Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 2021
G
gmnenad Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
If you do not care about misses, why do you care about their RNG?

It seems strange that you are ok with missing, which is very obvious, but somehow can notice if you received few more 5s instead of 6s on rolls, which is NOT obvious at all in single fight.

Joined: Dec 2020
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Perhaps read Niara's post (earlier in this thread)? They have (apparently) fiddled with the RNG so it is not random - I don't mind random, but they have seemingly changed their RNG to manipulate odds in some cases, which is clearly not random. D&D assumes that you have a random source and the modifiers you add mean the randomness should have less impact as you level, certainly against weaker enemies. There are also plenty of ways in 5E to even the odds (mainly through advantage/spells/abilities) - more in BG3 than normal, actually.

Basically: if they have an actual unbiased RNG, then I am fine with missing now and then due to randomness. Such is life. If they have manipulated their RNG - and I can't confirm this, I didn't do the test others have done - to make your miss more frequently, as the post I referred to sugegsts, then I have an issue with that.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by booboo
As for deducing AC, sure, you shouldn't really know what your opponent's AC is t the outset, at least until you have defeated them or worked it out yourself. Other D&D games have you making skill checks to figure out that kind of enemy info as you fight/before - I'd like that idea. Of course, they could display other animations for categories of misses (like graze etc.) but that adds a lot to the animation burden/cost. Every model would need these extra animation cycles. I think there are more important things for them to fix - bugs, core mechanics issues, balancing, possible party size changes etc.

There really doesn’t need to be an animation burden for this. Just changing the text popup from ‘Miss’ to the appropriate one would be enough. If they went ahead and animated it that would be incredible though.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
I don't know what kind of things the code predicts for a hit or a miss.
But it is very frustrating indeed when an attack misses entirely.


I would rather have it that hitchance is like...

80% hitchance = 80% of the damage your weapon or spell does
50% hitchance = ^ only 50% of it ^
etc.
Along with a shown value of dmg right altogether so that you know with which groupmember it is the most "dmg-productive" value to probably kill an enemy.

" Ooooo that so not D&D-like. "

Yeah who cares? I certainly don't.
I wish I could choose between this game mode and the "original one" that I find much more annoying.
This complete-miss joke became old really fast.
And it didn't aged well.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Here’s an idea which seems complex for tabletop but for the purposes of a computer game could be programmed pretty easily.

If you roll less than 10 on your attack roll, you miss – at high levels you’ll never “miss” unless you roll a 1
If you roll between ten and their base AC from armor (say, 11 to 14) the attack is deflected
If you roll between their base armor AC and their Dex mod (say 15-16) the attack is dodged
If the enemy is using a shield and you roll within 1-2 of their AC the attack is blocked

This could be built on for other scenarios (eg. Mage Armor, rings of protection etc but you get the idea). You could even have a tactical mode (which would be truer to D&D) in which the player doesn’t know the enemy’s AC and needs to use these clues to assess how well they’re doing. If their attacks are being deflected a lot and they’re rolling reasonably well, they could deduce the enemy has a strong natural armor (as an example).

Food for thought anyway.
Yeah, this is a great idea.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
I don't know what kind of things the code predicts for a hit or a miss.
But it is very frustrating indeed when an attack misses entirely.


I would rather have it that hitchance is like...

80% hitchance = 80% of the damage your weapon or spell does
50% hitchance = ^ only 50% of it ^
etc.
Along with a shown value of dmg right altogether so that you know with which groupmember it is the most "dmg-productive" value to probably kill an enemy.

" Ooooo that so not D&D-like. "

Yeah who cares? I certainly don't.
I wish I could choose between this game mode and the "original one" that I find much more annoying.
This complete-miss joke became old really fast.
And it didn't aged well.
I kinda like that.
Certainly sounds like at least good material for mod.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 27/01/21 09:31 AM.

I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Jan 2021
G
gmnenad Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by booboo
Perhaps read Niara's post (earlier in this thread)? They have (apparently) fiddled with the RNG so it is not random - I don't mind random, but they have seemingly changed their RNG to manipulate odds in some cases, which is clearly not random. D&D assumes that you have a random source and the modifiers you add mean the randomness should have less impact as you level, certainly against weaker enemies. There are also plenty of ways in 5E to even the odds (mainly through advantage/spells/abilities) - more in BG3 than normal, actually.

