wtf is with the dice

[lord_sitruc]

two games in a row playing Skaven I failed a 2+ roll every turn atleast once I failed a dodge of 2+ with a reroll possibly multiple times. WTH is with the dice. I lost twice because my guys couldn't get around dwarfs or nurgle because what seemed like every rush or 2+dodge my guys would fail. I understand sometimes but it was crazy pervasive to the point it made the game not fun.

[VoodooMike]

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

They won't show up. They weren't in Blood Bowl 2. Dices didn't count after rerolls. Dices were not counted for events.there can be no talk about mathematics in such conditions. Too many dices are lost in this log.

That's not how it works. In BB2 all dice rolls were recorded in the replay files, including both initial rolls and rerolls, or they wouldn't have shown up when you viewed the replays. No "dices are lost" in the process.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

To prove something you have to do huge statistics by yourself. And compare it to a fumble or a board game.

Again, not how it works. To look for evidence of bias you compare the distribution of values from whatever sample you're using with a distribution representing perfect randomness (the expected distribution one would see across an infinite random sequence). One does not need a "huge" sample - the size of that sample simply affects the confidence range when comparing those distributions.

If there's bias large enough from some shlub to see with his eyes then it is easily large enough to see as consistent bias using the math specifically created to look for such things.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

There will be no evidence, as there was none before.

When there has never been evidence of bias, but there has been plentiful evidence of an absence of bias, a rational conclusion is that there is no bias... not that the bias is being extra sneaky and is hiding in some unexplainable location.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

The math also doesn't work if there are bugs in the game code (And it's easy to think that there are errors in the code. look at bb3). Therefore, you can believe in mathematics, and I can believe in extrasensory perception. There is no difference in this case.

That makes zero sense. The math is not reliant on the "game code", it is applied to the data. If there's a problem with the code that in some way affects the dice, especially in some way that you think you can perceive with your eyes and memory, then that will show up as an abnormal distribution to that math... and should show up as a consistently abnormal distribution from match to match.

There's a pretty big difference between believing in mathematics and believing in psychic powers.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

And that's why people are unhappy with the preservation of the randomizer from BB2

You are, quite literally, the first person I've ever seen that professes to be unhappy with the fact that they've carried over the same RNG from BB2. The entire reason they've stated it was carried over is that "people" are pretty confident with the body of evidence that supports the idea that the BB2 dice system was unbiased and indistinguishable from randomness.

So I guess the answer to my question about whether or not you'll be able to change your mind is "no", then?

[D[A]rkDemon[A]lyosh[A]98]

Originally posted by VoodooMike:

That's not how it works. In BB2 all dice rolls were recorded in the replay files, including both initial rolls and rerolls, or they wouldn't have shown up when you viewed the replays. No "dices are lost" in the process.

I repeat, the dice at events and after the reroll on blocks are not displayed in the summary stat of BB2. You can see the statistics after the game - they are not there. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. The same is true for the program for replays - it does not count dices for events. Because of this, any mathematical conclusions cannot be drawn accurately.

Originally posted by VoodooMike:

When there has never been evidence of bias, but there has been plentiful evidence of an absence of bias, a rational conclusion is that there is no bias... not that the bias is being extra sneaky and is hiding in some unexplainable location.

And where are they?

[sixty4half]

Originally posted by VoodooMike:

The more important question is - will you be able to change your mind....

Will you?

The one thing you stand behind so confidently is that the randomizer is the same as BB2. You put a lot of trust in a company that frankly doesn't deserve it. What happens when it comes out they lied, took a short cut, and screwed the randomizer? Or maybe they'll patch that out before releasing Cablevision or a proper dice log so that we can check proper.

I do know for a fact that the rerolls were not working properly when the game was released. Did that plant the seeds for the disbelief in proper randomization? Probably so. But is that the only problem with the dice? IDK

[VoodooMike]

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

I repeat, the dice at events and after the reroll on blocks are not displayed in the summary stat of BB2. You can see the statistics after the game - they are not there. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. The same is true for the program for replays - it does not count dices for events. Because of this, any mathematical conclusions cannot be drawn accurately.

