• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

New Issue Siege Camp % not working as advertised.

Fizxguy

New Member
I have a problem with the % probability of getting an increase in attrition with Siege Camps on GBG. I have been tracking the number of attrition increasing fights vs total number of fights for myself.
1. 5 siege Camps: There should be zero chance of getting an increase in attrition when attacking a sector which 5 of your own guild's (5x24%=120% attrition free). This is not the case. Even in this situation, attrition increases.
2. Less numbers of siege camps: even when large numbers of fights are put on (ie all possible), the average number of attrition increasing events is greater than should be expected using the 24% attrition reduction of each Siege Camp. This statement is based on many sectors being taken solely by myself with me recording the the number of fights and the number of attrition causing events (so, the statistics are taken into account).

If the method for determining attrition free probability is something other than a simple sum of the 24% figures from all adjacent siege camps, copuld you please let us know how you are calculating this? It would also be helpful to make it clear within the game. If this is a bug, could you please fix it?
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
This is not the case. Even in this situation, attrition increases.
I have never seen this happen. Are you sure there are 5 touching the actual territory you are attacking? Sometimes it looks like they are connected, but they are in actuality not... there is a small gap keeping them from connecting. Not saying there isn't a bug for you, but sometimes it's easy to see things that aren't actually the case. The GBg map can look a bit cluttered at times.

Less numbers of siege camps: even when large numbers of fights are put on (ie all possible), the average number of attrition increasing events is greater than should be expected using the 24% attrition reduction of each Siege Camp.
It's statistics. There's no way to know for sure that you just haven't encountered the "bad luck" side of the math without Inno releasing their code. It's clear that the mathematical intention is to sum all camps and minimize attrition based on the result. I've noticed that sometimes it seems to not add up "fairly" but that it is beyond fair at other times. I'm not sure you have a large enough sample to truly know.

If this is a bug, could you please fix it?
I agree with this. I'm not convinced that it is a bug. But if it gets to the devs, they can double-check their coding to be sure.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
1. 5 siege Camps: There should be zero chance of getting an increase in attrition when attacking a sector which 5 of your own guild's (5x24%=120% attrition free). This is not the case. Even in this situation, attrition increases.
I have never seen this happen. Which provinces is this occurring on? And were they constructed?

If the provinces were touching and all siege camps fully completed then you'll need a ticket to verify attrition and camps. But at least if you tell me here what the provinces were with the camps and the province you're attacking I can tell you whether they'd have counted
 
Last edited:

Tony 85 the Generous

Active Member
Do the Siege Camp percentages add, or does the game run the 24% chance 5 times. It appears everyone thinks they add. But they could run independent.
If they add, then 5 SCs =5x24% = 120%
If they are sequential, then 24%^5 = 0.07%
 

Vger

Well-Known Member
Do the Siege Camp percentages add, or does the game run the 24% chance 5 times. It appears everyone thinks they add. But they could run independent.
If they add, then 5 SCs =5x24% = 120%
If they are sequential, then 24%^5 = 0.07%
They add (or at least they always have, and I don't believe it has changed).

Adding is a really stupid implementation. Probabilities don't get added. They get POW^'ed. In every game ever. Except GBG.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Active Member
They add (or at least they always have, and I don't believe it has changed).

Adding is a really stupid implementation. Probabilities don't get added. They get POW^'ed. In every game ever. Except GBG.
That would be why I question it. 0.07% is still pretty darn low, but still it is possible. Especially if you are as unlucky in FoE as I am, hence why I hated the carnival event.
 

Vger

Well-Known Member
If they are sequential, then 24%^5 = 0.07%
That would be why I question it. 0.07% is still pretty darn low, but still it is possible. Especially if you are as unlucky in FoE as I am, hence why I hated the carnival event.
Your math is wrong.
24% is the probability of 1 camp giving you an attrition free pass.
76% chance you do get attrition.
What you posted: 24%^5 = 0.07% is the probability that none of 5 camps would give you a pass.
But you only need 1. There is (SHOULD BE!!!) a 76% chance that a camp won't give you a pass. But you have 5 chances so, you are bound to get a pass from 1 of them, right?
Well... 0.76^5 = 25%.
Yes. 25%. Not 0.07%

And yes, the math means what is says (unless I got it wrong). 5 siege camps should mean you gain attrition 25% of the time. Not 0% of the time. On what planet is there a game where you can buy a 0% chance of anything of value? WTF??? ( and 0 attrition spots have value, right?).

I doubt INNO will actually change it. As a game mechanic, it's a joke. There is no Battle in Guild Battle Grounds. It's just a circle jerk dance we do mostly for our own good, not for the good of the guild.
But it probably sells diamonds. People go crazy to spend diamonds for SCs because....who could possibly wait 90 minutes for an SC to build???

A better description of the math (and why the way INNO does it is horid) can be found here:
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
On what planet is there a game where you can buy a 0% chance of anything of value?
On earth... in this game. Because that's how Siege Camps work. Building more of them adds them together. Just because some folks don't like that math doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. If you stack two pieces of steel, they are twice as impenetrable. Actually, they're probably more than twice as impenetrable given the kinetic energy dissipation... but putting five pieces of steel back-to-back is certainly not going to only give you a 75% diminished penetration. That's absurd.

