Deleting my BGA account, just wanted to say GoodBye

[tbhp]

There is practically no benefit to high ELO players if the games do not follow basic Gaussian distribution of dices.

What? Do you expect a benefit to high elo players? Why?

I think they meant that high elo players will analyze probabilities when making their moves, but that all those efforts are rendered vain if the system is actually "rigged".

Spending a lot of time determining that a move should give you a 90% chance of winning can feel fruitless when you end up losing in those situations a lot more often than 10% of the time.

Now, it's unclear how and why a rigged system would be working against you specifically, so the more likely explanation is that you just get unlucky a lot.

[Paddles]

Besides all these basic bugs, their random number generator is extremely poor.
There is practically no benefit to high ELO players if the games do not follow basic Gaussian distribution of dices.
...
For example, for the birds which pick food from the birdfeeder in wingspan, it happens a bit too often that all possible dices roll except the one compatible with the word, I have analyzed my 500+ games statistically and the occurrence of these events is not random at all.

Unfortunately for you, your attempt to use words to sound like you know what you are talking about have failed.

• Dice don't (CAN'T!) follow a Gaussian distribution (commonly known a normal distribution). A normal/Guassian distribution is continuous; dice are discrete.
• If you are rolling a single die, then it follows a uniform distribution.
• If you are rolling two ordinary six-sided dice and then adding them to reach a total, the distribution is triangular.
• If you are rolling larger numbers of dice and adding them to reach a total, then the distribution is a bell curve (but it's still not Gaussian!).
• If you are rolling dice in Wingspan, then you're not adding them together. You could count the number of a food that were rolled, but the distribution of that is not a bell curve. I haven't calculated the full distribution, but if there is a single food that you want then the probability of rolling none of them is approximately 0.1317, close to 2 in 15, which I suspect is far more likely than you're expecting, especially if you're imagining some sort of bell curve.

So whatever "analysis" you've done, it isn't statistical and there's no reason to believe your claims about non-randomness.

[FrankJones]

... but if there is a single food that you want then the probability of rolling none of them is approximately 0.1317, close to 2 in 15, which I suspect is far more likely than you're expecting, especially if you're imagining some sort of bell curve.

Where did you get these numbers from? They are incorrect. or rather, unclear. .1317 is the probability of failing to roll a food that appears on 2 faces of the die when rolling all 5 dice. This would be the value for grain and worm.

For the other three foods, the probability of failing to roll a desired food is approximately 40%. (When rolling all five dice).

But that just furthers the point you are making: It's likely less probable than people realize to roll a specific desired food. The predators that roll for a fish or rat miss a lot, often many times in a row, because of the above information and also the fact that at most 4 dice will be rolled, and often fewer.

[Ceaseless]

... but if there is a single food that you want then the probability of rolling none of them is approximately 0.1317, close to 2 in 15, which I suspect is far more likely than you're expecting, especially if you're imagining some sort of bell curve.

Where did you get these numbers from? They are incorrect.

I'm thinking they did Invertebrate (or Seed).

[Paddles]

Where did you get these numbers from? They are incorrect. or rather, unclear. .1317 is the probability of failing to roll a food that appears on 2 faces of the die when rolling all 5 dice. This would be the value for grain and worm.

I was working from memory about the configuration of different foods on the dice - yes, based on food appearing on 2 faces. I don't have my own set to check. But yes, you're right - where a food only appears on one side or fewer than five dice are being rolled, the probability of failure is even worse.

I really don't get these theories about rigged dice/rigged cards. The BGA code uses a good and well-documented generator (it's almost guaranteed that if anyone decided to build their own random number generator instead of the standard one, it would show more predictable patterns). And rigging the game to favour any player (premium, new, high-ELO, low-ELO, new, whatever) is not only far more difficult than coding the game rules correctly and fairly, it would be very easy for any developer doing so to get caught by other people.

[nik592]

I really don't get these theories about rigged dice/rigged cards. The BGA code uses a good and well-documented generator (it's almost guaranteed that if anyone decided to build their own random number generator instead of the standard one, it would show more predictable patterns). And rigging the game to favour any player (premium, new, high-ELO, low-ELO, new, whatever) is not only far more difficult than coding the game rules correctly and fairly, it would be very easy for any developer doing so to get caught by other people.

Preach. I've said the same many times, at this point, I've just about given up. Generally it seems that someone who posts about the dice being rigged isn't looking for reasonable explanations of why that's unlikely or a better understanding of probability, they just want people to agree with them. Anyone who doesn't is clearly "in on it" or just really naive. I don't claim to perfectly understand probability, but I do understand that random number generators are such a common thing in coding, and saying "get me a random number between x and y" is sooooooo much easier than whatever coding someone thinks might be being implemented to favour someone other than them.

[Meeplelowda]

Preach. I've said the same many times, at this point, I've just about given up.

I've also given up in the sense that if I can tell from the thread title that it's a riggy (to borrow a term from poker forums where this stuff is equally insidious) thread, I simply don't open it. I didn't know this one was about that.

[Exotic Dreams]

I don't know why I bother, but...

....
I legitimately hope this response is helpful. I'm not a BGA employee, but I am an avid BGA game developer. Hopefully this sets the record straight.

I looked and appreciate your feedback.

[BarnardsStar]

whatever coding someone thinks might be being implemented to favour someone other than them.

As a software developer, this is the part that really speaks to me. For some games like poker or yahtzee, it is at least somewhat plausible the game could be rigged. For most games, forget it. In most games, the level of analysis needed to actually rig the game for somebody or against somebody else is just… well, it’s a lot.

Take OP’s apparent favorite game, Wingspan… so you’ve got this hand of bird cards and need the food to play them. In order to effectively rig the game, I’ve got to have some idea of which bird you would want to play and then either guarantee you the food or deny you the food for that bird. Well, how would the game know which bird you are looking to play? Just the level of analysis based on cards in hand, birds already played, playing style, etc… it’s kind of mind-boggling. Does anybody actually think the game dev would do this? Why would the game dev do this? What’s the motivation?

[nccc]

He actually deleted his aaccount!