You get the right amount of low/high rolls etc that you should expect. But if you record the results in XCOM, in total the numbers do add up. Games rarely go to the trouble of generating truly random numbers from a real random/highly variable source. But since it's generated it does have a few quirks involving seeds and what not. This is mostly a quirk of how computers typically use "pseudo random number generators" that are not truly "random" in the way we assume, but rather generate a completely deterministic sequence of numbers that have the same properties of a truly random source of numbers. Just a matter of personal preference I guess. They did this to ironically avoid the save scumming from the original XCOM games where since it was truely random (not the same sequence of rolls on each reload) you could just reload if you had bad luck, as your luck would be "new" each time you loaded in. You can get creative with save-scumming then and try to game the system by matching up high rolls with low percentage shots, ending turns early so the aliens get the low rolls etc. What that means is if the next roll was going to be a 100, it would be a 100 regardless of what shot you took, and that would be true every time you reload the save. When you save the game your place in that sequence was also saved (often referred to as the "seed" of the RNG). (I know, how random does that sound, right? )). With the way the random rolls are generated, the easiest thing to do on the computer is actually use a predefined sequence of numbers. Yeah, that one was a specific design choice for the XCOM remakes (that was somewhat controversial if I remember correctly). If you have that kind of data it becomes very easy to test for fairness). I know when I did some XCOM 2 modding myself I turned this on as it was just great to be able to see behind the scenes for what the actual to hit chances where, the rolls, even the adjustments for streakbreakers etc. (As an aside: it'd be great to have an option in the game, by HBS themselves or by mod, to output a combat log with just this information. So until someone does some data recording it's just always safer to assume the more likely result rather than automatically believe each anecdotal post.ĭoesn't mean the OP isn't right, just that there is very little reason to believe so without someone doing the work to record the numbers and see if they match their perceptions. It's a natural human psychology aspect, and you see it come up in any games with RNG's where you often see "It's not fair" posts. It's hard not to dismiss these instances as perception bias, just by the sheer volume of them. That is coming up here when I have a week to babysit the people ripping my house apart for a remodel. I will have to prove it one of these days. However, please don't be quick to dismiss this as perception bias. Just as people dismissed that there was something wrong with the headshot percentages (and through copious testing and many of our own perceptions of game play an actual issue here that has been acknowledged by the devs and fixed as a result). I'm single, by choice, and I have had plenty of time to see the patterns in the RNG. It won't seem apparent until you've spent more time with the game than you do with real life. I routinely miss 95% shots round after round (even on downed mechs). There is also no possible way to get a 100% chance to hit AFAIK. Even after modding the percentages to strip off the miss breakers there is something akin to a streak breaker going on behind the scenes. The RNG is doing something to impose misses in the game. I have almost 700 hours in the game, it's not bias.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |