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

[OddJob]

Originally posted by The_Dipl0mat:

Originally posted by Fedup:

As someone that has got his PhD with a focus on geostatistics, time series and statistical data analysis years ago, thus "more qualified to talk about this than you", I would tell you:

You should have known this!
That's how random number generators for computers work. This is nothing new. Do a similar experiment with random generators in the majority of games. Unless you have made or used a good pseudorandom generator algorithm (there are some there and you should know them as part of your studies, buddy) that creates consistently random numbers from the uniform distribution, yes, the random numbers would be scuffed.
In the 10000 1d20 rolls you would get about 500 20s and about 500 13s etc.
But they will come in "Dense" and "sparse" patterns. And the difference is statistically significant, not just noticeable.
Everyone remembers that table night where the DM rolled 4 natural 20s in 10 rolls. But what I am talking about is beyond that. Not far beyond that with a decent pseudorandom generator, but enough to give you "this is not random" with a decent confidence interval.
What I mean is that pick 100 numbers from the generators used in most computer games or in excel and many commercial programs and you will find that the pi value is not as solid as if you generate 100 numbers with a good algorithm.



Tell your professor you are not ready to defend your thesis and spend more time studying and experiment with data, random numbers and random number generators... and less time playing games.

Huh, from my understanding then it sounds like the RNG a computer attempts to emulate isn't *exactly* biased, but more limited? And less an effect of being purposefully rigged and more a natural cause of the generators resulting in skewed results that don't really differentiate between who rolls what, but more like pure chance?

That is literally what my OP (And every post I make about this topic) Says and demonstrates. I've done this about 8 times now.

The RNG is not rigged against the player - its just bad.

[Fedup]

"Your weird and judgemental personal attacks about me playing a computer game (That you likely also play) you're here commenting on aside, you agree with me.

If you agree, good!

That's all I need you for. I don't need your other assorted toxic baggage."


I am judgemental because you think you are special; you are not.
You start by being high and mighty... only to prove you are not exactly a stellar student.

You start a thread by throwing a bunch of your credentials telling us you are more qualified than the rest of us to test the RNG.
When you could simply throw in a paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11613-x
This is from cryptographer's efforts to create a good PRNG, and it gets close, but not perfect randomness.
This is peer reviewed.

And here's another article about PRNGs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574013722000144
Also peer reviewed.

Why on earth you wasted time with experiments?

As for playing the game: You claimed 1000 hours. A 1000 hours for a game that is out for a few months! How on earth you found that many hours to play a game in the few short months that it is out?
If you have spent a tiny fraction of that time studying, I wouldn't have to pull papers for you to read.

Myself? I plan to play the game. I am here asking about the game to see if it is worth my limited time, because obviously I don't have 1000 hours to play games.

[OddJob]

Originally posted by Fedup:

"Your weird and judgemental personal attacks about me playing a computer game (That you likely also play) you're here commenting on aside, you agree with me.

If you agree, good!

That's all I need you for. I don't need your other assorted toxic baggage."


I am judgemental because you think you are special; you are not.
You start by being high and mighty... only to prove you are not exactly a stellar student.

You start a thread by throwing a bunch of your credentials telling us you are more qualified than the rest of us to test the RNG.
When you could simply throw in a paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11613-x
This is from cryptographer's efforts to create a good PRNG, and it gets close, but not perfect randomness.
This is peer reviewed.

And here's another article about PRNGs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574013722000144
Also peer reviewed.

Why on earth you wasted time with experiments?

As for playing the game: You claimed 1000 hours. A 1000 hours for a game that is out for a few months! How on earth you found that many hours to play a game in the few short months that it is out?
If you have spent a tiny fraction of that time studying, I wouldn't have to pull papers for you to read.

Myself? I plan to play the game. I am here asking about the game to see if it is worth my limited time, because obviously I don't have 1000 hours to play games.

When did I ever say I was special?

And why are you linking me peer reviewed studies that have nothing TO DO with the subject we're talking about?

I'm not reading these random studies you just dropped, because they don't apply to BG3's uniquely bad and poorly made RNG. As far as I know, I am the only person in this community to actually study the RNG in a critical way like this.

You can't take data from an entirely different RNG study, then say "look! Here's how RNG works, so it must be the same in BG3" - doesn't work like that homie.

Those studies you linked have nothing to do with BG3.

[Fedup]

Originally posted by The_Dipl0mat:

Huh, from my understanding then it sounds like the RNG a computer attempts to emulate isn't *exactly* biased, but more limited? And less an effect of being purposefully rigged and more a natural cause of the generators resulting in skewed results that don't really differentiate between who rolls what, but more like pure chance?

