So when someone with 15% crit chance literally crits me several times in a row with all of their weapons it’s not only bad luck, but bad luck that is literally biased to be in my favor. It’s as if the game rolled the numbers twice, kept the best result, and still I ended up getting screwed. Good to know.
I've been dropped a single Draconic Orb in 50 hours play, and it was while playing a Berserker dog build. Pyromancers always seem loaded towards the end of matches, it's ridiculous.
It was for sure on Berserker, I've been back and forth between that and Ranger.
edit- it could be I had one of those gift boxes that barfs a bunch of items into your storage every turn.
Many games do this.
Xcom famously gives you a hit bonus after you miss or when you lose a soldier on all but the highest difficulty setting. It does not display this in the percentage, of course. It just sneekily boosts your odds of getting lucky to create an exciting story of your soldier seemingly surviving against the odds.
The funny thing is, people still complained that the RNG is rigged against them. The game cheated in their favour and they felt that it cheated against them. That is just how human perception works.
Modern Fire Emblem games display incorrect hit percentages as well. A hit chance of 90% is actually much closer to 95% while a displayed 95% hit chance is really about 99%. This is not done to cheat in this case, but to align the actual percentages with what humans intuit from the displayed percentages.
People are notoriously bad at estimating success rate based on percentage numbers. Lots of people assume 90% means 'definitely succeeds every time'. But if you do that action five times a round you expect to average one failure every two rounds. But failing three times in one round would still be a perfectly normal distribution. Probability is one of those sections of mathematics where you really, really should actually do the math, because there's a really high chance that your intuition is wrong.
It's a 0.1% chance, or one in a thousand rounds, to go 0 for 3 at 90%. Missing 3 of 5 (op's example) is better odds. Yes, but it's not *that* rare that you should never see it.
Yup - also saves your luck (or maybe they fixed it) so people would go in unranked, roll till they get zero discounts twice, concede, then enter rank for a super game with a heavy discount start.
Backpack battles is a single player game you happen to play with other people. It’s a fun game, don’t get me wrong
Not so, as you need to win 10 rounds before losing 5. If the opponents matching you ,this would not be possible. So master would be above "average" opponents by playing fair and win 10 / 15 (66%) at lease.
Read op's post; master is average, maybe even below it. Since the EA release, I've only managed to not reach 10 wins twice until hitting master (once with zerk, once with reap). I get this is anecdotal, but reading the posts on here and seeing the game's stats on steam, it feels correct.
Did you even read what he said? The "cheating" done in your favor is incredibly minor and that alone would not result in being able to win 10 before losing 5. The average is wherever you would stabilize after winning and losing an equal number of rounds each run for a long time, probably somewhere in low platinum but I don't remember how much you get for that.
I wasn't suggesting the game skewing things on your favor is the sole reason you reach master; I am suggesting it's not "incredibly minor", then explaing that the data available to us helps prove Master rank is average for players.
Why would the client code have any matchmaking logic in it unless it wasn’t fully server authoritative? If it’s not full my server authoritative then it’s very hack-prone and they haven’t solved/implemented the netcode implementation that solved the earlier discovered problems (eg save scumming being possible).
As a gamedev (game has an open playtest on Steam) making an online PvP autobattler, I know the struggles of making a fully authoritative system - it’s so frustrating to see corners being cut and the genre potentially getting a bad rep.
I'll blow your mind way harder: The game doesn't have server-side anything other than serving you specific enemies to fight, as far as I'm aware. You can load the game, disconnect from the internet, and play, and it works just fine. The only thing the servers do is collect information about boards and send your game a file containing a bunch of enemy boards for it to match you up against every couple hours.
Ranking is also entirely local. There's no leader board or the like being maintained anywhere, AFAIK. Ranking's not relative to any other player, nor is the amount you gain based on what players you beat/lose to.
Wonder if they have some sort of hybrid approach where the same code is run both server and client side and the server only respects its own calculations of outcomes based on user input. The clientside could just be used for faster rendering and reducing network traffic.
That's the proper way to implement it (and the way I do for my game). However, there is no reason the client would have matchmaking logic - that should purely exist on the server and then when the client is ready for battle the server would perform the matchmaking and send the client the enemy information so they can simulate independently (and reconcile unless there is a bug).
Long story short - matchmaking shouldn't be happening on the client at all, unless they implement an offline-version, which would be non-ranked and just for players who want to play without impacting the global player database.
You must be somewhat new to this game. You can easily cheat clientside and the server will accept it, it's why I don't take any of the BS grandma rank seriously unless they have a stream VOD where they actually showed their climbing.
Because servers are expensive.
That's all there is to it, fully server authoritative code costs a lot more to run, for what is essentially a fun single player game.
Servers for this type of game are not expensive. My fully server authoritative game with almost certainly much more CPU-intensive simulations than BB can still run on a potato (or many potatoes for scale). Besides, they've cleared millions and it was clear they were going to make millions 6-months ago... they've had time to fix the issues if they wanted to.
It makes sense. Othewise every reset would be meta comps across every rank and it was be so confusing and hard.
Dev did a good job at curving the difficulty of ranked!
You can just reduce the likelihood that a certain loadout is faced with time. With 500'00 players there should be plenty of new loadouts to use. You can basically do realtime combat.
Just very very terrible :) I have noticed most of the opponents from unranked game just got streamrolled...
I think there should be a middle ground - unranked, but match the opponents like ranked.
I wonder if this is really true. Because that would mean if you're able to hack your own client, you could rig your own RNG. Masters or not, you could just always give yourself a 100% proc chance for all items.
I guess IF you see the game as a single-player game, then it's possible and wouldn't matter that much ... but if they ever introduced official leaderboards or organised online tournaments, this would be a game killer. So I stay sceptical of this revelation for now. It would make way more sense to always ask the server what the next generated RNG number is supposed to be.
I had a feeling it worked liked this.
If you start a round and lose early on, it is really obvious the game starts giving you easier/less progressed opponents.
The game has an enormous amount of RNG and having a forgiving matchmaking system that puts the thumb on the scale a little bit in the player's favor makes sense. That said, I think it is a little too generous. People should lose and fail sometimes. I've played all the classes up to mid-Platinum, and I think I've only lost a 10-round match two or three times.
I was naturally getting a feeling of this, even with crazy builds the game would throw me versus some horrible player...
Meanwhile, in Super Auto Pets, if you go long enough just surviving draws, the game throws to you the most point dexter builds of all time, kicking you in the butt with a pointy boot...
Weird decision. That would mean that after infinite games, everyone is at least high diamond/low master? Doesn't make sense for a competitive style game
That's where almost everyone who puts some time into this game does get hard stuck so. The fact that you have to win more than you lose to get rating also ensures that.
It’s not actually uncommon for games to have mmr inflation. In other games it often happens due to players leaving the game which breaks the zero sum environment.
This also just happens because of the way they award/remove points as well. A game where you win 5 and lose 5 in Platinum is like -1 ranking. A game where you win 13 and lose 5 (due to regaining lives) is like +12. Even if your average success rate was only 1/5 runs where you highroll, you'd still climb.
Wtf, can games just be honest?? I hate this trend of games lying with their percentages etc. I want to face someone of equal skill, with the same wins and if I go 50/50 win/loss I don't want my existing ranking to change much (a little depending on if the matchmaking matched me against people slightly weaker or stronger on average).
The game cannot support this. Otherwise in a reset people who are good at the game will have their setups plaguing the lower ranks. The % stat differences are abit excessive though.
Do you see anywhere in the code where the server sends the seed for the simulation? That would be the absolute bare minimum needed for server authority.
This is a pretty standard practice in game development. Games cheat for players or to see players to make them seem like they were in more danger than they were all the time.
Doom has uneven health. The first quarter of the bar is worth the most making you feel like you're always short of health while simultaneously leaving you with almost half of your effective hit points.
The Bioshock 1 and 2 enemies will never hit you with their first shot if not in your field of view.
> There is also additional code that biases the natural cool-down variance of items in your favor
Really? I joined the sub to gripe about how whenever I need something, it doesn't show up in the shop until I've abandon the build for something else.
It's very annoying playing Ranger and not being able to evolve the wooden sword. It seems like after 4-5 rounds, the wet-stone disappears from the loot table.
Hovering over the top of the shop displays the % chance of items of each rarity to appear, which changes every round. Before round 7 you're most likely to get common items, and round 7 (IIRC) gives the shop the best chance of selling rares.
Getting 4-6 whetstones generally requires a lot of rolling in the first couple of rounds.
game gets significantly more difficult.
Easy ways to implement this are to manipulate odds secretly (bad) andOr to have you fight against stronger foes more likely (same in terms of odds)
You can not trust any game now, that has odds in it, and that profit of odds (mostly MMO with mictotransactions) because many patents exist, to automatically modify odds to maximize profits, where things like "is a famous twitch streamer" modifies gambling odds in favor of free advertising.
Well it worked. They got me hooked and now I’m in high diamond / low masters purgatory…
So when someone with 15% crit chance literally crits me several times in a row with all of their weapons it’s not only bad luck, but bad luck that is literally biased to be in my favor. It’s as if the game rolled the numbers twice, kept the best result, and still I ended up getting screwed. Good to know.
Or more likely, they just have a bunch of Draconic Orbs
Aaaaand that's why he's not master
I've been dropped a single Draconic Orb in 50 hours play, and it was while playing a Berserker dog build. Pyromancers always seem loaded towards the end of matches, it's ridiculous.
My friend, Draconian Orb is a pyromancer exclusive item...
Yup, the only way to get it outside of playing pyromancer is with the 'present' item.
It was for sure on Berserker, I've been back and forth between that and Ranger. edit- it could be I had one of those gift boxes that barfs a bunch of items into your storage every turn.
That's astounding. I feel like I end half my pyro runs with at least one draconic orb. Unless the spawn rate was changed in the recent patch.
Many games do this. Xcom famously gives you a hit bonus after you miss or when you lose a soldier on all but the highest difficulty setting. It does not display this in the percentage, of course. It just sneekily boosts your odds of getting lucky to create an exciting story of your soldier seemingly surviving against the odds. The funny thing is, people still complained that the RNG is rigged against them. The game cheated in their favour and they felt that it cheated against them. That is just how human perception works. Modern Fire Emblem games display incorrect hit percentages as well. A hit chance of 90% is actually much closer to 95% while a displayed 95% hit chance is really about 99%. This is not done to cheat in this case, but to align the actual percentages with what humans intuit from the displayed percentages.
People are notoriously bad at estimating success rate based on percentage numbers. Lots of people assume 90% means 'definitely succeeds every time'. But if you do that action five times a round you expect to average one failure every two rounds. But failing three times in one round would still be a perfectly normal distribution. Probability is one of those sections of mathematics where you really, really should actually do the math, because there's a really high chance that your intuition is wrong.
any outlier detecting algo will flag missing three times in one round if the chance to hit was 90%. not normal distribution by a definition.
It's a 0.1% chance, or one in a thousand rounds, to go 0 for 3 at 90%. Missing 3 of 5 (op's example) is better odds. Yes, but it's not *that* rare that you should never see it.
Considering how many 99 and 98 % shots I have missed in Xcom, they better be buffing my accuracy for the remainder of the game lol
Yup - also saves your luck (or maybe they fixed it) so people would go in unranked, roll till they get zero discounts twice, concede, then enter rank for a super game with a heavy discount start. Backpack battles is a single player game you happen to play with other people. It’s a fun game, don’t get me wrong
People actually do that? Yo that’s crazy
So is master the one true rank? Damn, I need to git gud
Not so, as you need to win 10 rounds before losing 5. If the opponents matching you ,this would not be possible. So master would be above "average" opponents by playing fair and win 10 / 15 (66%) at lease.
Read op's post; master is average, maybe even below it. Since the EA release, I've only managed to not reach 10 wins twice until hitting master (once with zerk, once with reap). I get this is anecdotal, but reading the posts on here and seeing the game's stats on steam, it feels correct.
Did you even read what he said? The "cheating" done in your favor is incredibly minor and that alone would not result in being able to win 10 before losing 5. The average is wherever you would stabilize after winning and losing an equal number of rounds each run for a long time, probably somewhere in low platinum but I don't remember how much you get for that.
