33 coaches online • Server time: 12:15
* * * Did you know? 247 games were played yesterday.
Recent Forum Topics  Iron Hard Skin Q | BCL S3 | How many rerolls for... |
2013-06-19 21:59:56
14 votes, rating 1
14 votes, rating 1
Random dice algorithm
Years ago I used to play the game for real, only recently I discovered the online version.
I feel the game is ruined in this format with a 'poor random dice algorithm' the cause.
I can assure anyone on here that the algo is not random, and it has, swing bias. For example you roll attacker down x2 then reroll with the same outcome. The statistical chance of this happening is 1/36, however its very common to happen more than 2 times in a game which would give odds of 1/216 and so on.
Now for the fun part have you got real bb dice ? Try rolling them and see the difference.
So the dice is actually in the game, rather than a outside program.
So the question is what swings the bias?
I feel the game is ruined in this format with a 'poor random dice algorithm' the cause.
I can assure anyone on here that the algo is not random, and it has, swing bias. For example you roll attacker down x2 then reroll with the same outcome. The statistical chance of this happening is 1/36, however its very common to happen more than 2 times in a game which would give odds of 1/216 and so on.
Now for the fun part have you got real bb dice ? Try rolling them and see the difference.
So the dice is actually in the game, rather than a outside program.
So the question is what swings the bias?
Comments
Posted by Retro21 on 2013-06-19 22:09:40
people can influence Real Life dice.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-19 22:14:56
Pointless, sample is too small. Also looking at a couple of games, your grasp of the what is going on in a game doesn't appear to be that strong.
If you are unwilling to do a full large sample study of number generating, or stay and learn properly; you know where the door is.
And lastly according to tests, official block dice are not 100% accurate.
If you are unwilling to do a full large sample study of number generating, or stay and learn properly; you know where the door is.
And lastly according to tests, official block dice are not 100% accurate.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-19 22:20:10
OK. Do you want it straight?
Here it is anyway. ;)
The dice are fine. You make far too many unnecessary dice rolls.
Simple as that. If you keep rolling the dice sooner or later they are going to fail.
Read and enjoy.
http://fumbbl.com/help:The+Taoch%21+of+Blood+Bowl%3A+A+Condensed+Guide+for+Newbies
And sign up here:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=2922
Here it is anyway. ;)
The dice are fine. You make far too many unnecessary dice rolls.
Simple as that. If you keep rolling the dice sooner or later they are going to fail.
Read and enjoy.
http://fumbbl.com/help:The+Taoch%21+of+Blood+Bowl%3A+A+Condensed+Guide+for+Newbies
And sign up here:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=2922
Posted by Endzone on 2013-06-19 22:34:31
jonnyteg, I have played almost 800 games on this site and I haven't noticed anything which seem odd to me with the dice. I have seen good dice runs, bad dice runs and a whole lot in between. Really, the dice are not that crazy!
HM, your comment looks a bit harsh! A new guy on the site who makes a point based on his experience and you talk about the door?!
Sure, we know the broken random number generator thread has been done to death but there is no reason why he should! Where is the love!
HM, your comment looks a bit harsh! A new guy on the site who makes a point based on his experience and you talk about the door?!
Sure, we know the broken random number generator thread has been done to death but there is no reason why he should! Where is the love!
Posted by happygrue on 2013-06-19 22:35:50
http://xkcd.com/221/
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-19 22:46:55
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/2000/300/2318/2318.strip.gif
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-19 22:59:57
"Posted by Endzone on 2013-06-19 22:34:31
HM, your comment looks a bit harsh! A new guy on the site who makes a point based on his experience and you talk about the door?!"
1. Tough.
2. I have no time for coaches who blame their own shortcomings on the RNG.
3. Past experiences have also shown me they're nothing but trouble.
4. I had TT experience when I came here, painfully obvious though I was way out of my depth. You have to be a special character not to realise that you're actually crap and can't play for toffee.
5. How the hell can you tell by just playing the RNG is broken? Suggesting it, without doing an in depth study is just dumb and not worth considering.
HM, your comment looks a bit harsh! A new guy on the site who makes a point based on his experience and you talk about the door?!"
