% for melding materia is broken

When you have a 41% chance to meld a materia and somehow fail 14 times in a row, that sucks.

Having this happen 3 different times myself and many fc members as well.......

RNG is RNG

Come back when you try to meld materia with a 94% success rate and fail 3 times.

Not broken. It can happen. It's called being unlucky.

Not broken, when have a 7% success rate and it DOES succeed on first attempt.

the probability is less then .1% shouldnt happen 3 times

thats not a % of success rate at all

remove % from the equation and label it for what it is, pure dumb luck, or fix it.

When that happens after four fails I just go do something else and try again in like 2 hours

Just be glad it's not 1.0 melding. You failed you lost it ALL, I'm happy to play the RNG game all day without my several million gil item blowing up in my face :)

41% is not a good probability, it even warns you that it has a high chance to fail, this is RNG, nothing more, nothing less. It's just bad luck.

For every post like this there's 97% other people out there experiencing the "normal" side of statistics.

Having 41% chance means you have a 41% chance every time you do it. Don't fall victim to gamblers fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

For every post like this there's 97% other people out there experiencing the "normal" side of statistics.

---

Well technically it should be 99.94% other people, so you're admitting it is broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keeff

the probability is less then .1% shouldnt happen 3 times

thats not a % of success rate at all

remove % from the equation and label it for what it is, pure dumb luck, or fix it.

---

You obviously don't understand how probability works at all. And you are being fooled by your own point of view, the success rate won't change just because you attempted it multiple times in a row, each time the success rate will always be 41% vs a failure rate of 59%, even things with an astonishingly low probability still happen anyway. The probability of getting a royal flush is like 0.0032% yet if you play poker chances are you've seen it at least once if not more happen.

Edit: Also since an actual developer has already responded about this asinine line of logic before: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...34#post2310334

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramul

Having 41% chance means you have a 41% chance every time you do it. Don't fall victim to gamblers fallacy.

---

QFT. I don't know why people want to think it's 41% out of 100 attempts. Every time you roll, you roll from zero

Sense we're on statistics, here's a trick some of you might know.
http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Monty_Hall/Monty_Hall_a.GIF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alukah

always in a row

---

Well, yeah. Once a sequence breaks, it's no longer a sequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesSaintboroguh

Come back when you try to meld materia with a 94% success rate and fail 3 times.

---

I missed a 99% chance gather twice in a row, then a hit on a node after it failed too. I also succeeded a 14% meld, four times in a row once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haibel

QFT. I don't know why people want to think it's 41% out of 100 attempts. Every time you roll, you roll from zero

---

If it is an actual 41% chance, then you expect the results to be 41 out of 100. That's literally what a percent is, a ratio out of 100. Saying 41% is the exact same thing as saying 41/100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fawkes

If it is an actual 41% chance, then you expect the results to be 41 out of 100. That's literally what a percent is, a ratio out of 100. Saying 41% is the exact same thing as saying 41/100.

---

The post wasn't saying it isn't 41/100%, it was saying it isn't 41% x 100 rolls. it's 41% x 1 roll, you fail or you pass. Your streak has no effect on the system, each time you try again it is back down to acting like it is your first roll. It doesn't maliciously decide ahead of time that you will fail 100 times in a row because it doesn't like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fawkes

If it is an actual 41% chance, then you expect the results to be 41 out of 100. That's literally what a percent is, a ratio out of 100. Saying 41% is the exact same thing as saying 41/100.

---

No, you don't. Over a long string of attempts it would equalize around there, but making 10 attempts you could fail all 10. Expecting otherwise is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haibel

To sum up. (You roll, you fail, end roll)(You roll, you fail, end roll)(You roll, you fail, end roll) ect....
it's not. You roll, You fail, You fail, You fail, You fail, You fail, end roll. your failures are not in a row.

---

I'm aware of that, I'm talking about getting the same end results from five different sequences that were done one after another, you may seem them unrelated because the sequences were different, I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fawkes

If it is an actual 41% chance, then you expect the results to be 41 out of 100. That's literally what a percent is, a ratio out of 100. Saying 41% is the exact same thing as saying 41/100.