Basically: if they have an actual unbiased RNG, then I am fine with missing now and then due to randomness. Such is life. If they have manipulated their RNG - and I can't confirm this, I didn't do the test others have done - to make your miss more frequently, as the post I referred to sugegsts, then I have an issue with that.

I have read that post before posting my comment - so that comment remains : any "manipulated RNG" is BY FAR less noticeable than misses. In fact, it can not be noticed at all in single fight, or even in dozens of fights - you need hundreds of attacks to even prove it. So if someone is "against manipulated RNG" , I can only assume it is from philosophical reasons - since it is not noticeable at all in actual combat.

Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
And yet I tested in the first place, because I noticed the trend and wanted to check to see if the data confirmed it... so it clearly can be noticed.

In fact, what my testing showed up was that overall, in the long run, the raw die rolls did correlate with what you'd expect of a standard distribution... just that the algorithm that generates them is poor, and creates more tangible feelings of missing often or unfairly beucause of the way it peaks and troughs.

The odd anomaly of increased ratio of misses, beyond acceptable margins of variation from what would be expected, for low hp and boss creatures was something that I had felt but had, prior to this, written off as most likely being a personal perspective bias that was not 'real', and was not expecting to see actually show up in the results; I certainly wasn't looking for it.

Last edited by Niara; 27/01/21 02:02 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
G
gmnenad Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
But you noticed it in the first place because of MISSES. That is exactly my point - I do not see how someone can say "I'm ok with misses", and then complain about "manipulated RNG".

Also, what you are describing is almost certainly not problem with "computer RNG " as you implied in your previous post ( when you said they need to "invest in a new RNG") . No RNG generator is so bad as to 'frequently' generate string of unlikely events, and then averages out to correct averages over time. Computer RNG generators usually have 128 bit cycle, but even with only 32 bit cycle numbers would start to repeat after 4 billion generations.

If those cases with frequent misses on low hp and boss creatures really happen ( and I do not doubt your findings ), then it is NOT because of 'bad RNG' but because Larian decided to make it so. For example, with hidden -5 attack roll modifier if mob on low hp or is boss. But in that case, that is NOT bad RNG, it is bad game decision.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
We actually should care that the game has a healthy distribution for RNG. Whether it's RNG or game design.

Have you continued to document Niara? I think we'll need a bigger sample size.

Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
Sorry, I haven't kept up with it - tracking 200 here, and then 200 in three other games that use a d20, was about the limit of my stamina for this.
What I tracked here was the raw die roll, whether it was advantage or not, whether it was a hit or a miss, the creature it was on, and their remaining hp.

I'd recently also done a test of 100 + 100 rolls relating to skill checks, which I haven't spoken about yet because I can't be sure that something else isn't going on;



I performed 100 rolls against the necromancy book from Thay.... as large a sample size as I could stomach at the time.
I then took 100 more rolls against the book, but with Mystra's Bless on the rolling character.

What we would expect to see, with a fair RNG, would be a more or less even distribution of rolls across the 1-20 spectrum, and both sets of rolls being more or less indistinguishable from one another. To be clear, the results show the raw die roll - Bless and Mystra's bless affect only the modifiers, and supposedly should influence your 'roll target' as the game currently displays it. It should not affect the raw displayed roll.

So, When I started this experiment, I felt strongly that the base die roll was biased towards lower rolls for players for important checks like this book. The results, however, seem to prove me wrong: the unaltered roll, with no buffs, actually showed a good, even distribution of rolls over the course of the sample size. It's about dead on where you'd expect it to level out, more or less.

However, it's worth noting that as a result, over the course of 50 attempts at the book, my character succeeded only 2 times in total (!). Despite a fair distribution, we didn't meet the expected average for what is pitched by the game (and its base DCs) as a moderate-to-challenging save. This is an issue with Larian's design philosophy for checks and saves right now, which could be the subject of another thread. In short though: This is a check that they mean you to fail. They couldn't set a DC high enough that was still attainable, but also gave the desired abysmal success average they wanted, and so built a successive check, for which any failure at any point was an absolute and total failure, ensuring that short of dedicated save-scumming almost no-one will ever succeed this save, and those who try will just be in the same boat as those who don't. It's bad design, it's not interesting and it's not fun. No-one likes the DM who just throws you save after save Until you fail one, then to gleefully jump back to the failure dialogue they had intended to give you from the very start... this is what Larian does, and on more than one occasion.

