For fun I reloaded a 95% hit chance for Lae'zel 70 times. The enemy had an AC of 7, Lae'zel has an overall attack bonus of +5 (+2 proficiency, +3 from strength). A 95% chance is akin to rolling at least a 2 on the D20. In other words, Lae'zel can only fail to hit on a critical miss (rolling a 1). This is a bit long, but may show a couple things:
1) how streaky things can be over the short to mid-term 2) that only over many many many rolls, the 95% chance would actually "apply". 3) Things for sure aren't as obvious as people make it sound in here (which would be majorly stupid on Larian's behalf anyways)
We were actually slightly below the 95%, as out of 70 attacks, only 63 hit (which is a 90%). The more rolls, the closer to the 95% you'd get. Generally, you'd need to roll at least 100 attacks to say anything of added value. The average attack roll was a 9.2, which too was slightly below the expected 10 -- again, only in the long-term you'd be getting there.I had collected ~50 attack rolls in a prior attempt for an average of 12. Neither of this is a mistake, this is randomness at work.
11 hit 14 hit 19 hit 1 critical miss 19 hit 3 hit 4 hit 5 hit 2 hit 14 hit 1 critical miss 3 hit 2 hit 7 hit 5 hit 1 critical miss 9 hit 6 hit 4 hit 20 critical hit 3 hit 8 hit 14 hit 6 hit 15 hit 4 hit 13 hit 10 hit 1 critical miss 4 hit 11 hit 19 hit 2 hit 3 hit 13 hit 20 critical hit 5 hit 17 hit 13 hit 2 hit 16 hit 15 hit 1 critical miss 1 critical miss 14 hit 10 hit 14 hit 1 critical miss 18 hit 18 hit 14 hit 7 hit 11 hit 4 hit 19 hit 5 hit 3 hit 11 hit 18 hit 20 critical hit 3 hit 2 hit 7 hit 19 hit 18 hit 6 hit 2 hit 9 hit 19 hit 4 hit
Originally Posted by Oldnight
listen i like the game -- im not bashing it. I stating that there is something wrong with the algorithm vs players.
why wouuld they do it?
simple--- with limited content they want players to struggle so the play through lasts longer.
There's a thousand ways to ensure that other than riggin the dice though, which destroys all player trust. Larian have complete control over not only opposition stats, but also the encounter design.
If you can show that a high AC character is actually hit 90% of the time in the long-run, I'll start listening though. From my experience, this is completely false. There is nothing this obvious going on, neither in terms of bugs or otherwise.
And that's not defending the game. As a D&D game, I don't want them to listen to players who are badly rubbed by actual RNG (see the Tim Cain talk, where he talks about that players would actually prefer something else, even though they talk "randomness".)
