Let's keep the discussion to the balance of men and women in game, and not let it wander off that.
- 3
- 1
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
No, that's literally the probability of outcome calculation. I don't have to argue that the sky is blue, I can objective prove it with a code. Here is a simple java simulation I did:No. If you already have 5 girls the next roll will still be 49% Female and 51% male. And even if: Also there are millions of players. 2% of them will get it. That's still a high number
import java.util.Random;
public class Probablity{
public static Random randy = new Random();
public static void main(String []args){
int a = 0;
for(int x = 0; x < 100; x++){
a += getGroup();
}
System.out.println((a/100)+"/"+100);
}
public static int getGroup(){
String[] s = new String[100];
int a = 0;
String t = "";
for(int x = 0; x < s.length; x++){
t = getVal(6);
if (t.equals("000000") || t.equals("111111")){
a++;
}
}
return a;
}
public static String getVal(int i){
String v = "";
for (int x = 0; x < i ; x++){
v += String.valueOf(randint(2));
}
return v;
}
public static int randint(int i){
return randy.nextInt(i);
}
}
I feel that I must clarify myself on the post you replied to.There are reasons to not buy CK3 like Fervor being wonky or frustrating partition succession or obnoxious seduction events or simply being satisfied with CK2. Being bad at statistics however is not a particularly good reason to not get a game.
I wish the probability literally work like that, I would have ton of ssr in gacha if it work like that.On the other hand it's very unlikely: 1-(1/2)^6=98% chance for male on the sixth roll.
But do the game code does it like that though?It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.Java:import java.util.Random; public class Probablity{ public static Random randy = new Random(); public static void main(String []args){ int a = 0; for(int x = 0; x < 100; x++){ a += getGroup(); } System.out.println((a/100)+"/"+100); } public static int getGroup(){ String[] s = new String[100]; int a = 0; String t = ""; for(int x = 0; x < s.length; x++){ t = getVal(6); if (t.equals("000000") || t.equals("111111")){ a++; } } return a; } public static String getVal(int i){ String v = ""; for (int x = 0; x < i ; x++){ v += String.valueOf(randint(2)); } return v; } public static int randint(int i){ return randy.nextInt(i); } }
On the other hand it's very unlikely: 1-(1/2)^6=98% chance for male on the sixth roll.
No. If you already have 5 girls the next roll will still be 49% Female and 51% male. And even if: Also there are millions of players. 2% of them will get it. That's still a high number
Two different issues.No, that's literally the probability of outcome calculation. I don't have to argue that the sky is blue, I can objective prove it with a code. Here is a simple java simulation I did:
[...]
It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.
But that's not the question you were presenting before - "How likely is it that all 6 children are girls?" is a completely different question than "How likely is it that the sixth child is not a girl like the 5 previous ones?". And it's gambler's fallacy to look at the latter and to assume it is the former.No, that's literally the probability of outcome calculation. I don't have to argue that the sky is blue, I can objective prove it with a code. Here is a simple java simulation I did:
It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.Java:import java.util.Random; public class Probablity{ public static Random randy = new Random(); public static void main(String []args){ int a = 0; for(int x = 0; x < 100; x++){ a += getGroup(); } System.out.println((a/100)+"/"+100); } public static int getGroup(){ String[] s = new String[100]; int a = 0; String t = ""; for(int x = 0; x < s.length; x++){ t = getVal(6); if (t.equals("000000") || t.equals("111111")){ a++; } } return a; } public static String getVal(int i){ String v = ""; for (int x = 0; x < i ; x++){ v += String.valueOf(randint(2)); } return v; } public static int randint(int i){ return randy.nextInt(i); } }
This is much more likely to be confirmation bias.The same thing as in CK2, the odds having many daughters on a row are astronomically low with a coin flip-style, yet it was frequent, but only with daughters. One could have suspected that dev implemented alleles system:
But no dev never admitted it, so I don't know.
Yeah they should add "forbid son from being knight" to the list of "issues".. I keep having to remind myself to do it when the first son or two dies in a battle.interesting. the real problem, IMHO, is all the men getting armour for their 16th birthday and running off to be hacked to death
I’ve used the console for literally every aspect of the game to keep it from exploding. At this point I’m exhausted from it.I don't do females so I'll pass. But what I especially dislike is having them foisted down on me in my personal entertainment (ref Ray 'Mary-Sue' Skywalker, among many examples in recent years).
Using the console is mandatory at this point, if only to force that plethora of female rulers to use matrilineal unions, or stabilize religious fervor.