Waaaait, I DID NOT SAY That BG3's algorithm is NOT biased or that IT IS biased.
I said that pseudorandom number generators have issues.
There are tons of games that skew the rolls! I have no idea if the designers of BG3 put in a mechanic to ADD bias. There are games that use pregenerated random seeds so that you will get the same roll if you retry; games where you can "cheat" if you notice that you fail to say, open a lock, by going to do something else to "eat" the bad roll and then go back to the lock with what you hope it would be a good roll.

TL;DR: Game RNGs are flawed. However, some are biased by design; not a flaw but a feature. I have no idea whether BG3 has intentionally biased RNG in order to limit save-scumming!

[The_Dipl0mat]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by The_Dipl0mat:

Huh, from my understanding then it sounds like the RNG a computer attempts to emulate isn't *exactly* biased, but more limited? And less an effect of being purposefully rigged and more a natural cause of the generators resulting in skewed results that don't really differentiate between who rolls what, but more like pure chance?

That is literally what my OP (And every post I make about this topic) Says and demonstrates. I've done this about 8 times now.

The RNG is not rigged against the player - its just bad.

Hey I thought you blocked me smh

[OddJob]

Originally posted by Fedup:

Originally posted by The_Dipl0mat:

Huh, from my understanding then it sounds like the RNG a computer attempts to emulate isn't *exactly* biased, but more limited? And less an effect of being purposefully rigged and more a natural cause of the generators resulting in skewed results that don't really differentiate between who rolls what, but more like pure chance?

Waaaait, I DID NOT SAY That BG3's algorithm is NOT biased or that IT IS biased.
I said that pseudorandom number generators have issues.
There are tons of games that skew the rolls! I have no idea if the designers of BG3 put in a mechanic to ADD bias. There are games that use pregenerated random seeds so that you will get the same roll if you retry; games where you can "cheat" if you notice that you fail to say, open a lock, by going to do something else to "eat" the bad roll and then go back to the lock with what you hope it would be a good roll.

TL;DR: Game RNGs are flawed. However, some are biased by design; not a flaw but a feature. I have no idea whether BG3 has intentionally biased RNG in order to limit save-scumming!

The first step is to get players to at least admit its happening.

The weirdo cultism going on with protecting everything about BG3 is bizarre.

[The_Dipl0mat]

Originally posted by Fedup:

Originally posted by The_Dipl0mat:

Waaaait, I DID NOT SAY That BG3's algorithm is NOT biased or that IT IS biased.
I said that pseudorandom number generators have issues.
There are tons of games that skew the rolls! I have no idea if the designers of BG3 put in a mechanic to ADD bias. There are games that use pregenerated random seeds so that you will get the same roll if you retry; games where you can "cheat" if you notice that you fail to say, open a lock, by going to do something else to "eat" the bad roll and then go back to the lock with what you hope it would be a good roll.

TL;DR: Game RNGs are flawed. However, some are biased by design; not a flaw but a feature. I have no idea whether BG3 has intentionally biased RNG in order to limit save-scumming!

Ohhhh okay, my misunderstanding! This is genuinely fascinating and it's nice being able to hear about it from someone without ego problems

So it's more just, limited by software and the inability to actually account for pure genuine randomness like physical dice can?

[Rabbit]

Phd 'candidate' uses chat GPT to make up an argument and the results still look like the odds are accurate. GG

[OddJob]

Originally posted by Hex: Indica:

Phd 'candidate' uses chat GPT to make up an argument and the results still look like the odds are accurate. GG

GPT is totally standard.

What do you flipping mean? LMAO are you ancient?

Literally everybody who knows anything is using GPT as a tool now. GPT is perfectly fine - just check its work that it clearly shows you and make sure it was correct.

[Rabbit]

Originally posted by OddJob:

Originally posted by Hex: Indica:

Phd 'candidate' uses chat GPT to make up an argument and the results still look like the odds are accurate. GG

GPT is totally standard.

What do you flipping mean? LMAO are you ancient?

Literally everybody who knows anything is using GPT as a tool now. GPT is perfectly fine - just check its work that it clearly shows you and make sure it was correct.

Clown post farming has reached a new low with this thread

[Fedup]

Originally posted by OddJob:

When did I ever say I was special?

When you said the following:

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

First, my credentials:

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."

You are an elitist, plain and simple.

Originally posted by OddJob:

And why are you linking me peer reviewed studies that have nothing TO DO with the subject we're talking about?

I'm not reading these random studies you just dropped, because they don't apply to BG3's uniquely bad and poorly made RNG. As far as I know, I am the only person in this community to actually study the RNG in a critical way like this.

Those studies you linked have nothing to do with BG3.

