I should be able to track only 1 type of die roll and get the same answer if I have enough trials. Most of the rolls excluded were because they are either 1. not relevant, having neither good nor bad results or 2. reversed. If the accusation is rigged rng, not poorly programmed, obviously you are going to seperate the types of rolls.
I'm really confused why you see that as the breaking factor of the stats.
I can think of several ends and because I haven't been able to determine which one I can't say. I can only say that it seems to be specific people who consistently get roughly .5 lower than the average roll or one higher on the average to D6 roll against themselves.
I think that's the sinisterness of whatever the Dual R&G system is. If you aren't affected then you dismiss those who are as crazy. And understandably which is why I gathered and calculated the stats. The problem is with no good way to gather stats on other people there's no way that I can break down what those people have in common that are actually affected versus just play poorly. It could be anything ranging from Regional problems to a bad seeding protocol to targeted malfeasance. There's simply no way for me to determine that based on my own stats. I have a couple things I want to try and I will get back to you on how those turn out but it takes some time to gather enough data to be relevant.
Excluding dice because the goal was to show that the dice rolls were not just simply not random, but actually weighted against the player. Excluding rolls that work the opposite way doesn't help with that.
My theory is a bit of tin foil hat territory, and without further proof won't post it, but I am accusing them of a lot more than a bad rng... I am accusing them of a rigged one.
I'm sorry but your utter lack of producing said results rather than just claiming they exist make me doubt you. I'm also going to assume you mean VoodooMike when you say one of cyanides greatest detractors in which case LOL.
The only results I could find didn't separate the two types of roles and used their own tracker. Two things which are a massive mistake.
Sorry you failed statistics, maybe take it again.
3412 trials is generally considered a sufficient sample size for something like this. Let alone the 5021 trials on block dice.
I understand cyanide has a problem here. There are all sorts of explanations. "not enough trials" is one used by those who failed there math classes in this case.
I know people claim to have done millions of trials. no one has every produced them, just the claim repeats a lot.
Cyanides internal trials are hardly trustworthy after the accusations that they silenced about a year ago. I don't know that I believe that far, but the fact is, they made enough poor choices to know better than trust their own tracker.
I'm also sure this has little to do with focus, as the distributer/publisher, and a lot to do with cyanide.
I excluded all 2d6 (and casualty, and pitch invasion) rolls and did this by hand, since, as previously stated, it was a retarded idea to include them, preventing people from easily judging how good there luck is. I mean you could roll a 1, and then get 5 6's on armor, injury, and casualty, and it would look like you had great luck instead of the
4- 16.20% (yay average)
1- 29.91% ! (wtf?)
Average roll- 2.90 (should be 3.5)
Oh and it doesn't end there. Lets look at those 2d6 rolls, the ones you want low numbers on since they are rolls against your own armor and injuries. I excluded fouls because I wasn't sure if those were counted as me or my opponent rolling them.
12- 5.12% (that is fully double expected)
Avergae- 7.93 (expected- 7)
And lastly, block dice, just to show that whatever is wrong with the RNG is universal. I didn't track d8's or casualty rolls.
Block dice (raw)
Pow- 10.48% (How close that is to the d6 result raises a major red flag. We all know through the challenges that 6=pow in the rng, but taken seperately, the chance of getting basically the same unlikely results in two independent trials is astronomical.)
!Pow- 10.01% (Again eerily close)
Push- 38.99% (Much higher than 3+4 were, interestingly)
Both Down- 20.14% (again significantly higher than 2's was)
Skull- 20.38% (Way better than the d6 rolls, but still a good deal higher than the 16.67% expected. interesting.)
I'm not even sure what this means. Except the next time someone tells you bad luck is in your head, you now have the numbers to properly tell them to sod off.
Coming soon, my opponents rolls for the same 150 games. After all, game is still fair if both sides have equally bad dice, right? So these mean nothing without seeing both sides.
Right now, I can't make any conclusions, because these numbers could be accounted for in many ways. What they can't be is "bad luck" anymore. There are just too many dice involved (several thousand) for this to not be beyond bad luck. Also, I find it highly suspicious that the programmers added armor and injury rolls together with 1d6's, because when added together the numbers come out very close to right. This implies the programmers KNEW about the problem, and intentionally tried to mask it. Maybe they are just incompetent statisticians and included them because they are just too dumb to see why numbers you want to roll low don't mix with numbers you want high, but that isn't much better in what it says about them.
Also of note- the d6's are about ~.5 lower and the 2d6's ~1 higher (twice as much deviation thanks to twice as many dice?) This implies the problem exists because of the rng's rounding, though it also implies some rolls are improperly rounded up, others are improperly rounded down. why?
Sorry to the opponents I was slow against recording these numbers by hand, I don't trust the dice tracker, and now I have a good reason not to. And will take a couple days to crunch the numbers on opponent results.
The main problem with the old system actually had nothing to do with stacking skills... it was stats.
Clearly a +agi is worth more than most skills. +str is better than almost any skill (on most players). doubles rolls are better than no doubles. The old system didn't reflect this... a team with lucky early rolls with 2 +str players, for example, would stomp through teams of equal tv under the old system. Some would argue that +str was overcosted in the change, but clearly it was worth more than a skill.
Playing with a bench is just part of the game... one of those decisions a player needs to make. I'm not entirely sure why you think the old system encouraged more benched players... seems that is an entirely different thing from the spp->tv system