🎮 Looking to up your shaving game? Then why not check out our sponsor Henson Shaving! Go to hensonshaving.com/extracredits and use "extracredits" at checkout to get 100 free blades with your purchase. Thanks for watching!
Solitaire with real cards player here, one of the things I like is the no win hands. I don't feel any pressure to think too hard or obsess over every move, because it might just be impossible anyway. Also my grandma taught me when that happens is when you're allowed to cheat.
Y'know, when the Mythbusters did the Monty Hall thing, I acknowledged the results, but I could not wrap my head around why it was the case. Over the years I've tried over and over again to make it make sense to my own brain and come up empty. Today, with the way you laid it out in this video, I have been freed from a curse I had long resigned myself to living with. **Thank you.**
One of my favorite replay missions in StarCraft 2 is the Vision mission where you have to hold out against the forces of Amon as long as possible. Ultimately, you are doomed, of course, but lasting just a little longer has its satisfactions.
Okay, let me try a shot at save scumming. I find nothing wrong with this. But... It's a failure of the understanding of RPGs by the video game industry. The truth is, they end the game when the player's character dies. They make a character's death a FAILURE state. That's not how Tabletop RPGs work. If your character dies due to a bad roll or situation, you MIGHT quit, but in most cases... You roll a new character, and it's merged back into the ongoing story. In an RPG, it's about the story. Sometimes character's die. Sometimes they fail. Sometimes, the heroes LOSE. And then, the players grieve, learn, and move forward with a new set of characters. I would say save scumming is a result of game not being able to do that. Fail states FORCE them to do it. Your thoughts?
I think that's a really great insight that character death isn't always a failure state in Table Top and that it's a huge difference from videogame RPGs. I'm not sure if it's a misunderstanding of RPGs by video games so much as a limitation of video games being replayable. A lot of the tabletop tricks like flexible encounter design and making character death have consequences but not be game-ending work because no one can go back and play the exact same adventure again and get a different outcome. I think until games can reliably procedurally generate a compelling story so that you have a strong incentive to see how this one ends because no one will ever get it again, most people will treat losing their favorite character as a fail state even if that's not an explicit feature of the game. At least for now, I think that kind of play is reserved for sitting around a table with a bunch of friends and a pile of dice.
That's a great analysis, but I would argue that character death is a fail state in most ttrpgs. The difference between ttrpgs and crpgs instead is that ttrpgs accommodate playing *past* fail states, including, but not limited to, player character deaths.
@matthewparker9276 it's the benefit of an active GM The GM can react in real time, altering things as the story goes While a game is pre-set GM's will often modify plans based on player actions. Plan for a whole thing of the party being captured. But they win the fight. Now it's a different story. While video game, cant have 2 totally different stories, so has to force the ambush
I think all the deep personal reflection on life lessons with no-win scenarios is reaching a little. However, knowing when you're in one and rebooting immediately can be part of the progression in mastering the game.
No matter how many times I hear it explained to me, I will always hate the monty hall problem. "If you switch, it's like you're choosing a 50% success over a 33% success! Stats support it!" Statistics my foot, the two doors don't care about the other door! They're functionally the same! By staying with the door I choose initially, it's like I've already made the choice to switch! (I know the math says I'm wrong, but the math is dumb and I hate it.)
Let me try and clarify here. The reason it gets weird is because the door is revealed by someone who knows what's behind them and always chooses a losing door to open. I think the 100 door case makes this clearer where you choose a door, they open every door except the winning door (in every case except the one in every hundred times you got it right on the first try where it's random), then you get the choice to either assume you picked correctly first, or that the door was somewhere else and they left just the prize door for you to switch to. You can blow up the number of doors too like if there were 8 billion doors and each person gets assigned a foot and then they show you the numbers of two doors (your own and another door) and tell you one of those doors is the winner which do you want to go with? For one person they already have the correct door so switching would lose them the prize but for every other human on the planet switching will win them the reward. This is equivalent to the Monty hall problem (just cranked up) you pick a door and then you get a few pieces of information. One of two doors contains your prize and that your door was guaranteed to be in that list. It's clear to see with the game rephrased that they have to give you the winning door as an option to switch to unless your first pick was correct.
I used to hate it too. That's because the 50% vs 33% is wrong(at least to my understanding) this is the video someone explained in a way the makes sense to me. In 1 in 3 scenarios you win by staying, but in 2 in 3 scenarios you win by switching. So 1 in 3 if you stay and 2 in 3 chance if you switch.
Wait.... so you are saying it's not better to switch because of MATH... but because of PSYCOLOGY? It's because "goat door" was selected to be opened by the host, it's not a math problem, but a psycology problem?
No, the psycology of the revealing potion and the intent to only reveal doors that do not have the prize behind them is the key point. If the door revealed is picked at random, you have a different math puzzle. The one that my brain automatically comes up with. The one where it IS 50/50 because now it's 2 doors, and no other factors. The HOW of how it's picked, that makes HOW into a datapoint... is the key.
When you talk about people being bad at numbers, I think about the modern XCOMs. Because people are so "bad" at not understanding that at 80%+ hit chance does not equal a guaranteed hit, the devs had to introduce a system in most difficulties where as you miss a series of shots, the game starts buffing your hit chance in the background so that RNGesus doesn't stay too cold for the player. Chance to hit perception for folks always seems to be a lot higher than what the math actually dictates. Taking a low percentage shot still feels doable for people, and the perception of how hittable a shot is grows RAPIDLY. But because of that, what players perceive to be a slam dunk shot is often far less likely to hit than they think it is. Hitting a cold streak on a bunch of 75% chance shots FEELS bad, even though every shot actually has a fairly good chance to miss. And kind of related to that, I feel like folks often misunderstand how percentages work. There is that idea that, "OK, if I take this 90% shot 10 times, I should only miss once." And over a large enough time frame, that should approximately be true. But every shot has that same 90% chance. So if you miss on a 1-10 and hit on a 11-100, it's is entirely conceivable that you roll a 1-10 most of the rolls. But again, that feels "bad", so devs will often end up taking steps to balance those cold streaks out.
One of my favorite mods for xcom was a "graze" mod which added a low damage band of probability. Something like 10% on top of your full hit chance would give you a 1-2 damage hit. Made it feel so much more fair and manageable even though it only amounts to about 5 damage per mission.
