Dice rolls are complete garbage

[Ryagon]

Do the percentages actually mean anything or are they just placebos to make us think gear and stats actually matter? Me and my wife have been playing for a little bit now and we either just have the worst luck or something is broken. Last night for example, we started a new game and in about 3 hours EVERY SINGLE roll that was 80-85% chance to succeed failed. She even had a 100% chance to succeed fail....

[ΞLITΞ]

I just ALT+F4 this garbage game after getting two fail slot from 4 with 87% .. dont let me talk about those RANDOM ambushs...

[LeftPaw]

I don't know why all these games are being released that rely so heavily on RNG. Where did game developers ever get the idea that this would be fun?

Having a small percentage of RNG is good, it acts as chance, but to relay 90% on RNG is madness, and I will be glad when this stupidity comes to a end. It just renders game playing pointless. The one saving grace with FTK is that, on every try you get better.

[Elymnir]

The "rng" is actually skewed so that enemies rarely miss and that you miss a lot, even at high level. Before I stopped playing, my entire party couldn't land a single perfect even at 90+% chance per roll.
You can learn to counter somehow the unfairness of the game by playing (and dying repeatedly), but know that the game is more frustrating than anything and you should be prepared for it if you want to keep playing.

[Ahoge-dono]

I think the biggest problem with this roguelike is that you can commit up to 8+ hours on a run for it to all go wrong with some bad RNG. Most Roguelike runs are short can be picked up easily and you can make decent progress in like 30 minutes.

[Soga]

Threads like these really confirm the scientific fact that people are terrible at predicting probability outcomes. 80-85% means there's a 15% - 20% chance a slot will fail. That's between a 1 in 7.5 chance and a 1 in 5 chance of a failure. That doesn't mean that for every 5 slots you roll, you'll fail one. Theoretically, RNG implies that however small, there IS a chance that some player somewhere might actually never see a roll fail in their game of FTK, and there IS a chance that some player somewhere might fail all his rolls in his game of FTK (it'd be a short game though). It's unlikely, but it's possible.

But that said, 15% - 20% chance of a failure is actually pretty big in video game terms. Use focus to make the kill at these critical times.

[Santadriver]

Even a 5% chance to fail is still somewhat likely note that if you‘re rolling 4 slots that would be 5% PER slot. Someone has made some quite deep testing and found that the random number generator in ftk is quite good actually. Though I don‘t recall who it was.
It‘s like Soga said and that people focus more on the negative events (no pun intended).
„Rng being in favour of the enemies“ requires some context though! This is down to the fact that the game is carefully balanced. You have certain elements enemies don‘t have. All they have are great stats thus very good rolls (professional criminals). You on the other hand have focus, strategy, ability to ambush, decision making when to engage into battle, you‘re able to heal mid-battle, you can even change your equipment pre fights to best suit the situation (i.e. put on every single +resistance gear when you know the enemies only deal magic dmg), etc.

[Elymnir]

Originally posted by Soga:

Threads like these really confirm the scientific fact that people are terrible at predicting probability outcomes.

And responses like these really confirm that fanboys see only what they want. Sorry to sound harsh but I have to be. It is extremely condescending to say "80-85% means there's a 15% - 20% chance a slot will fail" like we don't know something that obvious. The problem is not that there is a chance to fail. The problem is that this chance to fail is actually the most likely outcome. Those many posts about the rng only stress the fact that there is a problem with it.

[Santadriver]

Most "rng-complaints" I read about complain about getting more fails they would expect to get with thwir percentages. I'd like to redirect you to the post I mentioned earlier, eventhough you're not replying to me.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/527230/discussions/0/1743343017611618758/

[Elymnir]

Originally posted by SantadriverCH:

Most "rng-complaints" I read about complain about getting more fails they would expect to get with thwir percentages. I'd like to redirect you to the post I mentioned earlier, eventhough you're not replying to me.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/527230/discussions/0/1743343017611618758/

And all I see is a quite high number of fail, which tends to indicate that the rng is skewed. It would be interesting to test other games that rely on rng and turn-based strategies (like Xcom, shadowrun, darkest dungeon or the original fallout) and see how it goes for them. I'm pretty sure they would all have less failing rolls.

