I have proof that ethics attraction is broken and Paradox lied

[PyroSaphuron]

So in my game, the ethics attractions are Spiritualist 66%, Xenophile 31%, Authoritarian 3%. No government ethics modifier, and I have suppressed the Authoritarian faction (othewrwise it's 10%). I also used relics to increase Spiritualist ethics attraction by 50%.

Yet, despite that, my population went into factions with Spiritualist getting 14, Xenophile getting 12, and Authoritarian getting 12.

Spiritualist has less than half the expected numbers while Authoritarianism has TRIPLE the projected numbers. I have no Authoritarian diplomatic relations, and have not done any such actions either. My Empire is a free nation.

This is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that ethics attraction is, in fact, completely broken, which is proof positive that Paradox has, in fact, lied to the players about this issue as they claim everything is working as intended. NO IT CERTAINLY IS NOT unless Paradox intends the numbers to mean nothing whatsoever.

This is dumb and this game is getting on my last nerve.

[_ALuX_]

Escrito originalmente por Vyndicu:

Escrito originalmente por _ALuX_:

No, I want OP to direct me there themselves. Just to be sure.

Why does it has to be specific posted by this individual? I can post evidence myself just as well as this person and you can go look for it too. Oh yeah this is an open forum after all and I decide I am going to do that anyway to put money where my mouth is at.

This may be an open forum, but you didn't start the thread.

[ThunderOrigin]

Escrito originalmente por Vyndicu:

I just started a new game as 'Imperial - fanatic spiritualist, xenophobe' at day 1... You can see a 30% deviancy from the expected ethos ratio already off the bat at the game start.

ALL empire starts have pops generated with completely random ethics, then in effect they are added and subject to any modifiers..

[corisai]

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

Again, I'd prefer having the mechanic behave as advertised, but it would be at least acceptable to fix the in-game text. No, it DOES NOT tell you properly what's going on;

Please show me any game that show all formulas behind it to player? MO2? No. SEV? No. GC3? No. ES2? No.
So why this pure lie here? As I'd expected you're comming in this discussion only to troll and blame devs on lying without any proofs.
And yes, lying =//= you are not getting what you're expecting. Lying will be true, is for example, ethic shift simply doesn't work while being mention in game.
Either bring some proofs of LIES from Paradox about ethic system or stop wasting our time.

[corisai]

Escrito originalmente por Garatgh Deloi:

You would be just as likely will get a value far from 50/50 if you only flip it a 100 times. For somewhat accurate statistics you need way larger sample sizes then that.

Once while we'd played tabletop warhammer my Rune Priest score only 5 and 6 over more then dozen rolls, surviving every heavy weapon my enemy blasted into his face for entire two rounds.
And no, we'd exchanged dices in middle of it as I want to avoid being blamed as cheater.

Once in D&D session we had a paladin scored three consecutive 20 on d20 rolls for diplomacy, ending with a harpy girlfriend after it (lol, it was very fun campaign later).

So random is sometimes... Crazy.

[Bozobub]

But that's not how it works; it happens the same way every time. Hence NOT random. And I'm fine with how it works, as long as you don't tell the player direct (or nearly so) misinformation.

...And if you're going to act high and mighty, don't use "proofed" (unless talking about yeast, as in bread and alcohol) -.-' .

[corisai]

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

But that's not how it works; it happens the same way every time. Hence NOT random.

O_O
This is exactly how probability distribution work and used.
To make a honest random value following some laws...

[Bozobub]

LOL
Perfectly predictable behavior<>random. No arguing it. Otherwise, ethics would follow *as described* at least once in a while, of course. And they certainly do not, literally ever; the entire problem in a nutshell.

So yeah, no.

[PyroSaphuron]

Escrito originalmente por _ALuX_:

No, I want OP to direct me there themselves. Just to be sure.

Wow. The height of laziness. No. If you can't do something so simple, then your opinion on this matter is not needed, not desired, and not relevant.