Reminds me of Pokemon and Fire Emblem. In Pokemon, because of moves like Thunder, Blizzard, and Focus Blast, which have a 70% chance, where you could easily miss several in a row and lose, or where the opponent can randomly hit one and win when they otherwise wouldn't. These moves end up feeling like a 50/50 coin flip, and are basically unusable in any situation that rewards consistency. Not to even mention status moves like Paralyze, Confuse, Attract, Sleep, etc. Compared to some Fire Emblem games, where they fudge the numbers that are shown to the player, in regards to hit chance, so that a 90% displayed chance to hit, is actually boosted to upwards of 98%, so it would almost never miss, just because that would *feel* more correct to the player. On the opposite end, anything below a 50% displayed chance to hit will basically never hit, because that would *feel* correct to the player.
The way I describe it to people is: The original probability is still collapsing, so you have to keep the starting percentages accounted for. You didn't go from 3 choices (33%) to 2 (50%), so you are still using 33%'s.
The randomness in rogue-likes adds to the replayability, but is often used by game designer instead of properly balancing the game. Slay the Spire is a good example of it done well, where with good strategy, almost no run is unwinnable. On the flip side, my mind goes to Tharsis aka Space Yahtzee. Even with a ton of strategy, the combination of a ton of RNG events, plus poor balancing means that even with a lot of experience, there are still tons of unwinnable runs.
@18:36 What you do NOT do is reduce the NUMBER of times a player can save. John Romero, fed up with the quicksave/quickload of Quake1, Doom 2 and Doom, created a "savegem" system for Daikatana that is part of its ridiculous, cruel difficulty. The Steam version patches this out.
I look at the monty hall problem this way: initally, I have a 1/3 chance of landing on the prize. But when one dud is out of the game, my odds when switching do actually increase to a 1/2 chance. The door you pick first is a 1 out of 3 and it stays that way, even when one door goes away. The door you can then switch to is 1 out of 2, so by switching you increase your chances from 1/3 to 1/2, which is an improvement so you should always switch.
What Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru was the correct action. "No Win Scenario's" are always fictitious because they rely on someone artificially restricting the players actions. The answer to "how to win against loaded dice" is to discard the dice and play a different game. This is known as "out of the box thinking" or "creative problem solving" in real life and is a cornerstone of becoming successful. Virtually every "gotcha" scenario can be beat by simply removing the artificial rules.
I've seen this explanation on whether to switch doors or not many times and I still don't believe it *_actually_* makes a difference, let alone the 33% vs 66% difference that's presented. I need to see it proven statistically in a research I trust (so by people I trust and with a large enough test set) before I'll believe it. That said, I *_would_* change doors if I were in such a situation, bc I don't believe it hurts either and hey, I cannot disprove it either so better safe than sorry
I think Mythbusters did an episode on it. They did a test where Adam always switched, and Jamie never switched. They did it a few hundred times and it came out pretty close to the 2/3s Adam won vs Jamie only won 1/3. But they brought up the cultural issue that people don't want to switch. They got a bunch of volunteers, and none of them would switch choices.
You don't need players to run it with you list all the options or just run a computer simulation comparing the strategies if you want. Ie: generate a random number from 1-3 (twice once for the door selected and once for the prize) then compare those numbers if they're equal then sticking wins. If they're not equal then switching wins (since the door revealed is guaranteed to be the dud switching wins any time they aren't the same). This also makes it clear why exactly it the ratio is 2/3 Then just run it until you're satisfied.
Many years ago, I talked my sister into trying a variant with a deck of 52 playing cards, trying to find the Ace of Spades. She picked a card, then I looked through the deck and picked out a card to keep face down, revealing the other fifty to show none of those were the AS. It may surprise you to learn that in the ten times we did it, she didn't pick the AS once, while I picked it every single time... In the long run, we'd have expected her to pick the AS once in every fifty-two tries, while the card I picked to leave face down would be AS the other fifty-one.
Because life is full of no-win situations, I don't like them in my games. They're an escape from a world where I have very little control. I struggle enough every day, I don't want to play pretend struggle.
12:11 "When we take on challenges that we know can't be won." The important word here is "know". In that case, yes, we can consider the attempt as training for a future winnable try. The problem comes when we DON'T know that we are in an unwinable situation, or even that the game CAN have unwinnable situations. In that case, we think that we are bad at the game and it can lead to lots of frustration, especially when the game allows us to reload a previous save and try differently.
I hate when games lie about probabilities. It feels like I'm being disrespected as a decision maker and when information is outright obfuscated, it's practically condescending. As painful as it is to roll a 1 when I need a 2+ with physical dice, I at least get to feel like no one was deceiving me and I wasn't influencing it in an unfair way. Actually I play Aeldari, so that's not entirely true. Also, yes, I DESPISE Slay the Spire for its abundance of unwinnable runs. It baffles me that anyone can enjoy that game with that element present.
Sts pros win like 90%+ of runs on ascension 20 that kill the heart. With the watcher basically only misplays can kill you since the character is a lot a bit overturned compared to the rest of the roster with perfect play. Practically speaking for every run you sit down to play their is a path to victory.
@@solsystem1342 So you're saying that the most skilled players which do not represent the overall audience, nor the typical experience of the game have a 1 in 10 chance of losing to forces beyond their control, even when knowing the game inside and out? That is not good.
To me the Monty hall problem was to much info. The 3rd door is gone. It is not apart of the question being asked. The question is ‘ which of two doors do you choose?’