1. Tough.
2. I have no time for coaches who blame their own shortcomings on the RNG.
3. Past experiences have also shown me they're nothing but trouble.
4. I had TT experience when I came here, painfully obvious though I was way out of my depth. You have to be a special character not to realise that you're actually crap and can't play for toffee.
5. How the hell can you tell by just playing the RNG is broken? Suggesting it, without doing an in depth study is just dumb and not worth considering.
Posted by awambawamb on 2013-06-19 23:00:03
SPIRO!!!! YOU'RE BACK!!!!
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-19 23:08:00
Posted by DeZigma on 2013-06-19 23:27:39
It's ur gameplay, i remember played vs you. U know my is already lame, specially cause i always take too much risk, but who cares.
U know i had already a line of games, something like felt 4 or 5 in row or so, where when ever i blitzed the ball carrier i rolled 2 skulles. But on the other side I also had games where made 1d blitz vs. blodge and POWED him into dust(twice in a game).
it is always a bit luck in, get the right dice, in the right situation. get a bothdown/skull, when u have block and the opponent has dodge. That's the game.
U should took time to have look at some games of the top coaches. And please stay away from Blackbox, the most of the guys there eat you, because of missing expereance.
Wish you best.
DeZigma
U know i had already a line of games, something like felt 4 or 5 in row or so, where when ever i blitzed the ball carrier i rolled 2 skulles. But on the other side I also had games where made 1d blitz vs. blodge and POWED him into dust(twice in a game).
it is always a bit luck in, get the right dice, in the right situation. get a bothdown/skull, when u have block and the opponent has dodge. That's the game.
U should took time to have look at some games of the top coaches. And please stay away from Blackbox, the most of the guys there eat you, because of missing expereance.
Wish you best.
DeZigma
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-19 23:32:16
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-19 22:20:10
***The dice are fine. You make far too many unnecessary dice rolls.
Simple as that. If you keep rolling the dice sooner or later they are going to fail.***
Really?
I was talking about blocks or blitz during a game, look at my numbers on the stats, far less than the statistical chance for the event of a failed reroll 2x attacker down.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-19 22:14:56
***If you are unwilling to do a full large sample study of number generating, or stay and learn properly; you know where the door is. ***
Ok HM, I believe the sample size is plenty as 38 games gives me average of 28 blocks per game, note not all blocks will be 2 dice, which makes the ratio even more out of sync with a true random outcome. In that time I already know of several issues with the program, which I havent even talked about yet.
As I said I have played before years ago, ok so im no expert at the game, im not helped by a bias swing against me, learning in this enviroment, would be different than real life as, in this format learning when rerolls wont work or certain moves work is a big part of the online game.
Posted by Endzone on 2013-06-19 22:34:31
***2. I have no time for coaches who blame their own shortcomings on the RNG***
You fail to grasp what i am saying. Regardless of the outcome of my game I believe the dice program has a in game bias, stats show this!
I dont really care about the outcome of the game, if I did not feel cheated.
5. How the hell can you tell by just playing the RNG is broken? Suggesting it, without doing an in depth study is just dumb and not worth considering.
I am not saying its broken....................... what im saying is that its not random, jeez the only dumb thing is your putting numbers in front of sentences.
***The dice are fine. You make far too many unnecessary dice rolls.
Simple as that. If you keep rolling the dice sooner or later they are going to fail.***
Really?
I was talking about blocks or blitz during a game, look at my numbers on the stats, far less than the statistical chance for the event of a failed reroll 2x attacker down.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-19 22:14:56
***If you are unwilling to do a full large sample study of number generating, or stay and learn properly; you know where the door is. ***
Ok HM, I believe the sample size is plenty as 38 games gives me average of 28 blocks per game, note not all blocks will be 2 dice, which makes the ratio even more out of sync with a true random outcome. In that time I already know of several issues with the program, which I havent even talked about yet.
As I said I have played before years ago, ok so im no expert at the game, im not helped by a bias swing against me, learning in this enviroment, would be different than real life as, in this format learning when rerolls wont work or certain moves work is a big part of the online game.
Posted by Endzone on 2013-06-19 22:34:31
***2. I have no time for coaches who blame their own shortcomings on the RNG***
You fail to grasp what i am saying. Regardless of the outcome of my game I believe the dice program has a in game bias, stats show this!
I dont really care about the outcome of the game, if I did not feel cheated.
