86 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Taifun]

BoogieManFL wrote...
And it's not like you guys have to reply.

Please stop using this as an argument. While it is technically true, you should not post things you suspect might be inflammatory. As such, your comment reminds me of the saying "DNFTT", if you get my meaning.

My hope for this thread was for people to came and say, No, I've not had such experiences. Or, yes I have. Perhaps naming a few that are most prominent.

But this is where you don't get my critique, apparently. An evaluation of the odds should not be about naming a few singular experiences. That does not work.
If you do not actually care about whether or not the dice are loaded and simply want to hear stories about other peoples misadventures then you should change the title of the thread.

Not all this what looks to me to be much like religeous fervurous zealotry.

Stop it. Seriously.
People have given you the space to name your doubts. Yes, you were told you were probably imagining things but without further evidence, that is the most likely scenario.

And then you posted your 4 little stories as "proof", which is precisely the point where I for one stopped taking you seriously.

[BoogieManFL]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...
And then you posted your 4 little stories as "proof", which is precisely the point where I for one stopped taking you seriously.

Yet here you still are.

Modifié par BoogieManFL, 14 août 2012 - 05:44 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Since that is the only thing that you respond to any more, I will assume that your characters simply had no other report-worthy incidents of "bad luck" that could possibly serve as the much needed bigger sample. I will therefore stop hoping that this conversation will get anywhere.

[Shadow_Leech07]

BoogieManFL wrote...

My posts have been defensive, or wasting time clarfying what I thought was painfully obvious. And it's not like you guys have to reply.  I'm not forcing anything. Again, pointless discussion which has nothing to do with the core of the post.

Do you dislike when we reply? Are you angry that people are challenging your belief that the game is cheating you on dice rolls? Are we not allowed to express an opinion or interpret what you are trying to establish?

My hope for this thread was for people to came and say, No, I've not had such experiences. Or, yes I have. Perhaps naming a few that are most prominent.

Are you saying that you only wish to hear the opinions of people who have shared the same experience that you have? That no dissenting opinion is allowed?

Not all this what looks to me to be much like religeous fervurous zealotry. Why so many people take things that do not directly involve or affect them in any way so personally is always a barrier on the internet.

Since we are in a Baldur's Gate forum, why wouldn't it involve us? You made a claim that the game is cheating you on a frequent if not constant basis. Why can't such notion be challenged?

As mentioned by H_T already, please provide us with more examples. I also would be happy to walk my fighter around the city to be mugged and attacked if you are.

Modifié par Shadow_Leech07, 14 août 2012 - 06:25 .

[BoogieManFL]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Since that is the only thing that you respond to any more, I will assume that your characters simply had no other report-worthy incidents of "bad luck" that could possibly serve as the much needed bigger sample. I will therefore stop hoping that this conversation will get anywhere.

What's the alternative? 10 events? 100?

 This was a casually made post, I'm not going to give you a list of everything that has ever happened, as if I could even give 100% accurate numbers from my playthroughs throughout the years. Because no doubt their accuracy would be called into question, making the whole endeavor pointless anyways.

Modifié par BoogieManFL, 14 août 2012 - 06:50 .

[BoogieManFL]

BoogieManFL wrote...
My hope for this thread was for people to came and say, No, I've not had such experiences. Or, yes I have. Perhaps naming a few that are most prominent.

Shadow_Leech07 wrote...
Are you saying that you only wish to hear the opinions of people who
have shared the same experience that you have? That no dissenting
opinion is allowed?

 I don't understand why you wrote that statement, as it is clearly stated otherwise in my text you quoted.  ????





 Some people who have shared similar experiences stated yes they have and merely went about their business. Those of you who haven't, have attacked me, stating how they don't believe me and all sorts of negativly charged remarks, essentially calling me a liar. That isn't constructive discussion.

Point is, if you don't believe me, oh well. That's your right. There is little way I can further explain. Being random in nature, even IF it's slightly biased one way or another, you're probably not going to see it even after extensive testing. I could test it 1000 times, and get a different result than 1000 other people testing it 1000 times themselves.

 There is no possible way for me to "prove" this to you people, so you're statements and attacks have no constructive value whatsoever.

 It's simple and I don't understand the difficulty. If you're experienced it, you have. If you haven't, then yes, you haven't.

 The lack of comprehension and meaningful communication has lead me to decide to stop right here and now, because it's just painful to read.

