Actual PhD verified RNG fails by BG3

[OddJob]

I'll keep it short and simple, because my time is valuable.

For reference, and the too long didn't read version - here are the odds of the result of my experiment happening at all - per GPT:

https://i.imgur.com/jvtNalO.png


First, my credentials:
1,000 hours played.

multi-speed run honor mode completionist (Without crutching on overpowered meta game builds.)

Wizard main.

All around handsome and good guy.

Literal PhD candidate with a focus on mathematical science and statistical analysis.

Bitcoin Millionaire / assorted crypto Millionaire.

Believe me when I tell you:
I am more qualified to talk about this than you.


Now that all of the courtesies are out of the way, lets get to why I'm here:
BG3's RNG is scuffed as hell - and I'm going to prove it to you with a simple experiment.


First, my hypothesis:

Its quite simple, the RNG is not truly random for each individual - and this game is somehow bungling up the numbers, even if it appears to even out in the long run. I do not think the RNG is "Rigged" against the player - in fact, sometimes it can be the opposite, such as in the case I will show you here.

My method:
Using an enchantress wizard, I will enter the Shar temple in act 3 and perform 13 simultaneous Hypnotic gaze rolls on opponents there - with varied levels of spell resistance.

I have painstakingly recorded the displayed % chance to hit for each mob - and compared how they reconcile to the actual results.

To do this, I've taken a screen shot of all 13 mobs in their positions - and painstakingly selected each one to see its percentage, then recorded onto to a duplicate screen shot in photoshop; I then record the number of successful hits over top of the % the game gives us - and give you an actual % to see if it reconciles to that.

I will perform this 34 times and continue to repeat this experiment as time permits. Do not ask me for more rolls - I am doing them as time permits.

My conclusion:

As I - and many others have thought, the RNG is scuffed and bad. Here is the final result of this preliminary experiment. I will continue to perform this experiment with the same result - again and again, until Lirian is so embarrassed that they fix BG3 for you.



Without further delay, the proof:
https://i.imgur.com/1wZG4uH.jpg


Kind regards,
R.J PhD

[ᛈᚢᛒᚲᚱᚨᛚᚱ13]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

You've provided absolutely NOTHING even REMOTELY resembling clear and compelling evidence. In what world does one photoshopped screenshot, with absolutely no accompanying data, constitute "clear and compelling evidence?"



No, YOU initiated the challenge by asking people to verify your "findings" by loading up your save file.



That's correct, because - try to follow along here - you cannot import a save file unless it's individual parent folder is included. I went the extra mile and showed you how to do it properly. You refused.



Infantile, and not even worthy of a response. Try to stick to the topic at hand like an adult.

need I remind you:

You told me you were going away - about 20 posts ago. I will continue to run my own experiment without you - whether the Larian studio shills want the results or not.

And with that, I think it's pretty obvious that this conversation is over, and what the ultimate result was.

[OddJob]

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

Originally posted by OddJob:

need I remind you:

You told me you were going away - about 20 posts ago. I will continue to run my own experiment without you - whether the Larian studio shills want the results or not.

And with that, I think it's pretty obvious that this conversation is over, and what the ultimate result was.

For the last time, I hope.

[THIS GAME ⁧⁧SUCKS]

I am glad that somewhere on this discussion board filled with off-topic threads, you can still find D&D fans arguing obsessively over fairness and dice odds. 50 years of excellence.
-Philip

[ᛈᚢᛒᚲᚱᚨᛚᚱ13]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

And with that, I think it's pretty obvious that this conversation is over, and what the ultimate result was.

For the last time, I hope.

I have no doubt that you do, because it must be incredibly tiring having to spend so much time pretending that you haven't made an absolute fool of yourself for all the world to see, and that at the end of the day you utterly lack the strength of your convictions, running for the hills and burying your head in the sand when even slightly challenged.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

Probably but I'm honestly impressed bro has a chart that does this for him haha this is the difference of like a professor arguing with a toddler though.... which also means the professor can't win, cuz it's a toddler just replying "nuh uh!" 🤣

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

Probably but I'm honestly impressed bro has a chart that does this for him haha this is the difference of like a professor arguing with a toddler though.... which also means the professor can't win, cuz it's a toddler just replying "nuh uh!" 🤣

My charts in the harpy experiment thread were more clear and detailed than his - for the record.

