On 4/15/2020 at 12:21 PM, Wazat said:

Yea, but low dice counts result in wider variance. This is a thread about increasing the dice count to converge closer toward average results, fewer wild swings.

Wild swings = fun and excitement.

Controlled variance = math.

The less people can math out the game, the more reason there is to actually play the game, because the end result can only be determined by trial-and-error, ergo, playing.

Although, since you are working out probabilities to the 1000th place, I doubt "math" is a sufficient counter argument.

So, I'll have to go with the KISS principle. Everything you have proposed is cumbersome. People want to pew pew, not run a RNG.

And to add something to my previous comment:

In my first ±50 games from 1.0, I pratically always said that it was the fault of the dices when I lost. Since I realized that one game (on lady luck), my opponent received like 4 attacks from me and I received 35 shots from him (and it was not a swarm), than I understood that it was not the dices the problem, it was the positioning and the strategy to put ourselves outside the killboxes AND create those infamous killboxes needed to makes reasonable damage.

Like Dafrth Meanie, dices are simple. Dices are unpredictable. Dices make each game unique. But, sometimes, **** THOSE DICES !!!!!

On 4/15/2020 at 2:19 PM, Youngblood1969 said:

Game Theory requires randomness. Without it, it's not really a game, it's Calculus and Statistics.

Wow, just wow
Chess, checkers, go, tic tac toe, shogi, . shut up and don't talk about what you don't know nothing.
Games are defined by decisions (stratefies) whom results depend on the decisions of other people, as a matrix.
It IS math.

Oh my god, dude.
Statistics are what dice are about. To not have a have a fixed value, but a freaking probability distribution.

ok, i'm sorry. that was way to much, and I was out of reason.

anyway, about OP.

What is reducing randomness? Less dice rolls? More predictible results?
X-wing is a game where you decisions matter a lot. Every dial, every action, every point of your squad build.
the math of the game, by design is:
every red dice you have 1/8 to crit, 3/8to hit, 2/8 to focus, 2/8 to blank.
every green dice you have 3/8 of evade, 3/8 to blank, 2/8 of focus.
for every roll...

if you use cards (for exemple), 8 cards, with the results of the faces. first card (or roll) has the same probaibility
second card (if you drew a focus, in the first card) is 1/7 for crits, 3/7 for hits, 1/7 for focus, 2/7 for blanks
third card (if you drew now a crit) is 0 for another crit, 3/6 for hits, 2/6 for blanks

point is, if you use cards, and not reshuffle everytime, the probability changes everytime you draw a card. Still just as much random.
And you can make decisions based in it too. You shouldnt do a focus you the eye are ouf of the deck.
this is already used on the critical hits deck, albeit as a Wow factor, the criticals decks is known for swing games a lot.

about doubling dice and health. While the probability does not change like this.
you create more variance as in less spiky results and more middle ground.
also, focus become stronger, as you have more dice to roll eyes.
Target lock becomes stronger as you can reroll all your dice.
calculate becomes weaker, evade becomes weaker, as they modify only one die.
if ships have more hull, they may acumulate more critical hits, also, double damage is somewhat nerfed.

methods 3 and 4, you are just changing the statiscs, how much you think a hit should appear on a attack dice?
more or less than 3/8? and about a crit? more or less than 1/8.
do the process statistics first, then you can find a dice that works like you want.
Sorry about not taking the time to calculate the probability of all changes

method 5. well, it would be a hassle. and slow the game on dice rolling, instead of piloting ships, the meat of the game.

Now I understand. X-wing nails the piloting part without random elements. The shooting part, as a wargame, is handled by dice. In a way that:
a) you know that nothing is guaranted, and you can make decisions to reduce the dice factor (hello actions!)
b) there's no hidden information (ok, there is. face down damage cards...), for dice. No trap cards, no hidden deck.
red vs green, modifiers. also, by design, offense is better than defense, what makes the game way more enjoyable than frustrating.
c) pointing attack arcs to the right direction is your skill, not random (or, in case of luke gunner, something s**** that should no exist).
if you want more hits per dice (above 6/8 with focus), I would recomend narrower arcs, as is would tip the balance of offense vs defense.
(Well, you can try. make the dice always hit, and narrow the attack arc for bullseye arc only, rolling only green dice. see if the game appers more fun...)

aaaanyway, sorry for the long post.

Yea, I was interested in what it would do to the game and why FFG hadn't implemented less variance (because of how people talk about the alternatives I listed as though they were obvious fixes). My goal was not to go changing the game radially, just to understand what happens - and why - when the odds are changed (and thus why these methods are not in use).

So this was about learning and understanding the design space, and how that changes when tweaking the dice odds. My intent was not "guys x-wing is broken we have to fix it", which is why it was so frustrating to be chided post after post instead of getting my actual questions answered. People are still kinda doing that... which is tedious. I don't buy into the idea that a game like this needs lots of random chance, nor am I implying there is no skill in the game; anyone shoving those words in my mouth so they can argue against them does us all a disservice. But because that variation can occasionally rob a good player of a hard-earned victory, or grant unwarranted victory to a fool, I was curious about the alternatives that keep coming up that people claim would fix that or make it much rarer. Were the methods viable? No, because they cannot mesh with the balance and core design of the game.

I was simply interested in what this would do to the game and why it wasn't done, from a precise consequences perspective (rather than the rather distant overall-theoretical or theological point of view that keeps coming up). Now that my questions have been answered, I'm good.

On 4/15/2020 at 1:19 PM, Youngblood1969 said:

Game Theory requires randomness. Without it, it's not really a game, it's Calculus and Statistics.

Say that to Chess and Go, 2 of the universally agreed upon most balanced games of all time.

Computer games like first person shooters are also better without randomness. The players choices and opponents themselves are more than enough variation