Modifié par BoogieManFL, 14 août 2012 - 06:48 .

[Shadow_Leech07]

BoogieManFL wrote...
I don't understand why you wrote that statement, as it is clearly stated otherwise in my text you quoted.  ????

You seem to constantly dismiss people who disagree with you with statements such as this

Why so many people take things that do not directly involve or affect them in any way so personally is always a barrier on the internet.

BoogieManFL wrote...
Point is, if you don't believe me, oh well. That's your right. There is little way I can further explain. Being random in nature, even IF it's slightly biased one way or another, you're probably not going to see it even after extensive testing. I could test it 1000 times, and get a different result than 1000 other people testing it 1000 times themselves.

However once again I point to your original statement made in your opening post

However, every time I do a replay I swear the game either cheats or enemies are very dilberately overpowered.

Apparently it's happening to you all the time, unless I am misinterpreting what every time is. Shouldn't people like me be able to duplicate something that is occurring to you all the time?  I am playing Baldur's Gate 2 am I not? I don't have any mods installed BTW, it's the pure original game straight out of the box. Now unless you are saying that it isn't happening every time and that you have exagerated a bit, I can understand that and leave it at that.

Some people who have shared similar experiences stated yes they have and merely went about their business. Those of you who haven't, have attacked me, stating how they don't believe me and all sorts of negativly charged remarks, essentially calling me a liar. That isn't constructive discussion.

Because they agreed with you, what else would they have to say? Think about a situation where two people look at the ocean(just an analogy). One person saids he sees someone in the distance. The other person saids that it is not a person but a rock. Obviously there is going to be a dispute. You claim the game is cheating, and I am saying that it is not.

There is no possible way for me to "prove" this to you people, so you're statements and attacks have no constructive value whatsoever.

We only asked because it seemed to be an outlier case that you were getting screwed every time. And once again you feel the need to bash dissenting opinion. I feel my statements and opinions do have constructive value. And once again I ask why I am not allowed to defend the game. We seem to be going in circles now.

Modifié par Shadow_Leech07, 14 août 2012 - 07:08 .

[Gate70]

BoogieManFL wrote...
Well, what prompted me to finally comment on this was two things. There is a trapped door in the Bridge District that petrifies on activation. Of course Minsc gets to do the door first and get petrified. I reload it 3 times just for giggles and he fails each time, with Petrify/Polymorph at 3 (-3). Eh, it happens. Mathematically unlikely but it happens. Oh well.

Can you be more specific please. If you are referring to the door to the elemental lich, the petrification effect is subject to a saving throw for Spells and not Petrify/Polymorph (at least it is in my install).

Modifié par Gate70, 14 août 2012 - 07:44 .

[Gate70]

BoogieManFL wrote...
Then I go into the Sewers and get attacked by a group of like 9 Kobolds. Killed the caster first with a Flame Arrow from the main character. Aerie and Imoen flame arrowed two more, all which died basically instantly as expected. Viconia fumbled with her sling and accomplished little, Minsc and Jaheira mop up most of the others, but one lone archer Kobold remained. Shooting his little short bow and regular arrows at Jahiera. Repeatedly hitting her when she has a base AC of -12, and bonus vs. missle weapons on her gear, mostly from the fortress shield. Her adjustment vs. Missle weapons is *-17*. So out of pure morbid curiosity I stopped everyone and stood there. Out of 8 shots it hit her 5 times. Really?

Would need more specific detail here please rather than make assumptions. Did it roll 5 criticals, or was it hitting on 19's or below (have you turned on the Gameplay/feedback/To Hit Rolls text and what modifiers was it giving).

[corey_russell]

I'm not interested in any arguments, but since we are talking about computers and randomness, I thought I would mention something. Everyone understands that computers are not really "random"? There's something called a random number table. Programs use seeds, hopefully sufficiently random themselves, such as the computer timer, which in turn determine where in the table does the random number start. If a program fails to use a sufficiently random enough seed, you could very well get the same result over and over, though statistically should be very unlikely. Very early in my programming career, I tried to use the ran[dom]() function and was surprised I got the same result over and over. Later I discovered it was because I used the same seed all the time.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Sure, you are right in that "true" randomness does not exist, but of course that does not really mean the game is non-random.
Just as "any sufficienctly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", so is any process that we cannot fully comprehend to be called random.