The post-match summary page is garbage - that is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of information. The rolls are absolutely recorded in the replay files or you wouldn't see them happen when watching a replay, and you do. You can verify this yourself by playing a match, re-rolling some actions, and then watching the resulting replay.

The individual dice values can be viewed on sites like onesandskulls.com - skip the summaries (which are descriptives, not suitable for inference) and scroll down to below it where every dice roll is listed for you. It does not specifically label rerolls as rerolls, but they are listed as the same action by the same player twice in a row.

That's independently verifiable evidence.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

And where are they?

BB2 has been out for years, and the testing of the rolls from replay files have been done over and over and are found in various threads on the BB2 steam forums. There were results in the now defunct company forums (both versions) as well. Hell, if you imagine you have replay files of matches where you were certain there was bias then lets drag those out and we can run them through appropriate statistical tests and look at the results right here.

Originally posted by sixty4half:

Will you?

Be able to change my mind if there is genuine evidence of bias? Of course. I wouldn't have put any effort into testing the available data if I wasn't willing to accept the results, and nobody has done more testing and exploring of the topic than I have in the history of the BB PC games.

Originally posted by sixty4half:

The one thing you stand behind so confidently is that the randomizer is the same as BB2. You put a lot of trust in a company that frankly doesn't deserve it. What happens when it comes out they lied, took a short cut, and screwed the randomizer? Or maybe they'll patch that out before releasing Cablevision or a proper dice log so that we can check proper.

That's a poor straw man - I have never "stood confidently behind" the idea that they are telling the truth, I have simply pointed out that they have stated that the RNG is the same one they used in BB2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we have no reason not to believe that to be false - it also represents not putting in new effort, which is quite consistent with Cyanide's development methodology.

The lack of replay files or game logs makes it difficult to engage in proper testing of things with BB3, but the second they implement one of those things I will be diving right in the same way I have with BB1 and BB2. Unlike most people with loud opinions on the dice, I'm willing to do the work not just demand other people do it for me (or deciding I can magically see the truth without any work).

Originally posted by sixty4half:

I do know for a fact that the rerolls were not working properly when the game was released. Did that plant the seeds for the disbelief in proper randomization? Probably so. But is that the only problem with the dice? IDK

Oh, is this an objective, widely accepted and documented fact, or more of a feel-it-in-your-bones "fact"? If there was a genuine issue then everyone will have experienced it and be aware of it, right?

As for whether the RNG is "the only problem with the dice" - it doesn't matter where the issue lies, what matters is that statistical testing will see abnormalities in the output. If you can see it, the math can see it.

[D[A]rkDemon[A]lyosh[A]98]

Originally posted by VoodooMike:

The post-match summary page is garbage - that is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of information. The rolls are absolutely recorded in the replay files or you wouldn't see them happen when watching a replay, and you do. You can verify this yourself by playing a match, re-rolling some actions, and then watching the resulting replay.

The individual dice values can be viewed on sites like onesandskulls.com - skip the summaries (which are descriptives, not suitable for inference) and scroll down to below it where every dice roll is listed for you. It does not specifically label rerolls as rerolls, but they are listed as the same action by the same player twice in a row.

That's independently verifiable evidence.

Nope, cuz its ignoring event dices :) And in agi team game its more necessary sometimes, than armour or block.

[sixty4half]

Originally posted by VoodooMike:

Originally posted by sixty4half:

The one thing you stand behind so confidently is that the randomizer is the same as BB2. You put a lot of trust in a company that frankly doesn't deserve it. What happens when it comes out they lied, took a short cut, and screwed the randomizer? Or maybe they'll patch that out before releasing Cablevision or a proper dice log so that we can check proper.

That's a poor straw man - I have never "stood confidently behind" the idea that they are telling the truth, I have simply pointed out that they have stated that the RNG is the same one they used in BB2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we have no reason not to believe that to be false - it also represents not putting in new effort, which is quite consistent with Cyanide's development methodology.

