RnG is ruining this game

This games RnG system is one of the worst I have ever come across, there is nothing you can do to even give yourself a higher chance of gaining certain materials or loot which is bull, for example I have spent 2 full fishing windows trying to catch one of the Legendary fish which has been about 45 mins of real time so far only to have another person come along and get the fish within 2 mins, this is a complete joke and a complete disregard of players time and needs to be addressed ASAP

No :)

Next?

If you think RNG is bad in FFXIV, never play Lost Ark. :D

First the entire fisher toolkit is basically rng mitigation. Surface slap, chum, IC, patience, everything AA related, mooch 2, the multihooks. There's also resources for bite window times and durations if you're really keen.
Second, the legendary fish are strictly for bragging rights and contribution to a title. There's a select few arr big fish that can desynthesise into rare items, but that's basically it as far as crafting or loot goes.

Wouldn't like a lot of other MMORPGs then. RNG has always been a massive part of MMORPGs and it used to be a lot worse in other games. Now if you play games with lootboxes you may not like your RNG there either.

The RNG on things like fish is really a relic of their old design philosophy and a lot of the game has moved away from that in favor of making it more casual. The RNG is still quite heavy in a few areas of the game but it could be so, so much worse.

RNG is RNG but some rng is a bit ridiculous. I've been trying to get the mini troll on an alt since EW came out, been doing that dungeon once a week (several times at the beginning) and still nothing yet I got it first try on my main. There is no other way to get that minion as it's non tradable. Same thing with Drippy in Matoya's cave but at least that one can be found on the MB: I gave up and bought it after 1.5 years lol.

Casual reminder that given a 10% success rate, every roll is a 10% success rate. The number of rolls you take does not increase your success rate, e.g. rolling 9 times does not guarantee that roll 10 will be a winner. The number of rolls you take only increases the likelihood that you might get into the 10% bracket needed to win and is in itself a different set of odds altogether.

dont play the content, if you dont like it

there are plenty of things to do that dont involve rng

Yeah the fish RNG is kinda butt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ishe-P

Casual reminder that given a 10% success rate, every roll is a 10% success rate. The number of rolls you take does not increase your success rate, e.g. rolling 9 times does not guarantee that roll 10 will be a winner. The number of rolls you take only increases the likelihood that you might get into the 10% bracket needed to win and is in itself a different set of odds altogether.

---

If you roll on a 10% success rate 100 times and fail every time, it's statistically significant to suggest that there's probably something wrong with the RNG.

Why don't we take the loot rng...
and move it to the battle mechanics!

Or is rng in fights/mechanics one of those things we can't talk about here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GhulgraudBrave

RnG is ruining this game

---

Been RNG since the beginning, still hasn't killed the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raoabolic

Why don't we take the loot rng...
and move it to the battle mechanics!

Or is rng in fights/mechanics one of those things we can't talk about here?

---

According to what I've read in the DPS section, yes. Haven't you heard, rng procs, positionals, and more than 10 buttons is objectively bad game design and keeping new players away?

We've reached the point of parody becoming reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

Yeah the fish RNG is kinda butt

---

And I can not lie. All you other fishers can't deny when she walks in with a full inventory of bait and a relic rod in your face i get desynth into sand...

I'm not a rapper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ijuakos_xqwzts

If you roll on a 10% success rate 100 times and fail every time, it's statistically significant to suggest that there's probably something wrong with the RNG.

---

That's.... not how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrWho2010

That's.... not how it works.

---

yes that's how it works... what do you think rejecting the null means

then again the average american can't even differentiate a basic polynomial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koros

yes that's how it works... what do you think rejecting the null means

then again the average american can't even differentiate a basic polynomial

---

No, what you are doing is just gambler’s fallacy.

RNG is fine..
but when the % gets to low
- it's ***** and waste of time..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zodiar

No, what you are doing is just gambler’s fallacy.

---

Gambler's fallacy is believing that P(X_n+1 | sum of X_1, X_2, X_3, ... X_n /n < some "small" number (i.e. unlucky)) > P(X)

What ijuakos is saying that P(sum of X_1, ... X_n / n = 0) is very very low, in fact it is 0.0000265614.

If you have a one-sided hypothesis test where H_0: p = 0.1 and H_A: p < 0.1, you will unequivocally reject the null (unless you're working in particle physics).

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.1

Please don't talk about statistics as a layman, thank you, it's incredibly embarrassing.

Although what ijuakos is saying is largely irrelevant to the conversation, it is really sad to see the failure of American education in action when people spout their mouth about "gambler's fallacy" or "correlation =/= causation" without knowing elementary probability theory that they teach in middle school in actual good countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

statistically possible

---

Have you ever read any paper, research, ... anything at all? Do you realize every paper's result is statistically possible to be false? What is this pedantic nonsense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

This is not a research paper mate. you did the math on a hypothetical for 1 persons rng experience. Where it is statistically possible for it to happen to 1 person, you would need more than 1 sample for this to mean anything on your end.