The oddity came up here for the second set, using Mystra's Bless: the results were Heavily skewed. Over the full 100 roll sample, 40% of the rolls were in the very top 15-20 bracket, eleven 17s, nine 15s, and above expected average turn ours for 16, 18 and 20 as well.

So what's going on here? It cannot be that it's adding the Mystra bless bonus to our raw die roll – we never rolled over 20, and we got an extreme outlier of eight 2s, which, if it were adding the bless to the raw die roll, wouldn't line up unless we rolled 8 natural 1s... which is a sticker, because my character is a halfling; they'd need to be double 1s (there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Lucky isn't working correctly, but in these tests I received no natural 1s, in 200 rolls, so I can only conclude that in this test at least it was working. I've receive 1s before with my halfling, even on advantage rolls (which would require a quadruple 1), so there's still indication that it's buggy in some fashion). The final results also indicate that the modifiers were affecting the roll target, not the raw roll, as they do elsewhere, so it wasn't as though they were missing from where we'd expect to see them.

What we seem to be seeing here is that the character with the more favourable condition is actually getting a favoured roll on top of their buffs – an unseen bias on the die. That's not cool. It could be a bug, or something not applying correctly, but right now it looks suspicious.

Suffice to say I'm just about out of die-recording stamina for the time being...

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
I really enjoyed reading that Niara. When I get a free weekend I'm going to track my dice rolls.

Especially the evidence for lucky being bugged I had no idea it might be. I haven't played as a halfling yet. I'd like to set up a file to run tests with the Necromancy book as well.

Joined: Jan 2021
U
stranger
Offline
stranger
U
Joined: Jan 2021
Frequent Misses are very annoying
High ground especially. Had trouble with harpy battle in the first hour or two of the game. Defeated 3 harpies and the
4th one was far away but two from my party kept coming in and out of battle and the remaining harpy had no turns. It became unplayable and had to choose a different path and totally avoid the harpy investigate the beach quest
I played only yesterday night on stadia so I know that this is current issue and this bug has not been addressed yet

Joined: Jan 2021
G
gmnenad Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
G
Joined: Jan 2021
Unrealistic misses ( eg if you often miss 4 times in a row what should have been 75% hit ) are different issue from my OP point here - I also have those "unrealistic" strings of misses sometimes, and it could be tied to low hp or bosses as you mentioned. It is important to note that even perfectly fair RNG have chance for such misses, but in example I gave it would be less than 1 in 250 chance. So for it to happen to me twice in few hours is strange - and I would agree that some misses are unrealistic.

I suspect that, in some scenarios, game does not show correct hit chance %. But this is different issue from my OP "misses", where even when misses happen exactly at rate shown by tooltip, they are too often for my liking.

Also, unrealistic skill checks are different issue both from unrealistic misses and from my OP realistic misses issue. It happened to me several times, sometimes in positive direction (eg, I got 20 three times in a row when rolling on well in Blighted Village that lead to spider cave ), and sometimes in negative direction - most recent example is that I needed to reload 10 times (!) on "confused Ox" or whatewere its name was ( in barn just next to Zhentarim hideout entrance barn ) , where it has two skill checks, one for 5 and other for 6 ... should have been fairly easy. And yet, I got roll result under 6 around 10 times in a row ( had to reload 7 times, three times out of those I passed '5' requirement with exactly 5, and failed on '6' requirement, and four times I failed even on first '5' requirements... two of those were roll 1 ). Probability for that in 'fail' d20 roll is around 1 in 1 million (!!) , and that is just probability to roll under 6 for 10 times in a row - in my case I was rolling mostly under 5 too .

What I think is that some skill rolls are intentionally rigged, to make them either much easier or much harder , regardless of what roll target says. Personally, I do not think that is good approach - why not just show '1' as roll target on village well, and 18 as target on Ox ? But ,again, this is different 'misses' issue from my OP about regular combat misses.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5