Tired of low drop rate in triple triad cards! SE need do something about this

[Yukiko]

9 is max number, same as 0 is min number, then we have twice the same number (in a row)...
If you slightly understand RNG programming, you wouldnt have said that!

Edit: that did not happen once, and not only at our server!

[kyuven]

9 is max number, same as 0 is min number, then we have twice the same number (in a row)...
If you slightly understand RNG programming, you wouldnt have said that!

Edit: that did not happen once, and not only at our server!

I don't understand RNG programming, no, but why would it be unusual for 4 random numbers to be like that?
So what if one's the max and one's the minimum? Statistically that can STILL happen no matter what. There are 10 possibilities for each slot, after all.

[LineageRazor]

RNG may be RNG, but what really gets my goat is that the OP has done all this crazy work - and STILL doesn't have enough MGP to buy the Cloud Strife card. Or even just the Nanamo card!

Honestly, even thinking in terms of "long term goals", that's just silly, particluarly since neither card offers much that can't be satisfied by another 5-star card. The pricing on these items is more than a bit over the top.

I haven't done the math to figure out roughly how many hours it would take to just grind out the 1.4 million MGP using the Indolent Imperial, but I'm guessing the results would not be uplifting.

[DoctorPepper]

Right now I'm only logging for these cards, but the drop rate is very low and unfortunately I will not waste my time, because pay monthly to play the whole month and not have a reward? this is not a good thing.

Why the SE does not put a system to increase the drop rate every 15 runs?

While I agree that the drop rate should be increased, you pretty much answered your own question. They want people to continue subbing, that's literally the only reason for the low drop rate.

[Malusion]

9 is max number, same as 0 is min number, then we have twice the same number (in a row)...
If you slightly understand RNG programming, you wouldnt have said that!

Edit: that did not happen once, and not only at our server!

I'm not entirely sure you understand how RNG is supposed to work if you think there's anything strange about that. Its not like you're rolling 2 6-sided dice which would cause there to be an uneven distribution of chances for each number. If its working properly any number from 1-9 will be exactly as likely to appear, and each number have no effect whatsoever on the chance of the next one. In which case there's no such thing as a weird number result on the cactpot.

Granted I'm not a programmer, but if it was programmed so that there was a lower chance of it hitting the far end numbers, then the programming they used for RNG would be flawed, as its intended to be a system where every number has equal probability.

[Kosmos992k]

Cactpot: 9220
You still defending RNG in this game even when you see such odd numbers every week?
How many more prove you need??

I'm not sure what your problem is. 4 digits each can be anything from 0-9, total number of possible combinations 10,000 (0000-9999), you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of winning. So, pray tell, what is the problem with 9220? Seems pretty reasonable to me. Heck, the same number could come up next week that's the nature of random numbers. Statistically, any combination is just as likely as the next. Even though a combination came up yesterday it does not alter the possibility of the same number being selected today.

[Tiggy]

It's the tradeoff to not losing cards, therefore we must deal with rng.

Precisely this.

[Alberel]

RNG is bad, but not that bad.

I don't think you understand what RNG means... it is theoretically possible for a player to NEVER see a drop after any number of runs. Without some kind of Smart RNG safety net to deal with extreme outlier cases like this we will continue to see unlucky players report the numbers such as those above. For every player that gets a drop on their first run there will be another that won't see that drop after hundreds of runs. True RNG is an incredibly flawed mechanic in games like this and it is no surprise that many new titles are using modified RNG systems with ways to prevent streaks of extreme bad luck. If SE wants to keep up with the times they will need to switch to a Smart RNG drop system.

[AsahinaMyLove]

I get every 4-5 Ct3 a stupid onion knight card >:U
I always sell those for 600MPG - since I dont play this card game in this game - Because its highly ruined by rng and unfair rules!!

[Yukiko]

I don't understand RNG programming, no, but why would it be unusual for 4 random numbers to be like that?

Have a look at this, its well explained:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...tatistics.html

These digits were supposed to be random, yet in the first thousand, the first dozen for that matter, we found a pattern as striking as “999999”. What's the probability of that happening? Just the number of possible numbers of d digits which contain one or more sequences of p or more consecutive nines:

In the original examination of the data, we were really asking “What is the probability we'll find some striking sequence of six digits in a random 1000 digit number?”. We can't precisely quantify that without defining what “striking” means to the observer, but it is clearly quite high. Consider that I could have made the case just as strongly for “000000”, “777777” or any other six-digit repeat. That alone reduces the probability of occurrence by chance to one in ten. Or, perhaps I might have pointed out a run of digits like “123456”, “012345”, “987654”, and so on; or the first five or six digits of a mathematical constant such as Pi, e, or the square root of two; regular patterns like “101010”, “123321”, or a multitude of others; or maybe my telephone or license plate number, or the subject's! It is, in fact, very likely you'll find some pattern you consider striking in a random 1000-digit number.

At the outset, the results diverged substantially from chance, as is frequently the case for small sample sizes. But as the number of experiments increased, the results converged toward the chance expectation, ending up in a decreasing magnitude random walk around it. This is precisely what is expected from probability theory, and hence we conclude no “999999 effect” exists.

The Problem we have is this:
For the RNG we have a very high sample size because we can assume that every player, every system ingame is using the same RNG and not having one of their own!
But on the other hand for each player we have a very small sample size because one player does not try 100000 runs for a single drop... do you get the problem?
Lottery as example it is 4 digits, but how is it generated? We can highly assume it just normally generates and takes the first 4 "flips"... so it just takes the numbers he is getting in a row...