5. How the hell can you tell by just playing the RNG is broken? Suggesting it, without doing an in depth study is just dumb and not worth considering.
I am not saying its broken....................... what im saying is that its not random, jeez the only dumb thing is your putting numbers in front of sentences.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-19 23:34:49
Is Mouse about to go MikaFreak?
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-19 23:52:14
@jonnyteg: You're going to need a bit more than your 30 odd games. To convince anyone.
Especially when you are trying to convince people with 1000+ games in.
Bizarre things are going to happen. If they didn't then you would know that it isn't random. ;)
The luck will also go in your favour too but as things stand right now you need to cut out the rookie mistakes before you can take advantage of it.
Especially when you are trying to convince people with 1000+ games in.
Bizarre things are going to happen. If they didn't then you would know that it isn't random. ;)
The luck will also go in your favour too but as things stand right now you need to cut out the rookie mistakes before you can take advantage of it.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-19 23:54:05
Mikafreak......nah I have far too much respect for what has been done on the site. When the time comes, I'll just walk away. Probably move to a more creative roll on the site.
Saying the RNG isn't random, is saying it's broken. That's the point and without doing an in depth study, it's a pointless opinion.
Saying the RNG isn't random, is saying it's broken. That's the point and without doing an in depth study, it's a pointless opinion.
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-20 00:12:51
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-19 23:54:05
***Saying the RNG isn't random, is saying it's broken. That's the point and without doing an in depth study, it's a pointless opinion.***
HM do you even understand programs?
No current program in the world can give random outcomes the program has to follow rules to work, the only way for it to be 100% random would be for it to have AI.
With that in mind I am saying the program is rubbish almost novice like and better algo's exist that give a more random effect
A stored result of 1000 real dice roll running in sequence would be a far better choice than the current RNG system.
***Saying the RNG isn't random, is saying it's broken. That's the point and without doing an in depth study, it's a pointless opinion.***
HM do you even understand programs?
No current program in the world can give random outcomes the program has to follow rules to work, the only way for it to be 100% random would be for it to have AI.
With that in mind I am saying the program is rubbish almost novice like and better algo's exist that give a more random effect
A stored result of 1000 real dice roll running in sequence would be a far better choice than the current RNG system.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-20 00:33:43
Well, OK. Maybe Mouse was right all along. ;)
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=3&id=1056
VoodooMike can sense threads like this. If you say his name three times... :twisted:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=3&id=1056
VoodooMike can sense threads like this. If you say his name three times... :twisted:
Posted by Tymless on 2013-06-20 04:53:17
Try reading this. http://fumbbl.com/help:FFB_RNG
When your done. if you still think your sampling is big enough, or if you still believe the rng is broken. I suggest you take up a conversation with Christer. The owner and main manager of the site. He has had this discussion more times then you could even imagine.
Also. you should take peoples responses to your comments on the RNG with a grain of salt. Any of the coaches on this site that have been here more then 2 years have seen a blog just like this at least 200 times. I have personally played 4640 games or so on fumbbl. I know that the current RNG is the best one the site has used yet.
When your done. if you still think your sampling is big enough, or if you still believe the rng is broken. I suggest you take up a conversation with Christer. The owner and main manager of the site. He has had this discussion more times then you could even imagine.
Also. you should take peoples responses to your comments on the RNG with a grain of salt. Any of the coaches on this site that have been here more then 2 years have seen a blog just like this at least 200 times. I have personally played 4640 games or so on fumbbl. I know that the current RNG is the best one the site has used yet.
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-20 09:25:37
Posted by Tymless on 2013-06-20 04:53:17
***When your done. if you still think your sampling is big enough, or if you still believe the rng is broken.***
Again, I am not saying its broken, I am saying it is rubbish. Its using the m/twist algo, which is an old system and should not be used for games.
What it should be using is a TRNG (true random number generator) to best mimic a random result, although a problem with cost would probably prevent it being used.
***Also. you should take peoples responses to your comments on the RNG with a grain of salt. Any of the coaches on this site that have been here more then 2 years have seen a blog just like this at least 200 times. I have personally played 4640 games or so on fumbbl. I know that the current RNG is the best one the site has used yet. ***
So you dont think that a problem exists if so many people are saying the same?
