Incline Battle Brothers + Beasts & Exploration, Warriors of the North and Blazing Deserts DLC Thread

[Desmodus Rotundus]

90% of the time someone says a game cheats because they missed 4 75% shots in a row they are just being 'tarded and the math checks out when someone samples a proper amount of attacks. 10% of the time developers make the game cheat in favor of the player by adding bonuses for each subsequent missed attack because modern gamers only want the illusion they are being challenged.

Edit: See Mordheim where some autist went ahead and tested the RNG and it was in fact accurate despite a vocal minority being certain the game was cheating because they missed more than one 95% chance to hit attack in a row.

When it comes to Mordheim. All those people testing the rng did, was throw around thousand rolls into a program, and determined that yes, the average percentage comes to about the same as average projected. They didn't account for player side or the enemies. I did my own math, a bit biased, since I only took those missions where I felt the rng being unfair, to AI direction, but I wrote down every hit, dodge and parry chance for both teams calculated their average and every time, consistently it came up as my team hitting dodging and parrying about 10% worse than it sould and also, enemy team hitting dodging and parrying about 10% better than it should. If those percentages hadn't been so consistently around 10% I would have thought that I just had bad luck, but if it's so random, why was it always in the range of 9-11% on both sides, in all three categories? One would expect streaks of low or high numbers to fluctuate and even if you're hitting worse than projected, sometimes enemy is as well etc. When all you test is total rolls(like the person who's touted out as proof of rng fairness in Mordheim community) and don't account for which team is rolling, then you don't see that, since if enemy rolls get boosted and yours get malluses then it averages out when you lump both teams rolls into your algorithm without accounting for it.
A bit autistic of me but I don't care.

I can't believe people are so bad at Mordheim that they think the computer is cheating LOL.
The game is actually pretty easy if you don't bring your impressive in very hard/deadly missions with random deployment. And no the computer is not cheating you idiot.
Mordheim is way more easy than battle brothers. The real challenge is picking only deadly missions or PvP.

That wasn't because I felt that it was hard, just felt the rolls were off from the projected percentage. And every time I felt that, I was proven right. I didn't lose those missions, there were just more misses from me and hits from enemies than I felt was projected. And the interesting part was, that every time my rolls were about 10% worse and enemy ones about 10% better than the projections. If it had fluctuated more I would have just thrown that to rng being rng. But it was too damn consistent.

Oh and Serus, you asked why would dev do this. Just one simple possibility is that devs found in testing, that AI was too easy, so they nudged the rolls a bit. And people don't like to find out that rng cheats so in that case, knowing might drive away customers. Just a possible answer to your question.

 

[Desman]

Yea dude i will believe you because you have "wrote down every hit" when every veteran 1000+ hours player is saying that the game is fair lol.
The only guys i have seen complaining about the rng are the noobs who don't even understand the rules and are getting murdered by the brain dead AI.

 

[Serus]

Like I said I only looked into matches where I felt that percentages were off, in computers favor, not all of them.

Yep, this translated means the attempt was biased from the get go making any results, let's say less than reliable. Not that they would be worth very much anyway considering the obviously small sample. This is one is a huge lol. I don't even know why i bother participating in discussions about RNG being biased against the player.

I had time. It was either go back to playing angrily, making mistakes, or cool down and do some research into the rng out of curiocity.

The issue is that your "research" is not worth much for anyone who has any knowledge on how stuff like RNG, statistics, perception bias, and how research like that should be done to produce meaningful results. Or even anyone with a working brain.

 

[Reinhardt]

it depends, everyone remembers how that one time rng fucked you in the ass and you lost but no one remembers when rng is for you

 

[vazha]

Aint nobody gonna pay any attenshun to the fact that motherfucker had so much free time he sat his ass down and wrote down the percentages just to check his retard theory, instead of actually playing the game?
God I so envy the retards sometimes.

 

[Sarissofoi]

I for once am inspired by this.
It always amaze me that there are people who take everything that comes from 'position of authority' as holy truth without any questioning and it always amaze me that there are people who start notice things and then start digging things up(with the shovel straight to China) with great dedication and with no looking at cost in time and effort just to get the TRUTH(whatever it is).
Considering that I have my own doubts to the BB RNG I would not dismiss the guy claims. Especially that what BB RNG incidents taught me - it is that method of data collection matter a lot and so basis of this data collection and its interpretation. And of course that some data collection methods and its interpretation(even if they have no real connection to the question) can and will be used against you by midwits who don't even understand the question.

Spoiler

Anyway I bet we can safely assume now who get the Vax and who don't.

 

[razvedchiki]

the human brain cannot intuitively grasp probabilities.

​

 

[Serus]

the human brain cannot intuitively grasp probabilities.

​

Apparently some human brains cannot grasp it non-intuitively either. You need some basic education for that.