---

that's not how probability works. Maybe if this was a single player game and you could only try 100 times that would be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alukah

I'm aware of that, I'm talking about getting the same end results from five different sequences that were done one after another, you may seem them unrelated because the sequences were different, I don't.

---

What I'm saying is once the system tells you that you fail. that is the end of the sequence. all attempts after have no bearing on the previous.
doing it a bunch of times in a row is not going to improve your odds of hitting a positive result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haibel

What I'm saying is once the system tells you that you fail. that is the end of the sequence. all attempts after have no bearing on the previous.
doing it a bunch of times in a row is not going to improve your odds of hitting a positive result.

---

Say you could see the actual number, say you roll a 55 out of 1000 five times in a row, but each roll was unrelated to the previous, would you really say there's nothing wrong with the PRNG picking the same result five times in a row? (I'm not saying this was the case, just an example) I wouldn't blindly rush to defend the PRNG they use when we don't know much about it, we only know the really curious results it gives us.

Note, I'm not the kind to chase ghosts, but their PRNG is far from perfect, there's no such thing as a perfect PRNG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alukah

Say you could see the actual number, say you roll a 55 out of 1000 five times in a row, but each roll was unrelated to the previous, would you really say there's nothing wrong with the PRNG picking the same result five times in a row? (I'm not saying this was the case, just an example) I wouldn't blindly rush to defend the PRNG they use when we don't know much about it, we only know the really curious results it gives us.

Note, I'm not the kind to chase ghosts, but their PRNG is far from perfect, there's no such thing as a perfect PRNG.

---

Yes, I would say there is nothing wrong, because the outcome of any given roll is not predetermined ahead of time. Each time you pick up the dice (example) you roll anew. Trying to pretend the system is on a conspiracy to screw or favor one individual over another is the epitome of ignorance. It's a computer program, it doesn't care about you or how you feel about it. But since you did say his post was complete bullshit, let me add what even he says in the post as an example:

Additionally, even if a random number sequence is generated properly, depending on how the application uses this value, ultimately there may be cases where strange patterns arise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alukah

It would be great if you didn't add words I never said to support your argument.

---

Never once did I say you said anything in the post you quoted, I'm using my point of view of what you are saying, whereas you are using your point of view to argue against what I am saying. But I did add something you said in since you are obviously so distraught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dgsoil

Yes, I would say there is nothing wrong, because the outcome of any given roll is not predetermined ahead of time. Each time you pick up the dice (example) you roll anew. Trying to pretend the system is on a conspiracy to screw or favor one individual over another is the epitome of ignorance. It's a computer program, it doesn't care about you or how you feel about it.

---

It would be great if you didn't add words I never said to support your argument.

Remember they are using PRNG algorithms that may or not be faulty (on top of PRNG not being truly random by definition), I'm just saying, don't take a blind leap without knowing what you're defending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dgsoil

Never once did I say you said anything in the post you quoted, I'm using my point of view of what you are saying, whereas you are using your point of view to argue against what I am saying. But I did add something you said in since you are obviously so distraught.

---

Trying to pretend the system is on a conspiracy to screw or favor one individual over another is the epitome of ignorance. It's a computer program, it doesn't care about you or how you feel about it

Has nothing to do with the post, no one said or implied the PRNG is plotting against us, you just added it to make your argument look more valid.

Indeed, I did imply that you act like it is plotting against you, but once again I never said that you typed those words even once. If you can't realize that a program (yes it is flawed, what made by humans in the long run isnt? Even Hiroshi_Minagawa mentioned how it can seem to follow strange patterns sometimes) has no concept of screwing you over just for fun, then this is a waste of effort because you will stay mad at it as long as you will I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fawkes

If it is an actual 41% chance, then you expect the results to be 41 out of 100. That's literally what a percent is, a ratio out of 100. Saying 41% is the exact same thing as saying 41/100.

---

don't forget multiples of 10. 410 / 1,000 is 41%. but that is still 590 / 1,000 chances to fail

Well when crafting and sitting at 99% chance of HQ.... and still getting a NQ item in the end. Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canopia

Well when crafting and sitting at 99% chance of HQ.... and still getting a NQ item in the end. Yeah.

