Thread: 3D dice results are not random
-
December 4th, 2020, 13:05 #141
I strongly disagree that the engine is faulty as far as effecting real world gaming in FG. You have yet to prove that. Maybe if people played 5,000 sessions and had somewhere near 1,000,000 rolls then the data presented would be relevant - but then it might not be, because FG initialises the dice rolling engine at the beginning of each session, or maybe running on a different day makes a difference, or maybe rolling different dice types in between rolls makes a difference, or maybe players connecting and disconnecting makes a difference, etc., etc..
Based off actual real world data, we don't see the same patterns that the statistics you present in this thread show. It has been reported that FG has on occasion rolled a 0 and reported it as such - so the campaign data presented is 100% real world data, and you can't discount it.
For gaming purposes, it is my view (based off real world data) that you can't use the simulated dice roll statistics presented in this thread as the basis for a claim of a faulty engine that impacts our gaming. Your next step is to try to prove that it effects our gaming in an actual gaming situation, if you can't then all of this is just interesting statistics with little relevance to our everyday FG gaming.Last edited by Trenloe; December 4th, 2020 at 13:07.
Private Messages: My inbox is forever filling up with PMs. Please don't send me PMs unless they are actually private/personal messages. General FG questions should be asked in the forums - don't be afraid, the FG community don't bite and you're giving everyone the chance to respond and learn!
-
December 4th, 2020, 13:10 #142
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 2,025
Wait, FG rolls a 0 (zero) on a 3D physical D20 rolls? Yes, that absolutely increases my trust in the data and engine. Let's move on, there are no patterns to be seen here.
.|...|...|.
MMMMM
000000
Wow, just wow.
-
December 4th, 2020, 13:21 #143
I've spent a number of hours looking at real world data to see if the patterns you saw in testing were replicated. They weren't. So, yes - I took a look at it and I'm sure that this isn't as bad as it looks at first glance.
Yes, you're probably right. Because as has been said many, many, many times - what you see doesn't repeat itself in actual play. Very few people are going to want to waste their energy banging their head trying to get that across.
Because you *are* making people anxious - with nothing other than test statistics with no real world application to back them up. This is the Internet people will read what they want to read - e.g. FG competitors taking this away and using this against FG - where it (based off current data) has no discernable impact on a game, a person interested in FG seeing this as an active thread, having a read and thinking "Oh my! FG is terrible! I'll have a '7.5% lower chance to hit a 20' than I should!!!" - where there is currently no practical data to back this up as an in game issue.
Refer you to this anxious user's post as a classic example - based off your theoretical statistics:
As this concludes it for you, I'm going to close this thread as it has more than ran it's course. If you find any in-gameplay issues in future please report them in a new thread.Private Messages: My inbox is forever filling up with PMs. Please don't send me PMs unless they are actually private/personal messages. General FG questions should be asked in the forums - don't be afraid, the FG community don't bite and you're giving everyone the chance to respond and learn!
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks