Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#773503 18/05/21 10:15 AM
Joined: Apr 2021
Tey Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2021
Through the entire game you get the feeling that the game wants you to fail at certain "rolling" situations. And not only by a high requiring number, sometimes that number isn't high at all but your rolls are pulled down.
Test it a few times and usually after 3-rd - 4-th attempt you may get a positive result. Those extra throws that you collect in game have a higher chance on pulling higher number. Still, if you simply play, without bother of testing, you may blame your luck. But if you are curious enough, you are bound to notice that your pulls are rigged and sometimes rigged shamelessly.

Discovering The Bog... With the wizard you need 9 to unveil its true form. I gave it 9 attempts without using extra roll and I've been pulling nothing higher then 5. I am not kidding, in 9 attempts 5 came 4 times and was the highest number. Even if I had any doubts about rolls being rigged, this example would dissolve them completely, though by this time I already had no doubts about this fact, it's just nothing was THAT obvious until now. The extra throw gave me 14 on a first attempt, which is a minimum requirement if I used Investigation instead of Arcana...

My question is WHY? What's the point of this? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of having this dice system to begin with? If you want something to be hard, increase the requirement number, why mess with the rolls? Sooner or later someone is bound to notice and will feel cheated. Doesn't make any sense...


My heart will take me there, where my feet cannot...
Tey #773504 18/05/21 10:36 AM
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
There are a lot of discussions about the dices and I have a admit that outside combats, in some situations I also have this feeling that the game doesn't want me to suceed.

Not sure it's a RNG problem or something else (like my own perception maybe) because in combats it looks okay to me.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 18/05/21 12:25 PM.
Tey #773508 18/05/21 11:05 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Well, one of public secrets (as far as i know) is that true "randomness" is impossible to achieve, since computer is unable to deal with uncertain values. O_o
Therefore, you must create some pseudorandom number generator (personaly i prefer using miliseconds as imput, but im lazy) ... im honestly not sure wich method Larian is using ... i can asure you that "9 attempts" are certainly not enough to create some conclusions, you would need at least few hundert attempts to get some relative results. O_o
But the less data (read as attempts) you have, the more skewed results you get. wink

In short, its certainly possible that there is some problem with random numbers generator, but i honestly doubt its intented.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 18/05/21 11:06 AM.

I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Tey #773510 18/05/21 11:15 AM
Joined: May 2021
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
If you ask 1024 people to flip a coin, and all those who get heads stick around to flip again, you would expect to have 512 people flipping a second time. And 256 flipping a third, and 128 flipping a 4th, and 64 flipping a 5th and 32 flipping a 6th, and 16 flipping a 7th, and 8 flipping an 8th and 4 flipping a 9th and 2 flipping a 10th, and 1 person out of 1024 is expected to flip 11 heads in a row.

To reiterate, if 1 person out of 1024 people flips heads 11 times in a row, that doesn't indicate that they have a weighted coin. That is an entirely expected outcome consistent with a 50% probability of getting heads or tails on any given flip.

Baldur's Gate 3 has sold over 1 million copies. Do you think out of 1 million people it would be expected or unexpected that one of them would roll low 9 times in a row?

Tey #773513 18/05/21 11:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Tey
Through the entire game you get the feeling that the game wants you to fail at certain "rolling" situations. And not only by a high requiring number, sometimes that number isn't high at all but your rolls are pulled down.
Test it a few times and usually after 3-rd - 4-th attempt you may get a positive result. Those extra throws that you collect in game have a higher chance on pulling higher number. Still, if you simply play, without bother of testing, you may blame your luck. But if you are curious enough, you are bound to notice that your pulls are rigged and sometimes rigged shamelessly.

Discovering The Bog... With the wizard you need 9 to unveil its true form. I gave it 9 attempts without using extra roll and I've been pulling nothing higher then 5. I am not kidding, in 9 attempts 5 came 4 times and was the highest number. Even if I had any doubts about rolls being rigged, this example would dissolve them completely, though by this time I already had no doubts about this fact, it's just nothing was THAT obvious until now. The extra throw gave me 14 on a first attempt, which is a minimum requirement if I used Investigation instead of Arcana...

My question is WHY? What's the point of this? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of having this dice system to begin with? If you want something to be hard, increase the requirement number, why mess with the rolls? Sooner or later someone is bound to notice and will feel cheated. Doesn't make any sense...

Was this your first time you saw the extra roll function?
I'm pretty sure the game is set up in such a way that the first tutorial roll is designed to fail and the re-roll automatically succeeds just for tutorial purposes.

