Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
However in any online game the rolls are made server side. This has been proven multiple times. Along with this a person data mining out the dice rolling algorithm and showed it give truly random results.
I even remember a video of someone trying the rolling software in an online game to show you could cheat in online play with hilarious result. As the dice that are show to him are what he tells the program to give him but when he selects them he gets the real results. In the video for the first block he rolls 2 dice see double pows chooses one and get the attacker down results instead.
That being said if I remember correctly blood bowl one at launch was a huge problem with client side dice rolling. Or if not rolling you did not send back die one but instead the result allowing for cheating.
This is why most league require new teams to join. As once you join a league you can no longer cheat mess with player stats locally as they must match what the league has stored.
The rolls will be easier because the computer doesn't make them as difficult as a human will, also well dice can screw you over at any given time
It has been proven to be the case with Blood Bowl 2? When? By whom? I have seen zero proof of it, myself, and I keep a reasonably keen eye on the various forums associated with this game. I've seen random people, like you, claim it to be the case, but they're circularly referencing each other's claims.
For Blood Bowl 2? If this were the case I'm pretty sure we'd all be linking to this reverse engineering of the game's RNG each time someone posts yet another "The RNG is broken!" thread.
Where's that video? I went hunting for it on youtube and only found the video of the trainer from cheathappens (a trainer-making website) which doesn't include anything related to the dice themselves. If you have a link then I'd love to see it.
It should be noted, however, that there are many different points at which you can modify the memory of a program, and they will give different results. In BB1, for example, you could have modified the dice results shortly before they hit the display routines and you'd get exactly what you're saying you saw in the video: dice that show one result, but which use the original result. If you'd gone far enough back to before the results were applied you could change them so that the chosen results were used... but it would then result in the game going "out of sync" and ending. That's why BBOracle was a dice prediction program, not a dice selection program.
BB1 always had that problem, through all its versions, and still has it to this day. The problem with BB2 is that everyone has just assumed that the dice are being rolled on the server... and I don't think they've ever come out and said that's the case (and certainly nobody has verified it independently that I'm aware of).
During BB1's days there was talk of having the new server (they switched server software sometime after CE to one of their own creation) allow games to communicate via a server channel rather than P2P, which would also be considered games "through the server", but would have been no help in combating dice prediction associated with the client-side RNG. It's a big assumption on everyone's part that the game state is being held on the server rather than the server simply being used for passing data back and forth between the clients.
I'm absolutely interested in any genuine investigation anyone has done into the topic... but not so much in random declarations of fact about how it works unless Cyanide themselves want to chime in. Even then I'd be happiest with what they say being independently verified, too. Until then I'm not comfortable with anyone saying "the rolls are server side" with any authority, given the developer's track record.
Not that keen an eye, I think. Battalioneer's may be sharper. Turns out that everyone else's 'circular referencing' had a source, which took me a good few seconds to find by Googling 'BB2 dice server side'.
I certanly don't blame those keen eyes for not having seen this in the year since it was posted. You were clearly confident enough to not be curious. :)
Cyanide AMA.
Ctrl+F, 'server side', result 2.
Since he has a keen eye, according to you, and its easy to verify... find me some of these videos and independent proof he claims exists.
Awesome, smartass, find me the meat instead of the fluff. Your buddy says it all exists - in multiples - and you're so very good at this!
What proof would be acceptable? I think I'd be in breach of the EULA if I tracked data being transmitted with every dice roll.
You probably should have said in advance that the developer's statements were unacceptable, as it currently seems a little like you're moving the goalposts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that I heard somewhere that reports / statements of something happening are not proof that it happens. Have the criteria changed? Is my answer acceptable now?
I didn't say they were unacceptable, I said I'd be happiest with independent verification regardless of Cyanide's statements. I did forget about the AMA bit - that is the one time they've made that statement post-release. Prior to that they said they were going to do it... but also said they were going to do many things they never got around to. I'm skeptical of Cyanide's claims in general, but certainly less skeptical of their claims than of spurious claims by random players.
As for goalposts... you picked the single smallest thing among a list of things claimed by the poster, and think that finding a single claim settles everything. I don't.. but if you feel its all good then power to you.
Reports and statements are not proof - that's absolutely true. I'm not using them as proof here, I'm citing them as reasons for me to not accept, verbatim, that everything is done server-side now after years of them refusing to do it that way in the past... barring independent verification that they are. They are a foundation for suspicion, not denial of anything.
The difference here is that you imagine you know that you know it's true. I know that neither of us knows it's true. You're taking it on faith, and I lack that faith given the source.
There is no difference.
I'm taking their word for it in the abence of contradictory eveidence.
You're not taking their word for it in the absence of affirmative evidence.
Both of us want proof to contradict our particular opinion.
Don't use the 'f' word. As a rather militant atheist I'm quite averse to it. :)
That's taking a position on the RNG, and based solely on someone telling you so.
No, that's you. I want proof, or at least evidence, in order to form a solid opinion on the topic. Until such a thing exists I will continue to point out that any statement to either direction is false authority. Maybe you should re-read the post I was taking issue with and really think about its claims... assuming you're done trying to seem witty.
Faith isn't the exclusive domain of religion. A lot of people believe things without a hint of skepticism. You've got faith in the word of someone... I wish I could be that blindly trusting. I do have some experience with this company, though, and am fully aware that they're perfectly happy to lie or mislead people if it suits their purposes. Even if I were someone who could "just believe", I would have extra trouble in this case.