[corey_russell]

Oh, I believe randomness exists, organic creatures like humans are quite good at that if they so choose. A computer's randomness is "artificial", and if not programmed correctly can lead to the same result over and over in what is theoretically a random process is all I am pointing out.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

corey_russell wrote...
Oh, I believe randomness exists, organic creatures like humans are quite good at that if they so choose. A computer's randomness is "artificial", and if not programmed correctly can lead to the same result over and over in what is theoretically a random process is all I am pointing out.

Cause and effect are present in both humans and computers. Computers are usually programmed by us and thus more easily understood, but you'd be surprised how "random" your own random responses really are for people who know how to read (or program) you. Same thing goes for actual dice and basically everything else that serves as a randomness generator.

[The Potty 1]

I loaded my FMT in shadowkeeper, set all saves to 11, cheated in some likely scrolls, and loaded the save. I cast lots of spells, but only two gave meaningful results, stinking cloud and incendiary cloud. I thought web would too, but once you fail one save it seems to list several fails. Mind you I only turned on pause at end of round and show dice rolls afterwards, so perhaps it's still worth testing.

Note Incendiary Cloud allows a save vs spells for half damage, while Stinking Cloud allows a save vs poison at +2.

Anyway here are the results:

I cast Incendiary 3 times, the first time I failed 3 saves and succeeded the other 7, the second two castings I failed 7 and succeeded 3 saves. Seems pretty normal.

I cast Stinking Cloud 5 times, although they do all overlap. I failed 2 saves and succeeded 28. This seems a bit high, although of course they're adding 2 to whatever I roll, note the 21 third from the bottom. In any case if the results are loaded, they appear to be in my favour. Damn, we really need to test something that saves at -2.

Modifié par The Potty 1, 15 août 2012 - 08:57 .

[The Potty 1]

Here are the actual results:

Incendiary Cloud, Save vs spell ?, Save vs spell ?, Save vs spell ?, Save vs spell ?, Damage taken, Damage taken, Save vs spell ?, Damage taken, Save vs spell ?, Save vs spell ?

Incendiary Cloud, Save vs spell 18, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, Save vs spell 19, Damage taken, End of Round, Save vs spell 19, End of Round

Incendiary Cloud, Save vs spell 17, End of Round, save vs spell 13, End of Round, Damage taken, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, save vs spell 12, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, End of Round, Damage taken, Damage taken, End of Round

Stinking Cloud, Save vs Death 19, Save vs Death 20, End of Round, Save vs Death 14, Stinking Cloud, Save vs Death 17, End of Round, Stinking Cloud, Save vs Death 17, Save vs Death 19, Save vs Death 14, Save vs Death 12, Save vs Death 17, Save vs Death 13, Save vs Death 13, Save vs Death 16, End of Round, Stinking Cloud, Save vs Death 15, Save vs Death 21, Unconscious, Save vs Death 13, Save vs Death 13, Save vs Death 19, Save vs Death 12, Save vs Death 17, Save vs Death 19, End of Round, Stinking Cloud, Save vs Death 15, Save vs Death 17, Save vs Death 14, Save vs Death 21, Save vs Death 13, End of Round, Save vs Death 21, Save vs Death 15, Save vs Death 14, Unconscious

[morbidest2]

corey_russell wrote...

I'm not interested in any arguments, but since we are talking about computers and randomness, I thought I would mention something. Everyone understands that computers are not really "random"? There's something called a random number table. Programs use seeds, hopefully sufficiently random themselves, such as the computer timer, which in turn determine where in the table does the random number start. If a program fails to use a sufficiently random enough seed, you could very well get the same result over and over, though statistically should be very unlikely. Very early in my programming career, I tried to use the ran[dom]() function and was surprised I got the same result over and over. Later I discovered it was because I used the same seed all the time.

Might this not explain some of the comments above from people who state that they've seen a "pattern" in the computer rolls. As I understand what you're saying, what's really random is the point that you enter the Random Number Table at the start of a battle.But once you're in it, it rolls along in the same old way. Would anyone care to speculate how long this Table is? 100 entries? 256? 1000?
  

[The Potty 1]

Yes computer random isn't really random, but it's close enough for our purposes. If this is really true, it's either a bug, or developer intent, not a lack of randomness. Hey, maybe they applied the save modifier twice by accident?

[corey_russell]

morbidest2 wrote...

corey_russell wrote...

