I am using the human, so I use a D12 dice to roll my sword attacks. Why are rolls of "1" infinitely more common than rolls of "11" or "12" ? I know it's human nature to only notice when things aren't going your way, but in this case i believe there is something wrong with the algorithm (or something dampening it to our detriment). I have been playing this game for 2 months and have only rolled an offensive "12" roll 2 or 3 times in total!! Whereas, I've literally rolled thousands of "1" rolls. I even rolled 5 offensive "1's" in a row. That wouldn't bother me if I had also had the experience going on high rolling streaks with "11's" or "12's". Rolling a "12" should be equally as common as rolling a "1" correct? I think the algorithm used is NOT just a random shot between 1-12, there must me some other factor going on to reduce our chances of rolling high. It's not possible to have NOT gone on a high rolling streak in all this time unless it really isn't "random".....more like it's a random number modified by other conditions to keep it from frequently being in the higher end of the a range. I've played career mode 1000 times so it's not my imagination. -

Yikes. That sucks. But you're probably right—it is human nature to perceive bad rolls as more common than good ones. But it is also the nature of randomness. Since pure randomness includes the scenario where 1's are rolled EVERY SINGLE TIME, it also includes every other scenario where bad rolls happen more often than good rolls. So maybe you're fortunate to not be at the extreme level of bad luck. I've had lots of bad rolls, and often in the worst situations. But I've also had some good rolls that saved me in a tough spot. My guess is that it actually is random (or as close as an algorithm can approximate that). If the algorithm was intentionally biased, don't you think the developer would bias it in the player's favor?

That's the thing with true randomness. It feels unfair, so in reality random os often cheted and tweaked. It's not going to happen here I guess, but maybe it would be nice to show RNG evil god and allow you to punch him in his face - in case of long streaks of bad luck.

PeteMonster - Sure it's possible, it's possible like you said to roll a 1 every time.....but it's just as possible to roll a 12 every time. I've been playing for months now and the odds are that I would have had a few high rolling streaks during that time. My high rolling streaks are usually rolls between 5 and 8 with an occasional 10. I think the developer would bias the rolls to whatever end suits him best. Who knows maybe the developer has penalized me for my comments....hahaha. If (Ip address = ####) {random roll - 2} else {random roll} -

Another reason it's easier to notice streaks of low numbers is that they end up being a bunch of misses against one monster. Whereas when you have a streak of high rolls, you are probably killing your targets, and it's harder to notice a streak when it is interrupted by the stuff you do between monsters.

RogueSword - That's a good point.

I scored three consecutive 12s on a single green dragon last game. Not gonna lie it felt amazing!

Well, I'm sticking to my theory that the rolls lean/biased towards the lower numbers. I've only had a few 12 rolls in the 2 months that I've played and never had a streak. Just too much emperical evidence. I am not discounting what RogueSword said above because I'm open to being wrong. Even a streak of "10" rolls should be just as likely as a "1" roll streak. Doesn't happen with the same frequency, if at all.....at least that's my experience. I could use some of your luck 'JustSumRando'

> *Originally posted by **[wpsenior2](/forums/979845/topics/1840329?page=1#13176964)**:* > Well, I'm sticking to my theory that the rolls lean/biased towards the lower numbers. I've only had a few 12 rolls in the 2 months that I've played and never had a streak. Just too much emperical evidence... Doesn't happen with the same frequency, if at all.....at least that's my experience. Not to be a d-bag, but your entire post is the very definition of anecdotal evidence, rather than "too much empirical" evidence. Write down every single roll for two months... put it in a spreadsheet... that's empirical data (though single-source so less than ideal). Analyze it using stats... that will be your empirical evidence. If that data (every single roll, assuming a decent sample size) shows a lack of 12-streaks and an abundance of 1-streaks, you might (pending a few t-tests) have an argument.

To be a little nitpicky: you can't include every single attack roll, just the ones that use a sword.

Dungeoneers is built on Ruby. This is what Ruby uses for prng: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister, and this is what they say: PRNGs are currently implemented as a modified Mersenne Twister with a period of 219937-1. (from https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.4.0/Random.html). I'm not going to pretend that I understand how it works, but maybe someone is interested. Sure, pseudo random number generators are not perfect, but I don't think it matters. My first impression was that game is relying on randomness too much, but then I looked at scores and thought that top players somehow made impressive scores so it clearly is not based on luck. I'm working on Dungeoneeers for about 8 years if I remember well, and during that time we changed almost all graphics, not to mention many machanics were added, but this complaint keeps coming back. Some pleople love this aspect, some hate it, and I guess that's how it is.

Jacketfan - Good idea on the spreadsheet, but no need because the "12" rolls are so few in that time that I can count them on 1 hand....with no "12" streaks ever....none!! I've played for months. Who knows the developer might not like my comments and has placed a "-1" to my sword rolls (per IP or ID). But overall i'm not looking under the hood to prove it. I'm no super programmer. Just noticing the trends after months of play time. There are patterns that don't seem to be in my favor (and they don't swing the other way), just can't say why. If I go on a hot streak it will be with rolls of 9 and 10. Anyway, not all that important, it's just a game. Could be this was the best the developer could come up with as the random number generators are not perfect, mix in the modifiers, min/max, and the number refreshing issues and it get's complicated. unekdoud - yeah, I should have been clear that I was only talking about human sword attack. sewerhrehoro - yeah, I know that the random number algorithms aren't perfect and they seems to gravitate 1 direction or the other, some how the brackets to keep rolls within the upper end of the range are also pushing downward making 11 and 12 rolls ultra rare for me. Also I don't think the original "random" number that get's populated changes after page load, I don't think it truly resets/refreshes during the game, just the modifiers probably change.....so something that the developer probably has recognized but chose the lesser of 2 evils (rolls in his favor vs mine). Funny how the monsters don't have that issue....another odd example i've seen is that the first strike by a worm against me almost always rolls a "9" (about 90% of the time). Convoluted reply......thanks for the links by the way. At the end of the day just a game....take it or leave it I guess.

Hey I rolled 2 "12's" in the same game, perhaps things are turning around : )

Either I was blacklisted and penalized....or the dice rolling algorithms have changed.....I can roll 11's and 12's now....either way good news now that the rolling seems more balanced.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, so I thought I'd mention it even though the issue is resolved for now, is that when hundreds or thousands or people do the exact same random thing, a few of them are going to have consistently terrible luck. No one goes and writes a forum post saying "I think the dice are rigged in my favor, I've been getting a ton of 12s and I've barely ever gotten 1s", so we see the really unlucky ones and not the really lucky ones. It really sucks to be that one unlucky person, but the fact that *someone* got horribly unlucky is to be expected.

> *Originally posted by **[SirFred131](/forums/979845/topics/1840329?page=1#13217227)**:* > One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, so I thought I'd mention it even though the issue is resolved for now, is that when hundreds or thousands or people do the exact same random thing, a few of them are going to have consistently terrible luck. No one goes and writes a forum post saying "I think the dice are rigged in my favor, I've been getting a ton of 12s and I've barely ever gotten 1s", so we see the really unlucky ones and not the really lucky ones. It really sucks to be that one unlucky person, but the fact that *someone* got horribly unlucky is to be expected. I also "felt" like the rolls were not randomly distributed, and I was getting far more 1's than 12's (or 10's), so I kept a spreadsheet of every roll for a couple of weeks. Guess what? the rolls did turn out to be evenly distributed across the range (8's/10's and 12's) including moster rolls. SirFred seems to be correct, we often complain when we feel cheated, but rarely do we celebrate our good fortune.

I think the developer should show his algorithms for both monster and character offensive rolling. Dragons never have a bad streaks, somehow they reset each turn but the character I find can go on long bad streaks (rolling 1's and 2's a 5 if your lucky). My last game I only made it past 10 dragons and I entered with 11 potions and probably picked up 2 or 3 more in the first 2 rooms.....doesn't matter if your rolling is crap. I know the algorithms aren't perfect but he definitely has them siding in the favor of the dragons. Somehow he needs to refresh and "unset" the characters rolling variables after each roll to make it more random......which doesn't seem to be happening.

Occasionally things swing the other way.....so I'm just going to drop the topic. It's a cool game.....or I wouldn't be here playing it every day.

The randomness comes from the standard library's random number generator (in this case, Ruby's). We have thought about providing dice logs for those who want to run their own checks.

That would be interesting. Since I occasionally roll 12's now the passion has gone out of my argument. For the longest time I would never roll offensive 11's or 12's......I thought I was being penalized by the developers : )

Since the charge of the dice being loaded comes up time and time again, especially with the game now also being available on Armor Games, I think it would be a nice feature to have a list of all dice rolls available after finishing a dungeon run. If only to shut up the doubters.

Yeah, dragons rarely roll low and my character rarely rolls high. Why do I never go on streaks rolling 10's, 11's, and 12's? but frequently have streaks of 1's....it's not just me noticing the negative. I realize that each dragon is treated as an individual, but that still wouldn't explain why I don't ever go on high rolling streaks.

Well I too have times when the roll seams to be stuck on low numbers for me but then in the next game I get an easy run. If one where to call "odity" here then it be that it is way more common to roll ones in a row, just had that 3 times by 3 times in my last game but still won, then when real dice would be used. With real diece is almost impossible to roll 3 ones in a row on a 12 sided dice.

Are you not trusting any computer dice? Because I do, and based on my rough simulations and low guesstimates of: - 160 days since previous post in this thread - 500 games played per day - 50 d12s rolled per game - which works out to a total of 4 million dice rolls under consideration, the appearance of two triple-1 streaks on 12-sided dice in a single game should have already occurred about 24 times in that that time period, with 1 of those being a six-1 streak. You may feel it's an oddity, but you wouldn't even be the first to see that, by far. (Want to test it with real dice? It theoretically only takes 1884 rolls (average) for you to see a streak of three 1s. Not saying you should waste an afternoon doing it, but it's possible.)