 

[sser]

I've played probability-based board games for years (Blood Bowl, A&A, simulacrums like Mordheim, etc.) and even I get tilted and conspiratorial toward #'s now and again. Battle Brothers does have that pinned 5% chance element, and 1/20 is in actuality not rare at all. For comparison, the typical 'worst' roll you can get in Blood Bowl is a 1/36 and I see that almost every single game at least once, and the vaunted 1/1296 quads turns out not to be as rare as you think if you play enough matches.

Quite simply, probabilities are rarely seen in total, but instead perceived via each individual outcome. Blood Bowl can create amusing examples of people failing to understand this. You'll have someone take a play that has 10+ individual dice rolls and a 1% chance of succeeding. If they fail the first dice roll, the response is typically to go well yeah, expected outcome. However, if they fail the last roll, some people get pissed and think they've been screwed. It's quite fascinating. An emotional attachment is made to the outcome of these dice rolls such that, inevitably, an emotional attachment is made to them before they're ever even rolled to begin with -- a belief in guarantees, if you will. There is a reason why some game devs secretly tilt numbers in the player's favor (XCOM). There's also a reason why casinos hire psychologist to prey upon a person's inability to grasp probability, and especially to navigate them toward chasing low-% outcomes.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

i've never felt openly cheated by blood bowl. i won plenty of games despite being a mediocre player at best (i guess so).
but when you start a mission and you go
60 miss
60 miss
60 miss
60 miss
enemy turn
40 hit
40 hit
(especially easy to check if you bring dogs)
and this behaviour replicates over tens of battles over different saves and games, something smells like pussy. i have an archer with 75-80%, and it rarely lands both hits. all my 50-60% men spend most of the battles missing. on the other hand, enemy 30 are more like 50 and 50 are terminators, worst offenders seem to be the animals, i've had my 8 men try almost 20 times against 3 snakes, which were supposed to go down in 3-4 hits and had about 40% chance to hit me, because i couldn't land any while they always were.
as i already said, i hadn't these issues with 1.0 at all, i even "finished" the game.

 

[Sarissofoi]

Pretty much how MadMax says. Battle Brothers have this weird RNG when rolls often come in clusters(and its both for a player and enemy). Of course if you are player and get cluster of 40(+/-5) rolls then you would probably not notice if you are not aware and don't pay attention to it - all you see is that your masterful plan worked, there was risks calculated but you were good at math etc. Of course when opposite happen to you and you cluster of 80(+/-5) and can't land a hit in whole turn and then enemy roll cluster of 30(-/+5) and you just see your defense breaking when things get funny.
Of course somebody did the math and its all right folks, number don't repeat too often and they are mostly equal to roll and its used to disprove all funny RNG business somehow even if really don't disprove anything and data have nothing on low range clusters.
I played BB consistently for long time and had fun so I am not much biased against it. Just saying how it is.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Repent, sinners!

 

[Reinhardt]

and 1/20 is in actuality not rare at all.

yes... not bb, but gud example >

 

[Tyrr]

and 1/20 is in actuality not rare at all.

yes... not bb, but gud example >

From what I understand, computer generated random numbers (compared to rolling a real dice for example) are more prone to have strings of the same number consecutively.
It's still random overall, but can feel less random if you only pick a small sample size.

 

[rojay]

i've never felt openly cheated by blood bowl. i won plenty of games despite being a mediocre player at best (i guess so).
but when you start a mission and you go
60 miss
60 miss
60 miss
60 miss
enemy turn
40 hit
40 hit
(especially easy to check if you bring dogs)
and this behaviour replicates over tens of battles over different saves and games, something smells like pussy. i have an archer with 75-80%, and it rarely lands both hits. all my 50-60% men spend most of the battles missing. on the other hand, enemy 30 are more like 50 and 50 are terminators, worst offenders seem to be the animals, i've had my 8 men try almost 20 times against 3 snakes, which were supposed to go down in 3-4 hits and had about 40% chance to hit me, because i couldn't land any while they always were.
as i already said, i hadn't these issues with 1.0 at all, i even "finished" the game.

But those of us who don't experience this AI cheating are just fooling ourselves?

You're going to use the word "sheeple" soon, aren't you?

 

[Serus]

Pretty much how MadMax says. Battle Brothers have this weird RNG when rolls often come in clusters(and its both for a player and enemy). Of course if you are player and get cluster of 40(+/-5) rolls then you would probably not notice if you are not aware and don't pay attention to it - all you see is that your masterful plan worked, there was risks calculated but you were good at math etc. Of course when opposite happen to you and you cluster of 80(+/-5) and can't land a hit in whole turn and then enemy roll cluster of 30(-/+5) and you just see your defense breaking when things get funny.
Of course somebody did the math and its all right folks, number don't repeat too often and they are mostly equal to roll and its used to disprove all funny RNG business somehow even if really don't disprove anything and data have nothing on low range clusters.
I played BB consistently for long time and had fun so I am not much biased against it. Just saying how it is.

