rolls are utter ♥♥♥♥

[anthonystuart713]

one thing i hate about all chance based games.....they FAIL at trying to emulate it. it ruins the game and ruins the experience. how? ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reloading a game a dozen times because the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ roll misses the check...and when in combat players still ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ miss 5 times in a row with 60 plus percent chance to hit. devs...you cant emulate chance without it being one type of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or another- stop trying. it ruins your products.

[Elrodeus]

Much like the real Dungeons and Dragons, sometimes you just have to continue the adventure even though your roll failed.

I don't understand the whole "karmic dice" debacle either. It was on by default so I left it on. I've been having a good experience. I've still had my fair share of critical misses and I have legit spent like 6 lockpicks trying to pick a door. The good/bad roll streaks are there whether you want them are not, but if the devs designed the game with Karmic Dice enabled, I leave it enabled.

I think personally the dice rolls have been pretty enjoyable. I've gotten some lucky rolls in situations where I shouldn't have (rolling a 19 on a 15 difficulty Persuasion check when I literally have a -1 in my Charisma) and I've definitely rolled 1's on things I was skilled for. That's what Inspiration re-rolls have been implemented for. I have fairly consistently had all 4 Inspiration points on all my companions for quite some time.

TLDR. The rolls are fine. Adapt.

[765]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Originally posted by Martyrofsand:

Moments like that are when you are seeing the inability of a cpu algorithm to be truly random.

Lol, no. This is the very definition of random. As 765 said.

Actually an interesting question though.

[alan0n]

Another victim of public education.

[Vizi Huggles,the teddy bear]

Originally posted by Martyrofsand:

Yeah RNG can be a ♥♥♥♥♥ sometimes. My fav so far was when I made 3 attacks with a 95% chance, with advantage and missed 2 of them none of which was a critical miss, and yes Karmic dice is turned off. This effectively means on 6 dice rolls I rolled like 4 2s as anything else should of damn well be a hit. Moments like that are when you are seeing the inability of a cpu algorithm to be truly random.

iirc turning off karmic dice makes it more likely to roll 4 2's. karmic dice tweaks the rng to make streaks of similar numbers less common. which is something that can happen in truly random systems.

it's unlikely, but entirely possible to roll the same exact number 5 times in a row on a d20, even more. If you've watched enough d&d live plays or played yourself there's entire mythologies built around "cursed" or "haunted" dice because folks get unlucky streaks and need to blame something to lighten the mood.

All this complaining about RNG is just trying to build a dice jail for cpus.

[Midas]

Originally posted by 765:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Lol, no. This is the very definition of random. As 765 said.

Actually an interesting question though.

It's entirely possible (probable, even) to be unable to fully replicate dice randomness in a game, but the fact of the matter is that no one is going to be able to tell off their own experiences. Even if you correlated many experiences, more of them would fall victim to confirmation bias than any actual significant flaw in the RNG.

[Friends with Benedicts]

Originally posted by anthonystuart713:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reloading a game a dozen times because the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ roll misses the check...

heres your problem. You cant take no for an answer and youre playing a game that has set chances of failure.

I simply take my Ls and Im having a blast with no problem, Ill sometimes reload but its more like when a toon DIES.

You determine your reload point. If youve determined for you that you cant fail anytime then yea, youre gonna have a problem, cuz surprise surprise, mostly half the time you flip a coin, itll be tails.

its not really rocket science, i dont get why people think failing half the stuff you try is something unusual.

I guess you guys never played an actual PNP game with a DM that do not allow "re loads" or to roll again as we call it.

[Friends with Benedicts]

Originally posted by Midas:

confirmation bias than any actual significant flaw in the RNG.

all of these threads are confirmation bias. Digital randomness is an actual subject of study in gaming coding, but definitely not a single soul in steam has come close to the academic studies done in that area. Not a single one had a single drop of data to propose anything.

The math and solutions the devs chose to use for randomness in this game definitely is competent, given how the other stuff plays out. Im sure it all is just strong and stupid confirmation bias coming from emotional people.

[Joker of Souls]

can always make a mod so the dice rolls are always a successful. should be more fun that way /s

[765]

Originally posted by Midas:

Originally posted by 765:

Actually an interesting question though.

It's entirely possible (probable, even) to be unable to fully replicate dice randomness in a game, but the fact of the matter is that no one is going to be able to tell off their own experiences. Even if you correlated many experiences, more of them would fall victim to confirmation bias than any actual significant flaw in the RNG.

I agree. I don't know what kind of computational power is required to simulate true probability or if the binary system is even capable of doing it, but infinity is a pretty big number xD and even just down at tiny sample sizes like thousands or hundreds we wouldn't be able to notice thanks to randomness.

