dice used in catan is biased

[Nekojin]

Are you escaping into statistical faith again?
I'm sick of it.
The point is whether or not you are willing to provide better quality work to your customers.
Apparently there isn't.

You have yet to actually explain a failing. You keep saying that there's something wrong, but you can't define what that is... and it doesn't even seem like you're even trying.

Just because someone's upset, doesn't mean that they've accurately/adequately identified the problem. Sometimes, it really is just someone complaining to get attention.

[Rufasu]

Our clients have repeatedly told us that you have a bias in your dice counts.
You continue to cover it up with the word “statistics” instead of computer science.
If the word “statistics” were all you had to say, there would be no research on random number algorithms.
Since you don't seem to understand, I will write a simpler analogy.

A customer says, “The food is bad. Please serve me better food.”
BGA: “Prove it. Oops, the sample size is too small, so please eat more than 1,000 times and compile the data.”

How long will you continue to defame the developers?
Your attitude is an affront to computer science and engineers.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

[Jellby]

A better analogy is:

Customer: "Your weather forecast is not good, please give us a better one".
Meteorologist: "But I predicted rain for two weeks, and it was accurate".
Customer: "I don't like rain, you should have predicted sunshine".
Meteorologist: "I can't change the weather, I can only try to guess what it will be like".
Customer: "I am the customer, I am dissatisfied with your forecast, you should change it".
Meteorologist:

[Rufasu]

In other words, they don't want to work.

[Rufasu]

In other words, they don't want to work.

[Stroom]

Are you escaping into statistical faith again?
I'm sick of it.
The point is whether or not you are willing to provide better quality work to your customers.
Apparently there isn't.

You are just not happy that randomness is random. That's all there is. No matter what kind of RNG they use, you will not be happy because it is "too random" and it can give you the "similar numbers too often". This is all your human bias acting up. This is what randomness often does. You can't really get any more "quality" out of a different RNG. Diminishing gains (if even any gain). Look again at my 2-coins example. 50% of the game results will "not be fair". Same will most likely apply to 2d6.

Improving the RNGs will not make the randomness noticeably different at the scale of 70-80 2d6 dice rolls per game. You are just using weird strawman-ish arguments without any proof. What you are really asking for is to get a pseudo-randomness that feels "more fair" for a human. You want the randomness to be tamed to your liking, which makes it less random. You are acting as if randomness is at fault when it is your mindset instead.

You don't seem to have any knowledge on the topic and you are demanding things that you don't know anything about. You don't even know whether it will fix things or make it worse or if it stays the same. You just want to waste development time because you can't grasp how probabilities work.

[Rufasu]

Normal working people would only say “we will improve”.
It is the technician who does the programming rather than doing all the words.

[Stroom]

Normal working people would only say “we will improve”.
It is the technician who does the programming rather than doing all the words.

You don't even know WHAT is there to improve Just whining that the game is not fair because RNG did not go your way this time. Changing the underlying RNG might change things maybe 0.001% and you wouldn't even notice whether it is for better or worse.

Catan is a game of randomness. Sometimes you have done everything right and still lose. Deal with it.

[Nekojin]

Our clients have repeatedly told us that you have a bias in your dice counts.
You continue to cover it up with the word “statistics” instead of computer science.
If the word “statistics” were all you had to say, there would be no research on random number algorithms.

Who are these "clients" that you're claiming to represent here? Are you working for some sort of gaming middle-man company that we don't know about?

Since you don't seem to understand, I will write a simpler analogy.
A customer says, “The food is bad. Please serve me better food.”
BGA: “Prove it. Oops, the sample size is too small, so please eat more than 1,000 times and compile the data.”

A customer who says, "The food is bad," without going into any detail can be dismissed without acknowledgement. This is the equivalent of a pre-schooler whining, "I don't like it." They're not providing positive, constructive criticism in any way. It's easy to have a negative outlook on things. Actually figuring things out is hard.

How long will you continue to defame the developers?
Your attitude is an affront to computer science and engineers.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

There's definitely a translation error going on here. Or at least I hope it's one. We're not defaming the developers. Quite the opposite - we're saying that they did a good job, they've got the "problem" handled, and we don't see a need to change anything.

You're saying, "There's something wrong, fix it." You have no evidence, no proof, that there's actually anything wrong, just cherry-picked examples that (don't really) support your claims. You feel that the RNG isn't random enough, but feelings don't count when we're talking about science.

If you truly want to see change happen, do better. Instead of sniping at the people who are telling you that you're wrong, try to actually demonstrate the problem in a way that is useful and constructive.

[Nekojin]

One more attempt at an explanation here, because I think we're getting nowhere.

When you go to a restaurant and order food, and the food is not to your satisfaction, you can complain to the chef. My burger is too cold, it's under-done. And the chef can look at the burger and see that yes, it hasn't been cooked enough (or perhaps see that it was actually overcooked, and the customer is just complaining to get out of paying, or get an extra burger for free).

But that's where the comparison ends, because a single burger can be adequate evidence that the food wasn't prepared adequately. It's the final product. But a single game of Catan is not a burger. The complaint process is not the same, the analysis process is not the same, and the conclusion process is not the same.

Your attempting to apply irrelevant comparisons is getting in the way of your understanding, here.