Tey #773527 18/05/21 03:13 PM
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Tey
Discovering The Bog... With the wizard you need 9 to unveil its true form. I gave it 9 attempts without using extra roll and I've been pulling nothing higher then 5. I am not kidding, in 9 attempts 5 came 4 times and was the highest number.
9 rolls isn't nearly enough to determine if the game's rng is weighted. Humans are bad at detecting randomness. Especially because we expect hits and are frustrated by misses, so we're so much more likely to remember multiple misses. As @Droata says, you are one of ~a million players playing BG3; having 9 failures in a row on this check statistically has to happen to one of them.

With a d20, you need to record at least 300 (preferably 500+) rolls. Only then can you perform a statistical test to see if your rolls are significantly different from expectation. Larian's non-loaded rng is known to streaky, but it streaks both with low- and high-valued rolls and over the course of 300+ rolls it approaches something approximating true randomness.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 18/05/21 03:37 PM.
Joined: Apr 2021
Tey Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by EvilVik
Was this your first time you saw the extra roll function?
I'm pretty sure the game is set up in such a way that the first tutorial roll is designed to fail and the re-roll automatically succeeds just for tutorial purposes.

No, it's not the first time I saw extra roll and it wasn't a tutorial. It was discovery of the bog, I'm guessing you are yet to discover it.


My heart will take me there, where my feet cannot...
Joined: Apr 2021
Tey Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
9 rolls isn't nearly enough to determine if the game's rng is weighted. Humans are bad at detecting randomness. Especially because we expect hits and are frustrated by misses, so we're so much more likely to remember multiple misses. As @Droata says, you are one of ~a million players playing BG3; having 9 failures in a row on this check statistically has to happen to one of them.

With a d20, you need to record at least 300 (preferably 500+) rolls. Only then can you perform a statistical test to see if your rolls are significantly different from expectation. Larian's non-loaded rng is known to streaky, but it streaks both with low- and high-valued rolls and over the course of 300+ rolls it approaches something approximating true randomness.

In 9 times I've hit 4 digits. There wasn't even a 2. It was 1, 3, 4, 5 on 20 sided dice. So, it's not about 9 failures, it's about not hitting anything above 5 in 9 turns on 20 sided dice. And as I said earlier, this feeling persist throughout the game, in same situations with different characters.


My heart will take me there, where my feet cannot...
Tey #773544 18/05/21 07:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Tey
Originally Posted by EvilVik
Was this your first time you saw the extra roll function?
I'm pretty sure the game is set up in such a way that the first tutorial roll is designed to fail and the re-roll automatically succeeds just for tutorial purposes.

No, it's not the first time I saw extra roll and it wasn't a tutorial. It was discovery of the bog, I'm guessing you are yet to discover it.

On my current playthrough I haven't been there yet, so I can quite easily check it.

Tey #773545 18/05/21 07:27 PM
Joined: Apr 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2021
So running up there with my Ranger:

First try of investigation: DC 16, rolled 15 (fail)
Second try: Ranger/Nature: DC 11, rolled 10, re-roll 1, re-roll 11 (success)
Third: Ranger/Nature: DC 11, rolled 7, re-roll 14 (success)
Fourth: Ranger/Nature: DC 11, rolled 19 (success)

Tried with Gale - DC 9
Success on first attempt with a 12

Tey #773547 18/05/21 07:50 PM
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Tey
In 9 times I've hit 4 digits. There wasn't even a 2. It was 1, 3, 4, 5 on 20 sided dice. So, it's not about 9 failures, it's about not hitting anything above 5 in 9 turns on 20 sided dice. And as I said earlier, this feeling persist throughout the game, in same situations with different characters.
I assume you have the "loaded/weighted die" setting on? (It's the default setting.) Larian added this weighted dice system to "fix" the streakiness of their rng, and in a recent hotfix they made it so only low-valued streaks were eliminated from their rng (allowing players to still get "hot streaks"). It is possible that their recent hotfix has broken this mechanic, but again this can't be determined with only 9 rolls. It is equally likely for you to only roll values above 15, but in this case you probably wouldn't feel strongly enough to make a forum post.

If you don't have the "loaded die" setting on, then yes the fact that Larian's rng produces multiple consecutive low-numbered values in a row is a known issue. It does the same for high-valued rolls. It baffles me how Larian ended up choosing such an obviously poor random number generator...

