Early Kidnap Percentages

[Brogan]

I don't do complex math stuff (just taxes)... but I still don't think that's how you'd calculate it. Not the point, though. Point is you haven't had a lot of luck. I know Cargus expressed the same thing in his UN game, as have a couple of others. I must be the exception, but I tend to choose missions based on chance of failure rather than chance of success... living to fight another day seems like a better strategy than to die trying.

Can anyone else share their agent successes/failures and whether they thought they matched up with expectation?

I played the UN in game 112 and I had a lot of high level agents since I set training at 2k on turn 1. I was patient and only attempted missions once I was at level 12 on up to 19. I really had a lot of success at assassinations and stealing. But I batted 0.00% in all early kidnap missions. I think I tried 3 on one turn and 1 the next and then gave up. I also think the random number generator skews low as I have had agents die from doing high chance missions in other games.
For all other missions I had about a 90% success rate but then again I had high level agents and slept targets when I could. One turn I assassinated the GI king, plus 3 other Baron on up emmies. It was a lot of fun - at least for me. I am sure Alamaze wouldn't be the first game with skewed random numbers if that's the case. Really an easy fix would be to include the number the system used when you get your results back. I don't think this would break game play since the percent chances are published.

[HeadHoncho]

Your answer increases my concern. Is there any way I can ask you to go back and post the agent level, target, and any guards or wards (should be determinable from the description)? If that is too much of a pain, I'd be happy to do it if you send me the turns.

[Cargus10]

My experience as the UN in game 115 has been totally the opposite. It is turn 20 and I've succeeded only 4 times all game with my agents - 1 steal gold, 1 ambassador kidnap, one assassinate a L10 Fanatic who was slept, and one assassinate a L2 Agent.. Otherwise, EVERYTHING has failed, unless I missed something in going back over stuff. And I only tried one time with less than a 50% chance of success - usually chances were 70%+. I haven't lost a lot of Agents, but they just fail at everything. I've even lost 4 Agent 1's on recon missions. Needless to say, the UN isn't exactly a powerhouse in that game. It's very, very frustrating. But I see people with enough successes to think that the code is probably OK, I just insulted an old gypsy woman at some past time and didn't realize it...

[HeadHoncho]

Cargus, have you tried any early kidnaps? If so, do you know the results? Thanks!

[Cargus10]

I will have to go back through the turns. It's an on-going game, so maybe I should wait until it's done to give you an analysis?

[Hawk_]

I don't do complex math stuff (just taxes)... but I still don't think that's how you'd calculate it. Not the point, though. Point is you haven't had a lot of luck. I know Cargus expressed the same thing in his UN game, as have a couple of others. I must be the exception, but I tend to choose missions based on chance of failure rather than chance of success... living to fight another day seems like a better strategy than to die trying.

Can anyone else share their agent successes/failures and whether they thought they matched up with expectation?

I played the UN in game 112 and I had a lot of high level agents since I set training at 2k on turn 1. I was patient and only attempted missions once I was at level 12 on up to 19. I really had a lot of success at assassinations and stealing. But I batted 0.00% in all early kidnap missions. I think I tried 3 on one turn and 1 the next and then gave up. I also think the random number generator skews low as I have had agents die from doing high chance missions in other games.
For all other missions I had about a 90% success rate but then again I had high level agents and slept targets when I could. One turn I assassinated the GI king, plus 3 other Baron on up emmies. It was a lot of fun - at least for me. I am sure Alamaze wouldn't be the first game with skewed random numbers if that's the case. Really an easy fix would be to include the number the system used when you get your results back. I don't think this would break game play since the percent chances are published.

What agent level did it take to steal the Ring of Spells? That was rather shocking!

[Cargus10]

I really like the idea of showing the roll on agent attempts. Would really let us track if things are somehow amiss. But we'd need to be careful to look at sample sizes large enough to be significant. I've forgotten much of my statistics but could probably come up with a sample size for a given confidence level if need be.

[HeadHoncho]

Cargus, if you want, you can send it to me via PM and I will aggregate it, without any labels, agent or target names?

[Kellenved]

Seems like we're trying to break the game to statistics. Where's the mystery or fun in that?

[Cargus10]

No, what we are doing here is trying to find out if there is an anomaly in the code that Cipher isn't aware of so we can report it back to him.

But the larger point is that, in ANY game without full transparency in the rules, someone is going to do this kind of stuff, and thereby gain an edge.Sometimes, it's worth letting that happen to preserve the air of mystery - let the gamer's do what they will and the rest of us enjoy the flavor. The trick then is how much to try to obscure? Too much, and you completely scare off new players. Too little and the game gets dry. It's why the game designers get paid the big bucks

Oh, and yes HH, I will try to get it to you sometime tonight, if I have time to go over all of it. If not tonight, then soon.