The % to Desynthesis is broken?

Printable View

10-22-2016, 12:26 PM
SundayTrash

The % to Desynthesis is broken?

U call that 60%
https://s18.postimg.org/5sk1sjmuh/ff...016_232030.png
10-22-2016, 12:27 PM
MihaelB

Quote:

Originally Posted by SundayTrash

U call that 60%
https://s18.postimg.org/5sk1sjmuh/ff...016_232030.png

Yes :) /10char
10-22-2016, 12:59 PM
Natashio

That's just about right...
10-22-2016, 01:00 PM
Ilenya

Quote:

Originally Posted by SundayTrash

U call that 60%

Yes? Considering there is no streakbreaker in this game, 60% still means you can miss every single one you try.
10-22-2016, 01:04 PM
OoglieBooglie

I have failed a 7% meld with crafts v close to 40-50 times now. 7% is roughly 1 in 14 or so, so it would be reasonable to think it would happen within the 40, right? Well, the odds of failing a 7% meld 50 times in a row are roughly 2%, which actually isn't all that impossible. The odds of failing that 60% rate 8 times in a row are 0.065% or so. That's still higher than the odds of winning the jumbo cactpot with a single ticket (0.01%, 1 in 10,000).

Probability is both comforting and frustrating at the same time, as you can see.
10-22-2016, 01:21 PM
FinaSel

Even if the success rate is 99%, it is still theoretically possible to continue to fail for eternity.

I learned that unless something says 100%, I shouldn't get my hopes up.
10-22-2016, 01:29 PM
MihaelB

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinaSel

Even if the success rate is 99%, it is still theoretically possible to continue to fail for eternity.

I learned that unless something says 100%, I shouldn't get my hopes up.

Failed three 99% gathers in a row, the chance of that is beyond ridiculous but it happened :(
10-22-2016, 02:07 PM
Claire_Pendragon

When it comes to gathering, and desynth, the rates always seem off. (HQ rates on crafting seem fine)
But they are the worst with desynth it seems.

I kept a record, as I noticed my constant failures, and once with an 92% chance to succeed, I failed 112 times in a row. (My current record)
Over all, anything under 96% seems to fail at least 75% of the time or more. Anything 97% or higher i've yet to see fail.

Granted my luck in FFXIV is still pretty average over all, compared to my luck in FFXI, so I'll take this kind of luck any day, at least the game is playable.
10-22-2016, 02:47 PM
MikeWW

I really hate RNG like that in games. Thankfully this game has just a few cases where RNG can be frustrating, like materia overmelding. But fortunately, going crazy with rank 5 overmelds is purely optional.
10-22-2016, 04:21 PM
Alistaire

For every post like this, there's 10 other instances of people getting higher than 60%. You only posted because this happened to you, not the other way around.
10-22-2016, 05:53 PM
Vrahjin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alistaire

For every post like this, there's 10 other instances of people getting higher than 60%. You only posted because this happened to you, not the other way around.

Succeeded with four ~22% desynthesis in a row yesterday. Turned right around and failed five Steady Hand II Hasty Touches (80%) in a row.

Sounds about right when it comes to the RNG in this game :)
10-22-2016, 06:00 PM
Alistaire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vrahjin

Succeeded with four ~22% desynthesis in a row yesterday. Turned right around and failed five Steady Hand II Hasty Touches (80%) in a row.

Sounds about right when it comes to the RNG in this game :)

If your point is it's inaccurate; you're still wrong. The point is a % isn't guaranteed, and when you come close to the right outcome in a small sample size, you don't end up being that guy that posts the %'s are off. Of course there's going to be someone shafted by RNG, but that doesn't mean you should post that it's broken because of it. And that goes either way, bad luck or good.
10-22-2016, 07:23 PM
Zojha

Long story short: RNG sucks, more news at eleven.

I kinda wish the paychecks of designers that purposely put RNG in their games would be decided by a d20 roll >_>
And then see after a couple months if they don't just prefer their normal salary over that.
10-22-2016, 08:57 PM
Culfinrandir

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinaSel

Even if the success rate is 99%, it is still theoretically possible to continue to fail for eternity.

I learned that unless something says 100%, I shouldn't get my hopes up.

You understand RNG, you win cake. I'm glad that I didn't have to be, for once, the person that explained that 99% success means that you'll only fail once in a hundred times! There's two number that count in RNG 0% & 100% - anything else is a gamble.
10-22-2016, 10:43 PM
Vrahjin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alistaire

If your point is it's inaccurate; you're still wrong. The point is a % isn't guaranteed, and when you come close to the right outcome in a small sample size, you don't end up being that guy that posts the %'s are off. Of course there's going to be someone shafted by RNG, but that doesn't mean you should post that it's broken because of it. And that goes either way, bad luck or good.

My point is RNG is RNG.

Sometimes you're in its favour. Sometimes it hates you :)
10-22-2016, 10:57 PM
Felis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vrahjin

My point is RNG is RNG.

