Focus did you skew the RNG on purpose?

[Gaven]

After some time checking multiple rolls its obvious that the game dices have been tempered with, it seems whenever you try anything harder than normal you get streaks of 90s, as many as 20 in a row. Focus would you consider actually makign the dice neutral on all the matches? Thank you!

[Greybush]

Originally posted by Gaven:

After some time checking multiple rolls its obvious that the game dices have been tempered with, it seems whenever you try anything harder than normal you get streaks of 90s, as many as 20 in a row. Focus would you consider actually makign the dice neutral on all the matches? Thank you!

Since you're being unusually calm and polite for someone asking about the RNG, an in depth answer is warranted.

First of all, no, the RNG is not skewed. Not in favour of the AI, nor the player.
It's been tested multiple times, and the result is always the same: it's accurate.

There have been a total of two problems with the RNG in the past.
The first one was the particular RNG that was used. Even though it was accurate, it was simply based around too many rolls, so it would take ages to balance out. So they changed to a different model, which required a smaller sample size to even out and fit the game better.

The second was the one Uddhava mentioned. The 1 and 100 rolls would spike, for some reason. After a miss, it was almost guaranteed that the next roll would be a 1, for example. But apart from spikes in those two numbers, it was accurate. The problem was found and fixed.

Now as to the reason why you feel it's skewed, there's a number of possible reasons.
The first and most obvious is simple confirmation bias. You're more likely to remember a bad roll than a good one, especially if you're focused on them (like if you think the RNG is skewed).

Then there's the Gambler's fallacy. If you're not familiar with it, simply put it means that you're expecting the next random roll to be affected by the previous one. Like if you flip a coin to heads, the chance of the next one being tails is higher. But the next coin flip is still 50/50. Similarly, missing an 80% hit chance does not make the next attack 85% hit chance (barring the actual in-game skills and enchants that actually do that, ofc). The next attack will still be 80%.

The sample size is another usual reason. The RNG is not based around the average amount of rolls in 1 match (which is usually a few hundred), but thousands of rolls. So in any given match the numbers can seem way off. It's completely possible (though unlikely) to go a match without ever rolling higher than 75 and the next never rolling lower than 75.

And finally, there could actually be something wrong with the RNG. It's always possible.
The reason most will automatically assume you're wrong is because you're one guy (Zorlond doesn't count, for obvious reasons), and there's always someone claiming the RNG is rigged when things don't go their way, and "checking mutiple rolls" always means "I looked that the combat log in a match or two and as far as I remember the rolls weren't what I think they should be".
The only time there was an actual fault (the 1's and 100's), there were multiple players all experiencing the exact same thing.
But if you're sure there is, and you want it fixed, you have to compile enough data to show that.
That means tens of thousands of rolls checked for the sample size to be large enough to show any notable deviations. Anecdotes from a few matches mean absolutely nothing.
If you follow the links in the FAQ sticky, you should find explanations on how to compile the data.

This may not have been what you wanted to hear, but I hope it answers some of your questions.

[Castor]

There's no way Zorlond is done with this thread. I'm predicting it and that will make all of my other claims valid.

[FlameWar]

Originally posted by Greybush:

Then there's the Gambler's fallacy. If you're not familiar with it, simply put it means that you're expecting the next random roll to be affected by the previous one. Like if you flip a coin to heads, the chance of the next one being tails is higher. But the next coin flip is still 50/50. Similarly, missing an 80% hit chance does not make the next attack 85% hit chance (barring the actual in-game skills and enchants that actually do that, ofc). The next attack will still be 80%.

The sample size is another usual reason. The RNG is not based around the average amount of rolls in 1 match (which is usually a few hundred), but thousands of rolls. So in any given match the numbers can seem way off. It's completely possible (though unlikely) to go a match without ever rolling higher than 75 and the next never rolling lower than 75.

My two cents on this:
1) statistically you can view rolls in a chain. the rolls don't affect each other directly in a RNG like the one used here, however, if you have a chance a good chunck over 50%, (e.g. 75%), it is less likely to have 2 misses in a row than it is to either have 1 hit/1 miss (or vice versa), or 2 hits in a row, so repeated bad rolls are technically less likely, hence why they do feel off.

2) The biggest problem here probably lies in the fact that injuries/match results are permanent in Mordheim, and the big 'equalizer' size as Greybush explained.
If you didn't have permanent inmjuries/deaths making every single soldier taken out of action a serious risk for the player, it wouldn't matter so much.
As it is however, a RNG that allows you to have an overall really bad match with massive loses has a massive effect on the players warband, while beeing irrelevant for the AI.
Sure over 10 matches or so it all evens out. but for the palyer a medium and good match roll wise barely make any difference in the end results, while a serious bad match, with bad luck on the injury rolls can make half your warband basically permanently unusable.
Hence the RNG is sort of skewered in favor of the AI, in the sense that it has no permanent effects on the AI that go past a single match, since they don't have any wyrdstone demands, healings/gear to pay or repalcements to get and bring up to spec.


Not saiyng the game is to hard or anything (except maybe the start for new palyers, bad lcuk on RNG with new warbands probably killed more warbands than anything else combined), just explaining why i think it feels imbalanced.

[Ishan451]

Originally posted by Warlord:

Kes snuck into your home last night and coded the RNG against you specifically and only on your client.

Yeah, Kes is a sneaky git like that... when british pilots talked about gremlins sabotaging their planes they were actually talking about Kes ancestors :)

He just can't have people having fun. It's why he went into game development. You have to stop that pesky fun right at the source!

A rare picture[www.severex.com] taken of Kes at his work station.

[Frankie]

Another researcher! With so much hard evidence in front of us now, I wonder when will we buckle under the pressure and finally admit that the RNG is skewed in favor of the AI by exactly 66.6% succesful rolls against the player, which is a dead giveaway that the coding is entwined with hidden satanist charms.


In the meantime research this:

Focus Interactive -- publisher
Rogue Factor -- developer

[Kes]

Focus is only the publisher, Rogue Factor is the company making the game.

As for RNG, it is linked to reviews. If you post a positive review, you'll go through the game without too much of a hassle. If you post a negative review, you are bound to suffer eternally and never make it passed Rank 2 with any warrior. :P

Before you ask, yes I am trolling. RNG is pure RNG, not in favor of the enemy or the Player. You can view the Combat Log to see every single roll. The boost the enemies have are all displayed in the Buff Panel except one, a hidden bonus to Stupidity since the AI can't manage to help allies who suffers from stupidity.

For the rest, I'll let you check the other 149807 threads about RNG that exist on the forum already :)

[Kes]

Originally posted by Ishan451:

Originally posted by Warlord:

Kes snuck into your home last night and coded the RNG against you specifically and only on your client.

Yeah, Kes is a sneaky git like that... when british pilots talked about gremlins sabotaging their planes they were actually talking about Kes ancestors :)

He just can't have people having fun. It's why he went into game development. You have to stop that pesky fun right at the source!

A rare picture[www.severex.com] taken of Kes at his work station.

Hey don't post stuff taken from my Facebook page! :P

[Something completely different]

engage trolling mode

Originally posted by Kes:

As for RNG, it is linked to reviews. If you post a positive review, you'll go through the game without too much of a hassle. If you post a negative review, you are bound to suffer eternally and never make it passed Rank 2 with any warrior. :P

I beg to differ! I upvoted the game and still had warriors going out of action and even dying! I also missed six attacks in a row at 75% with no dodging or parrying involved!

I want my money back.

/trolling mode

[Kes]

lol