Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Player Elemmire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    39
    Character
    Elemmire
    World
    Quetzalcoatl
    Main Class
    RDM Lv 99

    Random Number Generator Woes: A Simple Fix

    Nothing makes me sadder in a game than Random Number Generators. I can understand their importance to some degree, but there's a point in which they just aren't fair to the gamer and, more importantly for a game, just not fun. Take Dynamis Procs for example. I can spam a job ability for 5-10 minutes and not see a proc at all. I have never had much luck in games or anything that involves anything with luck or randomness. It'd be nice if the game implemented a system (as far as I know this doesn't exist in FFX) where the more you do something, if a proc doesn't happen or a drop doesn't happen, the more likely it will drop/proc for you the next time you do it. There are other games that already implement it. I think it'd help the experience in FFXI.
    (3)
    Last edited by Elemmire; 02-08-2014 at 10:10 AM.

  2. #2
    Player Siviard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San d'Oria
    Posts
    336
    Character
    Siviard
    World
    Shiva
    Main Class
    BST Lv 99
    I opened the thread thinking it was something about the Ranger job. Please be more specific in your thread title so that I won't waste moments of my life opening a pointless thread.
    (1)

  3. #3
    Player Elemmire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    39
    Character
    Elemmire
    World
    Quetzalcoatl
    Main Class
    RDM Lv 99
    Good point :O as a programmer I'm more used to RNG = Random Number Generator and not Ranger :P
    (0)

  4. #4
    Player
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Siviard View Post
    I opened the thread thinking it was something about the Ranger job. Please be more specific in your thread title so that I won't waste moments of my life opening a pointless thread.
    It could mean either thing. You just 50/50'd the wrong one. While I agree he could have been more specific, no need to be negative about it.
    (0)