Can we please have something to help us meld.

[Porkchop]

24%? 19%? Those don't sound like the numbers of someone who seriously overmelds. Try 6% on a grade 4 materia. On multiple items. It's not okay. It's a pointless gil sink and to be competitive you HAVE to do it. The overmeld system is a punishment in its current state, a chance to improve the odds of success would be nice.

Just a funny anecdote.. I did my belt & right side recently and the 6% melds (craftsman IV on the last slot) gave me way less trouble than the 10-11% melds (4th slot). I spent on average 18-20 cunning IV for 4th slot melds (the worst was 37). Whereas the 5th slots took me 5-10 usually. Coincidence? Most likely. But this has been my experience throughout the patches.

[Jamillion]

Just a funny anecdote.. I did my belt & right side recently and the 6% melds (craftsman IV on the last slot) gave me way less trouble than the 10-11% melds (4th slot). I spent on average 18-20 cunning IV for 4th slot melds (the worst was 37). Whereas the 5th slots took me 5-10 usually. Coincidence? Most likely. But this has been my experience throughout the patches.

I'm convinced that SE just can't math lol

[Silverbane]

I'm convinced that SE just can't math lol

I'm convinced that people without any formal training in statistics don't understand random processes.
That's one of the most important conclusions I came to while studying statistics in my university days.

[Jamillion]

I'm convinced that people without any formal training in statistics don't understand random processes.
That's one of the most important conclusions I came to while studying statistics in my university days.

Well, that's a fine conjecture when working with true random chance. But when working with computing all "random" events are created from seed strings. Considering the massive amount of discrepancies that are regularly referenced I would not be surprised at all to hear that the seed strings SE uses are not as diverse as they could be leading to some of the things we've seen in game. Also, the average wait times are a prime example of SE not being able to math. Of course that's a completely lighthearted and joking comment.

[Silverbane]

Well, that's a fine conjecture when working with true random chance. But when working with computing all "random" events are created from seed strings.

Not entirely true. Crypto-grade pseudo-random number generators accumulate entropy from various sources, such as one or more of thermal noise, mouse movements, various OS counters, network packet inter-arrival times, and the like, and use that entropy to generate their output after various processing steps. Getting enough entropy for high speed, high quality, cryptographic key generation was a challenge the security architecture R&D group I was part of a few years ago had to struggle with.

There are plenty of PRNGs that don't just seed a linear feedback shift register and let it run. And there are plenty of PRNGs that are indistinguishable from a true RNG. Some are even provided with Windows.

Every online game I've ever played, people complain that the random numbers generated aren't truly random. But no one actually collects data and does analysis to prove it. It's mainly people who have never studied statistics just remembering that time they missed four 99% attempts in a row, for example, which says nothing about the quality of the PRNG.