Contents
Plundering the Seas of Probability
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Lead World Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [6]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
 
Designing Games Is About Matching Personalities [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  Plundering the Seas of Probability
by Tyler Sigman
3 comments
Share RSS
 
 
January 22, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 5 of 5
 

But wait, that's only part of the story. So far all we know is that the player will lose at least one crew member a little over half the time. However, there's another layer to the mechanic. The rule states that the player loses one crew for each monster showing. So although we know the player will lose some crew 55.6% of the time, as thorough game designers we should really calculate the average number of crew lost. Put simply, we must account for the fact that sometimes the player will lose two crew at the same time (by rolling two monsters).

To calculate the average crew lost, we need to do an "Expected Value", or EV calculation. This will be familiar to anyone who studies Game Theory, or perhaps anyone who reads a lot of poker books! (Sadly, I fall into both categories.)

Advertisement

EV is essentially the chance of something happening multiplied by the value of that result. When you're talking about poker, you are multiplying the chance of a hand showing up by the money you'll win if it does, but you are also including the chance of the hand not showing up multiplied by the amount of money you lose. If the EV is positive, it's a worthwhile value bet; if it's negative, then math says you'll lose money in the long run. Sure, you might get lucky here and there, but if you make the bet 1,000,000,000,000 times, you will come out behind.

For Longship, I just want to know the EV in relation to how many crew will be lost. Maybe after I do the calc it will make more sense, because all this writing is confusing me, too:

  • EV = ChanceOfEvent1 * value1 + ChanceOfEvent2 * value2 + ChanceOfEvent3 * value 3 + etc.

    • Also seen as: SIGMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  • EVaveragecrewloss = (pExactly1Monster * -1 crew) + (p2Monsters * -2 crew)

  • pExactly2Monsters = 2/6 * 2/6 = .111 = 11.1%

  • pExactly1Monster = .555 - .111 = .444 = 44.4% (we know we will hit at least one Monster 55.55% of the time and we know p2Monsters = 11.1%, so p1Monster is what's left.)

  • EVaveragecrewloss = (.444 * -1.0) + (.111 * -2.0) = -0.667

Therefore, on average the player will lose 2/3 (66.7%) of a crew member whenever they raid. This is significantly different than the 55.6% chance of losing at least 1 crew. It should be accounted for during game balancing.

The Tragedy of the 2d6 Commons

This example illustrates one of the easiest probability mistakes made when assessing 2d6 combinations and results. On one hand, you can calculate the chances of, say, at least one "6" showing up on two dice (a). But if each individual "6" actually counts for something, then you really need to make sure that you account for it (b). If all you are looking for is "at least one six", then it doesn't matter (similar to the sea monster check earlier in this article).

To drive the point home and use another game example, let's say we have a pirate game (because we all should) and in the game, cannons hit long distance targets on a "6″. You have two cannons on your ship, so you roll two dice when firing.

  • pChanceOfHittingAtLeastOnceWithTwoCannons = 1 - (5/6 * 5/6) = 36/36 - 25/36 = 11/36 = 30.6%.

In other words, there are 11 out of 36 combos for which at least one hit ("6″) occurs. You could have arrived at this number by brute force by counting of the combos instead of the converse prob calc. But converse probability was a bit faster.

Now let's calculate the "EV" of two cannons at long range, since this is what we'll use for game balancing. To do this, we need to know how those 11 special combos break down. As it turns out, 10 of the combos are hits with 1 cannon, and only one combo is a hit with both cannon. See, there are 10 ways to roll 2d6 and get a "6" on only one die, but there is one way to roll 2d6 and get a "6" on both dice.

  • Average Number of Hits Scored = EVcannonhit = (comboswith1hit / 36 * 1 hit) + (comboswith2hits/36 * 2 hits) = [(5+5)/36*1] + [1/36 * 2] = 10/36 + 2/36 = 12/36 = .333 hits

You'll hit 30.6% (.306) of the time on average, but the average number of hits you will cause is .333. Sometimes ya hit 'em with both barrels!

 

Boom-chikka-Boom: 1/36th of the time!

If this is still confusing, then I guess I succeeded at least in illustrating the deceptively easy mistake you can make when looking at 2d6 combos. Most of the time, it's not a huge deal. But make a couple percent error when building a satellite, and it will pancake on Mars instead of nicely landing. Bye bye billions.

Back to the Longship!

The game, that is. Another rule:

Razing Territories:
Roll 1 die. The territory is razed if any axes show.

After taking the last treasure from a territory, there is a chance that it gets razed. This means that the place is temporarily exhausted of all valuable relics, coins, peasants, and so on. Razed territories take longer for the territory to refill with treasures. This makes some territories suddenly less valuable for a while, which creates some dynamic game situations.

I decided I wanted a simple 50/50 chance here. Design-wise, I didn't want it to raze all the time (playtested that, didn't like it) and I also didn't want things not to raze because I like the dynamic aspect.

Getting 50/50 was fortunately the easiest calculation yet. For this rule I went with a simple one die resolution to speed things up and also to differentiate the roll from the raid check immediately preceding it. If any axes show at all, the territory is razed:

  • pRaze = any axes at all on 1 die = 2/6 (single axes) + 1/6 (double axe) = 3/6 = 50%

You've just been Plwnd3rd

As is tradition in my articles, if you've made it this far then you should either be commended or committed. Hopefully, this feature has helped illustrate some of the design process that goes into something as simple as a dice roll.

If you enjoyed this article (or didn't!), please be sure to let myself or the awesome Gamasutra editors know. It may affect how often they let me out of the box in the future.

Also, if Longship sounds interesting and you want to know about a potential commercial release, please drop me an email.

--TS

LEGALESE: Longship: Viking Raiders is ©2007 and TM Sigman Creative Services LLC. All rights reserved.

 
Article Start Previous Page 5 of 5
 
Comments

Robert Baxter
profile image
This is a great statistical breakdown, and makes me want to re-evaluate the probability models for games like Doom, Descent, and Mutant Chronicles.

All of the games I mention use probability and custom cut dice combinations to evoke a specific model of probabilities for weapon and ability differentiation.

Do you find that the decision for using custom cut dice was more a matter of making your game unique, or was it to map the probabilities in a more grokkable fashion for the player?

Diego R. Pons
profile image
I find it surprising that still needs to be remarked why articles like this are being posted in this site.
Awareness of how game mechanics work at their core is what true game design is all about.

And as a player, even though in a lot of games users are not aware of how probability is involved; there's still a lot of gamers like myself that enjoy clear feedback of probability components and the action of throwing digital dice whatever the shape this takes.

Tyler Sigman
profile image
Thanks for the comments. Robert, re: your question: it was a mix of the reasons you stated.

First, it adds a little more personality to the game. It's a little more fun to check for axes and sea monsters than just a check things like "4 or above on d6". Goes with the theme better.

Second, the symbols are a bit more grokkable, as you've pointed out. I'm hoping the rules are more memorable, and less checking of reference tables will be required. Rolling two dice and checking for sea monsters when passing through a Sea Monster-inhabited sea zone maps well to memory (in theory).

Some of the combos I found I needed to do just made more sense with the symbols, whereas they seemed really clumsy with straight d6s. For example, the raiding rules: checking for axes and taking casualties on sea monsters is sorta simple, whereas "5-6 equals 1 success, 6 = two successes, and a roll of 2-3 is a casualty" is just a little more of a mouthful.

Of course, I'm just using normal d6s to prototype.

I'm not saying that custom dice are categorically better; but I like the theme-ey-ness.


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment