← Back to context

Comment by mh-

9 hours ago

lol, love seeing that I'm not the only one who did this. Being suspicious of WoF was the first and last time I peeked at the Balatro source.

Game developers sometimes make the “randomness” favor the player, because of how we perceive randomness and chance.

For example in Sid Meier’s Memoir, this is mentioned.

Quoting from a review of said book:

> People hate randomness: To placate people's busted sense of randomness and overdeveloped sense of fairness, Civ Revolutions had to implement some interesting decisions: any 3:1 battle in favor of human became a guaranteed win. Too many randomly bad outcomes in a row were mitigated.

https://archive.is/8eVqt

  • Games like Battle for Wesnoth which have it implemented right, you’ll look at a 90-10 scenario with 2 attacks and end up with the 1% scenario. Enough to make a man rage. I have degrees in Mathematics, I am aware of statistics, and all that. And yet when I played that game I would still have an instant “wait what, that’s super unlikely” before I had to mentally control for the fact that so many battles happen in a single map.

    Was good because it identified a personal mental flaw.

The 8-ball joker is even more BS. I think I’ve only seen it trigger once ever.

  • I've read the source a few years back. It's all implemented fairly as it says on the tin.

    I've long been suspicious of the RNG/seed implementation.. but not curious enough to automate testing of it, though.