Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bdavisshannon

Bountiful and Fertility

Recommended Posts

Is something wrong with fertility or is the RNG just killing some games (or is it something else)? I haven't experienced it myself, but there are enough people getting regents with bountiful who produce few to no children even if they start in Young Age. That seems like a killer for any kind of planning. You would think that a bountiful pairing would at least produce a certain minimum of children.

I suspect that could be a couple things:

1) RNG: There is a higher chance to get children on each attempt, but, of course, its possible to still miss that chance ever time the dice are rolled. However, if the "dice" are rolled every day of game time, this seems really unlikely.

2) Bountiful is great if you have two Bountiful heroes, but if you only have one, the results are much less predictable.

3) Unactivated traits still have an impact on play. So if a hero has an unexpressed (doesn't show on the info screen) trait like infertility, it can still influence the numbers.

1 and 2 seem the most likely, but I won't have any ideas about 3 until I do a breeding-only run. I think I'll do that next to get some sense of how the system currently works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a bountiful couple have one child and then no more for 15 years, before, so I think the RNG is definitely a bit off. I feel like the overall birth rate should be lower on average but more reliable. Lower mean and narrower standard deviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RNG feels very off in combat, so it would not surprise me if it was off here as well.

In combat 50% miss chance seems to be much closer to 80% and 20-% seems much closer to 0%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RNG feels very off in combat, so it would not surprise me if it was off here as well.

In combat 50% miss chance seems to be much closer to 80% and 20-% seems much closer to 0%.

Accuracy can be (intentionally) wrong on heroes with the Optimistic or Pessimistic personalities.

Beyond that, this is just humans (not you specifically) being dumb. We're really bad at assessing randomness and often create narratives to fit our faulty observations. And in particular we tend to be much better at remembering instances in which we got screwed than those when we got lucky.

Some games circumvent this by using structures called (I think this is the right term) Markov chains to adjust the odds behind the scenes in order to make games "feel" more random. (Fairly certain that the recent XCOM does this.) The gist is, if you miss a shot at 95%, the game will, without showing you, treat your next 95% shot as being even MORE accurate. Missing on two consecutive 95% shots is very unlikely (0.25%), to the point that people expect it to literally never happen, leading to frustration when it actually does. Likewise, it's totally possible for someone with a 5% chance to crit to do it twice in a row (again, 0.25%), but our brains treat "shouldn't happen often" as "shouldn't happen ever" and construct weird narratives to fit them. Maybe it's "the game cheats," maybe it's "this die is hot tonight, better keep rolling this one." It feels right, it's just... totally wrong.

Essentially, Markov chains when used in this fashion validate the gambler's fallacy by reducing variance based on recent events, which makes our dumb brains happy. The RNG might feel bad because people don't actually like randomness deep down, but it's almost certainly working correctly. Now, do we need a less-random RNG? Maybe a more interesting question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RNG feels very off in combat, so it would not surprise me if it was off here as well.

In combat 50% miss chance seems to be much closer to 80% and 20-% seems much closer to 0%.

Accuracy can be (intentionally) wrong on heroes with the Optimistic or Pessimistic personalities.

I accounted for those, in that I didn't use heroes with those personality aspects when testing.

Beyond that, this is just humans (not you specifically) being dumb. We're really bad at assessing randomness and often create narratives to fit our faulty observations. And in particular we tend to be much better at remembering instances in which we got screwed than those when we got lucky.

We are, but at one point I started marking it down to account for my bias. It was quite noticeable at ~50% miss where I missed over 75% of the time on 81 attacks. That sample size is low, and I'd have to do more testing but with other reports of RNG issues it might be more than an anomaly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are, but at one point I started marking it down to account for my bias. It was quite noticeable at ~50% miss where I missed over 75% of the time on 81 attacks. That sample size is low, and I'd have to do more testing but with other reports of RNG issues it might be more than an anomaly.

That's really interesting. Hm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...