The sad part is this is the most fair backgammon game I’ve downloaded so far.I don't think it's the randomness of the dice algorithm that is in question.
I’d say the iPad wins 5 or 6 out of 10 games but 8 or 9 out of 10 match-winning games. Long story short, the dice are not random. Once the iPad plays the doubling cube this becomes more pronounced. The iPad tends to roll many more doubles than the player and its rolls, both doubles and non-doubles, tend to be more useful (example: high numbers that get its pips to the home row more quickly.) Player rolls they tend to be less useful numbers that force him to move pips 1, 2, or 3 points at a time.
The player will roll, and roll, and roll while trying to re-enter the game, almost always rolling the exact number(s) necessary to land on the iPad’s points that are occupied by 2 or more pips, even when the iPad’s home row is sparsely occupied. When the player takes one of the iPad’s pips the iPad almost always rolls the exact number(s) necessary to re-enter the game, even if the player’s home row is heavily occupied by 2 or more pips per point. Where to begin? The iPad’s rolls almost never force it to leave a single pip on a point, while the player's rolls almost always do. Like all others, made so the computer wins This statistically impossible in any sort of reality outside a poorly written, apparently biased dice roll algorithm that seems to be designed to cheat (can’t say with certainty but this inordinate amount of doubles for the computer coupled with rolls that heavily favor the computer in timing would make one tend to believe such a thing). The last two games the computer rolled doubles 4 times while I did not get one for one game and the next it started with two doubles and had 4 in the first 7 rolls all told. When I do get doubles, literally 1/3 of the time it is useless since I am trying to get a piece out of jail and it is for a spot that is not open.
In the 5 games I have played since my review, it still rolls a significant amount of doubles above what I get by a 4:1 margin. There is no way one can call that a legit random dice roll algorithm. The computer had three doubles in a row and 5 for total for the game while I had 1 double for the entire game. In the two most recent games I played, for instance, the computer had three doubles while I had none, and in the other. Hard should not mean more likely to get doubles, it should mean it employs better strategies. I have played the game many times and have found on the Hard level, the computer gets both an inordinate amount of fortunate rolls and doubles compared to myself. Interesting note the new version actually seems to make more mistakes than the old version leaving up to 4 uncovered men on a regular basis when Better options are available which in itself is frustrating but as I said it's just a game and it's free. Lucky rolls are part of the game after all and they admit that they increase double rolls once clearing off starts to "increase excitement" so consider this a way to pass the time not a way to improve your game. Clearly the game needs to Cheat because no AI is going to perform that well compared to a skilled player so they have to tip the odds. Also average dice roll total in final 20 rolls is at least 20% higher on average for the game than opponent. Statistics show me through study of 20 consecutive games that the game consistently rolls doubles for itself at least 3:1 on average against opponent in final 20 rolls although double rate for overall game is statistically relatively even.
0 kommentar(er)
