We have Mount Favorites list, can we have a Mount Hates list?

[Mikey_R]

I would support this. I'm constantly having to take old mounts off that I still want to use just to add the new shiny mount and it gets harder and harder to decide which mount I want to leave behind.

[Breakbeat]

On a barely related note...I think the RNG for mount roulette needs a rework, it picks some mounts ALL THE TIME, and others virtually never.

I doubt this. Have you done any testing on this theory, or are you just surmising a problem with RNG because of what you 'think you see all the time'? Because I can virtually guarantee confirmation bias if that is the case.

Summon mounts 1000 times, and note each and every mount summoned. I think you'll find the percentages even across the board.

TBH I wouldn't want to sit there and summon mounts a thousand times to get some logically solid picture of the RNG outcomes, but then again, I'd never claim RNG to be 'broken' unless I had some reasonable proof to back it up, beyond, 'I see such-and-such all the time.' Unless you have an eidetic memory (and I stand fully corrected if you do, beg your pardon) you aren't properly remembering even the last (number of mounts in your collection) mount summons, which would be the bare minimum you'd need to start building a low-res picture of the RNG function.

You'd need to perform (10x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to start getting a fair idea of how RNG is performing.

You'd need to perform (100x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to get a rock-solid idea of how RNG is performing.

'Till then, I think one should just leave their trust in the randomness of a random-number-generator in use by a major software developer.

[Conundrum]

I doubt this. Have you done any testing on this theory, or are you just surmising a problem with RNG because of what you 'think you see all the time'? Because I can virtually guarantee confirmation bias if that is the case.

Summon mounts 1000 times, and note each and every mount summoned. I think you'll find the percentages even across the board.

TBH I wouldn't want to sit there and summon mounts a thousand times to get some logically solid picture of the RNG outcomes, but then again, I'd never claim RNG to be 'broken' unless I had some reasonable proof to back it up, beyond, 'I see such-and-such all the time.' Unless you have an eidetic memory (and I stand fully corrected if you do, beg your pardon) you aren't properly remembering even the last (number of mounts in your collection) mount summons, which would be the bare minimum you'd need to start building a low-res picture of the RNG function.

You'd need to perform (10x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to start getting a fair idea of how RNG is performing.

You'd need to perform (100x the number of mounts in your collection) mount summons to get a rock-solid idea of how RNG is performing.

'Till then, I think one should just leave their trust in the randomness of a random-number-generator in use by a major software developer.

Get over yourself. I'm not going to waste my time to humor a nobody on the internet. You wouldn't believe me anyway.

Other people have noted the issue as well.

I know you're one of those people who believes that RNG is flawless in games. I've got news for you, it rarely is. Also, computers have a harder time than you think coming up with random numbers, especially when your code is thrown together as fast as FFXIVs was.