Can you please Ease Up on Atma now?

[Mijin]

I never said it was difficult. I said "please don't make this game easier" (paraphrasing). In this case "easy" was to imply the opposite of "hard". Hard meaning: requiring a great deal of endurance or effort. I think we agree that the "ridiculous RNG" you are referring to requires a deal of endurance, so arguing semantics is pointless. "Easy" is a synonym of the word hard, and what you are trying to imply with your rhetoric is invalid.

That being said, making it easier would undermine the work others have already put into their relics, and it would not be fair. Also, they made the quest this way in effort to force people into doing fates, so if someone actually wants to level with fates, they won't be alone all of the time. This will not, and should not be changed. Thanks.

[Riepah]

I think we agree that the "ridiculous RNG" you are referring to requires a deal of endurance, so arguing semantics is pointless.

Only for some people. Some others can get 12 Atmas in a single day, by being lucky.

A system that demands completion of 50-100 Fates per Atma per zone requires effort. A system that may give you what you need after 1 or after 1000 Fates requires luck.

I think it's both sad and hilarious that you say it "would undermine the work others have already put into their relics, and it would not be fair", but somehow think it's fair that person A gets their 12 Atma in under 100 Fates total while another goes over 100 Fates without a single Atma drop.

[Mijin]

Only for some people. Some others can get 12 Atmas in a single day, by being lucky.

Some people win the lottery too, or become movie stars. If someone gets all 12 that easy then they probably deserve it because their karma must be like that of the Buddha. You're acting like 50% of the people have it that easy, when in actuality, it's more like .00000000000005%. In general when you are faced with a 5% chance 12 times, the majority of people are going to average pretty close to 5%. Use this and see how many time you can land five or under in close proximity of each other 12 times.

[Eliniell]

Some people win the lottery too, or become movie stars. If someone gets all 12 that easy then they probably deserve it because their karma must be like that of the Buddha. You're acting like 50% of the people have it that easy, when in actuality, it's more like .00000000000005%. In general when you are faced with a 5% chance 12 times, the majority of people are going to average pretty close to 5%. Use this and see how many time you can land five or under in close proximity of each other 12 times.

It took me 87 clicks to get a number between 1 and 5. If I managed to have similar RNG throughout all 12, it'd take me 1044 FATEs to complete. Obviously I could have better, or worse, RNG.

Edit:
Set 1
Atma 1 - 87
Atma 2 - 16
Atma 3 - 53
Atma 4 - 13
Atma 5 - 8
Atma 6 - 16
Atma 7 - 3
Atma 8 - 6
Atma 9 - 5
Atma 10 - 9
Atma 11 - 107 (Personally I call this one Western La Noscea *grumbles*)
Atma 12 - 2

This would have been a total of 325 FATEs if we were doing that instead of using a random number generator (which is literally what the system is using). There's no consistency in any of this. All 12 of those could have just as easily been 100+ as 10 or less. I'd personally much rather have a set 'do 50 FATEs' in X zone. Hell, I'd be fine with 75, or 100. At least then I'd KNOW my progress was being counted towards it. I'd KNOW there was a goal in sight instead of 'hoping' that it managed to drop on the next fate after doing that 106th one. I'm sure if you repeat the process enough times you'll eventually have some that end up all being over 100. That's the nature of RNG. Eventually, at some point int the sample you'll have something that's extremely shitty, and something that's really good. Having it set to a specific number per zone seems perfectly reasonable to me instead of leaving those few that DO catch the bad RNG to do the 1200+ FATEs.

Edit 2: Second set took 237. I'll be keeping the number of rolls each individual 'atma' took and continue editing to show total number of rolls per set until I get bored I suppose. It will very likely average out to something reasonable for most sets, but I'm banking on there being some that will be ridiculously low, and others that will be ridiculously high (since that's the nature of RNG). The issue with the system isn't with the people who fall into the lucky - average, it's the few who are getting the shit end of the RNG stick. There is absolutely no reason some should be able to go 200 when others can go 1000+.

[ZReport]

It took me 87 clicks to get a number between 1 and 5. If I managed to have similar RNG throughout all 12, it'd take me 1044 FATEs to complete. Obviously I could have better, or worse, RNG.

It took my exactly two clicks to get the number one.

[Skias]

That was a terrible argument.