Public Service Announcement: The RNG in this game is not biased

[Swishytail]

This is brilliant. I read the entire post, I knew none of this information. Very interesting. Thank you.

[Crimson-Falcon]

you won the internet man

[HumsterMKX]

Well, take me for example. I only went to coil as a stand in. So far only beaten coil 1 thrice, coil 2 twice, coil 4 once.

I got 1 Allgan melee ring, belt, choker and mage hands.

While the static guys have not seen a tank gear drop yet.

Its all random. Sometimes you got great stuff sometimes you get nuts.

Yes it is cruel like mad. The only means to be fair is probably by token drops. But that brings out a whole new set of drama and qq.

[Nenin]

While I do have to say, I think the number generator is working fine enough and all that. This right here is just wrong. You are quite a bit more likely to get the 15% HQ (85% change to even succeed then 15% chance that will be HQ ---> ~0.026% chance to occur) than you are to fail at 5% 4 times in a row (0.000625% chance to occur) Other than this. I approve this post.

Thank you for bringing this up but this is an area where I'm not sure how they programmed it. The percentages depend on whether they consider your chance to successfully mine and your chance to HQ separate or combined.


Scenario A: The RNG effectively rolls a number between 0-100. If it's 0-15 you miss the node entirely. If it's 15-100 you mine successfully. If the number is between 85 and 100 you HQ.

Scenario B: The RNG effectively rolls a number between 0-100. If it's 0-15 you miss the node entirely. If it's 15-100 you mine successfully. Then the RNG rolls AGAIN and if it's 0-15 you HQ, otherwise normal.


I'm sure somebody has run the numbers and knows which it is. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[Mayin]

Not sure why you have to bust out some crazy math. Random is random, tat's pretty much it!

[Lafier]

The numbers I used was assuming worst case, were you have an 85% chance to hit the node, then a 15% chance to HQ your hit.

[TheRac25]

alot of software rngs tend to stick around extreme values
you sound like a first year journalism major that took 000 introduction to computer science

[Shioban]

Not sure why you have to bust out some crazy math. Random is random, tat's pretty much it!

Because computers are never truly random, but it's close.

And depending on how the RNG is set-up, it (can) theoretically be set up to weight more in one direction than the other, we just don't know how they've set it up.
(It'd be safe to assume it's set up fairly)

[NeruMew]

Because computers are never truly random, but it's close.

And depending on how the RNG is set-up, it (can) theoretically be set up to weight more in one direction than the other, we just don't know how they've set it up.
(It'd be safe to assume it's set up fairly)

I wouldn't be so quick to asume, it's not so simple to give the RNG enough entropy, or atleast, it requires some thought into it. : D
But I've been wondernig the same thing, how good actually is their RNG.

[Cobayn]

Nice one OP!

And depending on how the RNG is set-up, it (can) theoretically be set up to weight more in one direction than the other, we just don't know how they've set it up.
(It'd be safe to assume it's set up fairly)

"All RNGs are equal, but some are more equal than others". ; )