Is your PhD thesis and studies about BG3, or statistics?
I simply pointed out studies that prove beyond any doubt that all games, ALL GAMES have flawed RNGs.

As for the "uniquely flawed and poorly made RNG of BG3": As I tried to explain somewhere in my, ahem rant that is painted by envy for the time you have to play games:
What you call "uniquely flawed" may actually be a feature of this game. There is a good chance that the RNG is made in a way to give limited variability to prevent save scumming. As I said before, it may well be made in such a way that if the random seed in your save said you should roll a 14, then it would only be between 12 and 16 (or 11 and 17, etc).
I forget which well known games do that, but there are some that do it, on purpose to limit save-scumming. And one such game actually boasted that the fluctuation was not by uniform but with the normal distribution. I.e. Uniform said you should get a 13, then 68% of the time, you would get between 11 and 15. Etc.

[OddJob]

Originally posted by The_Dipl0mat:

Originally posted by Fedup:

Ohhhh okay, my misunderstanding! This is genuinely fascinating and it's nice being able to hear about it from someone without ego problems

So it's more just, limited by software and the inability to actually account for pure genuine randomness like physical dice can?

He's literally saying the same thing I did - and now you agree with me?

SMH

this is why I don't like humans

[OddJob]

Originally posted by Fedup:

Originally posted by OddJob:

When did I ever say I was special?

When you said the following:

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

First, my credentials:

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."

You are an elitist, plain and simple.

Originally posted by OddJob:

And why are you linking me peer reviewed studies that have nothing TO DO with the subject we're talking about?

I'm not reading these random studies you just dropped, because they don't apply to BG3's uniquely bad and poorly made RNG. As far as I know, I am the only person in this community to actually study the RNG in a critical way like this.

Those studies you linked have nothing to do with BG3.

Is your PhD thesis and studies about BG3, or statistics?
I simply pointed out studies that prove beyond any doubt that all games, ALL GAMES have flawed RNGs.

As for the "uniquely flawed and poorly made RNG of BG3": As I tried to explain somewhere in my, ahem rant that is painted by envy for the time you have to play games:
What you call "uniquely flawed" may actually be a feature of this game. There is a good chance that the RNG is made in a way to give limited variability to prevent save scumming. As I said before, it may well be made in such a way that if the random seed in your save said you should roll a 14, then it would only be between 12 and 16 (or 11 and 17, etc).
I forget which well known games do that, but there are some that do it, on purpose to limit save-scumming. And one such game actually boasted that the fluctuation was not by uniform but with the normal distribution. I.e. Uniform said you should get a 13, then 68% of the time, you would get between 11 and 15. Etc.

Do you not sign your papers with your credentials? Are you not actually trained to do that?

Why -wouldn't- I preface a serious science experiment I've put time into with my creds? Wth man.

[OddJob]

Originally posted by Hex: Indica:

Originally posted by OddJob:

GPT is totally standard.

What do you flipping mean? LMAO are you ancient?

Literally everybody who knows anything is using GPT as a tool now. GPT is perfectly fine - just check its work that it clearly shows you and make sure it was correct.

Clown post farming has reached a new low with this thread

I'm putting my money on GPT over you on a calculus exam any day. You're actually hilarious.

[Rabbit]

Originally posted by Fedup:

Originally posted by OddJob:

When did I ever say I was special?

When you said the following:

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

First, my credentials:

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."

You are an elitist, plain and simple.

Originally posted by OddJob:

And why are you linking me peer reviewed studies that have nothing TO DO with the subject we're talking about?

I'm not reading these random studies you just dropped, because they don't apply to BG3's uniquely bad and poorly made RNG. As far as I know, I am the only person in this community to actually study the RNG in a critical way like this.

Those studies you linked have nothing to do with BG3.

Is your PhD thesis and studies about BG3, or statistics?
I simply pointed out studies that prove beyond any doubt that all games, ALL GAMES have flawed RNGs.

As for the "uniquely flawed and poorly made RNG of BG3": As I tried to explain somewhere in my, ahem rant that is painted by envy for the time you have to play games:
What you call "uniquely flawed" may actually be a feature of this game. There is a good chance that the RNG is made in a way to give limited variability to prevent save scumming. As I said before, it may well be made in such a way that if the random seed in your save said you should roll a 14, then it would only be between 12 and 16 (or 11 and 17, etc).
I forget which well known games do that, but there are some that do it, on purpose to limit save-scumming. And one such game actually boasted that the fluctuation was not by uniform but with the normal distribution. I.e. Uniform said you should get a 13, then 68% of the time, you would get between 11 and 15. Etc.

Well did you notice OP has no time to use a proper sample size, yet somehow has enough time to chat about it all day here?