Square Enix's RNG

Anyone else feel like SE's RNG is a complete joke?

I have been crafting all night getting about 80-90% chance of HQ and swear I have failed about 50% of the time.

Meanwhile I barely get any HQ with 15-20% chance HQ.

Same goes for gathering. Several misses in a row on 80% chance.

They really need to update their RNG formula.

/rant

The RNG works properly, considering the percentages are calculated per action. There doesn't seem to be any long-term calculation going on (nor should there be). I get occasional NQ results with 99% quality, and I have missed 6 times in a row on 99% gathering. That's how real life works sometimes, so why not have the game work the same way? Sometimes, luck just isn't on (y)our side.

RNG is a joke

What a random joke

Keep this thread going. When I wake up i want to read about people bitching about RNG. I love RNG. My favorite way to get loot. I wonder if i'll get my Allagan weapon before 2.2? Just love being rewarded for clearing hard content. Wait. I haven't.

I've HQed with 2% chance as well as missed with 99%. Thats what rng is, it's random. Chance is chance. High chance doesn't make it certain it just makes it more likely. It's just (bad) luck.

I've HQed a lot of stuff on auto synthesis (1%HQ chance) and I've also failed a few 95%+ HQ crafting. RNG is RNG.

RNG is certainly RNG with a small sample set, but a large sample size of a couple hundred synths should be closer to the expected percentage. The largest sample I tested was 100 synths at 80% chance and my average was 67% success. That probably isn't a big enough sample though.

I don't get why in every single game there are these people who will makes these claims of incorrect RnG with completely no backing at all. I feel like people throw around this word without even knowing what it means.

No, a couple hundred is not a large enough sample size.

Last night, I helped my 5th grade daughter with math homework. She was to throw a die 100 times and make a frequency table with the results. Before that she should also guess how many 4s she would get.

Lo and behold, she got twice as many 3s as 4s! But she did not blame the die for having bad RNG, instead she learnt something.

RNG is just a RNG. Though putting random and computer together isn't really all that random. Look it up, the actual name is pseudo-RNG, meaning it attempts to be random like but really isn't because a computer can't just pick a number out of thin air like we can rolling a 100 sided die. The only thing going against you is likely the time seed they usually use for RNGs. So don't blame the RNG, blame the time! (Unless SE doesn't use time to seed the RNG, then blame whatever they seed)

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/5f/5f62...4dfab0a866.jpg

Random is not consistent. If you want to prove the percent is wrong you will need to post hard data with a very large sample size e.g. 1000 attempts.

I would like to throw my two cents in, overall the RNG is functional, but I would say it is broken to the point you have to adjust any percentage you see. I think everyone who has done a lot of crafting or gathering (or followed a lot of loot drops) knows, there are highly unlikely occurrences both directions, and "unlikely" strings of failures and success are common, when they should be statistically rare. Overall they tend to average down to a baseline, but that baseline is not the listed number in my experience.

Ignoring failures, look just at HQ for the moment. When I first started playing with using Unearth I did some tests to see how well it worked, and if it was worth the waiting for GP every few nodes, or paying for cordials.

Copper Ore @100% chance, 15% HQ. Using Unearth at every single node, so 25%, and 30% for +5% nodes.

I mined a total of 75 nodes(I was going to do 100 but I can only take mining for so long....) , so ~300 total ores mined. At the end I had 38 HQ.

That is obviously not 25%, more like 12%. While I haven't done another test to further verify this or do an even larger sample, this upholds my experience with RNG in this game: subtract ~10% to get the real world average percentage.

Run WP a few hundred times and you'll see that the RNG is completely broken.

I've trashed tens of dozens of lancers arms and pugilist fists, RARELY see anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rivienne

snip

---

RNG doesn't mean if it's 25% chance that you will get 25% HQ by the end of a run. It means when you click on that node you have a 25% chance to get 1 hq. The next time you click, you have the exact same chance. RNG means that even in 1000 gathers, you could get 1 hq.

The same thing happens with a dice roll. It's completely random. Try it sometime.

That is how random works. Yes computers have pseudo-RNG but in the grand scheme of things it works just fine for a video game.

