Board Game Arena

robinzig wrote: ↑12 June 2023, 17:14

Leard wrote: ↑12 June 2023, 10:59 I'd be genuinely interested in some data on this. Have you got anything to back up your claim, or is this based on rage-induced confirmation bias when a game hasn't gone your way?

If they had any data, they'd have supplied it in the opening post, as well as phrased themselves more calmly.

That's how science works nowadays. Scientists study for years, make their degrees, do research for years and have their results reviewed by other scientists. Guy on the internet: "That's fake, I rather believe my feelings."

I’ve definitely seems some bad games of Catan where I was on 6/8 and barely got anything while an opponent on 10/11s get nearly every roll. Last game we had four elevens in a row. Luckily it benefited me as that was my only brick.

Kaladry wrote: ↑13 June 2023, 08:41 I’ve definitely seems some bad games of Catan where I was on 6/8 and barely got anything while an opponent on 10/11s get nearly every roll. Last game we had four elevens in a row. Luckily it benefited me as they was my only brick.

Coincidentally, I've had such games in real life too. Maybe I should ask for a refund because of rigged dice in my box?

Random chance is a cruel mistress.

nik592 wrote: ↑13 June 2023, 13:47 Random chance is a cruel mistress.

Especially for people whitout a basic understanding of how it works.

T72on1 wrote: ↑13 June 2023, 11:00

Kaladry wrote: ↑13 June 2023, 08:41 I’ve definitely seems some bad games of Catan where I was on 6/8 and barely got anything while an opponent on 10/11s get nearly every roll. Last game we had four elevens in a row. Luckily it benefited me as they was my only brick.

Coincidentally, I've had such games in real life too. Maybe I should ask for a refund because of rigged dice in my box?

Maybe you should if you’ve got that attitude. I was just saying that “bad” rolls happen but sometimes it benefits you.

I seriously don't understand why these conspiracy guys keep playing luck-dependent games if they don't want to get the short end of the stick.
Is this a love-hate relationship with the RNGesus or something? Or simply blaming their loss on RNG to get away with it?
Either way, just stop making fun of yourself. Accept RNG or don't play luck-based games.

The best part about OPs post is that he wants dice rolls to be "fixed" to make it about "skill" and "randomness" didnt know rolling dice was skill based and not luck based......

Cappa23 wrote: ↑14 June 2023, 11:12 The best part about OPs post is that he wants dice rolls to be "fixed" to make it about "skill" and "randomness" didnt know rolling dice was skill based and not luck based......

It's possible to make dice games more about skill rather than luck by not having independent rolls. The basic idea is that you replace a pair of dice with 36 cards, representing the 36 possible rolls. Shuffle the cards and reveal one instead of rolling a die. When they run out, reshuffle. Then rolls will happen at the expected frequency (modulo edge effects) so it gives a bit more weight to assessments of the value of getting X on 7 vs Y on 11. It doesn't completely eliminate the luck: having lots of early 7s vs lots of late 7s can still swing things massively.

If this seems to favour memory that can be partially mitigated by discarding unseen a random number of cards after the first shuffle (and adding them back in on the reshuffle).

pjt33 wrote: ↑14 June 2023, 14:19 It's possible to make dice games more about skill rather than luck by not having independent rolls. The basic idea is that you replace a pair of dice with 36 cards, representing the 36 possible rolls. Shuffle the cards and reveal one instead of rolling a die. When they run out, reshuffle.

That's replacing dice with something else. If a game that uses dice wanted to use something else, they'd use something else to start with, and not dice. It's like saying you should use a 12-sided die instead of two 6-sided dice.

I would accept one variant, though: use the 36 cards, and reshuffle after every draw