I'm not interested in any arguments, but since we are talking about computers and randomness, I thought I would mention something. Everyone understands that computers are not really "random"? There's something called a random number table. Programs use seeds, hopefully sufficiently random themselves, such as the computer timer, which in turn determine where in the table does the random number start. If a program fails to use a sufficiently random enough seed, you could very well get the same result over and over, though statistically should be very unlikely. Very early in my programming career, I tried to use the ran[dom]() function and was surprised I got the same result over and over. Later I discovered it was because I used the same seed all the time.

Might this not explain some of the comments above from people who state that they've seen a "pattern" in the computer rolls. As I understand what you're saying, what's really random is the point that you enter the Random Number Table at the start of a battle.But once you're in it, it rolls along in the same old way. Would anyone care to speculate how long this Table is? 100 entries? 256? 1000?
  

It's a very large table. It would take quite a while before you would "loop' around. Probably 1000's of entries. As for seeding, most programs just seed once, when they get loaded. But I don't know how BG 2 does that in its code.

[AnonymousHero]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Sure, you are right in that "true" randomness does not exist, but of course that does not really mean the game is non-random.

True randomness does exist in the physical world. An example would be radioactive decay. (And a lot of other quantum effects are truly random as far as current theories in physics can tell.)

corey_russell wrote...
Oh, I believe randomness exists, organic creatures like humans are quite good at that if they so choose.

Humans are terrible at producing random numbers (but maybe that's not what you meant?). This is evidenced by the fact that the number 7 (or was it 8, I forget) is chosen more often when people are asked to produce a random number between 1 and 10.

corey_russell wrote...
There's something called a random number table.

This is oversimiplifying far too much. (Pseudo-)random numbers are definitely not stored in nor generated by lookup from any kind of table. PRNs are (most often) produced by starting with some state (the seed) and repeatedly applying some sort of formula to that state to produce the next number in the sequence and the next state.

Wikipedia claims that, e.g. the Mersenne Twister PRNG has a period of around 4.3×10^(6,001). That is, it doesn't repeat itself until at least that many random numbers have been produced.
For comparison, the number of estimated atoms in the entire observable universe is on the order of 10^80.

EDIT: Bolding to clarify whom I'm quoting where.

Modifié par AnonymousHero, 15 août 2012 - 03:44 .

[corey_russell]

Perhaps this has changed, but back when I was coding basic there was a random number table, that stored numbers from 0 to 0.99999999, and each number was a significant amount of digits, 8 I think. So therefore, if I wanted a random number from 1 to 20 I would write this:

INT(RND(1))*20)+1

The INT would drop the fraction, the 1 in () is the seed, and the 20 and +1 are the ranges. Now, I'm not saying any number repeats, BUT they would sometimes seem to if you were converting those numbers from 1 to 20, which would simulate a D&D dice roll. Example:0.020 and 0.025 are different numbers, but if you multiply by 20, add 1 then drop the fraction both result in a roll of 1.

[BelgarathMTH]

Well, I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread any more, but I still find two issues interesting if we can discuss them without emotion or fighting: the nature of random number strings in computer programs, as interjected by Corey, and the psychological phenomenon of selectively reinforced memory (which has a few other names and psychological phenomena related to it.)

I was fighting a troll, and I started to feel the sense of unfairness in the numbers again. So, I wrote down all the troll's rolls. I can post screenshots that I took if necessary, but maybe I don't really need to. This was the troll's attack rolls (before adjustments), from first attack to death of the troll:

12 17 9 11 19 2 3 19 19 1 18 19 2 13 16 16 18

My intuition is that there are far too many double numbers, and far too many 18's and 19's in this string. However, I also noticed when I was studying the transcript, that I was tending to scan over and ignore all the low rolls. So maybe the string is fair and legit, after all, and I was succumbing to my emotions.

Hmm, so then, suppose we string up those low rolls: 12 9 11 2 3 1 2 13

And then, string up the high rolls: 17 19 19 19 18 19 16 16 18

That's 8 low rolls and 9 high rolls. Combined wth the troll's apparent two or three attacks per round, and my subjective tendency to react emotionally to the high rolls and ignore the low rolls, I am starting to see how I could succumb to human fallibility in forming conclusions from experience. 

So now I suspect from this data that the OP and I are wrong, as accused, and that the calm-minded skeptics are correct.