It's just a circle jerk dance we do mostly for our own good, not for the good of the guild.
Well, that depends. I work hard to keep us in Platinum specifically for the good of my guild. In Platinum, they can get personal rewards. In Diamond they won't. I don't do it for me.
Screen Shot 2020-09-07 at 3.00.45 AM.png
In fact, I take weeks off when we need to place low to avoid moving up (like I'm doing this round) so the rest of my guild has extra opportunities for those rewards... a definite NOT "for my own good". I also spend Diamonds building Siege Camps... Diamonds I earn, not buy... so my guild can have extra opportunities for personal rewards instead due to lower attrition. In Diamond, that's an entirely different story. That league is just for the greedy and selfish... the big money players... the giant guilds. That's fine. Someone's gotta pay Inno's bills.

it probably sells diamonds
Indeed.

who could possibly wait 90 minutes for an SC to build?
I dunno... but it takes two hours for a Siege Camp and one hour for a Watchtower in my guild. When your team is interested in playing now and not in two hours, you build them now. In two hours, they might be at dinner with their families and by the time they return, those territories may have been taken from you, wasting the goods you spent to build them.
 
Last edited:

Tony 85 the Generous

Active Member
I doubt INNO will actually change it. As a game mechanic, it's a joke. There is no Battle in Guild Battle Grounds. It's just a circle jerk dance we do mostly for our own good, not for the good of the guild.
But it probably sells diamonds. People go crazy to spend diamonds for SCs because....who could possibly wait 90 minutes for an SC to build???

A better description of the math (and why the way INNO does it is horid) can be found here:
Is that a confirmation of how it works? 75% instead of 120% for 5 SCs?
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
So why does attrition increase with 5 SCs surrounding the sector being attacked?
It doesn't. In fact, even if the territory has three traps, for a 135% chance at double attrition, you still won't accumulate a single point -- because double nothing is still nothing. I have taken entire territories alone without accumulating a single attrition point when there have been 5 Siege Camps or 4 Siege Camps + 1 Watchtower involved. It's most likely the case that the territories you owned were not fully bordering the territory you attacked if you accrued attrition.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Active Member
It doesn't. In fact, even if the territory has three traps, for a 135% chance at double attrition, you still won't accumulate a single point -- because double nothing is still nothing. I have taken entire territories alone without accumulating a single attrition point when there have been 5 Siege Camps or 4 Siege Camps + 1 Watchtower involved. It's most likely the case that the territories you owned were not fully bordering the territory you attacked if you accrued attrition.
-2 SC on C3Z
-1 SC on D2S
-2 SC on C1
-Attacking C2T with two banners

That is 5 SCs bordering and touch C2T. yes?)

Gained 3 attrition in 130 hits (at most 130 hits, I can't tell if anyone else helped. It took 20 minutes or so to take the sector).

A small amount of attrition for sure, but not 0.
 
Last edited:

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
A small amount of attrition for sure, but not 0.
It sounds like you did everything right. I'm not assuming you're being dishonest about it because that makes no sense. The only thing I can think of is that it's either a bug as you've suggested that hasn't happened to any of the rest of us (yet)... and you should submit a ticket in-game so the support staff can properly look into what happened to you exactly... or maybe you miscounted and didn't realize it. It's not supposed to work that way, so it must be a bug or a mistaken count.
 
Agreed, sounds like everything was done right, taking the attrition should not have happened. I personally have not had this happen to me, nor have I heard of it from anyone else in our guild. Not saying it didn’t happen to you; I will take you at your word that it in fact did. Follow the good advise above from Sal and maybe support can shed some light on it for you.
I would be interested in their response. Maybe if this thread is still open you can give us an update when it is resolved.
 

Tony 85 the Generous

Active Member
Also don't forget, this is not my thread. If we take the OP at his word, then there is two of us.

Also, if the siege camps percentage acts independently, then 1-(1-24%)^5 is not correct. It is actually 5 trials of 24% each for which there is no exact percentage calculation of the overall chances of not increasing attrition. An approximation is 1-(1-24%)^5 but is not accurate. Similar to rolling 5 dice one at a time and trying to land on 1 or 2. The chances of landing on 1 or 2 is 33%. When rolling the second dice, the chances are the same, 33%. One trial has nothing to do with the next. SCs may work the same way. You just get more chances of the 24% by having more SCs.
 
Last edited:

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Also don't forget, this is not my thread. If we take the OP at his word, then there is two of us.
Sure, but since he hasn't posted any update since, and hasn't answered the question the in-game moderator asked specifically, I'm not convinced the OP wasn't simply in error.

if the siege camps percentage acts independently
It doesn't. They stack. One would expect that, if they worked independently, you should expect A TON of attrition over time... especially if multiple Traps are set up in the territory you are attacking. This doesn't happen, which implies that your theory is incorrect, does it not?
 

Fizxguy

New Member
I have never seen this happen. Are you sure there are 5 touching the actual territory you are attacking? Sometimes it looks like they are connected, but they are in actuality not... there is a small gap keeping them from connecting. Not saying there isn't a bug for you, but sometimes it's easy to see things that aren't actually the case. The GBg map can look a bit cluttered at times.

I am ABSOLUTELY certain about this. I am not talking about sectors only connected by their vertices. I am talking about having 3 SC's on one sector with an adjoining side and 2SC's on another with an adjoining side. I have also seen it with 2 sectors with 2 SC's and one sector with 1 SC. These %s should simple add (the way it has been described in the game and they don't).

It's statistics. There's no way to know for sure that you just haven't encountered the "bad luck" side of the math without Inno releasing their code. It's clear that the mathematical intention is to sum all camps and minimize attrition based on the result. I've noticed that sometimes it seems to not add up "fairly" but that it is beyond fair at other times. I'm not sure you have a large enough sample to truly know.

I know what statistics are (I have a PhD to prove it). This is not bad luck. There is a problem with how this is coded. I had 8500 fights in the season before last. Approximately 50 complete sectors taken by myself is certainly a big enough sample size to see how the statistics are working out. This was only one season.

I agree with this. I'm not convinced that it is a bug. But if it gets to the devs, they can double-check their coding to be sure.