Except knowing the history does (or at least should) make a difference to which door you pick. Here's another example where it's more obvious that you shouldn't ignore the history: after opening the third door, the host closes it again and offers you your choice of any of the three doors. My friend then argues that he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning the big prize by picking door 3 because he's faced with 3 closed doors with the prize behind one of them. I'm sure you can agree that my friend is an idiot for ignoring the information he learned that the prize was definitely not behind door 3. The fact you learn something about doors 1 and 2 by door 3 being opened is less obvious (and, depending on the host's strategy for picking which door to open when they have a choice, may not even be true). The key point is that when the player picks the door which has the prize behind, the host has a choice of which door to open, while when the player picks a dud, the host has no choice in which door to open. So if you pick door 1 and the host opens door 3, it's more likely he opened door 3 because the prize was behind door 2 and he had no choice, than that he opened door 3 because the prize was behind door 1 and he picked door 3 rather than door 2 (unless he always picks door 3 whenever the prize isn't behind it, in which case when he opens door 2, it's certain that the prize was behind door 3 - and it still averages out to an overall 2/3 chance of winning when you switch). There are variations where switching is actually pointless - if the host doesn't actually know where the prize is, and there's a 1/3 chance that when he confidently opens door 3, he'll reveal the prize, the producer will yell "cut" and you'll have to wait while the whole thing is reset (or you get to switch to door 3 and get the prize that way) - if the host doesn't know where the prize is, then when he opens a door to reveal a dud, that's more likely if the player happened to pick the prize, so the host revealing a dud by chance actually increases the chance that the player's door holds the prize, when in the standard version, the host revealing a dud tells the player nothing about the door they picked, but does tell them something about the other doors.
Asking “do you want to switch” is not the same as asking “which of these two doors do you choose” because the opening the door that reveals a dud is NOT random. If it were, then you’d be correct, but because the game show host KNOWS that this door is a dud, revealing it is NOT random and that changes the game from one of pure odds to a game of strategy. Injecting that one non-random event into the game gives the player non-random information.
Well, they explain it quite well. Assume the prize is behind door one. You pick door one. Gamehost opens door 2 or door 3 to reveal a goat. Switching results in a goat. Same setup, you pick door two. Gamemaster can't open door one, so they open door three. Switching gives you the prize. Same setup, you pick door three. Game master can't open door one, so they open door two. Switching gives you the prize. It's really "what door to open as number two, knowing game master opened the door with either goat1 or goat2." Mathematically the are 6 different sequences of opening the doors, 2 of which opens the prize door first, 2 where they open the door with one goat and 2 where they open the door the the other one. You feel as if you've picked the first door to open, but in reality you've chosen what door not to open first, which in 2/3rds of the time has a goat behind it. Because you get the offer to switch, you are 2/3rds of the time switcing away from a goat to the prize, again choosing what door not to open.
Ahh and yet in virtually every game out there, increase critical hit rate is usually the best DPS choice possible because designers give monsters tons of HP to compensate for players optimizing their character build.
When I used to play Solitaire, I got pretty good at identifying no win deals from the jump and would just redeal right away. Allowed me to get an 88% win percentage over 4000+ deals. I have since stopped playing Solitaire and haven't touched it in almost a decade at this point.
That Henson ad read worked on me. Been wanting to try traditional shaving for a while, since I seem to just really suck at electric razoring, but my only experience with oldschool shaving led to tons and tons of cuts. Here's hoping the ad's claims that nicks won't happen with this razor design bear fruit. Plus, not having to buy a new $30 razor head every few months will be nice.
There are a lot of minesweeper boards where a new player is more likely to win than an experienced player because the clearly best move in a situation leads to a loss. But the new player doesn't know that strategy so they may take a sub-optimal, winning guess.
Normally, a no-win scenario works well on story games. Kratos knows he will die and the acceptance of it allows us all to grow; you know GLaDOS thinks of you as a lab rat and you can't do anything but follow her little maze but you defy her anyway; the prologue of Warcraft forces you to hold out before everything burns away anyway. That push for growth is far more effective. However, I find it difficult to justify a no-win scenario in another kind of game especially comparatively. The idea of joining a COD game that has people Team stacking doesn't feel good and has no positive outcomes cause there is nothing to learn from greedy people who want to win at any expense. I understand that the idea behind a no-win scenario is more about the individual growth that comes from it, but that's forcing an individual to have personal maturity and growth. Not something most can do.
Idk why this feels weird to me still... If door 3 is revealed, than even if you stay with door 1, than technically you still opened two doors, 1 and 3 😅 And if your chance to get it wrong on your first pick is 66.6%, your chance of getting it wrong is still 66.6% if you swap before any door is opened... because there will always be two doors worth of content you don't get. Unless they specifically offer you BOTH door 2 and 3, instead of only 1, than your odds never actually rise? Am I thinking about this wrong and being dumb? 😂 I do like that you touched on critical strikes as a mechanic though. I personally prefer it when there are certain mechanics you can ONLY achieve through a critical hit, sort of like a special and especially strong effect. Then its just a trade off between consistency and spicy situations, instead of more damage.
Wtih the Kobayashi Maru scenario... I *really really* hate the Kelvin timeline version of how Kirk solved the Kobayashi Maru... The Wrath of Khan version of Kirk's solution - tricking the simulation into believing he was a highly respected and famous captain - is far more in line with someone Starfleet would want as a captain than the 2009 version's "so anyway, I started blasting" move. There are, of course, several other things I dislike the Kelvin timeline for, but that one is one of the more blatantly irksome things.
This one still doesn't quite make sense to me, but that might be because Ted-ED tried to explain this one, and fumbled it up. "We give you the option of one cure frog, or two cure frogs, but you already know that one of the two is not a cure frog."
Imagine a contestant is assigned to every door instead of choosing one. If the prize is behind door number 1 and the people running the game reveal a losing door to each competitor in secret then they're all asked to pick between stick or switch secretly. Player one loses if they switch and wins if they stick. For player two they get door three revealed to them and win if they switch. For player number three they get door two revealed to be the dud and win if they switch. 2/3 players win if they switch and only 1/3 win if they stay.
A variation on the Monty Hall problem that people's intuition seems to get right more often is to, rather than having the host pick a door to open to reveal a dud, have the host (or a second player) pick a door (that can't be the same one the player picked) to be the one he gets to keep, then open the door that neither of them picked. Given that the host (or the second player) knows which door the prize is actually behind before they pick which door they win, should the original player stick with their randomly chosen door, or pick the door that the person who knows where the prize is picked?
I have 6000 hours in Rimworld. I lost a run due to rng just on Monday. Am I mad? No. I was negligent as a player. I got lazy. Comfortable, even. Am I mad? Not evena little.
Using TF2 as when you mentioned "critical hits" was an interesting choice, since critical hits in TF2 aren't actually completely random. Your chances of getting a crit actually increases depending on how well you're currently doing.