The lack of replay files or game logs makes it difficult to engage in proper testing of things with BB3, but the second they implement one of those things I will be diving right in the same way I have with BB1 and BB2. Unlike most people with loud opinions on the dice, I'm willing to do the work not just demand other people do it for me (or deciding I can magically see the truth without any work).

Originally posted by sixty4half:

I do know for a fact that the rerolls were not working properly when the game was released. Did that plant the seeds for the disbelief in proper randomization? Probably so. But is that the only problem with the dice? IDK

Oh, is this an objective, widely accepted and documented fact, or more of a feel-it-in-your-bones "fact"? If there was a genuine issue then everyone will have experienced it and be aware of it, right?

As for whether the RNG is "the only problem with the dice" - it doesn't matter where the issue lies, what matters is that statistical testing will see abnormalities in the output. If you can see it, the math can see it.

First off, it isnt a straw man, you've used the RNG argument and made links to the rng engine more than once in an attempt to discredit people. You're either moving the goal post for "confidence" which is subjective or you're gaslighting us. You know what a synonym for gaslighting is? Lying. For someone so obsessed with another user's "lie" I would think you would tread more carefully when there are documented posts by you saying the RNG engine is just fine.

It is documented that the rerolls failed. I'll link a video you can review for yourself. Even cyanide admits the rerolls were failing. You're attempt to discredit this statement in order to discredit my entire post failed.

Edit: https://youtu.be/x0AtXYtmHUQ?si=GL-iONUbVmCUR2C7

There you go, evidence of rerolls failing. I roll 2 red dice, select reroll, then the game shows dice rolling but provides the same outcome and the game fails to remove a reroll from my pool. I start with 3 and end with 3.

[mrsir]

Don't even bother trying to argue with VoodooMike. He is so stuck in his own head that he sees lies where there are truths and constantly lies himself. I don't need to prove anything to him and neither does anyone else. He is attacking people the way he is and refusing to back down because deep down he knows he is clueless.

Nobody needs to prove anything to him because he will just keep shifting the goal posts to suit his needs. As for his open attacks on me accusing me of lying. I know I am not lying and he is treading very close to libel/slander territory right now.

@VoodooMike, don't bother replying because you are blocked and I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who shifts goalposts to make himself look "big".

[Splinter]

This topic has been beaten to death. Just search the forms for Blood Bowl 2. As to the RNG VoodooMike has done more research and annalists more than anyone else I've seen. He knows what he is talking about.

[VoodooMike]

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

Nope, cuz its ignoring event dices :) And in agi team game its more necessary sometimes, than armour or block.

So the new story (and I note you've now given up on claiming it does not record block rerolls, so we've made progress) is that theres either deliberate bias or some form of problem in the RNG but one that only affects certain kickoff event rolls? That's starting to sound like a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Onesandskulls records the kickoff event roll as "kickoff" but often does not list the rolls made for that event - that part is true. Only about half of the kickoff events actually get a roll, and a typical game has maybe 5 kickoff events.

So to be clear, is your dice conspiracy theory that there is a problem with the dice but that only appears in a roll that happens, on average, twice per match?

Originally posted by sixty4half:

First off, it isnt a straw man, you've used the RNG argument and made links to the rng engine more than once in an attempt to discredit people.

Well, if I've "made links to the rng engine" more than once it should be easy for you to provide at least two examples (link to the posts). I have certainly stated that Cyanide has said they used the same RNG in BB3 that they used in BB2 because it's the truth - they have said that. I have not said it is guaranteed to be true so I'm not sure how I could be using it to discredit anybody. Typically it is the moronic positions people take that discredit them.

Originally posted by sixty4half:

You're either moving the goal post for "confidence" which is subjective or you're gaslighting us. You know what a synonym for gaslighting is? Lying. For someone so obsessed with another user's "lie" I would think you would tread more carefully when there are documented posts by you saying the RNG engine is just fine.

There is no goalpost moving here - confidence ranges will vary depending on sample size, but that does not change the confidence level that we use to determine if there is evidence of an effect. There is nothing "subjective" about the alpha level we use when testing a hypothesis: in modern statistics the alpha level is almost always 0.05, with people often reporting if a test falls below the 0.01 level just for emphasis. That's a very, very concrete "goalpost".

