Not quite that simple, I'm afraid, Wormerine... If this were the Discworld, and you actually had a little imp in your computer case rolling an actual little d20 every time and telling the game what it rolled, then the RNG discussion wouldn't be a thing. Unfortunately, this is not the Discworld, and the way the game gets its d20 rolls is by way of a PRNG – a pseudo-random number generator, which is a combination of a few parts, but primarily a mathematical algorithm. It's not really 'random' at all. The better ones are complex algorithms, that also reseed themselves at rapid intervals, and utilise external sources of entropy to generate portions of their equations, those themselves sourcing from multiple different entropy intake pools, etc... it's more complicated than you might think... Larian's RNG is not sophisticated enough for the game it is running. A single user running a single client, can plot their rolls over the course of a suitable sample size (I used several batches of 200 rolls), and determine a visible pattern to the results – you can see with the naked eye that it is not truly random, and that's bad – even if the total sample delivers the correct expected deviation of results (it does; I'm not saying it doesn't!). There are a few threads that discuss this, though, and this is not the place for it here and now.

Originally Posted by Seraphael
Disagree vehemently with your portrayal of this aspect. You even contradict yourself, pointing at sine waves (clusters) of bad RNG as the issue - while dogmatically brushing off the optional loaded-dice (who breaks clusters) as a solution.

Hey Seraphael, thanks for speaking up.

What I wrote here was a synopsis of the stream, not a debate thesis. Nothing I said was incorrect; it was just a relation of what was said and the topics on which those things touched. If anything that I said was incorrect, I'll be more than happy to fix the synopsis, however, in this particular case, I do not believe that anything I said was incorrect.

Their statement of reasoning was exactly as I said it was, and I explained why it did not follow and made no sense. I acknowledged that it was a fix, but commented that it was not a good one, with a brief reference to one reason why. That is all. I spoke no untruths and misrepresented no-one.

I'll spoiler the rest, as it's not relevant to this thread, and this thread is not the place to have such a discussion.



There is indeed a portion of the community here who has debated long and hard about having more misses than they should in the game; it often leads to discussions about RNG, and there are several very informative threads on the matter that you may want to take a look at. If you've been paying attention, you'll be aware that I am deeply versed in all of the issues you bring up.

People were not asking for a system to be put in that in its own name actively insinuates that they, the player, are a cheater, as a band-aid resolution to Larian's own poorly written RNG algorithm. That is what Larian have decided to give us, however, and some people feel that it's quite a slap in the face, all told.

I'd like to point out that you inserted (and bolded) an extra word in there when answering back to something else I wrote:

Quote
"If you FEEL like failing a lot more in the video game",

Here's what I actually said, as you quoted above:

Quote
If you're failing a lot more in the video game,

As Dexai mentioned, I'm not talking about people feeling like they're failing more in the video game because they remember misses more strongly. I'm talking about the actual tangible phenomena that is the fact that you DO fail more often, in more clustered groups, and also suffer more failing-against-odds in the video game because of the poorly written RNG. There is another thread elsewhere where this discussion is held in depth and I do explain why that is the case, how it comes to pass and I touch on why it then ends up having an amplified psychological impact as a result. I reference the testing I did in relation to this, admitting the places where my initial theory was incorrect, and how the results showed me what I then described instead.

I am not the sort of poster who is interested in winning arguments; I'm interested in improving my own understanding, and sharing that understanding with others if I can. I admit when I'm wrong, and I'm always happy to fix errors in my own understanding, and would much rather do so than to fight for a stance that is ultimately false (though I will admit, I am quite stubborn when I feel certain of my own reasoning).

Quote
Slamming Larian for not doing enough to combat RNG-issues, while also slamming them for the unintended consequences and inevitable departure from D&D rules is grossly unfair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.

I will most certainly slam this game and its developers for the many and varied imbalances and unintended, unforeseen consequences of their many and various flagrant departures from the ruleset, which show both an extreme shallowness of conception and foresight, and also an extremely tenuous grasp of the system which they have taken on to work with. I will definitely do that, and it is entirely justified.

I will also slam them for not only applying a kludge-job band-aid fix of a solution that just covers over a deeper underlying problem without fixing it, but doing so in a way that demeans, insults or belittles the players that do choose to use it. I will certainly do that, and that too would be fully justified.

If they would decide at some point to spend some of their AAA game budget dollars on acquiring a better, more naturalised RNG than the one they're using now, that would actually solve a large percentage, potentially the majority, of the “I'm frustrated by misses” complaints... In the mentioned other threads, I also explain why that is the case. This is not the place for that, however.