped by the computer and the player just has to guess right, but since it's the computer that is showing the player the coin AFTER the guess there's really no way to prove that the flip was made first.

Imagine it this way: I hold my hand behind my back, and you have to guess how many fingers I'm showing on my hand. You guess 2, I show you 3. Then you guess 3 and I show you 5. You guess 4 and I show you 1. Am I showing you a predetermined number, or am I changing my fingers every time you guess just to mess with you?

In fact, why don't you guess how many fingers I'm holding up right now?


Nope, you guessed wrong. :evil:

 

[mapguy]

I have found that MOST dice complaints are about unfair or unrealistic dice, NOT that the dice are "rigged" against them in some sort of conspiracy.

I do agree with you that "bad" streaks tend to upset some people, (including me), and I have witnessed some pretty strange chit like loosing a battle of 30-3. So I can understand why people complain.

But, there would be a lot less complaining if it was taken out of the computers hands and put into the hands of the player. If it were up to the player to choose curtain 1 or 2, then streaks, be they good or bad, would be perceived as being controlled by the player, NOT the computer. This fact would make it much easier to swallow, and in fact would make it more fun when the player strings together a good run. In any case it would take all blame or glory from the computer and put it on the player.

Yes there would still be good and bad streaks, but I believe that there would be much less complaining about bad dice. I am sure that you would still see a few complaints about the game being rigged, but you will always have a few nuts to contend with.

 

[Robinette]

omigosh... where to begin?

lets start with mapguy as i do believe there is merit in what he is trying to say and it is clear y'all are missing it...
i did not like the idea originally because i thought he was advocating HOW MANY troops a specific coin toss would be worth,,, but i do embrace his idea of giving the user the interactive ability to chose his poison... hopefully we all know that it won't change the odds, but it would add to the experience for many players. Heck, if it didn't, all those casinos wouldn't be making so much money... anybody here ever play slots? or roulette? all those games are against you, and yet people line up just for the 'fun' of trying to pick it right... and no matter how much they lose, they keep coming back for more, for the 'fun' of it... do you think they would line up if they didn't "feel" that they were making the choice? of course not... so take a page from the uber successful casinos, and if it is doable, then i say "sure, why not have 3 attack modes"... regular, auto, and mapguy's "lemmie pick my own" (but it really needs a better name, lol) Remember, this is not "solving a problem", this is ADDING to the experience!


Okay... now lets talk about the coin flip...
a big thankyou to Giuppi for replying with real numbers, i was beginning to think i was the only math savvy person here... (thanks also for checking my #'s and correcting my little error.. and i'll resist the urge to pull the math teacher trick of saying i did it on purpose to see if anyone would catch it, but alas, it was simply that i worked some of those numbers in my head and i obviously glitched something... i promise to use a calculator from here on in, lol)
Okay, with that said, lets' analyze... You actually did the math for the 8 streak loss showing that a coin flip was 49% less frequent than with the dice, and yet you conclude that is "the same order of magnitude". Really? giuppi, carreer tip, do NOT become an investment broker, lol... you go on to give an example of a 12 streak loss, showing correctly that it occurs about every 4000 flips... well pull out your calculator and you'll see that the dice will have that same streak 7 times more frequently... SEVEN TIMES... so at what point can we agree that this is NOT "the same order of magnitude".

Personally i don't feel the dice are "too streaky", as they do provide mostly fair results MOST of the time... but since anything with any amount of luck CAN have streaks I fully understand the desire for a 'fixed force option'... and if there must be ONLY ONE option added, then the fixed force clearly makes the most sense in order to satisfy those that feel burned by randomness... but i really feel we'll be missing out on an interesting option. I am amazed that this is the same site that chose to add ESCALITE, another idea of mine, and yet is so closed minded to the equivalent with dice .

In closing, I realized that this idea was completely doomed once i saw our glorious leader post that he thought "all systems that rely on chance will have the same level of streakiness", and this was right AFTER giuppi had confirmed the 49% math variance between coin flips and dice for a loss of 8. My god, let us certainly NOT let the facts get in the way of our decisions here, lol... But i am not upset, in fact, I am actually happier now, for you see, I HAD thought it was just because y'all wouldn't listen to little 'ole ME! So now i know, it's not a chauvinistic thing at all... it's just an unwillingness to understand... and you know what, I can deal with that... roud:

 

[giuppi]