Escrito originalmente por corisai:

Stop trolling here. You're again making this false statements while evading pointing where is a direct lie in UI.

They arne't trolling, they're speaking fact.

Escrito originalmente por corisai:

1) What a source of your "expected ethos ratio"? It doesn't show in new empire window.

IT IS LITERALLY AT THE TOP OF THE FACTIONS SCREEN. You have to be one of those Paradox Ap[ologist trolls. You have to be.

Escrito originalmente por corisai:

Please show me any game that show all formulas behind it to player? MO2? No. SEV? No. GC3? No. ES2? No.
So why this pure lie here?

Except I have proven they lied, and the feature is factually broken. You do not have a deviation of several hundred percent in statistics unless there is a severe problem. Sure, no game gives you the full details, but most DON'T LIE IN GAME AND FROM THE DEVS EITHER. Most of the time, stuff you do find is at least somewhat accurate. That is not the case here.

[Bozobub]

And I STILL see no explanation why simply explaining the damn mechanic properly, as-is, is such a bad thing. Instead, just minimization... Read back just a bit to see "there's no problem at all" morph to "it doesn't matter anyway", as an easy example of the truly annoying armwaving around the subject.

It's the "Streisand Effect"; a reasonably justifiable beef with a game aspect, minor of itself, becomes a HUGE deal as loyalists attempt to defend what a) is indefensible, and b) really wouldn't be a big deal w/o their input -.-' .

[corisai]

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

Perfectly predictable behavior<>random. No arguing it.

You're just saying that for example human height or eye color isn't a random value.
Our life is full of MOSTLY predictable randomness.
I would recommend you to stop trolling and gonna learning. Math is trully awesome and hold answers on most questions in universe :).

Escrito originalmente por Crimson Queen Remilia:

IT IS LITERALLY AT THE TOP OF THE FACTIONS SCREEN.

It was true long ago until they'd added "expected amount of getting that ethic". Now it's showing quite precise.
If you're reading tooltip carefully it's state "EXPECTING". Not "would have", not "should have". It's a random process to simulate that citizens usually aren't 100% loyal to any goverment. As for me this is working perfectly fine and realistic. Do you know that even during Nazi times some brave souls opposed them directly in Germany?
Yes, empire spawn follow it's own rules. Part of them you could see in game files if willing to dig into them. No, it's done on purpose.

[ThunderOrigin]

TLDR:
Faction Ethics is lifeless = We complain
Faction Ethics has a mind of its own = we complain
PDX between rock and hard place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

Ah, bless you for being much less lazy than me, Vyndicu. It really was kinda painful, when "misunderstanding statistics" came up, I had to take a step back ^^'.

Statistics... Anyone here actually done a degree in mathematics?

Like one point in case was someone made an ethics attraction mod and got rid of both repugnant and charismatic "because they cancel each other out" was the author's reasoning. Yes they do if they are in isolation with them as the only two affecting the system, but they are not, if you have both affecting your pops you are more likely to become one of them against all the other six ethics.

While Im at it...

Escrito originalmente por Kayden_II:

lack of documentation or / and a spaghetti-mess of code from "too many cooks" ( and I mean not just "Grekulf" as the third, but just LEADING one in a row ).

Anyone done a degree in computer science, gone on to be a project leader, and even self contracted some solo free lance application DBs?

So many times I've had people refer to the modding as coding, I think scripting would be more appropriate. Sure we have some logical syntax constructors to make our scripts look like code. But do you think with something like:
POP_ETHOS_LOWER_ETHIC_THRESHOLD = 0.5
Is literally us being able to directly set the variable!?
Nope, its all going through a script interpreter; using the left side to find the class object, the member access method, and then pass the right side to. Then internally that class goes, okay you want this to change to this, well let me just check its allowed.

As for PDX and their Ethics Attraction System, I kinda see what they were aiming for, but I'm not going to poke a stick (adjusting the defines), at a closed white box (their internal code), trying to see how the box reacts (wasting time worrying about it in game).