---

oh my god please stop i'm actually cringing so hard right now, (1): in that example there are actually 100 samples; (2): a high level of statistical significance can be achieved with low N, especially when the data is extreme compared to H_0.

please just look at how it's supposed to be done:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bhiksha/cour...Bernoulli.html
did you realize that you can be 98% confident with only 9 samples/trials if the data is that extreme? shocker!!!

literally please stop trying to argue with me until you get a phd in stats, you're lowering the ambient iq

FYI: I'm not saying that the RNG is wrong or biased. I'm just saying if such an example existed then there's a high chance something's off.

And if you continue to repeat the nonsense about "statistically possible" I want you to forget about literally everything you learned in chemistry, biology, economics, and really anything other than particle physics (since they go for 5 sigma) because almost all of them report results with p-values above 0.0000266

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koros

Gambler's fallacy is believing that P(X_n+1 | sum of X_1, X_2, X_3, ... X_n /n < some "small" number (i.e. unlucky)) > P(X)

What ijuakos is saying that P(sum of X_1, ... X_n / n = 0) is very very low, in fact it is 0.0000265614.

If you have a one-sided hypothesis test where H_0: p = 0.1 and H_A: p < 0.1, you will unequivocally reject the null (unless you're working in particle physics).

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.1

Please don't talk about statistics as a layman, thank you, it's incredibly embarrassing.

Although what ijuakos is saying is largely irrelevant to the conversation, it is really sad to see the failure of American education in action when people spout their mouth about "gambler's fallacy" or "correlation =/= causation" without knowing elementary probability theory that they teach in middle school in actual good countries.

---

Funny enough, you just proved this example to be statistically possible (I'll be it VERY unlikely).
But that example is also very bad when you consider a whole lot of big fish have an under 2 or 1% success rate (and that's using a much larger sample size via teamcraft)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koros

Have you ever read any paper, research, ... anything at all? Do you realize every paper's result is statistically possible to be false? What is this pedantic nonsense

---

This is not a research paper mate. you did the math on a hypothetical for 1 persons rng experience. Where it is statistically possible for it to happen to 1 person, you would need more than 1 sample for this to mean anything on your end. Hence why I quoted teamcraft as a much larger stat and actual real evidence (only if you "include misses" fish).

Here's a real example. I was trying to catch a fish that was essentially 50% success rate for a mooch (it was like 47.8%, just rounding up for simplicity). I got the wrong fish 8 times in a row. I later got the right one a bunch for it to even itself out but if you focus on JUST the unlucky stretch then it looks like HORRIBLE RNG https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i...+and+p+%3D+0.5.

Point is, RNG can be a bitch. Doesn't mean its bad RNG.

People that complain about rng on ff14 would hate ff11 and spending possibly years for a piece of important gear to drop with less then a 1% droprate. ff14 is pretty tame with its rng.

Ahahahaha.

This is about missing a fish after two windows?

That isn't even worth busting out the statistics calculator for.

Buddy, get back to us when you spend 2 years failing to catch a fish, then maybe we'll consider your luck to be statistically improbable.

Failing two windows isn't bad rng, that's just normal fishing. Catching something first cast is just extra good rng that, more often than not, gets balanced by struggling with something else.

Getting salty over missing a fish is usually a sign that big fishing isn't for you.

For a hot second I thought this was a take on the endwalker combat design because it does kind of turn into RNG with how it works in savage. One person forgets to mit and everyone dies, or one person so much gets touched by something and dies.

If you cannot stomach this level of RNG behind big fishing then it really probably isn't for you - Just being blunt.

They are big/legendary fish for a reason, and it isn't because you can catch them with little effort whatsoever.

In fact, people in this game are so fortunate when it comes to this game -- They are incredibly lenient with RNG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colt47

For a hot second I thought this was a take on the endwalker combat design because it does kind of turn into RNG with how it works in savage. One person forgets to mit and everyone dies, or one person so much gets touched by something and dies.

---

Can't really call that RNG, it's just player failure. Is it boring design? Sure, but it can still be prevented by just playing correctly.

RNG in fishing is one of few content that we have without a deterministic nature
let it be, find another thing to complain about.

Nah this game has one of the more lenient rng compared to most other mmos or even JRPGS I've played

Man, no one tell op that irl fishing rng can be much much worse

Took me 1.5 years to catch the freaking ruby dragon.....

RNG is good and creates long term goals that feel GOOD when you accomplish what you wanted.

It took me 9 months to catch Problematicus and when I did finally catch him I got the same rush as when I clear Ultimates. I felt the same way when I finally got the Heavenly Onyx Cloud Serpent in WoW. If it were up to me, I would put more RNG rewards (like rare mounts from FATES!) in the game except for stat rolls/crits because that gets very aggravating as it makes personal skill less valuable and starts to negatively affect your raids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenblade1979

Man, no one tell op that irl fishing rng can be much much worse

---

I had a huge pond outside the house I grew up in for about...12 years. I went fishing once for about 8 hours. Once. All I caught was some twigs and a sunburn. My neighbors are out there catching bass and catfish left and right!