I have quit Blood Bool 3 as its RNG system seems to be extremely bipolar, the dice are either extremely hot or extremely cold. I honestly do not know if it is perception bias but it seems a lot worse then it was in BB1 and 2
I really prefer the ironman play style. Especially in strategy games. I always played like that when I played civ. And paradox grans strategy games also lend themselves to that play style. Take ck3 for example, sometimes the games rng screws you over put it's also quite fun to have your empire fall apart in I family fude only for you to end up a one county vassal to your brother. Now you have to find a way to bounce back and get your revenge. Ultimately it's about decisions having true impact and meaning. Montgomery didn't have the ability to reload after all.
Sorry in advance for my essay, the Monty Hall problem has become one of my pet peeves because I've seen it used in movies to imply intelligence. The truth about the Monty Hall problem is its a 50/50 the whole time. Doesn't matter what door you pick, Monty is always crossing out one of the duds and its only your final pick that matters. The reason its not a 66% chance if you switch is because door 3's is now a 0 % of being correct and I can no longer choose door 3 once its been opened. So because of Monty's consistent behavior there was only ever actually 2 choices a correct or incorrect door, as one of the incorrect doors will always be removed. Switching doesn't magically give you 66% chance, the odds were re-evaluated the moment door 3 is revealed and it became a binary choice. its because Monty Hall problem assumes the odds arent re-evaluated. And heres why re-evalutation matters. I'm gonna dress this up a bit to make it more interesting. Your playing an rpg as an elven archer and your shooting your bow at a an orc warrior. you want to go for a headshot and because your skilled you its a 4 to get a normal hit or a 7 to get a headshot on 2d6. Because of your special rule you can choose if you want to make a headshot after rolling the first dice. rolling a 7 or above on a 2d6 is 58.33 %. So you roll your first dice and get 1. According to the monty hall approach you still have a 58.33% chance to get a headshot. But given you can re-evaluate your odds and you now need to roll a 6 to get a headshot its actually a change to a 16.67% chance for you to get a headshot now. For player evaluation your initial choice to go for a headshot would be a better than even odds, but after the first roll it would be a poor decision to commit to the headshot. Incidentally i'd pick fault with 4:38 and overkill and crit builds being inefficient. If i'm only fighting these low health enemies its a fair point but what are the odds these low health enemies will cause a game over? probably low. The crit build is there to deal with tougher enemies like bosses more efficiently so I can make the high risk fights potentially shorterand make those bosses less likely to cause a game over state which is what players are generally trying to avoid. Still its an interesting video and I'll concede that everything I've laid out is debatable.
2:20 This is just straight up wrong. in situation one, you shouldn't switch, in situation 2 you should, and situation 3 is a special case because he already revealed that the prize was behind the third door, so you lose whether you stick with one, and you also lose if you switch to 2 because you know it's behind 3. The idea IS true though, he just explained it wrong. If he instead elaborated that the person running the show won't reveal the 3rd door if it has the prize, and instead reveals the second door and allows you to switch to the third.
Your straight up wrong. He crossed out door 3 on situations 1 and 2 but in situation 3, where door 3 is the right one he crossed out door 2 becuase in the problem they open a door with a bad reward.
What I don't understand is why you switch doors. Isn't the FIRST door ALSO 50% now, as it's one of two options? Math does not care about that 3rd door once it opens. It's now a 2 door system, 50/50.
Even with this example... Sure, having 2 doors is better... but I also have two doors, I have door 1 and 3. If you open the door, you opened it for everybody, it's part of the sets of switch AND the set of don't switch. So it's 2 doors vs 2 doors. Still 50/50.
@@ICountFrom0 Imagine It was 100 doors and only 1 right. You choose one, having 99% chance to be a wrong door. Then we took out 98 of the wrong doors, leaving 1 right and 1 wrong. The odds DID NOT change to 50/50, the probability of the door you have pick up is the right one is still 1/100 against the chance of being the wrong one is 99/100.
And why souldn't the odds be 50/50 there's two doors. That's like saying flipping a coin 100 times and coming up heads the first 99 influances the other. If it's JUST doors.... it's 50/50 otherwise it's the host, and it's psycology, not math.
@@ICountFrom0 dude, imagine100 doors and you are choosing one the first time. Only 1 right. It would be very difficult get the exact door, lets suppose you got a wrong door, considering 99/100. But you dont know that yet. Then we reduce to two doors, taking out 98 wrongs. Now, If you had the opportunity to choose again and dont change, you are still playng with the odds of 99/100, because when you chose there were 99 wrong doors e only 1 right.
🎮 Looking to up your shaving game? Then why not check out our sponsor Henson Shaving! Go to hensonshaving.com/extracredits and use "extracredits" at checkout to get 100 free blades with your purchase.
Thanks for watching!
Solitaire with real cards player here, one of the things I like is the no win hands. I don't feel any pressure to think too hard or obsess over every move, because it might just be impossible anyway. Also my grandma taught me when that happens is when you're allowed to cheat.
Y'know, when the Mythbusters did the Monty Hall thing, I acknowledged the results, but I could not wrap my head around why it was the case. Over the years I've tried over and over again to make it make sense to my own brain and come up empty. Today, with the way you laid it out in this video, I have been freed from a curse I had long resigned myself to living with. **Thank you.**
24:43 "60 minutes multiply it by Media Offline"
I still don't trust Google's D20... three nat 1s in a row my foot!
The family freindly version of my *ss 😂😂😂
@KingJahamesIII I was in marching band in high school, and that was our go-to explitive when band directors were around. 🤣
To bad you can switch dice
Representativeness falllacy :)
@@skorp5677 words too big, head hurts🤕
One of my favorite replay missions in StarCraft 2 is the Vision mission where you have to hold out against the forces of Amon as long as possible. Ultimately, you are doomed, of course, but lasting just a little longer has its satisfactions.
Missing media at 24:50
Somebody hit render without knowing the server has to be up for it to pull those assets correctly, or didnt know the server was down.
Fun fact: there IS a known Spire seed that is unwinable. Don't ask me for said seed, but people with WAY more Spire knowledge could tell you.
note that it is a single found seed with a large community searching
I never understood why a goat is a bad prize.
Real
Back then, a glat was considered a bad Price in the 1960s, compared to the shiny new sports car that they would get instead!
@@user-gw4oz1rk3i Yeah, it's worse but it's not exactly bad.
Let's get "canyoupetthedog" to answer if we can pet the goat.