[Midas]

Originally posted by Friends with Benedicts:

Originally posted by Midas:

confirmation bias than any actual significant flaw in the RNG.

all of these threads are confirmation bias. Digital randomness is an actual subject of study in gaming coding, but definitely not a single soul in steam has come close to the academic studies done in that area. Not a single one had a single drop of data to propose anything.

The math and solutions the devs chose to use for randomness in this game definitely is competent, given how the other stuff plays out. Im sure it all is just strong and stupid confirmation bias coming from emotional people.

I'm not at all surprised. It's pretty much the exact same behavior I see when people deal with real dice and can't contextualize their rolls. It's why you see people constantly claiming dice are loaded or flawed, or that they need to swap to another dice.

[765]

Originally posted by Joker of Souls:

can always make a mod so the dice rolls are always a successful. should be more fun that way /s

Or a mod that makes you fail all rolls. =o

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by 765:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Lol, no. This is the very definition of random. As 765 said.

Actually an interesting question though.

Which, that PCs can't do truly random?

No, it isn't.

PCs can do random using a pRNG that is indistinguishable from "true" random.

In fact, no one actually knows what "true" random is, given we don't know how real life "random" events occur. Just like pRNG, as long as we don't know the algorithm, we can't tell the difference (using actual scientific tests mind you, not random game forum "feels".)

So, the whole "PCs aren't truly random" is a red herring. PCs and computers in general are used millions of times a day for randomness for scientific modelling, banking, and tons of other things. The pRNGs have been proven to be random by the definitions that scientists use to define random, and again, are indistinguishable from "true" randomness.

Besides that, devs don't roll their own pRNG algorithms. Most will simply use the pRNG included in their language libraries of choice. BG3 likely uses the standard C++ RNG algorithm. Now, such "general purpose" pRNG algorithms do have limitations, but the limitations will not be significant, and likely undetectable, in any game-like situation like BG3. If some devs get particularly ambitious, they might build a non-standard pRNG, but even if they did, they's use a recipe book and pick a pRNG that has "better" limitations than the standard one. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of these already made, and tested.

So, unless someone actually brings some data to the table, like thousands of rolls, like tests for uniformity, tests for periodicity, and tests for independence (and there are many more that could be performed) one can easily and confidently file all such complaints under confirmation bias.

The only time that there is likely to be any sort of pRNG issues would be not with the pRNG itself, but with the various modifiers added. Because these modifiers are bespoke to the game, it's possible an error could be made there. In the case of BG3 though, the rolls, modifiers, etc, are shown in the combat log. So far I've never seen anything indicating the modifiers are incorrect.

[Gibbo]

Sinced I turned karmic dice off I have wiped out the goblin camp, slaughtered everything in the under dark and in fact I reckon I could kick anything's arse now those stupid dice are off.

[765]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Originally posted by 765:

Actually an interesting question though.

Which, the PCs can't do truly random?

No, it isn't.

PCs can do random using a pRNG that is indistinguishable from "true" random.

In fact, no one actually knows what "true" random is, given we don't know how real life "random" events occur. Just like pRNG, as long as we don't know the algorithm, we can't tell the difference (using actual scientific test mind you, not random game forum "feels".)

So, the whole "PCs aren't truly random" is a red herring. PCs and computers in general are used millions of times a day for randomness for scientific modelling, banking, and tons of other things. The pRNGs have been proven to be random by the definitions that scientists use to define random, and again, are indistinguishable from "true" randomness.

Besides that, devs don't roll their own pRNG algorithms. Most will simply use the pRNG included in their language libraries of choice. BG3 likely uses the standard C++ RNG algorithm. Now, such "general purpose" pRNG algorithms do have limitations, but the limitations will not be significant, and likely undetectable, in any game-like situation like BG3. If some devs get particularly ambitious, they might build a non-standard pRNG, but even if they did, they's use a recipe book and pick a pRNG that has "better" limitations than the standard one. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of these already made, and tested.

So, unless someone actually brings some data to the table, like thousands of rolls, like tests for uniformity, tests for periodicity, and tests for independence (and there are many more that could be performed) one can easily and confidently file all such complaints under confirmation bias.

The only time that there is likely to be any sort of pRNG issues would be not with the pRNG itself, but with the various modifiers added. Because these modifiers are bespoke to the game, it's possible an error could be made there. In the case of BG3 though, the rolls, modifiers, etc, are shown in the combat log. So fare I've never seen anything indicating the modifiers are incorrect.

Fascinating topic...

[Occasum_Solis]

SH -> Bless -> 55 % HC turns into 70 % HC. Ur welcome.