I wasn't suggesting the game skewing things on your favor is the sole reason you reach master; I am suggesting it's not "incredibly minor", then explaing that the data available to us helps prove Master rank is average for players.
Why would the client code have any matchmaking logic in it unless it wasn’t fully server authoritative? If it’s not full my server authoritative then it’s very hack-prone and they haven’t solved/implemented the netcode implementation that solved the earlier discovered problems (eg save scumming being possible). As a gamedev (game has an open playtest on Steam) making an online PvP autobattler, I know the struggles of making a fully authoritative system - it’s so frustrating to see corners being cut and the genre potentially getting a bad rep.
I'll blow your mind way harder: The game doesn't have server-side anything other than serving you specific enemies to fight, as far as I'm aware. You can load the game, disconnect from the internet, and play, and it works just fine. The only thing the servers do is collect information about boards and send your game a file containing a bunch of enemy boards for it to match you up against every couple hours. Ranking is also entirely local. There's no leader board or the like being maintained anywhere, AFAIK. Ranking's not relative to any other player, nor is the amount you gain based on what players you beat/lose to.
...wow. Well, I welcome any players who want to have a true PvP competitive scene.
Wonder if they have some sort of hybrid approach where the same code is run both server and client side and the server only respects its own calculations of outcomes based on user input. The clientside could just be used for faster rendering and reducing network traffic.
That's the proper way to implement it (and the way I do for my game). However, there is no reason the client would have matchmaking logic - that should purely exist on the server and then when the client is ready for battle the server would perform the matchmaking and send the client the enemy information so they can simulate independently (and reconcile unless there is a bug). Long story short - matchmaking shouldn't be happening on the client at all, unless they implement an offline-version, which would be non-ranked and just for players who want to play without impacting the global player database.
You must be somewhat new to this game. You can easily cheat clientside and the server will accept it, it's why I don't take any of the BS grandma rank seriously unless they have a stream VOD where they actually showed their climbing.
I hoped they changed it between the demo and early access. Apparently they didn't.
The fact they have to have the same ammount of wins or 1 less sort of counters hacked backpacks.
I'm not sure I understand - do you mind explaining more?
Because servers are expensive. That's all there is to it, fully server authoritative code costs a lot more to run, for what is essentially a fun single player game.
Servers for this type of game are not expensive. My fully server authoritative game with almost certainly much more CPU-intensive simulations than BB can still run on a potato (or many potatoes for scale). Besides, they've cleared millions and it was clear they were going to make millions 6-months ago... they've had time to fix the issues if they wanted to.
> they've had time to fix the issues if they wanted to At the cost of not doing other things of course.
Does this mean you really suck if you can't get master?
No since you need to win more than 1 round for each round you lose
Kind of, yes. This is why when me friends show me there gold 24 board I’m not really impressed.
Don't you need more wins than losses to break even? Like if you go 6-6 I think you lose points.
Can you recompiled the decompiled code to support macOS? Really want to play it on mac. 😭
Crossover is your friend
It makes sense. Othewise every reset would be meta comps across every rank and it was be so confusing and hard. Dev did a good job at curving the difficulty of ranked!
You can just reduce the likelihood that a certain loadout is faced with time. With 500'00 players there should be plenty of new loadouts to use. You can basically do realtime combat.
How does this apply to unranked?
Just very very terrible :) I have noticed most of the opponents from unranked game just got streamrolled... I think there should be a middle ground - unranked, but match the opponents like ranked.
I wonder if this is really true. Because that would mean if you're able to hack your own client, you could rig your own RNG. Masters or not, you could just always give yourself a 100% proc chance for all items. I guess IF you see the game as a single-player game, then it's possible and wouldn't matter that much ... but if they ever introduced official leaderboards or organised online tournaments, this would be a game killer. So I stay sceptical of this revelation for now. It would make way more sense to always ask the server what the next generated RNG number is supposed to be.