You are not saying "how it is". You are saying "the way i subjectively perceive how it is". There is a crucial difference. To be able to say "how it is" you'd need to make research, and not a "research" of the kind our friend some posts above did.

However, you might be right about clusters. Computer RNG is not perfect, there is no "true randomness" in it, so to speak. Hell, in newtonian model of physics randomness doesn't even exist. RNG used in computer programs may lead to some weird occurrences. But that is very far from saying:
a) it is "biased"
b) biased - against the player
c) it is done on purpose
Some of the above was claimed, including in this thread. Basically we have different claims by different people.

The claim about clusters might actually have some value. However without any solid proof - other than "My perception is bestest!" it is still just about your FEELINGS against those of other people. If you want it to be about something else then the burden of proof is on you. BTW, I played 100s of hours of BB and haven't felt any clusters of numbers whatsoever, certainly not in combat. Does it mean that they are not there? No, just that my feelings are different than yours. Those are all based on subjective perceptions and all i know about perception bias makes me sceptical. Without proof i will remain so and any rational and educated person should be too. That's all i'm saying.

Also what what Tyrr and rojay said.

 

[Serus]

and 1/20 is in actuality not rare at all.

yes... not bb, but gud example >

Four 1 (on a 20 sided die, 5% chances) are expected to happen from time to time if the sample is big enough. In a combat heavy rpg with a system like any DnD or BB there are probably 10s of thousands* rolls made in a single long game. And that assuming it is your game. Because if not it means absolutely bupkiss. There are millions of hours and billions of rolls made among all players.

*Just guessing here, more likely 100s of thousands?

 

[Reinhardt]

Four 1 (on a 20 sided die, 5% chances) are expected to happen from time to time if the sample is big enough.

6

 

[Serus]

Four 1 (on a 20 sided die, 5% chances) are expected to happen from time to time if the sample is big enough.

6

No, it's 4 in a row. Magic missiles damage is random as well. I think they were actually all 2s on d4 (magic missile being d4+1) which sort of makes it look funny. 1/20 - 1/20 - 1/20 - 1/20 - 2/4 - 2/4 - 2/4 - 1/20 - 2/4 - 2/4 - 1/20.
See my previous post about that.

As a side note, let's not dump all on RNG. There are different bugs to be considered. I remember someone posted a screenshot of a Pathfinder game looking like: 1d6 (roll 6)=7. The point was it created a math where 6=7. Those are calculations made after the RNG created numbers before they appear on the screen. First they are processed to determine final result and what you see the screen (which can also be two different things). Those calculations can be bugged as well although i doubt it is the case here. Someone just made a screenshot of a weird string of numbers. Of curse we don't even know the source code so we don't know if the game makes 1 pool of random numbers or a different pool for every type of dice or even for every type of action. Someone with a programming knowledge about rng generations in games could perhaps shed a light on this.

 

[Reinhardt]

Magic missiles damage is random as well.

but they are flaming skull's rolls, not mine. basically it's dm rolling for monster as opposed to me rolling 6 1's in a row.

 

[Serus]

Magic missiles damage is random as well.

but they are flaming skull's rolls, not mine. basically it's dm rolling for monster as opposed to me rolling 6 1's in a row.

So what? You don't know if they are taken from a different pool of rng results or the same one. Either way is possible. We don't even know it is the issue with RNG at all*. Assuming there is an issue in the first place. I don't see one. I see random occurrences that are bound to happen if the sample is big enough.
That's my main point in almost every post i made on this issue. WE DON'T KNOW! We just have feelings and at best poorly educated guess.
*reread my previous post.

Also, honestly, that's not even BB, screw it.

 

[Sarissofoi]

Serus. I never said that it was biased against player. I said that it happen for both sides, its just more visible for a player when it happens against him(for obvious reason). And sure I have no REAL DATA(TM) but the REAL DATA(TM) that is used to disprove it shouldn't be used to disprove it as its methodically wrong(aka somebody try to disprove claim that orange is orange color by bringing data that its round).
That was my whole point.

 

[Jrpgfan]

The Earth is FLAT.

Sure I have no REAL DATA™ to prove it but the REAL DATA™ that is used to disprove it shouldn't be used to disprove it as it's methodically wrong because orange is orange even though some people may say it's not orange.

 

[thesecret1]

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Serus. I never said that it was biased against player. I said that it happen for both sides, its just more visible for a player when it happens against him(for obvious reason). And sure I have no REAL DATA(TM) but the REAL DATA(TM) that is used to disprove it shouldn't be used to disprove it as its methodically wrong(aka somebody try to disprove claim that orange is orange color by bringing data that its round).
That was my whole point.

People are better at remembering negative things.
That's an important survival trait.