Thanks to this thread I finally figured out what RNG stands for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonFlyy

RNG doesn't mean if it's 25% chance that you will get 25% HQ by the end of a run. It means when you click on that node you have a 25% chance to get 1 hq. The next time you click, you have the exact same chance. RNG means that even in 1000 gathers, you could get 1 hq.

The same thing happens with a dice roll. It's completely random. Try it sometime.

That is how random works. Yes computers have pseudo-RNG but in the grand scheme of things it works just fine for a video game.

---

And dont't forget that the Human brain tends to forget about positive results more easily while negative results are remembered. I am also sometimes frustrated when I have a 50% HQ chance and don't get a single HQ item. But on the other hand, I sometimes have 3-4 HQ items although there is only a 15% chance. And everything below 100% can result in getting nothing even a few times in a row. Also, making 100 attempts and writing down the results doesn't lead to any useful insights because the next row of 100 attempts will surely reveal different results. That's what RNG really is. You might not like it but it is stochastics working as it's meant to be. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lafiele

I don't get why in every single game there are these people who will makes these claims of incorrect RnG with completely no backing at all. I feel like people throw around this word without even knowing what it means.

---

To be fair, algorithms can be skewed.

What bugs me is that your Quality will be at like 700/1000 and show as 41% or some such bs.

Understand and accept that anything under 100% is NOT 100% .. I did an HQ Rose Gold Ingot at 2% HQ chance, unexpected things happen

Also people think more often then not the glass is 1/2 empty not 1/2 full or even all full just 1/2 full of air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayin

What bugs me is that your Quality will be at like 700/1000 and show as 41% or some such bs.

---

Just think of it so that HQ starts from 50% 500/1000 = 0% so 705/1000 is 41% (200/500 = 40%)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinheart

Just think of it so that HQ starts from 50% 500/1000 = 0% so 705/1000 is 41% (200/500 = 40%)

---

The Quality bar does not Linearly translate to the HQ percentage. I don't know the formula but it's some form of exponential
0/1000 > 100/1000 ... is 1 to 2% HQ chance
800/1000 > 900/1000 ... goes from 70 to 90% HQ chance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonFlyy

RNG doesn't mean if it's 25% chance that you will get 25% HQ by the end of a run. It means when you click on that node you have a 25% chance to get 1 hq. The next time you click, you have the exact same chance. RNG means that even in 1000 gathers, you could get 1 hq.

The same thing happens with a dice roll. It's completely random. Try it sometime.

That is how random works. Yes computers have pseudo-RNG but in the grand scheme of things it works just fine for a video game.

---

Distribution patterns. The farther away from that percentage you get the less likely it becomes that your results over a set of trials will deviate significantly from the probability of success.

So yeah, I do not think you understood me.. Distribution patterns and chances of success. I was using as an example the fact that the stated chances of success are flawed. The percentages listed do not accurately appear to reflect the distribution patterns, implying the distribution patterns themselves are flawed. Are you familiar with Bernoulli and Binomial Probability?

Chances of receiving my results of 38 (or less) over 300 tests at 0.25 probability is something around 1e-9. I could do the same test again, and I may when I have that much time, but based on my experience thus far every single time I mine, I anticipate similar results. These skewed results are normal. Not exceptions. And the fact I did 300 in a row to receive my tests should be at least somewhat representative of that. Obviously not definitive, but it does make things suspect since it does reinforce existing perceptions.

So you meant random is a joke? lol

The RNG for crafting is the same than the RNG to loot. If you wanna test it, it's pretty simple.

Example:
A Titan weapon chest.
5 people looting on the item.
The looting numbers were: 6-45-72-94-98.
The 98 got the item.

If you want to apply the RNG loot numbers to crafting, you can. Picture the looting numbers as "minimum %quality required for HQ". It is that simple. With the above example, even if you'd get 92% chance of HQ on your 5 crafts, 2 out of the 5 would have given a NQ because you were unlucky with the RNG system.

This is how the system works.

BUT there is a way to "exploit" (counter) the RNG system for crafting... just achieve 100% HQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronSoup

BUT there is a way to "exploit" the RNG system for crafting... just achieve 100% HQ.

