PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available

@Gatorlover said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

I'm sure i am going to go 100 replies telling me why I am wrong... the same 100 replies claiming bb oracle didn't exist. It's not the luck that tips it off, anyone gets lucky, its the odd play

Nevermind that the rolls are server-side now for multiplayer games and thus, cannot be tracked from your own client-side memory. This is just more of your trolling pursuant to you being banned twice under other names.

@Gatorlover said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

All the hallmarks of the old bb oracle. And one of the players most famous for using it back in bb1, or at least someone using that coaches name. Won't mention his name thanks to forum rules/

Once again, you have absolutely no proof and yet you have the guts to claim a PSA?

Where is this "dice roll predictor"? Where are your evidences? Of course you have none...

You are nothing but toxic for this community, especially for new players who might read and believe even an ounce of your nonsense.

Community Manager

Keep cool please. No need to be agressive.

As explained above, all the dice rolls in multiplayer are hanled server-side in BB2, making any cheat more than unlikely. We're working, with the help of players, on an article detailing the Blood Bowl 2's RNG system to answer any suspicions.

Have a nice day!

@dode74 Kinda but not really. Or I completely misunderstood Gatorlover.

@Naissun said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

@dode74 Kinda but not really. Or I completely misunderstood Gatorlover.

It was a joke. You know the british... they like their humour the way they like their prostates... nice and dry.

@VoodooMike said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

Nevermind that the rolls are server-side now for multiplayer games and thus, cannot be tracked from your own client-side memory.

Just would like to point out that it's what we were told. No actual code checking was done. And being familiar with development/QA process quite a bit, I've seen a lot of bugs no one could even imagine before they'd been found, and a lot of cases when even project architect is not sure how some old feature works atm, so it's not like I'm accusing Cyanide of lying or something. Not to say that "RNG results are distributed from the server" is too brief description. What if they are distributed in batches, 50 rolls per each? In this case they could be viewed at client.

Imo, dismissing any possible report pointing that there may indeed be a problem with "dices" is no better than making unsupported claims that dices are rigged.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

Imo, dismissing any possible report pointing that there may indeed be a problem with "dices" is no better than making unsupported claims that dices are rigged.

... you mean other than the all the replay files we've run statistical analyses on without finding any evidence of a problem with "dices" [sic], and the company's statement that their game doesn't tamper with dice in single player, and their telling us what RNG they use and RNG-output-to-roll method they use for us to investigate?

I think your "opinion" that its no different than spurious, unsupported claims is maybe a bit biased.

@VoodooMike said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

... you mean other than the all the replay files we've run statistical analyses on without finding any evidence of a problem with "dices" [sic], and the company's statement that their game doesn't tamper with dice in single player, and their telling us what RNG they use and RNG-output-to-roll method they use for us to investigate?
I think your "opinion" that its no different than spurious, unsupported claims is maybe a bit biased.

Either that, or your ability to interpret context could see some improvement. Because what said was said, obviously, to address the topic at hand - possible ability to see next RNG results, which may not be only because of faulty RNG, but simply because of faulty utility code handling its delivery. Which is hardly something you can detect with doing some statistics analysis.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

Because what said was said, obviously, to address the topic at hand - possible ability to see next RNG results, which may not be only because of faulty RNG, but simply because of faulty utility code handling its delivery. Which is hardly something you can detect with doing some statistics analysis.

You certainly can detect it using statistical analysis, you just wouldn't be analyzing the raw rolls. If someone could accurately predict outcomes then they'd succeed at their actions far more often than would be expected for the likelihood of those successes, to the point of being statistically significant. I have yet to see anyone who consistently succeeds beyond statistical expectations.

As for your idea that it would deliver dice rolls in batches... that's ridiculous. There's literally no reason you'd ever do it that way - it requires more resources while providing zero gain. It'd also be considerably more work to implement than a system that delivers dice rolls only as needed.

Again, the burden of proof is on people like you and the OP to demonstrate any evidence of non-randomness. We've done more than our due diligence on the topic, exploring various means of testing the distributions of dice, successes, etc... all of which has supported the idea of randomness. If you're ready to go beyond cheap innuendo then we'll be all ears.

@VoodooMike said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

You certainly can detect it using statistical analysis, you just wouldn't be analyzing the raw rolls. If someone could accurately predict outcomes then they'd succeed at their actions far more often than would be expected for the likelihood of those successes, to the point of being statistically significant. I have yet to see anyone who consistently succeeds beyond statistical expectations.

Nope, if the tool is still hasn't been spread and is used by a narrow group of cautious enough players who only use it to avoid some disastrous events, like picking the ball or throwing a block they know for sure they won't succeed in.

@VoodooMike said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

As for your idea that it would deliver dice rolls in batches... that's ridiculous. There's literally no reason you'd ever do it that way - it requires more resources while providing zero gain.

So aside from being [self-proclaimed] expert in statistics, you're apparently is an expert in software development now as well 🙂 Sorry, but it's simply not true at different levels at once. For the first, it may have practical sense, actually, like reducing number of calls to APIs, for example, to decrease load on the server, to name one. As you obviously already know (and just want to test my knowledge, most likely) each call to API is tied to a processing overhead, which, depending on architecture, may be greater than overhead of sending a bunch of generated random values at once in a single package. Depending on load Cyanide's servers experience, and their budgets, it may (or may not) be justified. And then we have possibility of a faulty code which allows for some pulling of future RNG values in advance due to some forgotten testing API endpoint, or some shortcut added by [now retired] developer for testing purposes and left there in a production build. Those are things that nowhere even that rare in any company dealing with software. Just a bunch of humans making stupid mistakes and forgetting things.