Okay... now lets talk about the coin flip...
a big thankyou to Giuppi for replying with real numbers, i was beginning to think i was the only math savvy person here... (thanks also for checking my #'s and correcting my little error.. and i'll resist the urge to pull the math teacher trick of saying i did it on purpose to see if anyone would catch it, but alas, it was simply that i worked some of those numbers in my head and i obviously glitched something... i promise to use a calculator from here on in, lol)
Okay, with that said, lets' analyze... You actually did the math for the 8 streak loss showing that a coin flip was 49% less frequent than with the dice, and yet you conclude that is "the same order of magnitude". Really? giuppi, carreer tip, do NOT become an investment broker, lol... you go on to give an example of a 12 streak loss, showing correctly that it occurs about every 4000 flips... well pull out your calculator and you'll see that the dice will have that same streak 7 times more frequently... SEVEN TIMES... so at what point can we agree that this is NOT "the same order of magnitude".

By definition, at a factor of TEN (cough cough)
Career tip: do NOT become a career counselor.

And anyway, even if they weren't the same order of magnitude (but they are), i used the concept to approximate the perception of randomness. If you are dealing with very small numbers (or very big, for that matter) it's hard to 'get' them, so the order of magnitude might help, but up to a certain point anyway. Take two random events with associated probabilities of respectively 0.03% and 0.001%, you would be hard pressed to say which event is related to which probability if you only play a dozen turns per day (or even a hundred). And those are not even the same order of magnitude! What I want to stress here is the player's perception of the randomness associated with the event.

Let me put it in another way: imagine that you don't know if the game you are playing uses coins or dice. How many times you have to flip or toss before you can say with confidence (or with statistical significance if you want) which one of the two systems is implemented in the game? Now, whatever number you get, it assumes perfect knowledge of each flip/toss's result, which is not even remotely close to our ability (and willingness) to memorize the individual results of our own games, so it will probably be a gross underestimate of the real (as in real life) number.

In plain English: the coin option reduces streakiness, but players might not perceive that reduction at all. If we want to introduce a middle option between dice and fixed force, it probably has to be a bit closer to the fixed force extreme than the coin flip option is. But I'd personally be totally fine with two options only.

 

[Badorties]

I believe I am correct when I say that streakiness is not a mathmatical concept and really has nothing to do with mathmatics. It's more of a psychological layer we project on to something we have trouble grasping, like randomness.

All things subject to chance have the same level of streakiness. A 1 in 100 event like, losing 8 flips in a row or losing 6 v 1 will happen.......... about 1 in 100 times. It does not matter if its coins or dice.

while i think it may be cool to have a hand in our fate, ie, chosing the flip, i don't think it will have the desired effect. Lets say we don't have a hand, and we lose 10 flips in a row. Quite unlucky, and we might think after the 10th flip that the system is rigged. Now what if I chose 10 wrong flips in a row. Will i then blame myself? I doubt it, I will just blame the system again, which is rigged and choses the opposite of whatever I choose. People will never OWN their own back luck.

I still say we need a mathematician or someone like that to settle this business.

 

[Robinette]

I believe I am correct when I say that streakiness is not a mathmatical concept and really has nothing to do with mathmatics...

No, this is not correct.
Probability of streaks IS something that can be easily calculated. And the streakiness DOES vary depending on what you are measuring, be it dice, or coin flips, or any other system. But bado, this has already been said in this thread several times, with stats... by Giuppi and myself... more than once.... so i'm thinking that either you aren't reading those posts, or you don't understand them, or you are refusing to believe them. And there is no way for me to mathematically calculate which one it is! *wink*

Again, both Giuppi and myself have shown, mathematically, that there is a measurable difference of streakiness between coins or dice. What we did not agree on was the benefit of that difference. I proved that the streakiness is progressively reduced with the coin flip, while Giuppi presented the case that the frequency of streaks is too small for that reduction to be perceived.


In summary:
SEVERE streaks ARE significantly reduced by the coin flip, but MINOR streaks are NOT...
So even if we completely eliminated severe streaks, the PERCEPTION caused by the remaining short streaks will, apparently, be too much for most to accept as fair.

So the math question has been answered by not just 1, but 2 "math guys"...
So whose CONCLUSION do you agree with...

Robinette believes the proven mathematical benefit of the coin flip will reduce streaks enough to make people more tolerable of the chance element.

And Giuppi believes that despite the proven mathematical benefit of the coin flip, the majority of people are too stooopid to notice the benefit. *he said it in a little nicer way, but same difference*

 

[mapguy]

The Streak concept is a bit of a misnomer here. If you were to flip a coin and it landed on heads and the next flip was tails and then heads and then tails...and this went back and forth like this forever, then you would have yourself a magic coin. One that is incapable of producing any "streak". As soon as the coin lands on heads twice or tails twice (in a row), then you have what is technically a streak. So any effort to construct a coin that is non-streaky, is really just a waste of time. And even if you were successful in producing such a coin, it would NOT be very much fun to play with. Simply because you will already know the outcome of the flip beforehand.

 

[WidowMakers]

Streaks are noticed after the fact.
You only know a streak happened after it happened.
You cannot predict a streak (dice or coin).

Since streaks are only able to be seen after they occur, nothing you do will reduce them since they are a product of the past.
There will still be HHHHTHHHTTTTHHHHHHHH (coin) or 566644212123434555563334 (dice)

Also what is a sever streak? Please define.

The probability of flipping 3 heads is (.5x.5x.5) = 12.5%
The probability of rolling 3 of any # is (.167x.167x.167)=0.47%​

So a streak of 3 Heads is more probable that 3 threes.

SEVERE STREAKS are not reduced by either method because again they are after the fact.
The probability may be different but that is different that a streak.

To quote myself for the 3rd time about this topic.

But....you will never be able to predict:
- When a streak will happen.
- How long the streak will last.
- When the streak will end.

There will be short, medium and long streaks that are interspersed by an equal number of opposite streaks of short, medium and long length.

How can we reduce the number of streaks if we want randomness?
Since things are random, there are streaks.
Since we only see streaks after they have happened, how do we prevent them?
Anything we do to manipulate the streaky-ness will result in less randomness.

Differences in probability (dice vs coin) will not eliminate streaks.

 

[Robinette]

omigosh... REALLY???

ok, i happen to be REALLY good with math, but apparently i am NOT as good at explaining it...

Let me try another approach... with CARDS this time...
Suppose I am in a poker game, and i am dealt 5 different cards, 4 HEARTS and one spade.
For clarity, the red cards are 2, 4, 6, 8, and a black 10
I discard the black 10... now,
WHAT are the odds that I will hit the desired FLUSH?
WHAT are the odds that I will end with A PAIR?

The odds are 20% that I will hit the flush, 1 in 5... EVERYTIME.
AFTER the fact, I either hit it, or I didn't... but the probability was, and always will be, 20%.
And the odds that i will instead end with a pair, is 25%...
AGAIN, weather or not it happened, the probability was, and always will be, 25%.

When you throw dice, or flip coins, or draw cards, there will ALWAYS be certain probabilities...
Those probabilities are what we had been discussing...
and those probabilities always exist,
and they are able to be calculated with very simple math.

That same simple math allows us to calculate that the probability of a severe streak is greater with dice than with coin flips.
Just as we are able to calculate that the probability of hitting a pair is greater than the probability of hitting a flush.

I hope this helps open some eyes...

 

[Badorties]

Robinette, what is 'streakiness'? just so we get our definitions out of the way.

 

[WidowMakers]

That same simple math allows us to calculate that the probability of a severe streak is greater with dice than with coin flips.
Just as we are able to calculate that the probability of hitting a pair is greater than the probability of hitting a flush.

I hope this helps open some eyes...

Yes. Here again is the simple math.

The probability of flipping 3 heads is (.5x.5x.5) = 12.5%
The probability of rolling 3 sixes is (.167x.167x.167)=0.47%

And probability is DIFFERENT than streakiness.

 

[Shepherd]

y'all can talk about this until pigs fly, but I think that everybody is overlooking the point that moving from random dice to a random coin flip significantly alters the time-tested play of the game. We're playing a game that has very specific odds, and those who have played and enjoyed the game do so with some understanding of the odds and play accordingly. Changing the odds fundamentally changes the game.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The streak problem isn't that streaks happen so much as it is that when streaks occur somebody occasionally gets upset about it - either the site is broken or the game engine is making them lose on purpose or the game sucks. Personally I like the game as-is, and i take it on faith that the server isn't out to get me. Somebody who thinks otherwise is going to do so regardless of the type of system we use. We might be able to slightly reduce the likelihood and frequency of streaks occurring, but we'll never be able to change User X's reactions to a run of bad luck.

 

[landmine]

game settings: coin flip or dice:neo: evreyone happy

 

[Jewmowrestler]

ok, i happen to be REALLY good with math, but apparently i am NOT as good at explaining it...

it is possible for other people to be good at math robinette. keep in mind that there is always someone who is better at a given task.