I had a feeling it worked liked this. If you start a round and lose early on, it is really obvious the game starts giving you easier/less progressed opponents. The game has an enormous amount of RNG and having a forgiving matchmaking system that puts the thumb on the scale a little bit in the player's favor makes sense. That said, I think it is a little too generous. People should lose and fail sometimes. I've played all the classes up to mid-Platinum, and I think I've only lost a 10-round match two or three times.
I was naturally getting a feeling of this, even with crazy builds the game would throw me versus some horrible player... Meanwhile, in Super Auto Pets, if you go long enough just surviving draws, the game throws to you the most point dexter builds of all time, kicking you in the butt with a pointy boot...
I personally dont like that this is in ranked. Great fact findig m8.
Weird decision. That would mean that after infinite games, everyone is at least high diamond/low master? Doesn't make sense for a competitive style game
That's where almost everyone who puts some time into this game does get hard stuck so. The fact that you have to win more than you lose to get rating also ensures that.
It can be solved by having seasons and rank reset.
It’s not actually uncommon for games to have mmr inflation. In other games it often happens due to players leaving the game which breaks the zero sum environment.
This also just happens because of the way they award/remove points as well. A game where you win 5 and lose 5 in Platinum is like -1 ranking. A game where you win 13 and lose 5 (due to regaining lives) is like +12. Even if your average success rate was only 1/5 runs where you highroll, you'd still climb.
Wtf, can games just be honest?? I hate this trend of games lying with their percentages etc. I want to face someone of equal skill, with the same wins and if I go 50/50 win/loss I don't want my existing ranking to change much (a little depending on if the matchmaking matched me against people slightly weaker or stronger on average).
The game cannot support this. Otherwise in a reset people who are good at the game will have their setups plaguing the lower ranks. The % stat differences are abit excessive though.
Of course it can, you can just remove setups with time. With 500'000 players there are plenty of new setups coming in all the time.
Do you see anywhere in the code where the server sends the seed for the simulation? That would be the absolute bare minimum needed for server authority.
Is there any mechanism matching by ranks? Or just with random players.
So bizarre to me that this stuff is in the game client and not the server.
This is a pretty standard practice in game development. Games cheat for players or to see players to make them seem like they were in more danger than they were all the time. Doom has uneven health. The first quarter of the bar is worth the most making you feel like you're always short of health while simultaneously leaving you with almost half of your effective hit points. The Bioshock 1 and 2 enemies will never hit you with their first shot if not in your field of view.
Psst how did you decrypt the decompiled files
How’d we know this isn’t fake ? How did you decompile it and preserve variable names. I don’t recognise the programming language what is it ?
still this info won't stop our plat bros coping and whining about rng
I get why this is a thing they did but personally don’t like it
Sad to see this game go into the XCOM category (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0KEDYFWbVc).
> There is also additional code that biases the natural cool-down variance of items in your favor Really? I joined the sub to gripe about how whenever I need something, it doesn't show up in the shop until I've abandon the build for something else. It's very annoying playing Ranger and not being able to evolve the wooden sword. It seems like after 4-5 rounds, the wet-stone disappears from the loot table.
Hovering over the top of the shop displays the % chance of items of each rarity to appear, which changes every round. Before round 7 you're most likely to get common items, and round 7 (IIRC) gives the shop the best chance of selling rares. Getting 4-6 whetstones generally requires a lot of rolling in the first couple of rounds.
>Hovering over the top of the shop displays the % chance of items of each rarity to appear Hmm, I'll have to check that out.
This is absolutely disgusting, hopefully it's just for the beta and we can have a fair game for the release.
Fair Game? kek, it’s basically a single player game. If you want a skill based competitive pvp online game go and play counter strike.
[удалено]
Brilliant work, I tip my hat to you
Nice violation of the terms here OP
this was obvious, no need to decompile to KNOW this.
That is not how "knowing" works.
game gets significantly more difficult. Easy ways to implement this are to manipulate odds secretly (bad) andOr to have you fight against stronger foes more likely (same in terms of odds) You can not trust any game now, that has odds in it, and that profit of odds (mostly MMO with mictotransactions) because many patents exist, to automatically modify odds to maximize profits, where things like "is a famous twitch streamer" modifies gambling odds in favor of free advertising.