Clearly the dice have been a constant problem over time here and the dice have been changed before. I have spotted several trends that are happening <1100 rolls, this is showing me that the system presents itself as non random with trends happening outside a std dev.
If you have played that many games and cant see a problem then your mad, or maybe you know how to play the system ie know when as action is more likely to occur via the dodgy dice.
***When your done. if you still think your sampling is big enough, or if you still believe the rng is broken.***
Again, I am not saying its broken, I am saying it is rubbish. Its using the m/twist algo, which is an old system and should not be used for games.
What it should be using is a TRNG (true random number generator) to best mimic a random result, although a problem with cost would probably prevent it being used.
***Also. you should take peoples responses to your comments on the RNG with a grain of salt. Any of the coaches on this site that have been here more then 2 years have seen a blog just like this at least 200 times. I have personally played 4640 games or so on fumbbl. I know that the current RNG is the best one the site has used yet. ***
So you dont think that a problem exists if so many people are saying the same?
Clearly the dice have been a constant problem over time here and the dice have been changed before. I have spotted several trends that are happening <1100 rolls, this is showing me that the system presents itself as non random with trends happening outside a std dev.
If you have played that many games and cant see a problem then your mad, or maybe you know how to play the system ie know when as action is more likely to occur via the dodgy dice.
Posted by jamesfarrell129 on 2013-06-20 09:53:39
" Regardless of the outcome of my game I believe the dice program has a in game bias, stats show this! "
OK... show me these stats please. As a stats student I'm genuinely interested.
PS: you do realise that the actual RNG FUMBBL uses is a sweatshop of children rolling actual dice, don't you? That's why you should always wait at least 2 seconds before hitting the reroll button...
OK... show me these stats please. As a stats student I'm genuinely interested.
PS: you do realise that the actual RNG FUMBBL uses is a sweatshop of children rolling actual dice, don't you? That's why you should always wait at least 2 seconds before hitting the reroll button...
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-20 10:15:06
Posted by jamesfarrell129 on 2013-06-20 09:53:39
OK... show me these stats please. As a stats student I'm genuinely interested.
***PS: you do realise that the actual RNG FUMBBL uses is a sweatshop of children rolling actual dice, don't you? That's why you should always wait at least 2 seconds before hitting the reroll button...***
Ok james as a stat student can you explain the difference between the outcomes of a PRNG and TRNG when you can actually understand that the current setup is with a PRNG algo not suitable for a game.
And your second comment is a little childish pardon the pun.
I will say it again a pool of 10 x 1000 actual rollls ran in sequence would be far better than the current framework.
What your actually playing just now is the dice not the game, kind of like playing a online casino game.
OK... show me these stats please. As a stats student I'm genuinely interested.
***PS: you do realise that the actual RNG FUMBBL uses is a sweatshop of children rolling actual dice, don't you? That's why you should always wait at least 2 seconds before hitting the reroll button...***
Ok james as a stat student can you explain the difference between the outcomes of a PRNG and TRNG when you can actually understand that the current setup is with a PRNG algo not suitable for a game.
And your second comment is a little childish pardon the pun.
I will say it again a pool of 10 x 1000 actual rollls ran in sequence would be far better than the current framework.
What your actually playing just now is the dice not the game, kind of like playing a online casino game.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-06-20 12:35:37
Not that I'm willing to debate with you. It's pointless and without stats you have no claim. You are clearly unhappy, and Cyanide is pretty cheap now.
However the RNG you are claiming FUMBBL uses, isn't the RNG used here. And hasn't been for a long long time.
However the RNG you are claiming FUMBBL uses, isn't the RNG used here. And hasn't been for a long long time.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-20 14:38:21
Apologies for posting an old link but Tymless immediately posted the correct one.
Even so, I'm still interested to know why 10,000 die rolls is better than the Mersenne twister or what we have now.
Also why they are not suitable for this game.
just out of interest could you please link us the games where you have rolled double skulls twice or more in a game.
Even so, I'm still interested to know why 10,000 die rolls is better than the Mersenne twister or what we have now.
Also why they are not suitable for this game.
just out of interest could you please link us the games where you have rolled double skulls twice or more in a game.
