Mini-Lottery: Maybe a BIT more fairness?

[Kirana]

The law of averages ensures that given enough time, you will find just as many winning tickets as everyone else. It's been like a week. We have a TINY sample size. Of course outliers will look extreme now. Wait until everyone has played 100+ times and then ask again how many times they have won 10k. You will see then why your argument is silly OP.

[RobinRethiel]

The law of averages ensures...

A law of average is only theory. In reality you will have people who will win the price 100 times in a year and some who NEVER get it. In average both won it 50 times...

You see, Square COULD implement a law of average. This would help people with really bad luck. But they don't. For them, at this point, it is okay, if some people play their game and just get ***** by sheer bad luck. I don't like, that I have to write this, but that's the reality, now and here, and the main point of this thread. That it would be nice, if Square would think about it, if this is a nice way to treat their players.

They do this very often, too often. All this RNG and it is getting more and more and more. And I hear it from more and more people, that it is making them sick and those do not write here, they just leave and play one of those thousands of other games around.

[Zaft]

Some people here are a bit misinformed. First, there is no such thing as a "law of averages." I'm just going to quote Wikipedia here, because it says it best:

As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects wishful thinking or a poor understanding of statistics rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.

What you're trying to talk about is the law of large numbers (LLN), which states that the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials will be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

Now, as for the OP, what are you even trying to propose here? You've complained quite a lot these past few pages, but really offered no alternative solution. What you SEEM to be advocating is a pseudo-random system in which the game will increase the odds of you obtaining a mini-Cactpot with a possible 1-2-3 on the board each time you do not receive one.

[RobinRethiel]

Some people here are a bit misinformed. First, there is no such thing as a "law of averages." I'm just going to quote Wikipedia here, because it says it best:



What you're trying to talk about is the law of large numbers (LLN), which states that the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials will be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

Now, as for the OP, what are you even trying to propose here? You've complained quite a lot these past few pages, but really offered no alternative solution. What you SEEM to be advocating is a pseudo-random system in which the game will increase the odds of you obtaining a mini-Cactpot with a possible 1-2-3 on the board each time you do not receive one.

Obviously you did not read the thread, because I made suggestions.

It would be ONE mentioned solution, not only for this, also for the other RNG, if there is a check inside the code, which buffs your chances with every fail.

An other mentioned solution is, that they just give better ways to simply EARN those MGPs, beside luck.

FF14 is a game. It's about playing. And Gold Saucer should be more about fun than anything else.

It's enough to look at the original Gold Saucer from FF7. There was no lottery. You got Arena and Chocobo Raising as main source of the GP. And THAT was the fun part of it. Not a lottery.

Actually I don't get why they implemented a lottery anyway - especially since Japan got harsh problems with gamling addiction and criminal organisations abusing this. But beside this, it's odd, that the three most MGP rewarding activities (Lottery 1, Lottery 2 and the Typhoon Gate) are all 100% luck based, while the only other way to earn some more MGP is grinding NPCs in TT.

I don't get it the hate against the idea, that this could be improved a bit, for more fun in this fun park. Where does this come from?

[Duuude007]

if there is a check inside the code, which buffs your chances with every fail.

Let me guess, you had the same request for atma and zodiac dungeon drops.

Some sort of advantage for frequency grinding.

This isn't a solution, because you never really fail. Even your worst hands gain back most of what you spent, while most offer a profit, sometimes a significant profit.

Where would the line be? Any situation where you earn more than you spent? Pointless suggestion.

The lottery is merely a fast, largely effortless way to supplement your MGP. As are GATEs. People will always win the jackpot once in awhile with random frequency, and with repeated visits, any advantage one player holds over another will be rendered moot. Such is the nature of RNG.

Do not expect there to be any changes to these systems... ever; It is fruitless to fix something which is not broken.

If you want reliable MGP, grind TT or Choco, like the rest of us are.

[RobinRethiel]

And again just hate, no arguments. Could you please stop repeating the same thing over and over and over again? Doesn't you have to be ingame and do the 1829th TT game against the imperial soldier?

And listen: you can still do this, if Square would implement some more ways to gain MGP. No one tries to take your grind away from you.

By the way: I were lucky with my Atmas and Zodiac drops, others not, and in comparison to you (obviously), I also care about other people, not only myself.

I see guild mates, friend and other people leave, because of this design, which could be changed sooo easily, without hurting anyone, just helping many.

[Alistaire]

And again just hate, no arguments. Could you please stop repeating the same thing over and over and over again?

How many different people do you need to come in here and post pointing out you're not making any concrete suggestions and that you're really failing to grasp the concept behind Gold Saucer in general before you realize your post I'm quoting fits more as a rebuttal against you than something coming from you?