---

Looking at this type of "exploit": for gathering this also exists on 5 chance nodes once you reach level 25? or 30. I can't remember: gather 4 100% items (shards if the item you want isn't), then solid reason, and deep vigor. 5th item is 100% chance of HQ. This still means the best you can get is 1 HQ mat for every 4 NQ, or 1 HQ mat for 4 shards though. And only every 5 nodes, and only if you recover enough GP first.

I would have to disagree with the OP. Personally I have all crafts at 50 and have had just as many things with say 10-20% chance hq as things with 90-100% chance nq. I think you have just been getting bad luck, the thing about RNG is that it's exactly that, random. Unless you have a sample of several thousand results and see a clear distinctive pattern I really don't think you can justify that it's not working. Just because you get bad luck multiple times in one session doesn't make it anything more than bad luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doson

Keep this thread going. When I wake up i want to read about people bitching about RNG. I love RNG. My favorite way to get loot. I wonder if i'll get my Allagan weapon before 2.2? Just love being rewarded for clearing hard content. Wait. I haven't.

---

Just be glad something drops. And it wasn't dark matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rivienne

Distribution patterns. The farther away from that percentage you get the less likely it becomes that your results over a set of trials will deviate significantly from the probability of success.

So yeah, I do not think you understood me.. Distribution patterns and chances of success. I was using as an example the fact that the stated chances of success are flawed. The percentages listed do not accurately appear to reflect the distribution patterns, implying the distribution patterns themselves are flawed. Are you familiar with Bernoulli and Binomial Probability?

---

No fancy math required here. If it's not 100% then there's always a chance you wont get HQ. Simple as that.

So many people complaining, but I have yet to see someone make a spreadsheet and mark down at each given percentage the number of successes and failures they've seen at that percentage. Also, we would need this in a large sample size to be statistically valuable. Until I see some numbers to support the idea that the RNG is bad I will continue to believe it is just RNG being RNG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murakamo

Anyone else feel like SE's RNG is a complete joke?

I have been crafting all night getting about 80-90% chance of HQ and swear I have failed about 50% of the time.

Meanwhile I barely get any HQ with 15-20% chance HQ.

Same goes for gathering. Several misses in a row on 80% chance.

They really need to update their RNG formula.

/rant

---

I ranted about this a few months a go

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...s-somewhat-off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayin

No fancy math required here. If it's not 100% then there's always a chance you wont get HQ. Simple as that.

---

It isn't fancy math.. It is about statistics: which I didn't bring up, SE did by putting chance percentages next to these values in the first place. 25% chance means you have a 1/4 chance of getting it, and 3/4 of failing, the "fancy" math is just about what that translates into for more than a single chance.

Random is random(or pseudo-random in this case obviously). But once you apply a statistical value too it, like SE has done, then it can be expected to conform to that number within certain tolerance levels over larger sample sets, otherwise that number is meaningless.

I am not complaining here: I think things function okay-ish. Just that the numbers SE has given aren't accurate to what is going on from what I have seen thus far, but they do mostly conform to some pattern. Just not the one stated by the number SE gave. Subtract 10% (for any value between 10% and 99%) seems a good rule of thumb for me. (Though it likely isn't accurate to what is actually going on to cause that perception)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rivienne

I am not complaining here: I think things function okay-ish. Just that the numbers SE has given aren't accurate to what is going on from what I have seen thus far, but they do mostly conform to some pattern. Just not the one stated by the number SE gave. Subtract 10% (for any value between 10% and 99%) seems a good rule of thumb for me. (Though it likely isn't accurate to what is actually going on to cause that perception)

---

As you say this is entirely your perception, and that perception is always biased. Specifically, human perception draws greater attention to things that fail or disappoint. As you say a 25% change means 1/4, but in statistics there is no expectation that every 4 attempts will provide exactly 1 success. Every given event is random and irrelevant to each other attempt. They are independent observations. As such runs of success or failures are entirely possible especially when you consider how many players are in game at once all causing the RNG to activate. In a great enough sample size it is entirely likely that the RNG does in fact fit within the tolerances expected of it. Everyone needs to chill out and realize their opinions are entirely biased and have absolutely no statistical accuracy on whether or not the RNG is broken or not. Someone, anyone, should start a spreadsheet and begin recording their observations. Once we have a few thousand instances at a specific percentage( Ie. at 99% for 1000 synths I had 900 successes and 100 failures for an actual fail rate of 10%) then we can say for sure if this is broken or not. Until that time this is all, 100%, subjective.