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-20 15:39:08
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-20 14:38:21
***Even so, I'm still interested to know why 10,000 die rolls is better than the Mersenne twister or what we have now.
Also why they are not suitable for this game.***
Because the dice rolls would be random. PRNG algos are generally used for data simulation and the likes, they are not suitable for encrption, games etc
http://www.random.org/randomness/
When I have time I will pick out the games for you, honestly a high % of them it occurs. It never happened in my last game though.
I am looking at ways to improve this format of the game thats all.
cheers
***Even so, I'm still interested to know why 10,000 die rolls is better than the Mersenne twister or what we have now.
Also why they are not suitable for this game.***
Because the dice rolls would be random. PRNG algos are generally used for data simulation and the likes, they are not suitable for encrption, games etc
http://www.random.org/randomness/
When I have time I will pick out the games for you, honestly a high % of them it occurs. It never happened in my last game though.
I am looking at ways to improve this format of the game thats all.
cheers
Posted by jamesfarrell129 on 2013-06-20 16:29:35
Can you improve my real life dice while you are at it? They roll far too many skulls and 1s/2s to be random, and are therefore only really suitable for data simulation rather than for games.
Posted by Tymless on 2013-06-21 05:28:41
you misunderstood my point about coaches having heard this 200 times before. You can't imagine how many new or just whiny coaches come on and blame the dice over their own lack of skills. I just happen to be aware of the many different options Christer has employed as well as the amount of times he has changed it. Like I said before if you really think your way is the way to go. Bring this up to Christer and hear his response.
Posted by Tymless on 2013-06-21 05:32:29
Let me add. I don't care about the RNG. I care about having fun. it is random enough for me. Each of my games has been a different game then the one before it.
Personally I think people should just be happy that someone spends their time and money to allow us to play a game for free and is willing to put up with us who have things to say.
Personally I think people should just be happy that someone spends their time and money to allow us to play a game for free and is willing to put up with us who have things to say.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-21 06:37:59
"Fun" seems to imply to me using a RNG that is NOT random.
i.e. remove the extremes.
I ran an experiment with my son a few weeks ago tossing a coin. It came up heads 10 times in a row.
If you want Random then weird stuff is going to happen. Most of the RNG whining is due to people who cannot take it when 'bad luck' happens to them.
Maybe Jonnyteg can tell us why our RNGs are not suitable for a game like this. Rather than just saying "it's not random".
i.e. remove the extremes.
I ran an experiment with my son a few weeks ago tossing a coin. It came up heads 10 times in a row.
If you want Random then weird stuff is going to happen. Most of the RNG whining is due to people who cannot take it when 'bad luck' happens to them.
Maybe Jonnyteg can tell us why our RNGs are not suitable for a game like this. Rather than just saying "it's not random".
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-21 10:59:01
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-21 06:37:59
**Maybe Jonnyteg can tell us why our RNGs are not suitable for a game like this. Rather than just saying "it's not random".**
If you had checked the link I provided then your question would be answered, any way here is a summary of why.
Random numbers are useful for a variety of purposes, such as generating data encryption keys, simulating and modeling complex phenomena and for selecting random samples from larger data sets. They have also been used aesthetically, for example in literature and music, and are of course ever popular for games and gambling. When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable, i.e., a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others.
With the advent of computers, programmers recognized the need for a means of introducing randomness into a computer program. However, surprising as it may seem, it is difficult to get a computer to do something by chance. A computer follows its instructions blindly and is therefore completely predictable. (A computer that doesn't follow its instructions in this manner is broken.) There are two main approaches to generating random numbers using a computer: Pseudo-Random Number Generators PRNG and True Random Number Generators TRNG The approaches have quite different characteristics and each has its pros and cons.
The basic difference between PRNG and TRNGs is easy to understand if you compare computer-generated random numbers to rolls of a dice. Because PRNGs generate random numbers by using mathematical formulae or precalculated lists, using one corresponds to someone rolling a die many times and writing down the results. Whenever you ask for a die roll, you get the next on the list. Effectively, the numbers appear random, but they are really predetermined. TRNGs work by getting a computer to actually roll the dice or, more commonly, use some other physical phenomenon that is easier to connect to a computer than a die is.
Application Most Suitable Generator
Lotteries and Draws TRNG
Games and Gambling TRNG
Random Sampling (e.g., drug screening) TRNG
Simulation and Modelling PRNG
Security (generation of data encryption keys) TRNG
The Arts Varies
Hope that answers some of your questions.
