Square Enix's RNG

[Rivienne]

RNG doesn't mean if it's 25% chance that you will get 25% HQ by the end of a run. It means when you click on that node you have a 25% chance to get 1 hq. The next time you click, you have the exact same chance. RNG means that even in 1000 gathers, you could get 1 hq.

The same thing happens with a dice roll. It's completely random. Try it sometime.

That is how random works. Yes computers have pseudo-RNG but in the grand scheme of things it works just fine for a video game.

Distribution patterns. The farther away from that percentage you get the less likely it becomes that your results over a set of trials will deviate significantly from the probability of success.

So yeah, I do not think you understood me.. Distribution patterns and chances of success. I was using as an example the fact that the stated chances of success are flawed. The percentages listed do not accurately appear to reflect the distribution patterns, implying the distribution patterns themselves are flawed. Are you familiar with Bernoulli and Binomial Probability?

Chances of receiving my results of 38 (or less) over 300 tests at 0.25 probability is something around 1e-9. I could do the same test again, and I may when I have that much time, but based on my experience thus far every single time I mine, I anticipate similar results. These skewed results are normal. Not exceptions. And the fact I did 300 in a row to receive my tests should be at least somewhat representative of that. Obviously not definitive, but it does make things suspect since it does reinforce existing perceptions.

[Mayin]

Distribution patterns. The farther away from that percentage you get the less likely it becomes that your results over a set of trials will deviate significantly from the probability of success.

So yeah, I do not think you understood me.. Distribution patterns and chances of success. I was using as an example the fact that the stated chances of success are flawed. The percentages listed do not accurately appear to reflect the distribution patterns, implying the distribution patterns themselves are flawed. Are you familiar with Bernoulli and Binomial Probability?

No fancy math required here. If it's not 100% then there's always a chance you wont get HQ. Simple as that.

[Rivienne]

No fancy math required here. If it's not 100% then there's always a chance you wont get HQ. Simple as that.

It isn't fancy math.. It is about statistics: which I didn't bring up, SE did by putting chance percentages next to these values in the first place. 25% chance means you have a 1/4 chance of getting it, and 3/4 of failing, the "fancy" math is just about what that translates into for more than a single chance.

Random is random(or pseudo-random in this case obviously). But once you apply a statistical value too it, like SE has done, then it can be expected to conform to that number within certain tolerance levels over larger sample sets, otherwise that number is meaningless.

I am not complaining here: I think things function okay-ish. Just that the numbers SE has given aren't accurate to what is going on from what I have seen thus far, but they do mostly conform to some pattern. Just not the one stated by the number SE gave. Subtract 10% (for any value between 10% and 99%) seems a good rule of thumb for me. (Though it likely isn't accurate to what is actually going on to cause that perception)

[Tiggy]

I am not complaining here: I think things function okay-ish. Just that the numbers SE has given aren't accurate to what is going on from what I have seen thus far, but they do mostly conform to some pattern. Just not the one stated by the number SE gave. Subtract 10% (for any value between 10% and 99%) seems a good rule of thumb for me. (Though it likely isn't accurate to what is actually going on to cause that perception)

As you say this is entirely your perception, and that perception is always biased. Specifically, human perception draws greater attention to things that fail or disappoint. As you say a 25% change means 1/4, but in statistics there is no expectation that every 4 attempts will provide exactly 1 success. Every given event is random and irrelevant to each other attempt. They are independent observations. As such runs of success or failures are entirely possible especially when you consider how many players are in game at once all causing the RNG to activate. In a great enough sample size it is entirely likely that the RNG does in fact fit within the tolerances expected of it. Everyone needs to chill out and realize their opinions are entirely biased and have absolutely no statistical accuracy on whether or not the RNG is broken or not. Someone, anyone, should start a spreadsheet and begin recording their observations. Once we have a few thousand instances at a specific percentage( Ie. at 99% for 1000 synths I had 900 successes and 100 failures for an actual fail rate of 10%) then we can say for sure if this is broken or not. Until that time this is all, 100%, subjective.

[Mayin]

It isn't fancy math.. it is about statistics.

Random is random(or pseudo-random in this case obviously). But once you apply a statistical value too it, like SE has done, then it can be expected to conform to that number within certain tolerance levels over larger sample sets, otherwise that number is meaningless.

I am not complaining here: I think things function okay-ish. Just that the numbers SE has given aren't accurate to what is going on from what I have seen thus far, but they do mostly conform to some pattern. Just not the one stated by the number SE gave. Subtract 10% (for any value between 10% and 99%) seems a good rule of thumb for me. (Though it likely isn't accurate to what is actually going on to cause that perception)

It doesn't matter what you say really, my comment still rings true. Sugar coat it with as many math textbooks as you like good sir. If it's not 100% you ALWAYS have a chance to fail.

[Duuude007]

And the fact I did 300 in a row to receive my tests should be at least somewhat representative of that.

What did you do 300 times? All I saw was you mentioning AK, which any RNG factors therein are far more obscure than 98% HQ success rate, so I am not sure what one has to do with the other.