RNG is fine, in life you also don't get what you want. get used to it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

As you say this is entirely your perception, and that perception is always biased. Specifically, human perception draws greater attention to things that fail or disappoint

---

Actually, I only inserted myself into this thread to insert some hard numbers of a reasonable quantity to be potentially meaningful. I performed a specific test to determine usefulness of unearth given the need for cordial/waiting for GP (not to find a flaw in the system): those results are large enough that they appear to show a skew in the system. You have deemed those numbers not enough (or not noticed them), that is fair, I already said they aren't enough to make a definitive conclusion: but that they are suspect.

I do in fact have hard experience with this type of system, so I am not exactly speaking in ignorance, but more... I am not sure why there is this huge push back against the possibility of this system being flawed. It is very hard to get a reasonable approximation of probability distribution right, and mistakes can easily happen.

Naturally people who are frustrated will complain: but that doesn't mean they don't have a potentially valid complaint. "Numbers or it didn't happen!" "More numbers or it didn't happen!" "ALL the numbers or it didn't happen."

Probability and statistics is about not needing all the numbers, just a sufficiently large sample size. I performed a test of a reasonable size to suggest there may in fact be a problem. I agree more numbers should be done independently to attempt to validate them. That doesn't mean my numbers, or my for the purpose of game play conclusions based on them, are not worth mention until then.

I melded some materia for a friend the other day and failed a 35% chance about 8 times before giving up. The next person I melded for needed a 7% chance and I nailed it first try. It can be frustrating I know. But a 50% chance means you can fail EVERY time. Doesn't mean that 5/10 tries will succeed.

I would actually like to know what random number generator they're using, and whether or not it has passed all the tests out there for random number generation. There are plenty of bad generators out there, and if they wrote the one they're using themselves, then there's a high probability it IS broken.

I've seen events happen more than a few times that simply should not have occurred, like failing over and over again with 98 and 99% chances for success. And by not occurring, I mean that the probability of these events is on the order of 1:1,000,000,000, and they occur all the time.

They've already had to fix issues with loot drops in coil, so it really makes you wonder what else is broken in this domain.

You can't draw any conclusions, none at all, from a single attempt. Not even 5-10 attempts. I shook 10 coins in my hand and tossed them on the table. 7 heads, 3 tails. Chance of a heads result? Around 50%.

The sting of failure is absolutely more intense than success. I NQ'd two separate synths at HQ:98% (class quest item) on different days this week. Table flip time. As for the mat synth HQs that came from HQ < 20%? Even at HQ:6%? Not even an in-chair dance.

I have seen that when I macro synth even around 100 base mats, the HQ results are close to the percentages shown. So I'm happy that it seems to be working correctly. When I gather, I have seen a 90% fail 2/5. I've also seen a 35% succeed 4/5. Usually it's ball park accurate. The only pattern is that it seems to be random. :D

I like to think of all RNG based concepts in this game as a 50/50 chance, whether loot, gathering, or crafting; either I got it or I didn't. Same as playing the lottery. You either win or you didn't. Numbers may have SOME relevance, but surely you can't tell if they're taking effect or not.

Dies can be weighted. It's historically one of the most assured things a gambler around the world can know. Everything from slots, to roullette have often weighted or skewed results thrown in the seemingly random paradigm that they appear to be.

To think that SE does not, and has this perfectly random system in place is optimistic at best. None of us know the seed they use in their database. It would take months to gather the data, if not years before anyone could have a truly accurate result of what SE actually provides rather than what we expect.

"R"NG is the nature of any gambling practice. Go to Vegas and see just how random it truly is when you count the empty handed heads that walk in and out the door every day on every casino. Only the operator knows the truth.