[Transparency request] Publish the RNG engine of the lottery system

[dutiona]

I’m sorry they’ll never actually give you their raw code.
That would only give people information to game the system, so as a general idea they’ll never show it.
Even then they’re very likely updating said code now.

I'm not asking for raw code ^^ . But hey, maybe they are using some open source 3rd party for their RNG engine and can actually tell us what they use. Maybe they rolled their own implementation of a well known algorithm and can tell us the name of that algorithm.

[Mika_Zahard]

Random is still random. Everyone in that particular lottery still had the same chance of winning it as everyone else in the lottery. As long as that condition is met, that's ultimately all that matters, and even if a different person might have won in different circumstances I don't see that as being sufficiently concerning to require revoking the lotteries that produced winners. It hasn't improved or damaged one person's chance relative to the others, just shifted the random number they require to win.

Since it seems you dont understand, let me explain you the problem.

The 0 bug happens to single bidders or same FC members bidding on the same plot only.

If that condition is verified, the 0 (no entry participants) flag is raised.

[dutiona]

This is a video game dog where you are putting a bid into a plot, where 50 people from 1 fc can also bid on this same plot, but we will compare this to a countries lottery system and how it is strictly regulated. The lottery had to be regulated first in order to appeal anything about it, and your subscription and clicking I agree when you installed the game means you accept what they do.

It is a video game but SE cares about their reputation. They have proven it multiple time in the past. The fact that this game even exists today is the proof of it (any other company would have nuked it down at the catastrophic release of 1.0). As I said, asking is free. What I'm sure is that you never get anything you don't ask. You don't even defend them you're just saying "don't ask it's useless". I don't agree with you. And you're not convincing me.

[IdowhatIwant]

It is a video game but SE cares about their reputation. They have proven it multiple time in the past. The fact that this game even exists today is the proof of it (any other company would have nuked it down at the catastrophic release of 1.0). As I said, asking is free. What I'm sure is that you never get anything you don't ask. You don't even defend them you're just saying "don't ask it's useless". I don't agree with you. And you're not convincing me.

What your asking for makes no difference, the system was already implemented in an unfair state, understanding how the numbers were even chosen makes little difference in how unfair it was if the random numbers even made it any more unfair at all.

And I doubt SE cares about it's reputation it releases more bad games than good games. Don't mistake FFXIV as some shining example this game is not as great as many players claim it is.

[MilkieTea]

Since it seems you dont understand, let me explain you the problem.

The 0 bug happens to single bidders or same FC members bidding on the same plot only.

If that condition is verified, the 0 (no entry participants) flag is raised.

Am I to understand that it is your belief that this bug occurs ONLY to bidders who are the only bidder on a plot, or FC members who all bid on the same plot and are alone in their bid?

Because if so, have I got news for you, buddy

[HeyMcFly]

I don't want a rollback, but we deserve transparency on the fact that 0 would have been apart of the lotto (XIV devs always with their monkeys paw)

there are houses that are bugged though & have no winner at all. Bugs happen but please have that addressed & the fact that personal housing is widely requested over FC houses & how this continued demand shall be met.

When will apartments & FC rooms get upgrades to match houses? Like garden plots, increased item space & addable roommates/ tenants? People are always requesting this.
When will in-depth housing requests/ complaints be addressed? It's never been even mentioned even after years of posts in the housing forum.

Several suggestions for the lotto- allow us to cancel our bids for a full refund before the winning number is drawn. There's no reason to not have a cancel button.
For the plots that have 0 as the picked number, allow players to re-enter immediately & have the next drawing within 48 hours or something or remove the 0 or both.

Give us more communication, please

[Fawkes]

Random is still random. Everyone in that particular lottery still had the same chance of winning it as everyone else in the lottery. As long as that condition is met, that's ultimately all that matters, and even if a different person might have won in different circumstances I don't see that as being sufficiently concerning to require revoking the lotteries that produced winners. It hasn't improved or damaged one person's chance relative to the others, just shifted the random number they require to win.

If the problem is that all the results were off by 1, then it's not just the people who lost to zero that have a right to be pissed. Because if they had coded it correctly then all the winners would have been different.

And boy am I tired of "random is random" as an excuse for all the garbage RNG in this game. Sure, random can be random, but it can also be completely broken and unfair, and just because you can't see for sure if it is or not doesn't excuse it.

[dutiona]

What your asking for makes no difference, the system was already implemented in an unfair state, understanding how the numbers were even chosen makes little difference in how unfair it was if the random numbers even made it any more unfair at all.

I believe there's a difference between unfairness with regard to the way you are able/not able to bid on a plot (which is policy upstream from the lottery itself) and the lottery on its own.
I agree with you that it was unfair that some FC people could buy several tickets for their FC house, but it was a policy/choice the dev team took upon itself. Complain were open 3 PLL ago about that.

Now, the fact that you can still loose even if your FC members bought 5 tickets while there was only 5 bidders is another thing entirely. Some people cannot even get their refund... How are we suppose to think that the lottery was even 10% fair? (10% being the actual moment the tickets are drawn).
That's why I'm asking the dev team to disclose stuff because as it is right now, there's only one word that come to my mind: the full system was a scam.

[Bubble_Butt]

Ironic that in most programming languages a single line of code would have prevented what has happened.

while result is equal to zero, re-run lottery roll.

I feel this is underappreciated

[Iscah]

Now, the fact that you can still loose even if your FC members bought 5 tickets while there was only 5 bidders is another thing entirely. Some people cannot even get their refund... How are we suppose to think that the lottery was even 10% fair? (10% being the actual moment the tickets are drawn).
That's why I'm asking the dev team to disclose stuff because as it is right now, there's only one word that come to my mind: the full system was a scam.

If there are five entries and one "zero ticket" (regardless of why it exists) and the lottery is perfectly fair, the "six" tickets all have a one-in-six equal chance of winning.

The fact that in this circumstance the zero can win does not make it a "scam", it makes it a fair contest with a chance that the contest will not have a winner (regardless of the reason for that chance existing, though a big seems far more likely than a deliberate inclusion).

Regardless of this chance of failure, in the circumstance that someone does win the lottery, the lottery was fair between those entrants.