Change Random

A coin flip has 2 outcomes, its 50% to land on both sides. But if you do flip a coin only a feu times you may not see this 50/50, as we in this game are well aware of, often it seems the opponent gets that extra crown. If it’s truly a fair coin it will however, if flipped a large amount of time approach 50/50. That is a fact. Why, well, every flip is independent. It dose not know the last flips, and thus don’t know it should land on one side to make it even. But repeating it will even this out. That is if the chance is static from flip to flip. Playing a lot of battels then will even you luck out, its fair over a large time scale. But that is no fun, at all times. The random elements are necessary to this game and will not go away. So I suggest that the chances of two event happening approach their designated percentage, artificially for every mach, much faster.

The first action will be unchanged, the second should have a whited chance towards the event that did not occur. I have two ideas of how to achieve this. One is to simply add more percentage to the other event until it occurs and then resetting it, or reducing the chances then the other event happens.

The other idea is to have the events fixed, but in random order, unknown to the player ofc. Fixed as in, the two event will occur such that the fraction of the two separate events occurring is equals to the percentage given in the attack description. This means that the event will happen a set amount of times given that enough events occuring. An example, if there are two events with chances A(1/3) and B(2/3) then during 3 actions 1 event of A will happen and 2 events of B will happen. The first one will be random to the chanse given. But the next has a predictable chance change, random but a litel (or alot) less so. And the last is guarantied to be the event left. But if A hapens first two events of B will always occur.

I believe such a system could see most or more battles feel more fair and predictable, and so on.

Please comment your ideas on how to change random or alike.

The 50/50 is a fallacy. It’s called the Gambler’s Ruin (and is even referenced in Chrichton’s The Lost World novel).

What some players of JWA seem to forget is that percentages are specific to a given roll of the dice. The Indoraptor’s 50/50 dodge (as was) was indicative of this. Just because those odds are 50/50 does not mean that it can be expected to work one round and not the other, but that each time an attack comes in the dice are rolled anew and the result stands.

Yes precisely, that is the current system. It is the Gamblers ruin or the gamblers falsie, it plagues the minds of humans… I just think that such a thing doesn’t need to be in a game, it doesn’t need to happened, it plagues games. It is a variable in a pseudorandom generator, it is flad to think that it can not be change. The percentages could and should be dynamic.
Take the example then Smilodon doges five times in a row and becomes an tank(then an immortal) with explosive damage. It was my first experience with unfair random chance. It could have ended my interest in the game, but I know it was unlikely and will probably not happened again and maybe happened to me. So I staid, but maybe others don’t know and leave.

Would it not also be more interesting if matches was not just up to chance. Introduce this and you could more reliably do tactical decisions.

I’m of an opposing opinion. You need a random element to stop the battles being rock-paper-scissors.

I come from a tabletop wargaming background and without dice to simulate the vagaries of battle they would not be enjoyable. You need a random element to keep things interesting. JWA is no different.

2 Likes

everything is random in this game: random deck to start the match, stuns hit or miss, crits land or not, dodge or not, and human choices are random aswell. the only thing you can do is prepare for anything and if you arent, then the match will be one sided.

1 Like

I agree random must stay. My problem is that one individual match can, do to chance play out extremely different, that is not always in a fair way, frustrating, rage quit inducing. But if the chance of the same event happening multipole times in arrow are successively lowered, those lucky events would decrees.
Doge and crits for ex, will be at first just as random as now, but all of the same seccesecvent attack / event should the outcome that did not happened in the first, be more likely. The two outcomes should then even out much quicker.

So imagen a scenario with the second system. A 30% chance to crit, 3 of 10 attacks will be crits, and 7 will not. So not criting for 3 attacks - you now know you have a 3/4(75%) to crit. Now you can do a more aggressive play.
Or why not doge, given a 50% chance to doge. 1 of 2 will be a miss and 1 will be a hit. Often a doge lasts for 3 turns. So after two attempts to doge the counter will reset. So the first attack will be 50/50, butt the next will be know to both players. The third and fifth will again be the random 50/50. The feeling that things even out is satisfied and a problem doesn’t occur.
I cant say it a perfect system but it is better then just letting it be as is.

Very unlikely anything will dodge 5 times in a row and survive since dodge got nerfed.

But it can happend, and that is a problem.

But that is why it was nerfed originally because things dodge 5 times in a row taking no damage. Now if anything dodges 5 times in a row it takes 33% damage each time, which is why the chances of anything surviving that is very low now particularly with the increasingly high attacks with boosts.

Speaking from personal experience i’ve not once seen any dodge/cloak etc dino survive more than 3 times in a row because of the nerf.

The more you flip a coin, the less likely you are to get a real 50/50 outcome.

Yes Dodge is fine, but the under laying problem stands, a dino increases its hp with 66% randomly. Is that not a maigre advantage?
And yes you can try to balance it in the way it is done now. Given that most creatures with dodge have les hp it could also be fair to say that there defensive abilities must be more potent to have the desired effect, surviving. So the damage reduced must be big. I don’t believe that dodge should simply be static like a shield. I do believe it should be more predictably, in general. Even more so, even calculable.

Just phrasing it differently, maybe it will be obvious(?). Dodge; your creature tyres to dodge(twice) for 4 turns. He avoids all incoming damage if he manages to dodge, but enemies learns of his trick and he will not miss the next. Letting himself get hit the first time, he can now guarantee a missed attack. (maybe also fix attacks that are dodged but you get stund)

I’d prefer Dodge to go back to the way it was. It was a lot better than it is now.

1 Like

That’s why I think they should have diminishing returns and return the dodge/elude back to 100% damage reduction.

So if a dodge/elude has a 50% chance to work and the next move the dodge/elude is still active or the player chooses another dodge/elude move, it’s chance of success is based on the previous dodge/elude outcome. If the previous 50% dodge/elude fails then the next dodge/elude is unchanged. But if the previous was successful then it drops to 33%. Each successful dodge/elude in sequence drops in chance of success 50% > 33% > 25% > 20% etc. As soon as the dodge/elude fails or the player doesn’t use a dodge/elude move it returns to normal.

Same with critical chance, if a critical hits then the chance of the next hit being critical is reduced. As soon as there is no crit hit the chance returns to normal.

Stuns could also be subject to diminished returns as well.

1 Like

Stun definitely needs diminishing returns,. I’ve always found Stun to be overly powerful. Certain dinosaurs have it far too high percentage wise or can do it far too often.