Gacha games don't actually work on probability. It's almost scam like but there's a whole science in it descending from collectable baseball card days to with prepackaged/sorted rarities and such to ensure better distriubtion and more enjoyment for the consumer. There was a nice talk on this very recently I forgot if it's GDC or White Nights (I think GDC).I wish the probability literally work like that, I would have ton of ssr in gacha if it work like that.
But do the game code does it like that though?
A lot of game don't seem to do that, especially gacha game so I don't think we have to default every game probability have to work like that instead of you know how the probability work.
There was one lonely boring evening I forced myself to reconcile and fully understand Gambler's Fallacy vs Regression to the Mean. There was one very helpful stackexchange responder who said one must separate probablistic facts from statistical observations.All the math stuff
On the other hand it's very unlikely: 1-(1/2)^6=98% chance for male on the sixth roll.
Gacha games don't actually work on probability. It's almost scam like but there's a whole science in it descending from collectable baseball card days to with prepackaged/sorted rarities and such to ensure better distriubtion and more enjoyment for the consumer. There was a nice talk on this very recently I forgot if it's GDC or White Nights (I think GDC).
However, when you play mobile games its pretty blatantly obvious some games chests are just scams since the community consistently won't get the desired items until the end of the event even though they're supposedly opening the same chest, and even then the chance is small artificially inducing everyone having to make a purchase or just not get the item. Some won't even bother trying to hide it and enforce a supposed random item to be always the last 2 to be drawn out of 25.
There was one lonely boring evening I forced myself to reconcile and fully understand Gambler's Fallacy vs Regression to the Mean. There was one very helpful stackexchange responder who said one must separate probablistic facts from statistical observations.
Gambler's Fallacy is flawed because it assumes every iteration has memory of the previous. Just because you birthed a girl the game is not accounting for that on your next child. 49% for a girl is still 49%.
Regression to the Mean is a statsitical measure that only comes to play with very large quantities and largely not useful in any situation where you're tempted by Gambler's Fallacy. Trying to guess or "math out" the chances that you land somewhere on the statistical distribution curve is entirely irrelevant, that next child is still 49% chance of being a girl for you.
I'm not sure how to simplify it further but I was struggling with this a bit too and just forced myself to mull over it all evening. Once you understood it you can finally realize Gambler's Fallacy doesn't contradict Regression to the Mean at all and both remain true.
One's experience with Gacha games or loot boxes in various games is NOT a good reference because those are largely manipulated (for good or for bad) to either maximize consumer happiness or profits or both. One common mechanic is guaranteeing an epic item after every 10 packs you open, whether or not they tell the consumer about it is a strategic chocie by the PM.
CK3 is not guaranteeing your 6th child will be a boy.
Using "chance" to describe statistics is a bit misleading but a common one because they use similar/related math. But the easiest way to logic this out is:Simple way to see it. Each births is statiscally independent. Thus each time you have a child there is a 51% chance it's a boy.
However, the chance that for six of these events it lands everytime on "female" is really low.
On the other hand, if you throw a hundred coins, the chance of landing 6 heads or 6tails in a row somewhere is 80%.
For only tails or only heads it's ~50%. So the chance of seeing series of same gender gets quite high the more you play.
You mean death during childbirth for the mother? If they try to simulate that they'd have to vastly increase infant mortality rates as well (not to mention baby boys are more likely to die than baby girls, so the slightly higher boy birth rate is evolution compensating for it) which get into a whole slew of can of worms that I and I suspect many others are not comfortable with in a game which ultimate goal is intended for entertainment, even if its a dynasty simulation.Leaving the mathematical digression aside, no explanation beyond confirmation bias is needed.
I guess if childbirth had a higher mortality rate it would balance out all the men dying in battles. I think I've come across it twice so far? Should probably be a lot more common considering the time the game is set in.
Add to that the mortality rate of CK 3 knights and you will be on your last Dynasty member and the Game Over warning pending a couple of decades into the campaign lol.You mean death during childbirth for the mother? If they try to simulate that they'd have to vastly increase infant mortality rates as well (not to mention baby boys are more likely to die than baby girls, so the slightly higher boy birth rate is evolution compensating for it) which get into a whole slew of can of worms that I and I suspect many others are not comfortable with in a game which ultimate goal is intended for entertainment, even if its a dynasty simulation.
It is sad that literally every knight dies early if you declare enough wars.Add to that the mortality rate of CK 3 knights and you will be on your last Dynasty member and the Game Over warning pending a couple of decades into the campaign lol.
I have played a total of a bout 300 years through different runs and I have not encountered a gender issue of newborns in my runs. I wouldn't dismiss the claims of so many posters as confirmation bias tho. at this stage of the game it wouldn't surprise me if something can bug out or if there are hidden genetics that force women or men to produce boys / girls at an unusual amount.