I would be very interested in determining if Larian's recent hotfix to the loaded dice system is actually broken. If you're (plus a combination of other people like @EvilVik) willing to record even 100 rolls, we could at least test whether the average roll is close to the expected average of 10.5

Tey #773606 19/05/21 05:33 AM
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
For people's consideration while discussing the dice in this game, I'll return this test that was discussed some time ago, which I cannot now find the thread for any more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tdyBoQNS_vwEGZGBgFRQex7b-Ma8S6P7zvEMK5wh9n4/edit?usp=sharing

This test was taken shortly before the introduction of the loaded dice 'fix', and illustrates that the RNG Larian is using is not a very good one, in light of being the basis for a game based around the use of a random rolling mechanic for the majority of its important systems.

Rather than fix this problem ,they implemented a hack shortcut to 'load' the dice in the players favour whenever their poorly functioning RNG moves into one of its quite predictable downswings. This doesn't fix the problem and it comes at the cost of the game back-handedly calling the player a cheater, and demeaning them for choosing to have it turned on.


(Edit: to explain the document, the left hand columns are a series 200 consecutive rolls taken under as near to stable conditions as could be achieved, in a series of different roll-based video games. The upper chart on the right shows the various averages and means of each game's results, while the graphs then show a plotting of each game's consecutive rolls; BG3 is at the top, and shows a substantial flaw compared to all of the others.)

Last edited by Niara; 19/05/21 05:36 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
For people's consideration while discussing the dice in this game, I'll return this test that was discussed some time ago, which I cannot now find the thread for any more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tdyBoQNS_vwEGZGBgFRQex7b-Ma8S6P7zvEMK5wh9n4/edit?usp=sharing

This test was taken shortly before the introduction of the loaded dice 'fix', and illustrates that the RNG Larian is using is not a very good one, in light of being the basis for a game based around the use of a random rolling mechanic for the majority of its important systems.

Rather than fix this problem ,they implemented a hack shortcut to 'load' the dice in the players favour whenever their poorly functioning RNG moves into one of its quite predictable downswings. This doesn't fix the problem and it comes at the cost of the game back-handedly calling the player a cheater, and demeaning them for choosing to have it turned on.


(Edit: to explain the document, the left hand columns are a series 200 consecutive rolls taken under as near to stable conditions as could be achieved, in a series of different roll-based video games. The upper chart on the right shows the various averages and means of each game's results, while the graphs then show a plotting of each game's consecutive rolls; BG3 is at the top, and shows a substantial flaw compared to all of the others.)

Have you looked at the summary table in the linked sheet?

BG3........ Avg: 10.6....Median: 11
NWN........Avg: 10.9....Median: 11
NWN2.......Avg: 10.5....Median: 10
S:CotM .....Avg: 10.4....Median: 11

For a very small sample size (200)the average Average is 10.6.
BG3 is exactly 0 deviations from this Average.
All the Medians are the same except for NWN2 which is 1 different.

To what problem are you referring?

Joined: Aug 2016
J
stranger
Offline
stranger
J
Joined: Aug 2016
Originally Posted by Niara
For people's consideration while discussing the dice in this game, I'll return this test that was discussed some time ago, which I cannot now find the thread for any more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tdyBoQNS_vwEGZGBgFRQex7b-Ma8S6P7zvEMK5wh9n4/edit?usp=sharing

This test was taken shortly before the introduction of the loaded dice 'fix', and illustrates that the RNG Larian is using is not a very good one, in light of being the basis for a game based around the use of a random rolling mechanic for the majority of its important systems.

Rather than fix this problem ,they implemented a hack shortcut to 'load' the dice in the players favour whenever their poorly functioning RNG moves into one of its quite predictable downswings. This doesn't fix the problem and it comes at the cost of the game back-handedly calling the player a cheater, and demeaning them for choosing to have it turned on.


(Edit: to explain the document, the left hand columns are a series 200 consecutive rolls taken under as near to stable conditions as could be achieved, in a series of different roll-based video games. The upper chart on the right shows the various averages and means of each game's results, while the graphs then show a plotting of each game's consecutive rolls; BG3 is at the top, and shows a substantial flaw compared to all of the others.)

What problem? the BG3 chart looks completely fine with this 200 roll example. It almost hits the perfect average. Each group of 5 (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20) are all near 50 rolls. This comparison doesn't highlight any problems with BG3s RNG.

Here is the problem. People think experienced randomness means you should get similar highs and low. This is true is large large samples. True randomness doesn't favor any one number over another. You rolling a 5 has no impact over what you will roll next. True randomness does not care about streaks or patterns. Any change to remove streaks is dice manipulation. In fact, we would expect streakiness in a truly random number generator.

We feel the low rolls hard in BG3 because 5e has much lower success rates in general compared to proper built characters in prior editions. Bonuses and stat stacking is much harder in 5e compared to basic DCs and ACs.

