Eleven Fajin boots!

[Alhanelem]

They said they plan to boost drop rates.

Only for the newer ones introduced in the future. e.g. harder fight = better drop rates.

In addition, when they add more chapters to the Voidwatch system, and introduce even stronger monsters, the drop rates for these tougher challenges will be increased beyond what is currently in place.

[Leonlionheart]

Only for the newer ones introduced in the future. e.g. harder fight = better drop rates.

I thought he was referring to the current T4 cities T3 zilart/jeuno in context to the previous paragraph

[Alhanelem]

I thought he was referring to the current T4 cities T3 zilart/jeuno in context to the previous paragraph

It is vague and ambiguous, but in the post he uses future tense. Maybe Camate can clear it up for us/me.

[Leonlionheart]

I see your point, and it makes a lot of sense but it's just not what I took from it at first read.

Either way as long as they make gear that actually beats out current gear, I won't care about T3Jeuno/Zilart, T4 cities anymore.

If not, iquit

[Arcon]

1) Not as many things are truly random as we think, and computers are technically incapable of being truly random

Computers are perfectly able to handle true randomness. And pseudorandomness is not only "for all intents and purposes" indistinguishable from true randomness, it's completely indistinguishable for humans, that's implied by the definition of the word. So even if something is pseudorandom, it would have no correlation with patterns we read into it.

I'm very sure people are reading too much into this. It's random, and it just sucks. People tend to focus more on the flaws in a system, they notice a lack of drops more than on the actual drops. See the birthday problem, same thing.

[Alhanelem]

Computers are perfectly able to handle true randomness.

Funny, that's not what they taught me throughout 4 years of a computer science major.

Yes, pseudo-random means we can't tell it from true randomness. But pseudo-random still != true random.

Yes, we could be reading too far into this, or maybe we're not. More data would help. I'm not about to conclusively declare one state or the other without good data.

they notice a lack of drops more than on the actual drops

If the topic title is any indication, people are very much noticing the drops just as much as the lack thereof.

[Arcon]

Funny, that's not what they taught me throughout 4 years of a computer science major.

Computers can (and do) use physical phenomena as seeds for pseudorandom algorithms, to generate true random numbers. There's even several internet-services that produce random numbers that you can use.

Yes, pseudo-random means we can't tell it from true randomness. But pseudo-random still != true random.

Just saying it doesn't matter in this context. If it's indistinguishable from true randomness for us, it can't be responsible for us seeing patterns in it.

If the topic title is any indication, people are very much noticing the drops just as much as the lack thereof.

Let me rephrase, people focus on the negative over the positive.

[Buffy]

Camate, on the odd chance you read a thread you've already posted in.

Tell the devs their answer sucks.

[Nightfyre]

Computers can (and do) use physical phenomena as seeds for pseudorandom algorithms, to generate true random numbers. There's even several internet-services that produce random numbers that you can use.

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of randomness, nor the relevance of randomness vs pseudorandomness in this discussion.

[Arcon]

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of randomness, nor the relevance of randomness vs pseudorandomness in this discussion.

Thanks for sharing your highly valuable opinion. I pretty much said the same thing as you though, so good to know we're on the same page.