The only lying going on here is you putting words in my mouth that I havent said... well.. and that other guy lying about have a degree in statistics to bolster his weak arguments.

Originally posted by sixty4half:

It is documented that the rerolls failed. I'll link a video you can review for yourself. Even cyanide admits the rerolls were failing. You're attempt to discredit this statement in order to discredit my entire post failed.

Again, an opportunistic straw man. I asked you if the reroll issue was objective and documented.. that's not an attempt to "discredit" the statement, it is a demand for supporting evidence. You seem to be prone to inferring more than is being said and then running with it as though it was clear fact (as you are here) so I find it very important when dealing with you to separate the genuine facts from your rather wild conjecture.

Originally posted by sixty4half:

There you go, evidence of rerolls failing. I roll 2 red dice, select reroll, then the game shows dice rolling but provides the same outcome and the game fails to remove a reroll from my pool. I start with 3 and end with 3.

It certainly does appear that way from the video, so I'm going to ask the folks on the BB3 discord to verify that this was a known and documented issue in order to get more information on it.

If, as you say, Cyanide acknowledged this issue and fixed it then I'm not sure how it applies here, though. Is the standpoint that because the game has had bugs (as all games do) it somehow makes other theories that are unsupported with evidence inherently more likely to be true? If so, I'm afraid that isn't logic-based.

Originally posted by mrsir:

Nobody needs to prove anything to him because he will just keep shifting the goal posts to suit his needs.

The numpty crowd really has latched on to this "goalpost shifting" concept. I'm not clear on how one can shift the goalpost from "any independently verifiable evidence whatsoever" beyond simply not accepting people's say-sos which are not independently verifiable evidence to begin with.

It all sounds a lot like a cross between a conspiracy theory and an emotional support group for the logically and mathematically disinclined.

Originally posted by mrsir:

As for his open attacks on me accusing me of lying. I know I am not lying and he is treading very close to libel/slander territory right now.

I confidently believe you to be a fraud, and I'm not going to change my position on that just because you whine loudly about it. I consider it dangerous to let people make fraudulent claims in an attempt to give themselves more credibility than they deserve, so I will always challenge people like you when you attempt it.

[sixty4half]

LOL

[D[A]rkDemon[A]lyosh[A]98]

Originally posted by VoodooMike:

So the new story (and I note you've now given up on claiming it does not record block rerolls, so we've made progress) is that theres either deliberate bias or some form of problem in the RNG but one that only affects certain kickoff event rolls? That's starting to sound like a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Onesandskulls records the kickoff event roll as "kickoff" but often does not list the rolls made for that event - that part is true. Only about half of the kickoff events actually get a roll, and a typical game has maybe 5 kickoff events.

So to be clear, is your dice conspiracy theory that there is a problem with the dice but that only appears in a roll that happens, on average, twice per match?

My dear, rolls of any dice for events, rolls specifically for the event table, do not count. Moreover, as I said, in the game of agi teams there can be from 7 to 8 kick-off events. And when BB2-BB3 gives out 3-4 blitz in a row, it raises questions.

Originally posted by Splinter:

This topic has been beaten to death. Just search the forms for Blood Bowl 2. As to the RNG VoodooMike has done more research and annalists more than anyone else I've seen. He knows what he is talking about.

It doesn't matter because he is a non-named player (or who? cyanide worker?doesnt matter) that nobody knows. Even if he had a hand in this miracle of game development, it says a lot. And yes, who among the Cyanides even plays BB3 and plays it well? :)

For me, my personal feelings and the opinion of several tier-1 players in this game are much more important than walls of text about mathematics from a person who proves something on the Internet.

And when a tier-1 player with thousands of hours in the game and a bunch of trophies says that the randomness here is different, I have no reason not to trust him. Yes, not everyone says so. But some are convinced that either the random is different, or we have no evidence that he is not different. And it is.

And when a non-name person writes to me that this cannot be, and he probably plays with a 50% win rate, then mathematics ceases to be an argument. A person simply does not have enough experience of the game.