Sometimes you're in its favour. Sometimes it hates you :)

You can get the same result without a generator (as an example with dices) It is not the RNG, it is the randomnes of chances between 0% and 100%
10-23-2016, 12:18 AM
Khanscott

I did a paper in my statistics class on this game's RNG and while the big number theory in this game is satisfied (ie, whatever the success chances are), the sample sizes (everything requiring a "dice roll") that make up the sum of said theory are more akin to flipping a coin with a little + or - to your chances of success. In short: if the success rate isn't absolute, assume you will likely fail regardless of buffs/stats.
10-23-2016, 12:59 AM
Claire_Pendragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felis

You can get the same result without a generator (as an example with dices) It is not the RNG, it is the randomnes of chances between 0% and 100%

What you said made no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felis

You can get the same result without using random, its not the random, its the random.
10-23-2016, 02:17 AM
MomomiMomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire_Pendragon

What you said made no sense.

That's not what they said. They said without a generator. i.e., it's not the generator's fault.
10-23-2016, 07:53 AM
Gokuhan

I failed an 84% chance desynth a dozen times in a row. I also notice that I am much more likely to get an NQ result with high HQ chance than I am to get an HQ with a a low HQ chance, but that is probably observational bias.

The big thing I notice is MCHs 50% chance for combo procs seems to be much lower than that. Being on PS4 though I don't have the parser to test it and I'm not going to do a 1k sample size using pencil and paper.
10-23-2016, 08:07 AM
Claire_Pendragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

That's not what they said. They said without a generator. i.e., it's not the generator's fault.

I don't beleive you understand how RNGs and Dice work.
They both have a set outcome, that the outside party can not predict w/o knowing all the factors ahead of time.
What they are suggesting is the "Random" with dice, is any different than "Random" from a RNG. (While also saying a Die is not a program called RNG, which is obvious. But I cut that part out, as its not what they were focusing on.)
Random remains Random no matter the source. It wouldn't be random to you, if you knew the outcome. (Something can be random to me, but not to you, at the same time.)

By definition, you must not know the outcome ahead of time, while it still has a predetermined outcome.

Most people think the word random means "It can be any end result, and if you go back in time, redo the event, a different outcome will happen". Which is NOT what random means.
(Last I saw, there currently is no word for such an occurrence, part of the reason people think that's what random means.)

A RNG and a Die work almost identically.
There are preset numbers that can be reached, and a trigger to pick said numbers. Be it a program, or a roll of the die.

You can not roll a normal 6 sided die, and get a 7. THAT would be the type of "random" they are suggesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felis

You can get the same result without a generator (as an example with dices)

This statement is true. (Die and RNG fundamentally work the same.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felis

It is not the RNG, it is the randomnes of chances between 0% and 100%

The RNG determines the outcome, but they are suggesting its not the RNG (Which is "random") but instead, It is "Random". Which is why I said, their statement makes no sense.
10-23-2016, 08:43 AM
MomomiMomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire_Pendragon

I don't beleive you understand how RNGs and Dice work.

I know how they work, thanks.

Quote:

The RNG determines the outcome, but they are suggesting its not the RNG (Which is "random") but instead, It is "Random". Which is why I said, their statement makes no sense.

They are saying it's not a fault of the random number generator. It's a fault of the fact that it's random. Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.
10-23-2016, 10:36 AM
Claire_Pendragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

They are saying it's not a fault (random) of the random number generator. It's a fault (random) of the fact that it's random.

Where is the "Random" coming from, if it's not from the RNG? And if the "Random" isn't coming from the RNG, why is it called a RNG?
10-23-2016, 11:16 AM
MomomiMomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire_Pendragon

Where is the "Random" coming from, if it's not from the RNG? And if the "Random" isn't coming from the RNG, why is it called a RNG?

All randomness inherently has the same "problem". It doesn't matter where it's coming from, you're going to find the same problems. And that is that you can get streaks. But, as said, this is inherent to randomness. Not to a generator. So, "you can get the same results even without a generator."

50% chance of a result from flipping a coin doesn't meant you're guaranteed to get either result 50% of the time. The problem is randomness, not a random number generator. Bolded it for you so maybe you can comprehend the point that is being made. This is the point of the initial thing you quoted, which you misconstrued into something else and said it makes no sense.
10-23-2016, 11:42 AM
Claire_Pendragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

All randomness inherently has the same "problem". It doesn't matter where it's coming from, you're going to find the same problems. And that is that you can get streaks. But, as said, this is inherent to randomness. Not to a generator. So, "you can get the same results even without a generator."

50% chance of a result from flipping a coin doesn't meant you're guaranteed to get either result 50% of the time. The problem is randomness, not a random number generator. Bolded it for you so maybe you can comprehend the point that is being made. This is the point of the initial thing you quoted, which you misconstrued into something else and said it makes no sense.

I do understand what they are trying to say, but a RNG is "random" so the only way it could be at fault (of creating non random, rather than creating random), is if it was malfunctioning, and not being "random".
But they agreed prior, that it was creating "Random" results. Which would then make the next statement either makes no sense (Suggesting a RNG is somehow "not true random"), or they were back tracking for some odd reason. (Which would then be more like what you're saying.)

(EDIT: I do want to clarify I'm assuming that they understand when people use the phrase "RNG is RNG", they oddly dont mean Random Number Generator, but that "Random is Random", but if they assume the person they are quoting is being literal, their statement would also be more along the lines of what you said, but it would make less sense, since that person is already stating the RNG is random.)