% for melding materia is broken

[Alukah]

To sum up. (You roll, you fail, end roll)(You roll, you fail, end roll)(You roll, you fail, end roll) ect....
it's not. You roll, You fail, You fail, You fail, You fail, You fail, end roll. your failures are not in a row.

I'm aware of that, I'm talking about getting the same end results from five different sequences that were done one after another, you may seem them unrelated because the sequences were different, I don't.

[Haibel]

I'm aware of that, I'm talking about getting the same end results from five different sequences that were done one after another, you may seem them unrelated because the sequences were different, I don't.

What I'm saying is once the system tells you that you fail. that is the end of the sequence. all attempts after have no bearing on the previous.
doing it a bunch of times in a row is not going to improve your odds of hitting a positive result.

[Alukah]

What I'm saying is once the system tells you that you fail. that is the end of the sequence. all attempts after have no bearing on the previous.
doing it a bunch of times in a row is not going to improve your odds of hitting a positive result.

Say you could see the actual number, say you roll a 55 out of 1000 five times in a row, but each roll was unrelated to the previous, would you really say there's nothing wrong with the PRNG picking the same result five times in a row? (I'm not saying this was the case, just an example) I wouldn't blindly rush to defend the PRNG they use when we don't know much about it, we only know the really curious results it gives us.

Note, I'm not the kind to chase ghosts, but their PRNG is far from perfect, there's no such thing as a perfect PRNG.

[Dgsoil]

Say you could see the actual number, say you roll a 55 out of 1000 five times in a row, but each roll was unrelated to the previous, would you really say there's nothing wrong with the PRNG picking the same result five times in a row? (I'm not saying this was the case, just an example) I wouldn't blindly rush to defend the PRNG they use when we don't know much about it, we only know the really curious results it gives us.

Note, I'm not the kind to chase ghosts, but their PRNG is far from perfect, there's no such thing as a perfect PRNG.

Yes, I would say there is nothing wrong, because the outcome of any given roll is not predetermined ahead of time. Each time you pick up the dice (example) you roll anew. Trying to pretend the system is on a conspiracy to screw or favor one individual over another is the epitome of ignorance. It's a computer program, it doesn't care about you or how you feel about it. But since you did say his post was complete bullshit, let me add what even he says in the post as an example:

Additionally, even if a random number sequence is generated properly, depending on how the application uses this value, ultimately there may be cases where strange patterns arise.

It would be great if you didn't add words I never said to support your argument.

Never once did I say you said anything in the post you quoted, I'm using my point of view of what you are saying, whereas you are using your point of view to argue against what I am saying. But I did add something you said in since you are obviously so distraught.

[Alukah]

Yes, I would say there is nothing wrong, because the outcome of any given roll is not predetermined ahead of time. Each time you pick up the dice (example) you roll anew. Trying to pretend the system is on a conspiracy to screw or favor one individual over another is the epitome of ignorance. It's a computer program, it doesn't care about you or how you feel about it.

It would be great if you didn't add words I never said to support your argument.

Remember they are using PRNG algorithms that may or not be faulty (on top of PRNG not being truly random by definition), I'm just saying, don't take a blind leap without knowing what you're defending.

Never once did I say you said anything in the post you quoted, I'm using my point of view of what you are saying, whereas you are using your point of view to argue against what I am saying. But I did add something you said in since you are obviously so distraught.

Trying to pretend the system is on a conspiracy to screw or favor one individual over another is the epitome of ignorance. It's a computer program, it doesn't care about you or how you feel about it

Has nothing to do with the post, no one said or implied the PRNG is plotting against us, you just added it to make your argument look more valid.

[Dgsoil]

Indeed, I did imply that you act like it is plotting against you, but once again I never said that you typed those words even once. If you can't realize that a program (yes it is flawed, what made by humans in the long run isnt? Even Hiroshi_Minagawa mentioned how it can seem to follow strange patterns sometimes) has no concept of screwing you over just for fun, then this is a waste of effort because you will stay mad at it as long as you will I suppose.

[Tiggy]

I'm aware of that, I'm talking about getting the same end results from five different sequences that were done one after another, you may seem them unrelated because the sequences were different, I don't.

This is why it's a fallacy on your part. They are entirely unrelated. You refusing to accept that fact doesn't change that they are indeed unrelated.

This is the mistake many people make with this game. They assume streaks are indicative of a broken system when they are only indicative of any random system that's ever existed. The term gamblers fallacy exists solely because of the human nature to make these mistakes. That is not some coincidence.

With probability being what it is unless it's 0% or 100% there are chances that anything can happen. When someone complains due to a NQ when they had 99% I always have to laugh at their incredulousness. 99% is not a guarantee and no amount of anger due to getting an HQ is going to change the fact that you had a 1% chance to fail and you finished the synth anyway. Take some personal responsibility and accept that you moved forward accepting that chance to fail. This is how probability will work always.

People need to accept RNG for what it is and stop trying to act like it should work just because you have a "high number".

[Woggers]

This is why it's a fallacy on your part. They are entirely unrelated. You refusing to accept that fact doesn't change that they are indeed unrelated.

Exactly!

So you have 41% chance of success, so that means at the percentage on average you're gonna fail more than you are gonna be successful at melding. I think it's working as intended.