Reported for calling me a toddler. No longer allowing personal attacks here

I didn't directly call anyone a "toddler" sir, I just meant the general sentiment of these threads that think the game has rigged rolls. But it's fine, have a good day friend!

[OddJob]

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

Originally posted by OddJob:

My charts in the harpy experiment thread were more clear and detailed than his - for the record.

Reported for calling me a toddler. No longer allowing personal attacks here

I didn't directly call anyone a "toddler" sir, I just meant the general sentiment of these threads that think the game has rigged rolls. But it's fine, have a good day friend!

Nice delete btw.

[OddJob]

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

Originally posted by OddJob:

For the last time, I hope.

I have no doubt that you do, because it must be incredibly tiring having to spend so much time pretending that you haven't made an absolute fool of yourself for all the world to see, and that at the end of the day you utterly lack the strength of your convictions, running for the hills and burying your head in the sand when even slightly challenged.

This was unnecessary.

[1MantisPhoenix]

Oddjob, now that you are finally back, i want you to consider what we don't see on the first level of this game: the enemy's rolls, the environment's rolls based on what you roll; hence, the theory is great, but you made it a one way street. That is only one plane you looked on, and not the player/NPC/environment vs you, at each unique moment / dice roll,
Makes me want to see their odds of defense/more of their stats,

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

I didn't directly call anyone a "toddler" sir, I just meant the general sentiment of these threads that think the game has rigged rolls. But it's fine, have a good day friend!

Nice delete btw.

I didn't "delete" anything. The original comment still exist, unedited, and it is as quoted. It's a general metaphor not directed at you, sorry you felt it was though.
Have you never heard it before? It's akin to the "arguing with a wall" metaphor, it's not intended to directly call anyone a "wall" it is hard to take you seriously though with the claim of "PhD" as well as sprinkling in irrelevant "crypto millionaire" or "all around good looking guy" 2 of which would have no relevance to the topic :p
But I'll take you at your word, your a PhD why did you choose such a small sample size to prove it? You should know that more data is relevant then less, 100 rolls is better then 10, 1000 better still, and if it's easily repeatable by others you can have them test it.

It does seem you have offered a situation to supposedly repeat it I'll give you, I missed the exact set up needed but I saw you mention 4 clerics and the harpies. I'm not gonna personally test it cuz that's a bit of time I'd just rather not waste personally.

Can I ask why clerics? Why not any other class? If the rolls are rigged and/or the rng is failing would it not be across all classes?

[OddJob]

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

Originally posted by OddJob:

Nice delete btw.

I didn't "delete" anything. The original comment still exist, unedited, and it is as quoted. It's a general metaphor not directed at you, sorry you felt it was though.
Have you never heard it before? It's akin to the "arguing with a wall" metaphor, it's not intended to directly call anyone a "wall" it is hard to take you seriously though with the claim of "PhD" as well as sprinkling in irrelevant "crypto millionaire" or "all around good looking guy" 2 of which would have no relevance to the topic :p
But I'll take you at your word, your a PhD why did you choose such a small sample size to prove it? You should know that more data is relevant then less, 100 rolls is better then 10, 1000 better still, and if it's easily repeatable by others you can have them test it.

It does seem you have offered a situation to supposedly repeat it I'll give you, I missed the exact set up needed but I saw you mention 4 clerics and the harpies. I'm not gonna personally test it cuz that's a bit of time I'd just rather not waste personally.

Can I ask why clerics? Why not any other class? If the rolls are rigged and/or the rng is failing would it not be across all classes?

My notifications say otherwise.

You lost your temper and called me the.. *gasp* R-Word.

Then panic deleted and wrote something else.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

I didn't "delete" anything. The original comment still exist, unedited, and it is as quoted. It's a general metaphor not directed at you, sorry you felt it was though.
Have you never heard it before? It's akin to the "arguing with a wall" metaphor, it's not intended to directly call anyone a "wall" it is hard to take you seriously though with the claim of "PhD" as well as sprinkling in irrelevant "crypto millionaire" or "all around good looking guy" 2 of which would have no relevance to the topic :p
But I'll take you at your word, your a PhD why did you choose such a small sample size to prove it? You should know that more data is relevant then less, 100 rolls is better then 10, 1000 better still, and if it's easily repeatable by others you can have them test it.

It does seem you have offered a situation to supposedly repeat it I'll give you, I missed the exact set up needed but I saw you mention 4 clerics and the harpies. I'm not gonna personally test it cuz that's a bit of time I'd just rather not waste personally.

