Square Enix's RNG

[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.