Okay, let me try a shot at save scumming. I find nothing wrong with this. But... It's a failure of the understanding of RPGs by the video game industry.
The truth is, they end the game when the player's character dies. They make a character's death a FAILURE state. That's not how Tabletop RPGs work. If your character dies due to a bad roll or situation, you MIGHT quit, but in most cases... You roll a new character, and it's merged back into the ongoing story.
In an RPG, it's about the story. Sometimes character's die. Sometimes they fail. Sometimes, the heroes LOSE. And then, the players grieve, learn, and move forward with a new set of characters.
I would say save scumming is a result of game not being able to do that. Fail states FORCE them to do it.
Your thoughts?
I think that's a really great insight that character death isn't always a failure state in Table Top and that it's a huge difference from videogame RPGs.
I'm not sure if it's a misunderstanding of RPGs by video games so much as a limitation of video games being replayable. A lot of the tabletop tricks like flexible encounter design and making character death have consequences but not be game-ending work because no one can go back and play the exact same adventure again and get a different outcome.
I think until games can reliably procedurally generate a compelling story so that you have a strong incentive to see how this one ends because no one will ever get it again, most people will treat losing their favorite character as a fail state even if that's not an explicit feature of the game. At least for now, I think that kind of play is reserved for sitting around a table with a bunch of friends and a pile of dice.
That's a great analysis, but I would argue that character death is a fail state in most ttrpgs.
The difference between ttrpgs and crpgs instead is that ttrpgs accommodate playing *past* fail states, including, but not limited to, player character deaths.
@matthewparker9276 it's the benefit of an active GM
The GM can react in real time, altering things as the story goes
While a game is pre-set
GM's will often modify plans based on player actions.
Plan for a whole thing of the party being captured. But they win the fight. Now it's a different story.
While video game, cant have 2 totally different stories, so has to force the ambush
I think all the deep personal reflection on life lessons with no-win scenarios is reaching a little. However, knowing when you're in one and rebooting immediately can be part of the progression in mastering the game.
No matter how many times I hear it explained to me, I will always hate the monty hall problem.
"If you switch, it's like you're choosing a 50% success over a 33% success! Stats support it!"
Statistics my foot, the two doors don't care about the other door! They're functionally the same! By staying with the door I choose initially, it's like I've already made the choice to switch!
(I know the math says I'm wrong, but the math is dumb and I hate it.)
Let me try and clarify here. The reason it gets weird is because the door is revealed by someone who knows what's behind them and always chooses a losing door to open. I think the 100 door case makes this clearer where you choose a door, they open every door except the winning door (in every case except the one in every hundred times you got it right on the first try where it's random), then you get the choice to either assume you picked correctly first, or that the door was somewhere else and they left just the prize door for you to switch to. You can blow up the number of doors too like if there were 8 billion doors and each person gets assigned a foot and then they show you the numbers of two doors (your own and another door) and tell you one of those doors is the winner which do you want to go with? For one person they already have the correct door so switching would lose them the prize but for every other human on the planet switching will win them the reward.
This is equivalent to the Monty hall problem (just cranked up) you pick a door and then you get a few pieces of information. One of two doors contains your prize and that your door was guaranteed to be in that list. It's clear to see with the game rephrased that they have to give you the winning door as an option to switch to unless your first pick was correct.
I used to hate it too. That's because the 50% vs 33% is wrong(at least to my understanding) this is the video someone explained in a way the makes sense to me. In 1 in 3 scenarios you win by staying, but in 2 in 3 scenarios you win by switching. So 1 in 3 if you stay and 2 in 3 chance if you switch.
Wait.... so you are saying it's not better to switch because of MATH... but because of PSYCOLOGY? It's because "goat door" was selected to be opened by the host, it's not a math problem, but a psycology problem?
Math explains why one should switch. Psychology explains why many think it feels bad to do it.
No, the psycology of the revealing potion and the intent to only reveal doors that do not have the prize behind them is the key point.
If the door revealed is picked at random, you have a different math puzzle. The one that my brain automatically comes up with. The one where it IS 50/50 because now it's 2 doors, and no other factors.
The HOW of how it's picked, that makes HOW into a datapoint... is the key.
“RIP: My Favorite Anime Boy”
I presume someone on the EH staff has been playing Fire Emblem. If so, I salute you.
When you talk about people being bad at numbers, I think about the modern XCOMs. Because people are so "bad" at not understanding that at 80%+ hit chance does not equal a guaranteed hit, the devs had to introduce a system in most difficulties where as you miss a series of shots, the game starts buffing your hit chance in the background so that RNGesus doesn't stay too cold for the player.
Chance to hit perception for folks always seems to be a lot higher than what the math actually dictates. Taking a low percentage shot still feels doable for people, and the perception of how hittable a shot is grows RAPIDLY. But because of that, what players perceive to be a slam dunk shot is often far less likely to hit than they think it is. Hitting a cold streak on a bunch of 75% chance shots FEELS bad, even though every shot actually has a fairly good chance to miss. And kind of related to that, I feel like folks often misunderstand how percentages work. There is that idea that, "OK, if I take this 90% shot 10 times, I should only miss once." And over a large enough time frame, that should approximately be true. But every shot has that same 90% chance. So if you miss on a 1-10 and hit on a 11-100, it's is entirely conceivable that you roll a 1-10 most of the rolls. But again, that feels "bad", so devs will often end up taking steps to balance those cold streaks out.
One of my favorite mods for xcom was a "graze" mod which added a low damage band of probability. Something like 10% on top of your full hit chance would give you a 1-2 damage hit. Made it feel so much more fair and manageable even though it only amounts to about 5 damage per mission.
@@asingleshot7that is why stocks exist in xcom 2 (no idea about the other games though)
Reminds me of Pokemon and Fire Emblem. In Pokemon, because of moves like Thunder, Blizzard, and Focus Blast, which have a 70% chance, where you could easily miss several in a row and lose, or where the opponent can randomly hit one and win when they otherwise wouldn't. These moves end up feeling like a 50/50 coin flip, and are basically unusable in any situation that rewards consistency. Not to even mention status moves like Paralyze, Confuse, Attract, Sleep, etc.
