3D dice results are not random

[Weissrolf]

These statements contradict the data you're presenting. Rolling 1,000,000 d20s and presenting the data for those 1,000,000 rolls together is "averaged over time". All of the statements you make like "7.5% lower chance to hit a 20" and "every single die roll has a 2.5% higher chance to hit 20 than it should have" is based off the "averaged over time" data you've collected.

Yes, but averaged over a large and statistically strong period of time, not over a small and thus statistically weak period of time. Large data represents chance, small data represents anecdote.

Anyway, please see my "real game" post above.

Please see my answer.

I'm moving on now, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of interesting statistics.

We are talking about a virtual world existing in a digital domain, statistics are physical laws in there.

"Probability is a mysterious energy field created by dice that binds the virtual galaxy together. Harnessing the power of probability gives the Jedi, the Sith, and others sensitive to this statistical energy extraordinary abilities, such as levitating objects, tricking minds, and seeing things before they happen. While probability can grant users powerful abilities, it also directs their actions. And it has a will of its own, which both scholars and mystics have spent millennia seeking to understand."

[Weissrolf]

Keep going with the statistics, if that's what floats your boat, but please stop the claims the FG is broken and needs to be fixed. Because, for all gaming intents and purposes, it isn't.

FGU's 3D click/automation rolls are not even close to random. They fail tests with as little as 8000 bytes of data, start to look suspicious with 2000 bytes and very suspicious with 4000 bytes. The already bad math.random needs 16 times as many bytes to fail.

Again, implementing free and strong pseudo-random number generators can be done with as little as 12 lines of C code. There are also free Lua (5.1) based RNGs out there that can be copied and pasted. Very obviously 3D dice rolling was changed between Classic and Unity, so this opportunity could have been used to improve it instead of making it worse.

[Trenloe]

Large data represents chance, small data represents anecdote.

I'd argue that small data represents chance - you don't know what's going to happen next. Large data (massively large data) is where the statistics truly apply.

Maybe there is a game impacting pattern in FGU (like what you found with the seed issue in the LUA script you were looking at) that impacts the actual limited number of rolls made in an actual game. But the statistics presented in this thread so far don't support that. Until you can take the data from a lot of FGU chat logs and prove that in individual games there is a reproducible pattern across real-games situations (not simulating those situations) then everything you've presented in this thread proves little as to any actual gaming impact.

[Weissrolf]

200 rolls.

[Trenloe]

200 rolls.

You have no proof that this occurs in a real world game. This is based off 1,000,000 rolls which is, like you said, "averaged over time" so it is NOT real world data. And the real world data presented above doesn't support that the statistics apply to an actual FG gaming session (or series of sessions for that matter).

Sorry to "shout" with bold, but this is what you keep missing - your statistics aren't supported by real world gaming data.

My concern is that people are reading this thread and users like @lavoiejh and @eporrini pick this up and start having concerns, asking their players to roll differently and demand that the FGU developers drop everything and "fix" something that hasn't been proved is actually broken (in terms of affecting actual games), and even talking about moving to other VTTs as this is a differentiator (despite not being able to compare with other VTTs).

Based off simulated tests, in a purely test environment that doesn't accurately reflect a FG gaming session, you've discovered some interesting statistics that give you the basis for a hypothesis. The data you've presented so far is interesting, but it doesn't so far relate to a real gaming environment - which is what most of us playing FG are only interested in.

Unless you can prove that these statistics have a noticeable effect on people playing RPGs in FGU, then it's only a statistical analysis with no real world application.

Until you can actually reliably prove that there is a discernable impact in an actual game, please stop fanning the flames that can make people think FGU dice rolling truly is broken. It could cause them to use it as a differentiator with other VTTs and move on from FG (or not try FG in the first place) or will blame the fickle nature of dice rolling fate on FGU being broken, when it has not been proved that it is actually broken.

[Weissrolf]

No. This thread started with a graphic showing a bitmap image of 1 mio. consecutive D8 rolls. In this 1 mio. rolls there was a visible period every 200 rolls. No averaging, just rolls as bits = pixels.

After comparing FGU's "physical" D8 dice results with FGU's own "non-physical" /die command I concluded that FGU's physical dice engine seems to be bugged and does not create random numbers. FGU's non-physical /die pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) has its own flaws, but it is mostly functional compared to the current 3D implementation (judging by D8 rolls).

As a short-term hotfix I suggest to disable the 3D dice engine all together, as quickly as possible. As a long-term improvement I suggest to implement a better PRNG (like PCG) and give users the option to disable the 3D dice physics engine if it cannot be improved to match the /die engine.

My fault was to assume that FG's 3D rolls were meant to be random. Other persons' fault was to get hung up on the "as quickly as possible" part. Try reading my text in a somber and calm voice, it helps.

[Jiminimonka]

No. This thread started with a graphic showing a bitmap image of 1 mio. consecutive D8 rolls. In this 1 mio. rolls there was a visible period every 200 rolls. No averaging, just rolls as bits = pixels.


My fault was to even assume that FG's 3D rolls are meant to be random. Other persons' fault was to get hung up on the "as quickly as possible" part. Try reading my text in a somber and calm voice, it helps.

Stop making statements of fact without verifiable data. I think that's the just of the argument. Or get a scientist to verify your finding independently. Peer review.

I'm not sure if telling someone how to read your text is rude.

[Trenloe]

@Weissrolf - Move on to collecting and analysing real world data please. I really don't know how many times this has to be said.

The details I provide in post #125 above show that the statistics you're presenting don't translate into effecting actual FG gaming rolls. Until you can prove that there is a reproducible issue when using FG to game, not collect data in a test environment, then all of the nice cool graphs and statistical analysis really means nothing to FG gamers.

You have the basis for a hypothesis based off statistical analysis. Well done, nice work, that's cool. Now move on to prove this has a discernable effect to FG gamers in the real world.

[Weissrolf]

I proved that 3D click/automation rolls are not close to random and the data provided in your linked thread is unreliable. Doing the former was hard enough, doing the latter is harder even with reliable data. My suggestion was to fix the engine to better standard and/or offer an option for players to disable the faulty engine.

I deem the engine faulty, because it neither creates random rolls nor represents real physical dice. If SW's stance is that the dice engine has to achieve neither of these goals then maybe don't feature dice so prominently in your logo and video?!



Anyway, our own groups will just be using the Instant Dice extension from now on and I suggest to point everyone to do the same should they be "feeling strange" about 3D dice results.

PS: Classic also introduces a 200 rolls period for D8 rolls, but the pattern is very different.

[Weissrolf]

My reply to a private message that should conclude this thread for me:

Problem with real campaign chat-logs is that I cannot compile these properly. Every line looks different and every roll from different chars use different boni.

We might be able to extract all D8 rolls in order to gather enough rolls for pattern recognition. We also don't know if those non D8 rolls in between change the pattern or not, which could be interesting to test, though.

All that being said: It is very obvious that neither SW nor forum/module/ruleset veterans are really interested in spending any energy on this. I kept providing so much analysis, data, graphs and explanations while the answers kept revolving around "You’re holding it wrong". There were few signs of "ok, let's take a look at this, albeit we are sure this isn't half as bad as it looks at first glance", instead we mostly got "you are making other users anxious".

So frankly, I have to tally this as a useful experience in data analysis, random number generators and social experiments. Our own groups have a workable alternative now, I suggest your groups to use the same until the system is improved.

Have a nice weekend and fun gaming!