At this point, there isn't any concrete evidence pointing to their dice system is flawed. The real question is whether true randomness is something we as players really want in our video games. This very experience will always happen with true randomness.

Last edited by JiruoVX; 19/05/21 06:28 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by JiruoVX
What problem? the BG3 chart looks completely fine with this 200 roll example. It almost hits the perfect average. Each group of 5 (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20) are all near 50 rolls. This comparison doesn't highlight any problems with BG3s RNG.

Here is the problem. People think experienced randomness means you should get similar highs and low. This is true is large large samples. True randomness doesn't favor any one number over another. You rolling a 5 has no impact over what you will roll next. True randomness does not care about streaks or patterns. Any change to remove streaks is dice manipulation. In fact, we would expect streakiness in a truly random number generator.
I've highlighted the issue with BG3 (with "loaded dice" off) randomness. If you look at @Niara's plots, it is clear that BG3 rolls happen in a sine-wave pattern. Low rolls are preferentially followed by low rolls, etc.

I calculated the following sometime back using @Niara's dataset, but can't find the post so am typing it by memory:
rolls of 1-5 are followed by an average roll of ~9.8
rolls of 6-10 are followed by an average roll of ~10.3
rolls of 11-15 are followed by an average roll of ~10.8
rolls of 16-20 are followed by an average roll of ~11.3

It is possible that Niara encountered a weird patch of RNG, and that her data isn't representative of most rng in BG3. But the clear sine wave pattern is worrying, and I've seen no evidence against it (not many people have recorded the order of their rolls).

Originally Posted by JiruoVX
At this point, there isn't any concrete evidence pointing to their dice system is flawed. The real question is whether true randomness is something we as players really want in our video games. This very experience will always happen with true randomness.
You're incorrect here. I've collected 500 dice rolls (loaded dice = off) from players and the sample is inconsistent with a pure uniform sample.
n=508 rolls
average=11.16 (The expected standard deviation of a n=508 sample is 0.256, putting our average 2.6-sigma off from the expected average of 10.5)
chi^2=30.89 (greater than the critical value of 30.1, so we can reject the hypothesis that BG3's rng is generating an even distribution of numbers with 95% confidence)
Biggest Offenders
--1 appears 60% as often as it should, a 2.1-sigma difference from expectation
--6 appears 70% as often as it should, a 1.5-sigma difference
--17 appears 1.77x more often than it should, a 3.9-sigma difference
However, the "loaded dice" system (before the recent hotfix and using 750 rolls) was consistent with a uniform distribution.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 19/05/21 06:54 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Alodar
Have you looked at the summary table in the linked sheet?

Yes... After all, I am the one who put the time and work in to record, chart and make it.

Quote
To what problem are you referring?


To the fact that, even though, in the long run, the end results deliver the expected averages, overall, the RNG is deeply flawed in its production of its pseudo-random numbers - and creates a visible wave pattern strong enough that you can actively see its algorithm working; I don't wish to believe that anyone posting here is simple-minded enough that they cannot see why this is a deeply damaging problem for the RNG of a game whose every mechanic is based around using that RNG... You aren't that stupid, I know you're not; no-one posting here is.

Originally Posted by JiruoVX
What problem? the BG3 chart looks completely fine with this 200 roll example. It almost hits the perfect average. Each group of 5 (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20) are all near 50 rolls. This comparison doesn't highlight any problems with BG3s RNG.

The poorly modulated algorithm that shows, very clearly, the wave pattern of it working without reseed or refreshing its chaos intakes (presuming it has any; it doesn't look like it does). You CAN see it, can't you? When you LOOK at the charts? The uniform wave that continues reliably in a fixed pattern that consequently ensures then when you are in the low swing of the algorithm, you are likely to have successive low rolls, and when you are in the high swing, you are likely to have successive high rolls. This means, by natural extension, that you are MORE likely to miss with advantage when you are in the low part of the algorithm, overall, than you are with a more naturalised RNG, and you are more likely to have functionally 'wasted' advantage as well, when you're in the high end. Creatures attacking you with disadvantage while you're in the high end of the algorithm are more likely to hit you anyway due to successive high rolls, than they would be in a more naturalised RNG; the problems swing both ways and cut in both directions, naturally, but they do cut, and it's a very real, very tangible result of having a weak rng that displays a clear wave pattern.

With this RNG you will see far more instances of "failure against all odds" and more instances of "repeated success with tiny odds"... which is part of the result that has led to the sheer volume of threads about people complaining about the dice on this forum.

This is not confirmation bias; this is a statistical truth that is the result of having such a poor RNG compared to other similar games. This is the root of their dice problem; this is what needs to be fixed, before any other solutions are hacked in as band-aids.

Last edited by Niara; 20/05/21 02:08 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Alodar
Have you looked at the summary table in the linked sheet?

Yes... After all, I am the one who put the time and work in to record, chart and make it.

Quote
To what problem are you referring?


To the fact that, even though, in the long run, the end results deliver the expected averages, overall, the RNG is deeply flawed in its production of its pseudo-random numbers - and creates a visible wave pattern strong enough that you can actively see its algorithm working; I don't wish to believe that anyone posting here is simple-minded enough that they cannot see why this is a deeply damaging problem for the RNG of a game whose every mechanic is based around using that RNG... You aren't that stupid, I know you're not; no-one posting here is.

You seem to be suffering from a mild case of pareidolia.

You are imagining patterns in tiny sample sizes where none exist.

If you wish to truly demonstrate your claim I would recommend you run the trial for a significant number of events(10,000 or so)

Last edited by Alodar; 20/05/21 02:29 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Alodar
You seem to be suffering from a mild case of pareidolia.

Have you looked at the charts? Please do.

I've taken a sample that included consecutive rolls taken from four different games, each of a sample size of 200; there is, within this sample, a clear and distinct pattern that repeats, for one, and not for any of the others.

That is the evidence presented.

If you wish to disprove what I'm saying, then please, By all means, present your consecutive sample of 10000 rolls and illustrate that the pattern disappears. I do not believe that it will, but currently the onus of proof is on YOU, not me. Do the work, if you want to contribute.

200 is a sufficient sample size for a video game RNG (for an isolated game, at least - something like an MMO would demand more) . 1000 would be better, I don't deny, but 200 is sufficient to draw initial conclusions. 10000 is actually excessive, in this situation... but since that's the number you pulled out, I eagerly await your documentation and findings.

Last edited by Niara; 20/05/21 04:18 AM.
Joined: Apr 2021
Tey Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
I assume you have the "loaded/weighted die" setting on? (It's the default setting.) Larian added this weighted dice system to "fix" the streakiness of their rng, and in a recent hotfix they made it so only low-valued streaks were eliminated from their rng (allowing players to still get "hot streaks"). It is possible that their recent hotfix has broken this mechanic, but again this can't be determined with only 9 rolls. It is equally likely for you to only roll values above 15, but in this case you probably wouldn't feel strongly enough to make a forum post.

If you don't have the "loaded die" setting on, then yes the fact that Larian's rng produces multiple consecutive low-numbered values in a row is a known issue. It does the same for high-valued rolls. It baffles me how Larian ended up choosing such an obviously poor random number generator...

I would be very interested in determining if Larian's recent hotfix to the loaded dice system is actually broken. If you're (plus a combination of other people like @EvilVik) willing to record even 100 rolls, we could at least test whether the average roll is close to the expected average of 10.5

I played with loaded/unloaded dice, not sure which way it is now, will have to check. But since it is a known issue, I apologize for stressing it again, I'm new to the community. I did the search on dice before posting but didn't find anything specific.
However, the main and possibly the only reason why I brought it up in the first place, is the fact that different characters from different playthroughs, faced the same challenges in the same situations, including some dialogues. That's where the feeling about the game "not wanting" you to succeed in certain areas is coming from.
Sorry, I cannot be more specific at this time, it's late and I am melting, but frequent deja vus in game inevitably inspire a suspicion. Anyway, you and others have convinced me that this is not intended by design but rather imperfection of it. Well, almost convinced me, it doesn't explain different character-same outcome thing, but I can find content in fact that this is something that is being discussed and probably worked on.

Thank you everyone for your explanations.

Last edited by Tey; 20/05/21 07:18 AM.

My heart will take me there, where my feet cannot...
Tey #773755 20/05/21 07:48 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Very simple problem. The <Larian dices> are either rigged or bugged.

I took a regular D20 and rolled it 100 times. Repeated 3x.
Also got the data from 100 rolls in BG3. Repeated 3x.
The results are shocking, and unsurprising. There IS A DEFINITIVE CLEAR PATTERN in the BG3 dice. Far from <random> results. All BG3 3x had a similar numbers curve while the REAL D20 did NOT.
Test it yourselves.

#For the hell of it, also did the same for Solasta...and the result is LIKE A REAL DICE. There was no definitive pattern.
Its just so amazing to me that Larian is so up and full of themselves that they have to screw with DICES. Leave tested and proved mechanics and stuff ALONE! ! Same crap goes for the UI and controls...

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 20/05/21 08:02 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

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