**Maybe Jonnyteg can tell us why our RNGs are not suitable for a game like this. Rather than just saying "it's not random".**
If you had checked the link I provided then your question would be answered, any way here is a summary of why.
Random numbers are useful for a variety of purposes, such as generating data encryption keys, simulating and modeling complex phenomena and for selecting random samples from larger data sets. They have also been used aesthetically, for example in literature and music, and are of course ever popular for games and gambling. When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable, i.e., a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others.
With the advent of computers, programmers recognized the need for a means of introducing randomness into a computer program. However, surprising as it may seem, it is difficult to get a computer to do something by chance. A computer follows its instructions blindly and is therefore completely predictable. (A computer that doesn't follow its instructions in this manner is broken.) There are two main approaches to generating random numbers using a computer: Pseudo-Random Number Generators PRNG and True Random Number Generators TRNG The approaches have quite different characteristics and each has its pros and cons.
The basic difference between PRNG and TRNGs is easy to understand if you compare computer-generated random numbers to rolls of a dice. Because PRNGs generate random numbers by using mathematical formulae or precalculated lists, using one corresponds to someone rolling a die many times and writing down the results. Whenever you ask for a die roll, you get the next on the list. Effectively, the numbers appear random, but they are really predetermined. TRNGs work by getting a computer to actually roll the dice or, more commonly, use some other physical phenomenon that is easier to connect to a computer than a die is.
Application Most Suitable Generator
Lotteries and Draws TRNG
Games and Gambling TRNG
Random Sampling (e.g., drug screening) TRNG
Simulation and Modelling PRNG
Security (generation of data encryption keys) TRNG
The Arts Varies
Hope that answers some of your questions.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-21 14:39:58
No, it doesn't really.
Did you read the description of our RNG?
http://fumbbl.com/help:FFB_RNG
All you seem to be saying is that the RNG would be better if we had a nuclear reactor.
You are not telling us why our RNG is not random enough for this game.
Why are the tests that it has passed not enough for a game of blood bowl.
Which, as I see it is pretty irrelevant as the real problem is that some people do not like their RNG being to be too random.
If it is truly random bad runs will crop up. Bad runs will happen to the same person two or three games in a row. If you want to eliminate that you are talking about getting away from true random.
In a game you roll a lot of dice. Those strings of 1s are in there. They have to be or it wouldn't be random. They will be in there whether you use real dice, a nuclear reactor, 10,000 monkeys or whatever. I wasn't expecting heads to come up 10 times in row with my coin but it happens.
The basics of the game as detailed in the link I sent you, are managing bad luck and being in a position to take advantage of good luck.
If you can figure out how to download and interrogate the game report files we could run an analysis on the dice. But this has already been done on Cyanide and despite all the whining the dice turned out to be fine.
We're doing 400-500 games a day. Each day someone is going to get really horrible luck.
I've recently had games where I've had really horrible luck in the first half but still only gone in 0-1 at half time. IF my key KOs come back (and they'll probably have two chances) I'll still be in decent shape for at least a tie.
The issue isn't the RNG it's people's attitude to the game. It isn't chess. Stuff outside of you control happens.
Did you read the description of our RNG?
http://fumbbl.com/help:FFB_RNG
All you seem to be saying is that the RNG would be better if we had a nuclear reactor.
You are not telling us why our RNG is not random enough for this game.
Why are the tests that it has passed not enough for a game of blood bowl.
Which, as I see it is pretty irrelevant as the real problem is that some people do not like their RNG being to be too random.
If it is truly random bad runs will crop up. Bad runs will happen to the same person two or three games in a row. If you want to eliminate that you are talking about getting away from true random.
In a game you roll a lot of dice. Those strings of 1s are in there. They have to be or it wouldn't be random. They will be in there whether you use real dice, a nuclear reactor, 10,000 monkeys or whatever. I wasn't expecting heads to come up 10 times in row with my coin but it happens.
The basics of the game as detailed in the link I sent you, are managing bad luck and being in a position to take advantage of good luck.
If you can figure out how to download and interrogate the game report files we could run an analysis on the dice. But this has already been done on Cyanide and despite all the whining the dice turned out to be fine.
We're doing 400-500 games a day. Each day someone is going to get really horrible luck.