Compared to some Fire Emblem games, where they fudge the numbers that are shown to the player, in regards to hit chance, so that a 90% displayed chance to hit, is actually boosted to upwards of 98%, so it would almost never miss, just because that would *feel* more correct to the player. On the opposite end, anything below a 50% displayed chance to hit will basically never hit, because that would *feel* correct to the player.
The way I describe it to people is:
The original probability is still collapsing, so you have to keep the starting percentages accounted for.
You didn't go from 3 choices (33%) to 2 (50%), so you are still using 33%'s.
A prayer to RNGsus for giving us this video so randomly. Then again it seems like faith, because I was bored and hoped for a good video. And it came.
24:42 Jumpscare
Per the gameshow, I don't care about Half-Life, but wouldn't mind having a pet, that would give me a 2-in-3 chance of winning.
Or, if you're allowed to pick any of the three doors after the host opens one, you have a guarantee of winning.
The randomness in rogue-likes adds to the replayability, but is often used by game designer instead of properly balancing the game. Slay the Spire is a good example of it done well, where with good strategy, almost no run is unwinnable. On the flip side, my mind goes to Tharsis aka Space Yahtzee. Even with a ton of strategy, the combination of a ton of RNG events, plus poor balancing means that even with a lot of experience, there are still tons of unwinnable runs.
@18:36 What you do NOT do is reduce the NUMBER of times a player can save. John Romero, fed up with the quicksave/quickload of Quake1, Doom 2 and Doom, created a "savegem" system for Daikatana that is part of its ridiculous, cruel difficulty.
The Steam version patches this out.
I'm with Picard. His filosofi makes for a healthier life.
Ops, read that wrong
I definitely agree
I look at the monty hall problem this way: initally, I have a 1/3 chance of landing on the prize. But when one dud is out of the game, my odds when switching do actually increase to a 1/2 chance.
The door you pick first is a 1 out of 3 and it stays that way, even when one door goes away. The door you can then switch to is 1 out of 2, so by switching you increase your chances from 1/3 to 1/2, which is an improvement so you should always switch.
While watching this video I lost a game of minesweeper by clicking a cell that had a 2% chance to be a mine
Yay Extra Credits is Back!
What Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru was the correct action. "No Win Scenario's" are always fictitious because they rely on someone artificially restricting the players actions. The answer to "how to win against loaded dice" is to discard the dice and play a different game. This is known as "out of the box thinking" or "creative problem solving" in real life and is a cornerstone of becoming successful. Virtually every "gotcha" scenario can be beat by simply removing the artificial rules.
I've seen this explanation on whether to switch doors or not many times and I still don't believe it *_actually_* makes a difference, let alone the 33% vs 66% difference that's presented. I need to see it proven statistically in a research I trust (so by people I trust and with a large enough test set) before I'll believe it. That said, I *_would_* change doors if I were in such a situation, bc I don't believe it hurts either and hey, I cannot disprove it either so better safe than sorry
I think Mythbusters did an episode on it. They did a test where Adam always switched, and Jamie never switched. They did it a few hundred times and it came out pretty close to the 2/3s Adam won vs Jamie only won 1/3.
But they brought up the cultural issue that people don't want to switch. They got a bunch of volunteers, and none of them would switch choices.
You don't need players to run it with you list all the options or just run a computer simulation comparing the strategies if you want. Ie: generate a random number from 1-3 (twice once for the door selected and once for the prize) then compare those numbers if they're equal then sticking wins. If they're not equal then switching wins (since the door revealed is guaranteed to be the dud switching wins any time they aren't the same). This also makes it clear why exactly it the ratio is 2/3
Then just run it until you're satisfied.
Many years ago, I talked my sister into trying a variant with a deck of 52 playing cards, trying to find the Ace of Spades. She picked a card, then I looked through the deck and picked out a card to keep face down, revealing the other fifty to show none of those were the AS. It may surprise you to learn that in the ten times we did it, she didn't pick the AS once, while I picked it every single time... In the long run, we'd have expected her to pick the AS once in every fifty-two tries, while the card I picked to leave face down would be AS the other fifty-one.
@@solsystem1342 Thanks, that sounds like an interesting idea. Maybe I'll do that
It's literally just math; very easily proven.
Because life is full of no-win situations, I don't like them in my games. They're an escape from a world where I have very little control. I struggle enough every day, I don't want to play pretend struggle.
I agree.
The rip n tear strategy is pretty good imo.
12:11
"When we take on challenges that we know can't be won."
The important word here is "know". In that case, yes, we can consider the attempt as training for a future winnable try.
The problem comes when we DON'T know that we are in an unwinable situation, or even that the game CAN have unwinnable situations. In that case, we think that we are bad at the game and it can lead to lots of frustration, especially when the game allows us to reload a previous save and try differently.
Oh, I see you know the Sierra move.
Nothing like saving after a critical failure state, that was never announced!
I hate when games lie about probabilities. It feels like I'm being disrespected as a decision maker and when information is outright obfuscated, it's practically condescending. As painful as it is to roll a 1 when I need a 2+ with physical dice, I at least get to feel like no one was deceiving me and I wasn't influencing it in an unfair way.
Actually I play Aeldari, so that's not entirely true.
Also, yes, I DESPISE Slay the Spire for its abundance of unwinnable runs. It baffles me that anyone can enjoy that game with that element present.
Sts pros win like 90%+ of runs on ascension 20 that kill the heart. With the watcher basically only misplays can kill you since the character is a lot a bit overturned compared to the rest of the roster with perfect play.
Practically speaking for every run you sit down to play their is a path to victory.
@@solsystem1342 So you're saying that the most skilled players which do not represent the overall audience, nor the typical experience of the game have a 1 in 10 chance of losing to forces beyond their control, even when knowing the game inside and out?
That is not good.
does this mean the current youtube meta is longer form again?
Well its been 6 hrs and there's only 450 likes so I don't think so
Might just mean that a compilation video is an easy way to release "new" content.
@@rmsgrey probably right
To me the Monty hall problem was to much info. The 3rd door is gone. It is not apart of the question being asked. The question is ‘ which of two doors do you choose?’
Except knowing the history does (or at least should) make a difference to which door you pick.
Here's another example where it's more obvious that you shouldn't ignore the history: after opening the third door, the host closes it again and offers you your choice of any of the three doors. My friend then argues that he has a 1 in 3 chance of winning the big prize by picking door 3 because he's faced with 3 closed doors with the prize behind one of them. I'm sure you can agree that my friend is an idiot for ignoring the information he learned that the prize was definitely not behind door 3.
The fact you learn something about doors 1 and 2 by door 3 being opened is less obvious (and, depending on the host's strategy for picking which door to open when they have a choice, may not even be true). The key point is that when the player picks the door which has the prize behind, the host has a choice of which door to open, while when the player picks a dud, the host has no choice in which door to open. So if you pick door 1 and the host opens door 3, it's more likely he opened door 3 because the prize was behind door 2 and he had no choice, than that he opened door 3 because the prize was behind door 1 and he picked door 3 rather than door 2 (unless he always picks door 3 whenever the prize isn't behind it, in which case when he opens door 2, it's certain that the prize was behind door 3 - and it still averages out to an overall 2/3 chance of winning when you switch).
There are variations where switching is actually pointless - if the host doesn't actually know where the prize is, and there's a 1/3 chance that when he confidently opens door 3, he'll reveal the prize, the producer will yell "cut" and you'll have to wait while the whole thing is reset (or you get to switch to door 3 and get the prize that way) - if the host doesn't know where the prize is, then when he opens a door to reveal a dud, that's more likely if the player happened to pick the prize, so the host revealing a dud by chance actually increases the chance that the player's door holds the prize, when in the standard version, the host revealing a dud tells the player nothing about the door they picked, but does tell them something about the other doors.
Asking “do you want to switch” is not the same as asking “which of these two doors do you choose” because the opening the door that reveals a dud is NOT random. If it were, then you’d be correct, but because the game show host KNOWS that this door is a dud, revealing it is NOT random and that changes the game from one of pure odds to a game of strategy. Injecting that one non-random event into the game gives the player non-random information.
Well, they explain it quite well. Assume the prize is behind door one. You pick door one. Gamehost opens door 2 or door 3 to reveal a goat. Switching results in a goat.
Same setup, you pick door two. Gamemaster can't open door one, so they open door three. Switching gives you the prize. Same setup, you pick door three. Game master can't open door one, so they open door two. Switching gives you the prize. It's really "what door to open as number two, knowing game master opened the door with either goat1 or goat2." Mathematically the are 6 different sequences of opening the doors, 2 of which opens the prize door first, 2 where they open the door with one goat and 2 where they open the door the the other one. You feel as if you've picked the first door to open, but in reality you've chosen what door not to open first, which in 2/3rds of the time has a goat behind it. Because you get the offer to switch, you are 2/3rds of the time switcing away from a goat to the prize, again choosing what door not to open.
Ahh and yet in virtually every game out there, increase critical hit rate is usually the best DPS choice possible because designers give monsters tons of HP to compensate for players optimizing their character build.
When I used to play Solitaire, I got pretty good at identifying no win deals from the jump and would just redeal right away. Allowed me to get an 88% win percentage over 4000+ deals. I have since stopped playing Solitaire and haven't touched it in almost a decade at this point.
I do very much enjoy these compilation videos. Much appreciated
The biggest problem with the Monty Haul problems is just how badly I want to pet the goat.
The Psychonauts reference was nice
That Henson ad read worked on me. Been wanting to try traditional shaving for a while, since I seem to just really suck at electric razoring, but my only experience with oldschool shaving led to tons and tons of cuts. Here's hoping the ad's claims that nicks won't happen with this razor design bear fruit. Plus, not having to buy a new $30 razor head every few months will be nice.
"The only winning move is not to play." - Wargames
I'm not going to lie, I really wouldn't mind winning a goat!
Great video!
There are a lot of minesweeper boards where a new player is more likely to win than an experienced player because the clearly best move in a situation leads to a loss. But the new player doesn't know that strategy so they may take a sub-optimal, winning guess.
Klondike and Spiderette have unwinnable deals. Spider Solitaire has no unwinnable seeds.
Normally, a no-win scenario works well on story games. Kratos knows he will die and the acceptance of it allows us all to grow; you know GLaDOS thinks of you as a lab rat and you can't do anything but follow her little maze but you defy her anyway; the prologue of Warcraft forces you to hold out before everything burns away anyway.
That push for growth is far more effective.
However, I find it difficult to justify a no-win scenario in another kind of game especially comparatively. The idea of joining a COD game that has people Team stacking doesn't feel good and has no positive outcomes cause there is nothing to learn from greedy people who want to win at any expense. I understand that the idea behind a no-win scenario is more about the individual growth that comes from it, but that's forcing an individual to have personal maturity and growth. Not something most can do.
Idk why this feels weird to me still...
If door 3 is revealed, than even if you stay with door 1, than technically you still opened two doors, 1 and 3 😅
And if your chance to get it wrong on your first pick is 66.6%, your chance of getting it wrong is still 66.6% if you swap before any door is opened... because there will always be two doors worth of content you don't get.
Unless they specifically offer you BOTH door 2 and 3, instead of only 1, than your odds never actually rise?
Am I thinking about this wrong and being dumb? 😂
I do like that you touched on critical strikes as a mechanic though.
I personally prefer it when there are certain mechanics you can ONLY achieve through a critical hit, sort of like a special and especially strong effect.
Then its just a trade off between consistency and spicy situations, instead of more damage.
I was waiting for the next video like this came out 😊
Very excited
Wtih the Kobayashi Maru scenario... I *really really* hate the Kelvin timeline version of how Kirk solved the Kobayashi Maru... The Wrath of Khan version of Kirk's solution - tricking the simulation into believing he was a highly respected and famous captain - is far more in line with someone Starfleet would want as a captain than the 2009 version's "so anyway, I started blasting" move.
There are, of course, several other things I dislike the Kelvin timeline for, but that one is one of the more blatantly irksome things.
I don't wanna switch, I want the goat!
This one still doesn't quite make sense to me, but that might be because Ted-ED tried to explain this one, and fumbled it up.
"We give you the option of one cure frog, or two cure frogs, but you already know that one of the two is not a cure frog."
Imagine a contestant is assigned to every door instead of choosing one. If the prize is behind door number 1 and the people running the game reveal a losing door to each competitor in secret then they're all asked to pick between stick or switch secretly. Player one loses if they switch and wins if they stick. For player two they get door three revealed to them and win if they switch. For player number three they get door two revealed to be the dud and win if they switch. 2/3 players win if they switch and only 1/3 win if they stay.
