安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
What have you noticed with set rolls? It might be a bug.
I don't have any issue with the normal dice rolling, and don't see why anyone would care whether the dice were pre-rolled or done on the fly. If anything, pre-rolling would stop people for re-loading the game hoping for a better re-roll.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this! In my opinion if the developer can't even simulate close-to-random dice rolls in a dice-based game they have epically failed. I mean, that is the entire basis of the game and if it's broken, the game is fundamentally broken. They need to be taken to task for this if they don't fix it, fast.
On a side note, this has been a problem with Prelude since the beginning, too. I've had Prelude for well over a year (bought it directly from the dev well before it came to Steam). They really have no excuse for not fixing it by now.
I see no signs of rigged. YEs me and 2 of the ai's all rolled 1 for movement last turn, but we also rolled completey different numbers for repeaer and other die rolls.
So yeh....I see no rigging or fixed rolls.
I started to notice this as well. Then my friends and I started playing the Talisman board game (live-action). We've been playing every second Sunday for the past few months.
I still notice that spending fate yields the same die roll.
Yeah.
I've just finished game in which took me 52 rounds on CoC to kill one AI character 4HP. He was always rolling the exact number needed to get to the healer, castle, pool of life or the chapel (yup he get's those cards after left alone almost one after another) when at 1HP. Of course when he was too far I couldn't roll nothing above 3 just to let him get to the point. Even fate didn't help.
Killed him when finally decided to go to CoC. Not by command spell. In pure fight.
So it is ok that not every round we roll 4+ but 52 rounds to get 4 points? C'mon. Noone has such a bad luck.
No it is exactly the same. The ai uses the same rng as humans (although it might call it more or less times per turn since it also sometimes considers two choice for movement for example to have equal value and will pick one at random)
Total Single Die Rolls: 49
Sequence: 1,5,2,1,2,1,1,3,4,5,1 .... (lists the entire squence)
Totals:
11 x 1's
5 x 2's
7 x 3's
8 x 4's
11 x 5's
7 x 6's
Expected Normal:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Deviation from Normal:
xxx
Perhaps even have a way to show the last X number of games so people can see the role history for like the last 10 games, again to help build player trust.
Then you could break the rolls down by player, see who was most lucky with rolls and see if that helped them win.
eg. create file with fixed sequence of numbers from list of real-time dice rolls and game starts at random point of listing playing each roll sequentially from there.
It's just as random as a die is.
I've pulled off any number of ridiculously lucky 'rolls', but I don't get pissed off when it works in my favor, do I? :P
I doubt the devs would even consider it as it wouldn't really add anything to the game.
Also, not many people would care enough to look at it more than once - and that one time would probably just be out of curiosity because it's there.
Those into theorycrafting might watch the numbers over a handful of games, but since the distribution is pretty even, it'll be mostly a flat line and won't hold their interest much longer than a few games.
I would imagine those into statistical analysis would stick it out longer. After watching game after game with pretty much the same breakdown, they'd realize there's no useful data to see after the first game. I'm not a stastical analysist so I'm only speculating on what they might find useful/interesting past the first game.
Finally, all the butt-hurt kids that don't believe anything they're told about RNGs, will not believe the data either. Then they'll make post after post about how the game is cheating and the data is rigged and that they know [better than programmers] how to make the game truly random.
It'd be interesting to see.. Once.. I doubt it would be important/useful enough for them to take time away from the other things that need done.