I've recently had games where I've had really horrible luck in the first half but still only gone in 0-1 at half time. IF my key KOs come back (and they'll probably have two chances) I'll still be in decent shape for at least a tie.
The issue isn't the RNG it's people's attitude to the game. It isn't chess. Stuff outside of you control happens.
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-21 16:21:34
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-21 14:39:58
***Did you read the description of our RNG?
http://fumbbl.com/help:FFB_RNG
All you seem to be saying is that the RNG would be better if we had a nuclear reactor.
You are not telling us why our RNG is not random enough for this game.
Why are the tests that it has passed not enough for a game of blood bowl.
Which, as I see it is pretty irrelevant as the real problem is that some people do not like their RNG being to be too random.
If it is truly random bad runs will crop up. Bad runs will happen to the same person two or three games in a row. If you want to eliminate that you are talking about getting away from true random.
In a game you roll a lot of dice. Those strings of 1s are in there. They have to be or it wouldn't be random. They will be in there whether you use real dice, a nuclear reactor, 10,000 monkeys or whatever. I wasn't expecting heads to come up 10 times in row with my coin but it happens.***
Yes I looked at it after you said you no longer used the PRNG m/twist, Fortuna is not a real TRNG its a version of PRNG called CSPRNG which is still not used for games.
I dont understand why you are talking about reactors here? If you are talking about one of the ways a TRNG operates is it uses backround decay noise as a random activation via a sensor linked to the equipment, no need for any reactor, the sensor would be fine in a room. Any natural effect could be used for a TRNG.
Yes dice will roll 1's in a row, the problem is trends appearing in a regular manner.
If players on here want to believe the dice are random, then fine play the dice, or why not just watch games and let the system play 2 teams, in reality thats whats currently happening with pre determined dice roll.
***Did you read the description of our RNG?
http://fumbbl.com/help:FFB_RNG
All you seem to be saying is that the RNG would be better if we had a nuclear reactor.
You are not telling us why our RNG is not random enough for this game.
Why are the tests that it has passed not enough for a game of blood bowl.
Which, as I see it is pretty irrelevant as the real problem is that some people do not like their RNG being to be too random.
If it is truly random bad runs will crop up. Bad runs will happen to the same person two or three games in a row. If you want to eliminate that you are talking about getting away from true random.
In a game you roll a lot of dice. Those strings of 1s are in there. They have to be or it wouldn't be random. They will be in there whether you use real dice, a nuclear reactor, 10,000 monkeys or whatever. I wasn't expecting heads to come up 10 times in row with my coin but it happens.***
Yes I looked at it after you said you no longer used the PRNG m/twist, Fortuna is not a real TRNG its a version of PRNG called CSPRNG which is still not used for games.
I dont understand why you are talking about reactors here? If you are talking about one of the ways a TRNG operates is it uses backround decay noise as a random activation via a sensor linked to the equipment, no need for any reactor, the sensor would be fine in a room. Any natural effect could be used for a TRNG.
Yes dice will roll 1's in a row, the problem is trends appearing in a regular manner.
If players on here want to believe the dice are random, then fine play the dice, or why not just watch games and let the system play 2 teams, in reality thats whats currently happening with pre determined dice roll.
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-21 16:54:13
"If players on here want to believe the dice are random, then fine play the dice, or why not just watch games and let the system play 2 teams, in reality thats whats currently happening with pre determined dice roll."
Really? So why is it that you are only 7 / 2 / 33?
So which trends are appearing a regular manner?
Are you able to predict the dice?
How many times have you had double skulls 3 or more times in a game?
A TRNG is not going to make any difference. People will still whine. Until you improve your play you will still lose.
Really? So why is it that you are only 7 / 2 / 33?
So which trends are appearing a regular manner?
Are you able to predict the dice?
How many times have you had double skulls 3 or more times in a game?
A TRNG is not going to make any difference. People will still whine. Until you improve your play you will still lose.
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-21 17:23:06
Posted by koadah on 2013-06-21 16:54:13
***Really? So why is it that you are only 7 / 2 / 33?
So which trends are appearing a regular manner?
Are you able to predict the dice?
How many times have you had double skulls 3 or more times in a game?
A TRNG is not going to make any difference. People will still whine. Until you improve your play you will still lose.***
No, thats not the reason for my record again I feel like going round in circles here, I am not blaming the dice for that.