[D[A]rkDemon[A]lyosh[A]98]

And, by the way, you can always see a player who came to the BB from a board game. They always play more risky, they have a completely different playstyle.

Yes, maybe lack of experience affects this (after all, more games can be played on the computer). But this can also be explained by the fact that there are no random patterns in the board game. And what the boarder can afford in reality, the game collapses with constant square-doubles of skulls.

[VoodooMike]

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

My dear, rolls of any dice for events, rolls specifically for the event table, do not count. Moreover, as I said, in the game of agi teams there can be from 7 to 8 kick-off events. And when BB2-BB3 gives out 3-4 blitz in a row, it raises questions.

They count just fine, and they are recorded in replay files (or replay files wouldn't actually reproduce the original match) they are simply not displayed on onesandskulls' list of rolls. A given BB match has 250+ rolls, and even if there are 8 kick-off events (which there rarely are), only about half of the kickoff event table entries require additional rolls. That means kickoff event rolls represent a trivial number of rolls in each match, and certainly not enough to make the samples "inconclusive".

If there was an issue with the RNG, or the functions that convert RNG output into dice rolls, we would have more than enough rolls to work with in any given match to see the bias or errors within those two aspects. Let me remind you what YOU claimed about the games, lest you accidentally engage in that "goalpost shifting" you claim to abhor:

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

..I can say that this randomizer really has patterns of behavior. And my friends are often surprised when I just guess future cubes only due to my experience.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

Therefore, yes, I think that the randomizer does not work correctly.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

And that's why people are unhappy with the preservation of the randomizer from BB2

You've been claiming the RNG is flawed or biased to the point that you can predict rolls, and that it is the "randomizer" that is broken. There is plentiful evidence to the contrary in relation to BB2, and we can go over whatever replay files you'd like to produce more.

Originally posted by DArkDemonAlyoshA98:

For me, my personal feelings and the opinion of several tier-1 players in this game are much more important than walls of text about mathematics from a person who proves something on the Internet.

Your feelings and opinions trump objective data? I'm always amazed when people say that proudly rather than realizing what an intense condemnation of their intelligence it is.

As for "tier 1" players, you seem to be creating your own tier definitions here. Why don't you head into the BB3 discord and see what the top ranked BB3 players think of your theories? I mean, according to your claims they'll be behind you 100%, right?

[mrsir]

Originally posted by Splinter:

This topic has been beaten to death. Just search the forms for Blood Bowl 2. As to the RNG VoodooMike has done more research and annalists more than anyone else I've seen. He knows what he is talking about.

VoodooMike is a fraud who accuses and belittles everyone to make up for his own inadequacies. He isn't someone to respect or even believe. The way he personally gains a vendetta against anyone that he feels might challenge him and then accuses them of lying and being beneath him (on every Steam discussion board I've seen him post) shows the desperation he has to be accepted and respected. I don't need his consent or approval, or for him to believe me, but to say he is an expert on these matters is a joke. He simply shouts the loudest and obviously has a lot of spare time on his hands.

[Splinter]

I don't personaly know the guy but I've seen him post on this subject for a very very long time. VoodooMike is a lot things. But a fraud and a liar isn't one of them. And also he actually doesn't care if anyone likes or respects him. I never heard of you until now. I've heard of VoodooMike ALOT. He's been posting on this subject for years. He's done research into the topic more than anyone else that I know of. He has gotten game files and looked into the statistics. I agree with you that VoodooMike rubs a lot people the wrong way, but I will trust him way more than someone I've never heard of before on this subject. If you want to start another thread on how much VoodooMike is a jerk I'm all for it, but don't say the guy is a Fraud or doesn't know what he's talking about.

On another topic, In my opinion someone who post about that RNG being broken is either not experienced enough and/or has perceived bias. I've have played Blood Bowl a very long time. I'm guessing before a lot of you were born. Also I have over 6000 hours in BB2 and I don't think there is anything wrong with the RNG. So am I wrong and original poster right? I don't blame the Original Poster for thinking what they think. My advice is stop blaming the dice and learn from your mistakes. The problem is like I stated before, this subject has been beaten to death so when someone post about it, people are very tired of hearing it.