BESIDES!!!

We've complained that the faction ethics did literally nothing to the game, now that it actually has a life of its own and not a compliant inanimate object, we have people complaining again.

PDX would have the right to reflect on this with "Damned if you don't, damned if you do."

[Bozobub]

Escrito originalmente por corisai:

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

Perfectly predictable behavior<>random. No arguing it.

You're just saying that for example human height or eye color isn't a random value.
Our life is full of MOSTLY predictable randomness.
I would recommend you to stop trolling and gonna learning. Math is trully awesome and hold answers on most questions in universe :).

Escrito originalmente por Crimson Queen Remilia:

IT IS LITERALLY AT THE TOP OF THE FACTIONS SCREEN.

It was true long ago until they'd added "expected amount of getting that ethic". Now it's showing quite precise.
If you're reading tooltip carefully it's state "EXPECTING". Not "would have", not "should have". It's a random process to simulate that citizens usually aren't 100% loyal to any goverment. As for me this is working perfectly fine and realistic. Do you know that even during Nazi times some brave souls opposed them directly in Germany?
Yes, empire spawn follow it's own rules. Part of them you could see in game files if willing to dig into them. No, it's done on purpose.

Sorry, no, you joust spouted a lot of insistence you cannot, in fact, back up. I also notice you AGAIN have no direct counterpoints.

"Expecting" means "should happen within reasonable limits". The argument here is that the "reasonable limits" are utter BS and not what you are told to expect. Literally ever, so you can lose the silliness about "randomness". I'm glad to clear that up for you =).

Now, PLEASE explain why it's not okay to clear up the description of this in-game.

[Garatgh Deloi]

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

LOL
Perfectly predictable behavior<>random. No arguing it. Otherwise, ethics would follow *as described* at least once in a while, of course. And they certainly do not, literally ever; the entire problem in a nutshell.

So yeah, no.

First of, you really haven't looked into statistics, you can easily get something completely different from the predicted result 10-20 times in a row without it being weird depending on sample size. Heck just flipping a coin and getting the same result several times in a row (instead of it being 50/50) is fairly common.


Second, When it comes to computers "random" can sometimes be predictable, it depends on how their "randomness" function operates.

In a computer "Random" isn't a thing, pretty much all programming languages have a function (or several) to simulate randomness (Often using the smallest counter on the system clock together with a pinch of math to muddle the result further), but in the end its just a "number you won't be able to guess", nothing truly random (There are even arguments that randomness isn't a thing in real life as well, but let's save that debate for another day). Many developers choose to instead do their own random functionality, for various reasons, sometimes this "randomness", while judged good enough for whatever its needed for, can have severe flaws.


So, in conclusion: i'm not saying that the ethics system is working as intended. I'm just saying that if randomness is involved then we do not know if it works (nor whatever the random functionality that is being used works) since the sample size isn't nearly big enough to draw any accurate conclusions.

[corisai]

Escrito originalmente por Bozobub:

And I STILL see no explanation why simply explaining the damn mechanic properly, as-is, is such a bad thing.

LOL. Because mechanic is quite complex and too booring to know for 99.(9) players? And I'm even trying to politely avoid mention level of math knowledge of average player... I would just remind you endless stream of topics like "Miss with 99% chance, fix it now!"

[_ALuX_]

Escrito originalmente por Crimson Queen Remilia:

Escrito originalmente por _ALuX_:

No, I want OP to direct me there themselves. Just to be sure.

Wow. The height of laziness. No. If you can't do something so simple, then your opinion on this matter is not needed, not desired, and not relevant.

Then why the flying ♥♥♥♥ should I believe you, the oh-so-smart internet resident who preaches her word as gospel? If I was the one who posted this and refused to provide evidence outside of walls of angry text YOU would be calling me a liar too!

Give me the link, or I'll just keep calling you a liar.