Can I ask why clerics? Why not any other class? If the rolls are rigged and/or the rng is failing would it not be across all classes?

My notifications say otherwise.

You lost your temper and called me the.. *gasp* R-Word.

Then panic deleted and wrote something else.

A what? Lol I for sure did not "lose my temper" at someone online haha absurd I don't partake in silliness such as slinging insults directly. I try not to bring strife or anger to people in harmful ways including via words. Which is why I apologized that you feel it was directed at you.

But would you like to answer why the scenario requires clerics though? Just curious.

[Doctor Zalgo]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by pubcrawler13:

That said, I'm going to wait for OP to chime in before I do anything further, and acknowledge that what I've proposed will satisfy the requirements. If he can't or (more likely) won't, then we'll just have further proof that he either doesn't actually believe what he's saying, or is afraid of being publicly proven wrong, and I simply won't bother.

If you can't get the save file to work, I don't know what to tell you. Even in the face of your personal attacks and non-constructive posts, I've done everything I can to make this easy for you.

Let me be clear:

I don't need you to do my experiment. My offer was for you to be able to test it yourself, but my results will speak for themselves.

I can coddle failure no longer.

At this point, I will say only this:
Make 4 clerics as I did - and repeat the test yourself. Its not hard do, since its only level 3 for the harpy experiment.

I will continue to repeat my own experiments and release the results in the mean time. Good luck!

The RNG doesn't care (or even know) what class you play or what enemy you are killing.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by Doctor Zalgo:

Originally posted by OddJob:

If you can't get the save file to work, I don't know what to tell you. Even in the face of your personal attacks and non-constructive posts, I've done everything I can to make this easy for you.

Let me be clear:

I don't need you to do my experiment. My offer was for you to be able to test it yourself, but my results will speak for themselves.

I can coddle failure no longer.

At this point, I will say only this:
Make 4 clerics as I did - and repeat the test yourself. Its not hard do, since its only level 3 for the harpy experiment.

I will continue to repeat my own experiments and release the results in the mean time. Good luck!

The RNG doesn't care (or even know) what class you play or what enemy you are killing.

It shouldn't which is why I inquired as to why a party of full clerics, and why against harpies? If it requires such pscifcs maybe it's not the rng thays broken but se other interaction gone accounted for... some weird outlier with 4 clerics and the harpies I guess? Lol

[Doctor Zalgo]

Originally posted by KingOfFriedChicken:

Originally posted by Doctor Zalgo:

The RNG doesn't care (or even know) what class you play or what enemy you are killing.

It shouldn't which is why I inquired as to why a party of full clerics, and why against harpies? If it requires such pscifcs maybe it's not the rng thays broken but se other interaction gone accounted for... some weird outlier with 4 clerics and the harpies I guess? Lol

There's no shouldn't. RNG's are a black box system that take a seed and use it to output random numbers.

For example:

Here's the .NET implementation of random: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.random?view=net-8.0

And here's (part of) the Linux random32 implementation: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/lib/random32.c

You can see that even by programming standards, they're a 'pretty tough read'.

Even assuming that Larian did 'decide they wanted to invent a new way of doing a task that's been solved for decades' and modify the RNG to consider (even a handful of bits of) state data, this would be a massive task by a team of programmers and mathematicians. Doing so in a way that wouldn't be immediately detected by everyone would require at least one double doctorate in computer scientist and mathematics to be in charge, with multiple masters in those disciplines backing them up.

After all, you only need to count the number of security breaches have been caused by breaching encryption that was fatally weakened by a coder thinking they can 'improve' the RNG code to understand why its extremely unlikely Larian tweaked the RNG code. And if its a stock off the shelf RNG, the raw numbers coming out of the RNG are not rigged.

Now if you're talking about something like 'the percentage displayed by the game is wrong', sure. Or if you're talking about 'the number of critical hits I get on harpies is wrong', that might be true as well. But those won't be caused by the RNG. They could be caused by anything from an error in a formula to do with crits, a buggy weapon that has a 0% crit chance attached to it or to a hidden effect on harpies that makes them impossible to crit against because the designer just loves harpies so much.

Now sure, OP can keep saying the RNG is rigged, but the only way of demonstrating that is to look at the raw numbers coming out of the RNG in the logs. Not hits, or percentages or damage, or anything else to do with game state. By that time you've involved so many other game systems, the problem you're trying to identify could be anywhere.

[khemeher]

SKILL ISSUE. EXS DEE.