[Steefy_92]

Originally posted by Elymnir:

Originally posted by SantadriverCH:

Most "rng-complaints" I read about complain about getting more fails they would expect to get with thwir percentages. I'd like to redirect you to the post I mentioned earlier, eventhough you're not replying to me.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/527230/discussions/0/1743343017611618758/

And all I see is a quite high number of fail, which tends to indicate that the rng is skewed. It would be interesting to test other games that rely on rng and turn-based strategies (like Xcom, shadowrun, darkest dungeon or the original fallout) and see how it goes for them. I'm pretty sure they would all have less failing rolls.

Honestly, XCOM, XCOM 2 is equally bad .. right on par with RNG in this game, if not even worse.
Shadowrun is so-so, Darkest Dungeon equal, for fallout I can't tell anything because never played).

To me it just feels, many people quit rage because they would rather blame system, than work on improving the odds by getting creative and understand system better.

So far, enemies are missing as much as do I and I don't see my pc venting at me.

[Jay-Nic]

The dice rolls are not garbage. You can do the probabilities, and see that they are indeed dead on. If you have 85% in a stat: with a decent sample size, you will hit it 85% of the time - to a t. The probabilities of a fully successful hit are even spelled out, right under the attack.

It's a tabletop inspired game - we give the players a fairly random world with fairly random things that happen, and then we let the players find the strategy to offset the randomness with various skills, and tools. Focus, sidequests, items, ambushes, sneaks.

The enemies all start more accurate and their various attacks than you - that's because they're professional bad guys. They're BEAST MEN. You're woodcutters, and minstrels... Once you get to around level 4-5-6: your accuracy is on par with the enemies.

[Elymnir]

Originally posted by Jay-Nic:

Once you get to around level 4-5-6: your accuracy is on par with the enemies.

I can definitely assure that it is not. Every new game proved it so far. When characters consistantly fail one-roll attacks with 92% chance, there is a problem.

[Juneau]

That's XCOM, baby

also, DnD intensifies

[RayRay Jackson]

I thought RNG was worse than it was until I started noticing how many 74% rolls I got perfect at crucial moments. Can't count the bad and not the good, but the good never catches people's attention. Mordenheim has BAD rng as well, but you can work around it.

[Soga]

Originally posted by Elymnir:

And responses like these really confirm that fanboys see only what they want.

Really? I'm the one bringing in the math and psychological science on the subject, and you're calling me a fanboy that only sees what he wants to see? Honestly, this sounds like someone that's just raging over the fact that he can't into probability statistics at all and now is lashing out at people pointing out how stats work.

Originally posted by Elymnir:

It is extremely condescending to say "80-85% means there's a 15% - 20% chance a slot will fail" like we don't know something that obvious.

I did that more to underline how big 15 - 20% is, and why even with what looks like a juicy number like 85%, you would be frequently underwhelmed by your rolls. I mean, it's like others pointed out here, there are other RNG-based games that have received more than their share of criticism over the way the rolls work, and in every single case, the developers have held their ground. As I said, 15 - 20% may seem like insignificant numbers to you, but in video gaming terms, those are actually quite large probabilities because of the sheer number of trials (rolls) they throw at you over what a physical game traditionally does.

Originally posted by Elymnir:

The problem is that this chance to fail is actually the most likely outcome.

That's the most disingenious thing you've said here. You're basically accusing the dev of fudging the RNG (so that while it reports 85% to you, it's actually doing something else in the back), but you have no proof they're doing this, and based on the reviews this game is getting, it sounds like most people would disagree with you (including myself, as my experience with the game has largely conformed to the statistical probability reported by the game).

Originally posted by Elymnir:

Those many posts about the rng only stress the fact that there is a problem with it.

No, it just stresses that a lot of people are terrible at understanding probabilities (confirmation bias). I've seen those complaints for many games with RNG, such as Battle for Wesnoth (and goodness, is it ever frustrating when you whiff at a very critical moment), and there is usually a LOT of debate on the RNG in those games, which usually just ends up wasting the developer's time because they have to deal with people complaining about the RNG when the RNG is working exactly as expected and people keep falling for the confirmation bias.

Originally posted by Elymnir:

I can definitely assure that it is not. Every new game proved it so far. When characters consistantly fail one-roll attacks with 92% chance, there is a problem.

Let me guess, glass weapons? Yeah, even with a 5% chance of blowing up, I stress about those. I usually opt for non-glass weapons instead because they're much safer. It's nice though that there is a high-reward-high-risk kind of option there.

Final point: The RNG is fine. Get over it, build your stats, equip the right items, manage your focus points. There's a learning curve, and the RNG is a part of it. That's all that really needs to be said here.