---

yeah... I was BETTER than you, i got NQ when 98% chance of HQ... ^^;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fawkes

If it is an actual 41% chance, then you expect the results to be 41 out of 100. That's literally what a percent is, a ratio out of 100. Saying 41% is the exact same thing as saying 41/100.

---

You should have tried to learn at school

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keeff

the probability is less then .1% shouldnt happen 3 times

thats not a % of success rate at all

remove % from the equation and label it for what it is, pure dumb luck, or fix it.

---

How eh...did you come up with <0.1% chance of that happening?

From actual probability calculations you had a 20.5379% chance of this situation occurring, and it did.
You know what that means? First, don't try do probability. Second, you got unlucky. RNG is RNG, just because it happened to you that doesn't make it "broken".

I'm going to just wish that SE would change the percent chance of success to no less than 50% on the worst possible meld (that 5th overmeld, no matter the grade of materia.) It's still a chance you won't make it, but it doesn't leave you wishing you had never played this game (which the lower chance of melds do). And pointing out it was worse in 1.0 only shows that both suck, not that 2.0s system is somehow awesomely great just because the other way was worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alukah

I'm aware of that, I'm talking about getting the same end results from five different sequences that were done one after another, you may seem them unrelated because the sequences were different, I don't.

---

This is why it's a fallacy on your part. They are entirely unrelated. You refusing to accept that fact doesn't change that they are indeed unrelated.

This is the mistake many people make with this game. They assume streaks are indicative of a broken system when they are only indicative of any random system that's ever existed. The term gamblers fallacy exists solely because of the human nature to make these mistakes. That is not some coincidence.

With probability being what it is unless it's 0% or 100% there are chances that anything can happen. When someone complains due to a NQ when they had 99% I always have to laugh at their incredulousness. 99% is not a guarantee and no amount of anger due to getting an HQ is going to change the fact that you had a 1% chance to fail and you finished the synth anyway. Take some personal responsibility and accept that you moved forward accepting that chance to fail. This is how probability will work always.

People need to accept RNG for what it is and stop trying to act like it should work just because you have a "high number".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adler

You should have tried to learn at school

---

sorry to burst your bubbles Adler but Fawkes is right though. it means just about that if you repeat the same action for 100x you get a chance of hiting the nail 41 and fail 59 ...that is what 41% means, wheather your like it or not, saying to someone to go to school is kind of strange coming from somone that in fact must have forgotten to do so, you sure could use some lessons.

Equally though, if I had to do it a 100x and fail 59 I would rather wait that my pros would be slightly better then the odds, just me though

Mei

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

This is why it's a fallacy on your part. They are entirely unrelated. You refusing to accept that fact doesn't change that they are indeed unrelated.

---

Exactly!

So you have 41% chance of success, so that means at the percentage on average you're gonna fail more than you are gonna be successful at melding. I think it's working as intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barboron

How eh...did you come up with <0.1% chance of that happening?

From actual probability calculations you had a 20.5379% chance of this situation occurring, and it did.
You know what that means? First, don't try do probability. Second, you got unlucky. RNG is RNG, just because it happened to you that doesn't make it "broken".

---

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...hance+14+times

Quote:

---

all failures 0.06193%

---

And the OP said that happened to him 3 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeiUshu

sorry to burst your bubbles Adler but Fawkes is right though. it means just about that if you repeat the same action for 100x you get a chance of hiting the nail 41 and fail 59 ...that is what 41% means, wheather your like it or not, saying to someone to go to school is kind of strange coming from somone that in fact must have forgotten to do so, you sure could use some lessons.

Equally though, if I had to do it a 100x and fail 59 I would rather wait that my pros would be slightly better then the odds, just me though

Mei

---

No, it means each individual attempt has that chance. What Fawkes was saying is that people expect to get 41 successes if they do 100, which is false.

http://www.csharpcity.com/wp-content...ilbert0001.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ispano

No, it means each individual attempt has that chance. What Fawkes was saying is that people expect to get 41 successes if they do 100, which is false.

---

Keyword "expect".

I was not saying the actual outcome would be exactly 41 every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fawkes

Keyword "expect".

I was not saying the actual outcome would be exactly 41 every time.

---

And so you should not "expect" it either.