I dont have enough game time in this format to predict the dice this would be impossible in a real format, however I believe a big part of the current system would be for a player to have a high probability idea of when a action is more or less likely to happen.
The first trends that I have noticed is with rerolls on double dice with the outcome the same, it does not need to be attacker down or both down etc, we have to ignore the arrow action as the dice has 2, again that makes the issue even more noticeable but for now just keep it easy and change the actions to 1-6 ie sides of dice.
Other obvious trends appear to give long term bias, or an intermediate balance act.
As I have said if you guys are all happy to play with pre-determined outcomes then suit yourselfs any players with half a brain will walk away, as your not really able to put a higher probability swing in to a outcome.
Example
( we have 200 players playing a game of automated bingo, all slips are issued by the machine it then picks one slip as the winner then starts to give out the numbers, did the 200 players play a game? No they did not, the computer did.
The 200 people are still happy though as someone wins each time.)
We have sheep, wolves & shepards here I know which I am.
***Really? So why is it that you are only 7 / 2 / 33?
So which trends are appearing a regular manner?
Are you able to predict the dice?
How many times have you had double skulls 3 or more times in a game?
A TRNG is not going to make any difference. People will still whine. Until you improve your play you will still lose.***
No, thats not the reason for my record again I feel like going round in circles here, I am not blaming the dice for that.
I dont have enough game time in this format to predict the dice this would be impossible in a real format, however I believe a big part of the current system would be for a player to have a high probability idea of when a action is more or less likely to happen.
The first trends that I have noticed is with rerolls on double dice with the outcome the same, it does not need to be attacker down or both down etc, we have to ignore the arrow action as the dice has 2, again that makes the issue even more noticeable but for now just keep it easy and change the actions to 1-6 ie sides of dice.
Other obvious trends appear to give long term bias, or an intermediate balance act.
As I have said if you guys are all happy to play with pre-determined outcomes then suit yourselfs any players with half a brain will walk away, as your not really able to put a higher probability swing in to a outcome.
Example
( we have 200 players playing a game of automated bingo, all slips are issued by the machine it then picks one slip as the winner then starts to give out the numbers, did the 200 players play a game? No they did not, the computer did.
The 200 people are still happy though as someone wins each time.)
We have sheep, wolves & shepards here I know which I am.
Posted by jamesfarrell129 on 2013-06-22 21:56:07
"We have sheep, wolves & shepards here I know which I am."
Honestly, so do we...
I have obviously beaten the system, since I know exactly when events are going to fail: when I least want them to! e.g GFIs into the endzone, lightning bolts on ball-carriers, or one-turn touchdown attempts... all will fail.
Honestly, so do we...
I have obviously beaten the system, since I know exactly when events are going to fail: when I least want them to! e.g GFIs into the endzone, lightning bolts on ball-carriers, or one-turn touchdown attempts... all will fail.
Posted by jonnyteg on 2013-06-23 11:11:25
Posted by jamesfarrell129 on 2013-06-22 21:56:07
"We have sheep, wolves & shepards here I know which I am."
***Honestly, so do we...
I have obviously beaten the system, since I know exactly when events are going to fail: when I least want them to! e.g GFIs into the endzone, lightning bolts on ball-carriers, or one-turn touchdown attempts... all will fail. ***
Your a sheep then as you reference to we as yourself, which is what i expected.
Again your losing idea of what I am actually talking about, the game is more than just the dice roll, obviously non dice roll actions have a influence in the game.
Your win record of 42% suggests your not that good, what I am talking about is a player taking advantage of situations where they know actions are less likely to happen due to the dice system, that could make the difference from decent to great player in the online format.
"We have sheep, wolves & shepards here I know which I am."
***Honestly, so do we...
I have obviously beaten the system, since I know exactly when events are going to fail: when I least want them to! e.g GFIs into the endzone, lightning bolts on ball-carriers, or one-turn touchdown attempts... all will fail. ***
Your a sheep then as you reference to we as yourself, which is what i expected.
Again your losing idea of what I am actually talking about, the game is more than just the dice roll, obviously non dice roll actions have a influence in the game.
Your win record of 42% suggests your not that good, what I am talking about is a player taking advantage of situations where they know actions are less likely to happen due to the dice system, that could make the difference from decent to great player in the online format.