% for melding materia is broken

[MeiUshu]

I used the word chances as the percentage actually says 41% CHANCES of success ..never said it was a guaranteed success....still have some problems in reading me think...

Mei

[Tiggy]

And so you should not "expect" it either.

It's only going to be on average 41 out of a 100 as well. Small sample sizes leave plenty of room for outliers of streaks to complicate the picture.

Which brings me to another point no one has mentioned. Not a single person here has properly recorded their successes and failures at each % of success.

For example. at 99% success I've done 200 synths. My data shows I have a 95% success rate from my 200 synths so far. Even this is too small of a sample size to be statistically significant.

This is the only kind of data that matters. Not anecdotal evidence for a couple of synths. That means literally nothing to statistics.

Proving the RNG is broken is a statistical problem. You must, through statistics, prove there is an imbalance. I won't believe a single complaint until people start recording this data to show if a true bais exists or not. Otherwise it's all subjective and anecdotal.

[Fawkes]

And so you should not "expect" it either.

Then you're saying the displayed % is completely and totally unreliable and pointless to display to the player as it means nothing whatsoever?

[ispano]

Then you're saying the displayed % is completely and totally unreliable and pointless to display to the player as it means nothing whatsoever?

No, i'm saying you don't actually understand how it works.

When something has a percentage chance of happening, you should always expect that the outcome will be random. You should expect that if you have, say a 75% chance to succeed, that you "should" get mostly successes, not that if it doesn't happen, something is wrong.

[Fawkes]

You should expect that if you have, say a 75% chance to succeed, that you "should" get mostly successes,

And so you should not "expect" it either.

Ok sure.

[ispano]

Ok sure.

There's a difference between expecting mostly successes with 75% and expecting you "should" get mostly successes with 75%.

[Astralos]

For example. at 99% success I've done 200 synths. My data shows I have a 95% success rate from my 200 synths so far. Even this is too small of a sample size to be statistically significant.

Well, not exactly. Most social sciences hold that 30 is the generally-accepted minimum number for a sample size, but also that as you increase sample size beyond that point, statistical significance increases in tandem. 200 is a perfectly valid sample size from which to draw conclusions.

[AttacKat]

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.

The law of probability.

As you increase your trial number, the chances of you getting it should become higher. Go flip a coin and see what is the probability of you failing to flip a head 10 times in a roll. (hint -> 1/2 ^ 10 = 0.00097 = almost zero)

41% can be many things, but the end result is, IF you roll X number of times, the success rate should be 41%.

So ...

roll (fail 0.0x) 1x = 0%
roll (fail 0.0x) 2x = 0% (next roll should be a success)
roll (success 33%) 3x = 33%
Why?

The condition is total chances, if you did a trial of 1000, you should have 410 success. If you did a trial of 2, you MIGHT have 1 success, because your 50% is outside of the 41%, so you still have 8% failure rate. But if you did a trial of 3, you should have at least 1 success since you went from 100% -> 50% -> 33%.

Therefore, out of 14 rolls, the person should have at least 5.74 successes, which means he should have at least 5 successes, and possible 6th.

Do not believe I am right? Go ahead, go roll a dice (17%) and see how far you can go w/o getting a 1 or 2 (34%).

[Tiggy]

Well, not exactly. Most social sciences hold that 30 is the generally-accepted minimum number for a sample size, but also that as you increase sample size beyond that point, statistical significance increases in tandem. 200 is a perfectly valid sample size from which to draw conclusions.

However, this isn't a social science. This is statistics pure and simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) As this wiki article's sheer length illustrates it's not a simple as you seem to make it, and 30 is far from a realistic answer in statistics.

All that needs to be shown is that given successive samples the % success rate converges on the listed rate or fails to do so, and to show this data with a significant sample size for statistical significance. This is something not a single person here has ever even attempted. Anecdotes mean nothing. If you want square to look at their algorithm more closely then prove it's broken. Prove it with cold hard numbers.

Also, many people seem to forget how easy it is for square to prove it works. They have the generator. It's entirely likely, and probable, that the algorithm is surrounded by a unit test. It generates potentially thousands of random numbers within a range in just a second. Then a very simple statistical analysis is done to show the numbers generated are evenly distributed along the range within tolerances. It's so incredibly simple to prove that it's not surprise they have confidence their algorithm works correctly.

[Tiggy]

The law of probability.

As you increase your trial number, the chances of you getting it should become higher.

Entirely false.

The First Law of Probability states that the results of one chance event have no effect on the results of subsequent chance events.
Second Law of Probability, which states that the probability of independent chance events occurring together is the product of the probabilities of the separate events.

This entirely disproves what you said.