We have Mount Favorites list, can we have a Mount Hates list?

OK, hate is obviously hyperbole...

Like most people I love collecting mounts...even mounts I don't like or want to use. For me that's any mount that's a little to "silly", your criteria may differ.

I wish we could add these mounts to a "don't use" list for mount roulette.

I know what you're thinking, just add the others to your favorites list and only roulette from that. Well, it won't hold all the non-disliked mounts.

---------

On a barely related note...I think the RNG for mount roulette needs a rework, it picks some mounts ALL THE TIME, and others virtually never.

I agree, there are a few mounts I really have no desire to ride whatsoever, either because they're goofy things, or because I'm just not particularly keen on the song they play, but I do enjoy the vast majority of the mounts in the game, so it's a shame to have to cut it down to so few "favorites" when I really like all but a small handful. An "unfavorites" list of sorts would be exactly what I've been wanting.

I'll agree with this. I have less mounts I'd love to blacklist (I'm looking at you, behemoth) than I want to favorite.

seems a bit much i think what we have now is fine
but if this list showed up I'd put the valentine mounts in there
nothing sadder than getting those pink couches in random big reason i use the fave roulette

i think the solution is to increase the favorites list instead of making/ adding a blacklist.

i did notice some mounts are picked more than others though. i had to take arion off my favorites bc the roulette seemed to always pick it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zomkei

i think the solution is to increase the favorites list instead of making/ adding a blacklist.

i did notice some mounts are picked more than others though. i had to take arion off my favorites bc the roulette seemed to always pick it.

---

The thing is, for most people you would have to extend the favorites list to be almost as large as the regular list, whereas a "hate list" would be much much shorter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

The thing is, for most people you would have to extend the favorites list to be almost as large as the regular list, whereas a "hate list" would be much much shorter.

---

There is a lot of sense in that statement. Heh. Clever.

Even a "random ground mount" (animal mounts without wings) "Random flighted mount" (animal mounts with wings) "Random mechanical mount" (robots, vehicles,etc), and "random miscellaneous mounts" (Chairs, beds, whisper-a-go-go, etc) would do wonders.

But, +1 to a blacklist.

Yes, please. Just because I have those half-heart flying chairs doesn't mean I ever want to see them again.

This would be far more useful to me than the favourites list.100% support this idea, it's something I've often wished as well

I would support this. I'm constantly having to take old mounts off that I still want to use just to add the new shiny mount and it gets harder and harder to decide which mount I want to leave behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

On a barely related note...I think the RNG for mount roulette needs a rework, it picks some mounts ALL THE TIME, and others virtually never.

---

I doubt this. Have you done any testing on this theory, or are you just surmising a problem with RNG because of what you 'think you see all the time'? Because I can virtually guarantee confirmation bias if that is the case.

Summon mounts 1000 times, and note each and every mount summoned. I think you'll find the percentages even across the board.

TBH I wouldn't want to sit there and summon mounts a thousand times to get some logically solid picture of the RNG outcomes, but then again, I'd never claim RNG to be 'broken' unless I had some reasonable proof to back it up, beyond, 'I see such-and-such all the time.' Unless you have an eidetic memory (and I stand fully corrected if you do, beg your pardon) you aren't properly remembering even the last (number of mounts in your collection) mount summons, which would be the bare minimum you'd need to start building a low-res picture of the RNG function.

You'd need to perform (10x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to start getting a fair idea of how RNG is performing.

You'd need to perform (100x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to get a rock-solid idea of how RNG is performing.

'Till then, I think one should just leave their trust in the randomness of a random-number-generator in use by a major software developer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breakbeat

I doubt this. Have you done any testing on this theory, or are you just surmising a problem with RNG because of what you 'think you see all the time'? Because I can virtually guarantee confirmation bias if that is the case.

Summon mounts 1000 times, and note each and every mount summoned. I think you'll find the percentages even across the board.

TBH I wouldn't want to sit there and summon mounts a thousand times to get some logically solid picture of the RNG outcomes, but then again, I'd never claim RNG to be 'broken' unless I had some reasonable proof to back it up, beyond, 'I see such-and-such all the time.' Unless you have an eidetic memory (and I stand fully corrected if you do, beg your pardon) you aren't properly remembering even the last (number of mounts in your collection) mount summons, which would be the bare minimum you'd need to start building a low-res picture of the RNG function.

You'd need to perform (10x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to start getting a fair idea of how RNG is performing.

You'd need to perform (100x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to get a rock-solid idea of how RNG is performing.

'Till then, I think one should just leave their trust in the randomness of a random-number-generator in use by a major software developer.

---

Get over yourself. I'm not going to waste my time to humor a nobody on the internet. You wouldn't believe me anyway.

Other people have noted the issue as well.

I know you're one of those people who believes that RNG is flawless in games. I've got news for you, it rarely is. Also, computers have a harder time than you think coming up with random numbers, especially when your code is thrown together as fast as FFXIVs was.