The only thing that still makes me a bit suspicious of the program's "diceroller", though, is the tendency for excessive double numbers, and the paucity of certain digits. Where are 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 15, not to mention 20? I guess the string isn't really big enough to conclude anything, though, and based on Corey's having taught me about how computer programs generate number strings based on a static seed digit plus a created formula to simulate random number strings, I would say that the truth is a combination of the two sides of the issue. The skeptics are mostly in the right here, but the OP and I have a legitimate perception that these dicerolls are not random. 

I am defining "low roll" as 1-13, and "high roll" as 14 or greater, which swings the data back in favor of the idea that the computer has an advantage, since at least half of its rolls seem to be higher than 14.

However, I think that Corey has cut to the heart of the matter based on his programming experience, and that the OP and I are experiencing a combination of subjective human psychology mixed with the fact that we did not know what Corey taught us about computer-generated number strings.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 17 août 2012 - 01:03 .

[AnonymousHero]

corey_russell wrote...

Perhaps this has changed, but back when I was coding basic there was a random number table, that stored numbers from 0 to 0.99999999, and each number was a significant amount of digits, 8 I think. So therefore, if I wanted a random number from 1 to 20 I would write this:

INT(RND(1))*20)+1

The INT would drop the fraction, the 1 in () is the seed, and the 20 and +1 are the ranges. Now, I'm not saying any number repeats, BUT they would sometimes seem to if you were converting those numbers from 1 to 20, which would simulate a D&D dice roll. Example:0.020 and 0.025 are different numbers, but if you multiply by 20, add 1 then drop the fraction both result in a roll of 1.

Even in BASIC they didn't store pre-generated pseudo-random (PR) numbers in any kind of table -- just think about the memory requirements for such a table and you'll instantly see why.

The Mersenne Twister wasn't really an option in those days (not invented yet), but they probably used some form of Linear Congruential Generator. These do definitely have significant weaknesses (depending on parameters), but they're probably not obvious enough for a human to notice just from the string of PR numbers.

[AnonymousHero]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

(snip excellent test data)

The only thing that still makes me a bit suspicious of the program's "diceroller", though, is the tendency for excessive double numbers, and the paucity of certain digits. Where are 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 15, not to mention 20? I guess the string isn't really big enough to conclude anything, though, and based on Corey's having taught me about how computer programs generate number strings based on a static seed digit plus a created formula to simulate random number strings, I would say that the truth is a combination of the two sides of the issue. The skeptics are mostly in the right here, but the OP and I have a legitimate perception that these dicerolls are not random. 

Kudos for doing a little test. It's probably not enough for any real conclusions, but interesting nonetheless.

There is a definite possibility that the BG PRNG does generate low-quality PR numbers since it's typically a neglected area in programming. In those days, the "default" rand() PRNG was also typically a bad generator.

BelgarathMTH wrote...
However, I think that Corey has cut to the heart of the matter based on his programming experience, and that the OP and I are experiencing a combination of subjective human psychology mixed with the fact that we did not know what Corey taught us about computer-generated number strings.

Not to pick on Corey, but he's simply wrong about how this is done (or was done). Unless I'm misunderstanding him. Have a look at the Wikipedia page for Linear Congruential Generator I linked to in my previous post to understand how a simple PRNG really works -- it's pretty simple and no "tables" in sight.

[corey_russell]

AH: No, I'm not wrong, at least what I was talking about, which was Basic. I do not know the programming language of BG. Here's a link:

http://pages.intnet....torial/Ch13.htm

The key line is this:
"Qbasic uses the RND function to draw upon a pseudo-random sequence of numbers that are stored internally"
A pseudo-random sequence of numbers (that are STORED) sure sounds like a table (in memory) to me! The seed chooses where in the list of numbers you start, which is also what I said previously.

[Gate70]

Corey
You are relying on the author of that link being factually correct - did they write qbasic?
I could point to something that contradicts it, link and extracts below.

forum.qbasicnews.com/index.php

What formula does RND use? And how random is it?  What is the period?  I haven't been in the QB community

Code:
; Algorithm:
;; We use the "linear congruential" method for random numnber (sic) generation. The
; formula is:  x1 = (x0 * a + c) mod 2^24

However, your statement about poor seed choice could still stand (and for all I know the Infinity Engine might have it's own random number generator).

I guess if you had the seed value you could code this formula and compare the outputs to the qbasic RND statement. As qbasic appears to use the same value without the RANDOMISE TIMER statement maybe that would be a fair start. Or if (I think) the first RND output is the seed for the second you could apply the formula to that?

(my head hurts )