Of course everything that's been said is just hypothetical things. But at least in my university they were telling us about dangers of magical thinking, which you probably could missed, being engrossed in your studies of statistics 🙂 Technology is not an ultimate safeguard of everything. Even if it [seemingly] works without issues so far. At least I'm trying to not sound unnecessarily certain when I can't have a slightest foundation for this confidence. Well, sometimes I do that anyway, but I usually admit I was wrong after that, if you remember. I wonder how often you do the same when you should, @VoodooMike?

@VoodooMike said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

Again, the burden of proof is on people like you and the OP to demonstrate any evidence of non-randomness.

That's true. As well as that it would be a bit easier to gather those proofs if we wouldn't attack with insults and threaten with ban people trying to deliver a message from the first posts of a topic, without even asking for details. May be it would also make clear to other coaches reading this thread that we are really open to feedback and ready to some constructive discussion. Or something.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

Nope, if the tool is still hasn't been spread and is used by a narrow group of cautious enough players who only use it to avoid some disastrous events, like picking the ball or throwing a block they know for sure they won't succeed in.

Heh, this is heading directly into god-of-the-gaps territory now with the "but what if they're super chill and only use it once per game?" type arguments. As someone who has created exploit software in the past let me assure you that people in general are not at all subtle or cautious about using exploits they themselves didn't put work into, and rarely even when they are the ones who did. If they were subtle and cautious they wouldn't be doing it in casual play or end up being detected by the schmuck who started this thread - they'd be sitting on it until Season 10 in order to win money with it.

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

So aside from being [self-proclaimed] expert in statistics, you're apparently is an expert in software development now as well

Yes, actually. I am a software designer by profession. My knowledge of statistics is from the research aspect of psychology, which is something I pursued a degree in entirely for recreational purposes in my early 30s, after I had made enough money in software development to retire (I didn't do that, of course, but I did take a break to hit the books again and start a family). I'll point out, as well, that in the history of cyanide's Blood Bowl franchise there has only been one verified person who ever managed to create a dice prediction system and software... and you're talking to him.

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

For the first, it may have practical sense, actually, like reducing number of calls to APIs, for example, to decrease load on the server, to name one. As you obviously already know (and just want to test my knowledge, most likely) each call to API is tied to a processing overhead, which, depending on architecture, may be greater than overhead of sending a bunch of generated random values at once in a single package.

The resources needed to generate one random number are going to be the same whether you generate 100 of them in rapid succession, or 100 spread out over time. The main difference would be that in the former scenario not only do you create time-localized spikes in processing (assuming its at all resource-heavy, which we know its not since we also know which RNG is being used) you also have to store them in memory until use. The only time that wouldn't be utterly mornic is if you could only communicate in short bursts and in which bandwidth was costly, such that you could create compressed data packets for periodic transmission.

That's not what we've got. Your premise is idiotic.

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

And then we have possibility of a faulty code which allows for some pulling of future RNG values in advance due to some forgotten testing API endpoint, or some shortcut added by [now retired] developer for testing purposes and left there in a production build. Those are things that nowhere even that rare in any company dealing with software.

So now your theory is that there might be magical additional functions in the server that are there specifically to allow for dice prediction that Cyanide has forgotten about, but that hackers unearthed like Indiana Jones... You're not even in the same room as the straws you're grasping at now.

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

Of course everything that's been said is just hypothetical things. But at least in my university they were telling us about dangers of magical thinking, which you probably could missed, being engrossed in your studies of statistics

As I said, you're engaged in a stupid god-of-the-gaps argument. You have no evidence whatsoever, but you keep trying to have your little god live in whatever nook or cranny hasn't been explored and demonstrated to lack him. You're not following evidence, you're not basing anything on logic or rational design concepts, and you're not even engaged in direct investigation.... instead, you're trying to invent ways to do none of those things and to make up excuses for how what you want to promote (the idea that there might be cheating) can survive in spite of all the facts and evidence to the contrary.

@Mori-Mori said in PSA- A new dice roll predictor seems to be available:

That's true. As well as that it would be a bit easier to gather those proofs if we wouldn't attack with insults and threaten with ban people trying to deliver a message from the first posts of a topic, without even asking for details. May be it would also make clear to other coaches reading this thread that we are really open to feedback and ready to some constructive discussion. Or something.

Those are unconnected. Nobody was threatened with a ban, the guy has already been banned twice, and not for this crap... he was banned for other things, but keeps creating new names to pick fights with or abuse the people involved in the thread he was banned on. More than one of his names has flat out been insults directed toward Focus or Cyanide.

How nice or not nice people are to you or anybody does not affect your ability to gather evidence to support your claims - that's a chickenshit excuse. Howsabout you stop making excuses and go gather some evidence? That'll be when the stuff you're spouting is "constructive discussion"... because at the moment it's nothing more than useless fearmongering and religion-style "but what if?" garbage.

last edited by VoodooMike

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.