So what with one thing and another - I think addressing the question of dice issues is important.
#Axis and allies game pc cheat engine full#
It would be possible - always possible - to go back and make changes later, but it's usually pretty costly to stick something on afterwards if it wasn't designed to handle it in the first place.Īnd I'd imagine the developers probably have their hands full with other things as well. That level of detail would have to be in the data in the first place if the data were to be checked for correlation.Īnd as in your quote, if there's a particular player that has suspiciously lucky dice - various filters would have to be set for those as well - for example, percentile results on attacker and defender rolls, respectively, in battles involving more than 30 IPCs of units on each side.Īnyways the program was designed as it was. So for example suppose I think - for whatever reason - that Russian industrial complex antiaircraft fire hit unusually high, on the first three rounds of play. You need in-game data with full context for that. But you can't check that for correlations. The data I saw the developers release was from some test with undisclosed details that just chunked together a bunch of dice results. If they cant do that, maybe they should figure it out. Originally posted by ReoHays:they should be able to look at the data of past games and see how ofton things like this happen and if it's the same people. Neither developers nor players have made available data sets that allow data to be filtered and checked for correlations. As I've written, that's unreasonable to expect of people that aren't getting paid.Ģ) I don't know that there is a PRNG issue personally. It *could* be that those players were exaggerating, but consider the several hundred hours required for players to carefully document results and compile large data sets to demonstrate validity. I don't want these points getting lost, as happens sometimes.ġ) The large data sets reported from in-game by players show really bad odds, mathematically. I'll repeat a couple comments here that I've made elsewhere. My impression is a lot of things are pretty well decided on, but if the community speaks up and says there are issues, then maybe something will be done about those issues. Way I figure it, 1942 Online is in Early Access. If it was thought that casual players not necessarily with any experience of Axis and Allies would be the best market (and my guess is that *would* be true), why put in features aimed at veteran / more serious players that would cost considerably more to develop? I mean sure, we could say game integrity, player satisfaction, but in the end the decision to develop the game or not was a business call.Īnd really, if all the features I want had made it into the game, I'm sure it would have taken double the budget - probably more, even a LOT more. I don't like it, but it's not unreasonable. That probably means the program was designed and written in a certain way. I've written elsewhere I think the developers wanted to target a casual market. But even if they did, big businesses and governments get hacked all the time.įar as looking at data of past games - I don't know that Beamdog's got it set up that they can do that. Far as I know, Beamdog didn't have experience developing this type of game. No particular reason developers in 2020 would be all over this.
0 kommentar(er)