@@solsystem1342great explainsion!
A variation on the Monty Hall problem that people's intuition seems to get right more often is to, rather than having the host pick a door to open to reveal a dud, have the host (or a second player) pick a door (that can't be the same one the player picked) to be the one he gets to keep, then open the door that neither of them picked. Given that the host (or the second player) knows which door the prize is actually behind before they pick which door they win, should the original player stick with their randomly chosen door, or pick the door that the person who knows where the prize is picked?
Shaka, when the walls fell.
I have 6000 hours in Rimworld. I lost a run due to rng just on Monday. Am I mad? No. I was negligent as a player. I got lazy. Comfortable, even. Am I mad? Not evena little.
Using TF2 as when you mentioned "critical hits" was an interesting choice, since critical hits in TF2 aren't actually completely random. Your chances of getting a crit actually increases depending on how well you're currently doing.
The goat is goated
Thanks For this Guys! Love your content ❤❤❤❤
24:44
Hey uhhh
I think it broke
Well, you can use math (in the broadest sense) to make sure that randomness leads to winnable game setups lol :)
I have quit Blood Bool 3 as its RNG system seems to be extremely bipolar, the dice are either extremely hot or extremely cold.
I honestly do not know if it is perception bias but it seems a lot worse then it was in BB1 and 2
Love the little jingle at the start!
3:13
Wouldn't it be 1&3 or 2&3 since in either way 3 gets shown if you change it or not.
This made me think about ny relatio ship with matchmaking and LoL
Right around 19:08 ... because it always is. :)
?
12:20 all of the above
My neighbors have 3 goats.
YEAHHHHHHHHH
I WANT TO WIN A GOAT
I really prefer the ironman play style. Especially in strategy games. I always played like that when I played civ. And paradox grans strategy games also lend themselves to that play style. Take ck3 for example, sometimes the games rng screws you over put it's also quite fun to have your empire fall apart in I family fude only for you to end up a one county vassal to your brother. Now you have to find a way to bounce back and get your revenge.
Ultimately it's about decisions having true impact and meaning. Montgomery didn't have the ability to reload after all.
I Save scum to beat the Goners and their cheating RNG.
Sorry in advance for my essay, the Monty Hall problem has become one of my pet peeves because I've seen it used in movies to imply intelligence.
The truth about the Monty Hall problem is its a 50/50 the whole time. Doesn't matter what door you pick, Monty is always crossing out one of the duds and its only your final pick that matters. The reason its not a 66% chance if you switch is because door 3's is now a 0 % of being correct and I can no longer choose door 3 once its been opened. So because of Monty's consistent behavior there was only ever actually 2 choices a correct or incorrect door, as one of the incorrect doors will always be removed.
Switching doesn't magically give you 66% chance, the odds were re-evaluated the moment door 3 is revealed and it became a binary choice.
its because Monty Hall problem assumes the odds arent re-evaluated. And heres why re-evalutation matters.
I'm gonna dress this up a bit to make it more interesting. Your playing an rpg as an elven archer and your shooting your bow at a an orc warrior. you want to go for a headshot and because your skilled you its a 4 to get a normal hit or a 7 to get a headshot on 2d6. Because of your special rule you can choose if you want to make a headshot after rolling the first dice. rolling a 7 or above on a 2d6 is 58.33 %. So you roll your first dice and get 1. According to the monty hall approach you still have a 58.33% chance to get a headshot. But given you can re-evaluate your odds and you now need to roll a 6 to get a headshot its actually a change to a 16.67% chance for you to get a headshot now. For player evaluation your initial choice to go for a headshot would be a better than even odds, but after the first roll it would be a poor decision to commit to the headshot.
Incidentally i'd pick fault with 4:38 and overkill and crit builds being inefficient. If i'm only fighting these low health enemies its a fair point but what are the odds these low health enemies will cause a game over? probably low. The crit build is there to deal with tougher enemies like bosses more efficiently so I can make the high risk fights potentially shorterand make those bosses less likely to cause a game over state which is what players are generally trying to avoid.
Still its an interesting video and I'll concede that everything I've laid out is debatable.
6:00
Never been this Early
2:20
This is just straight up wrong. in situation one, you shouldn't switch, in situation 2 you should, and situation 3 is a special case because he already revealed that the prize was behind the third door, so you lose whether you stick with one, and you also lose if you switch to 2 because you know it's behind 3.
The idea IS true though, he just explained it wrong. If he instead elaborated that the person running the show won't reveal the 3rd door if it has the prize, and instead reveals the second door and allows you to switch to the third.
Your straight up wrong. He crossed out door 3 on situations 1 and 2 but in situation 3, where door 3 is the right one he crossed out door 2 becuase in the problem they open a door with a bad reward.
Second. That was random.
What I don't understand is why you switch doors. Isn't the FIRST door ALSO 50% now, as it's one of two options? Math does not care about that 3rd door once it opens. It's now a 2 door system, 50/50.
Even with this example... Sure, having 2 doors is better... but I also have two doors, I have door 1 and 3. If you open the door, you opened it for everybody, it's part of the sets of switch AND the set of don't switch. So it's 2 doors vs 2 doors. Still 50/50.
@@ICountFrom0 Imagine It was 100 doors and only 1 right. You choose one, having 99% chance to be a wrong door. Then we took out 98 of the wrong doors, leaving 1 right and 1 wrong. The odds DID NOT change to 50/50, the probability of the door you have pick up is the right one is still 1/100 against the chance of being the wrong one is 99/100.
And why souldn't the odds be 50/50 there's two doors.
That's like saying flipping a coin 100 times and coming up heads the first 99 influances the other.
If it's JUST doors.... it's 50/50
otherwise it's the host, and it's psycology, not math.
@@ICountFrom0 dude, imagine100 doors and you are choosing one the first time. Only 1 right. It would be very difficult get the exact door, lets suppose you got a wrong door, considering 99/100. But you dont know that yet. Then we reduce to two doors, taking out 98 wrongs. Now, If you had the opportunity to choose again and dont change, you are still playng with the odds of 99/100, because when you chose there were 99 wrong doors e only 1 right.
Psychology is everything 😎
Jordan Peterson is the GOAT 🐐
🙄🤦