The lotto winner.... number ZERO? Are you serious???

[StriderShinryu]

How did you not Q&A solo bids? How did you not identify coding error this amateurish?

What my guess would be, and it's just a guess, is that they likely tested the results for a very large number of entries. The odds of ending up with a 0 when there's only 2 entries is relatively high (that being even odds of getting a 0, 1 or 2). If, however, you test with 2000 entries the ends up ending up with a 0 result are tiny. You could run simulations a very large number of times and not end up with a 0 response. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have caught the issue beforehand but I can see a world in which the error was missed, especially if there were essentially rushing the system out the door.

[TaleraRistain]

What my guess would be, and it's just a guess, is that they likely tested the results for a very large number of entries. The odds of ending up with a 0 when there's only 2 entries is relatively high (that being even odds of getting a 0, 1 or 2). If, however, you test with 2000 entries the ends up ending up with a 0 result are tiny. You could run simulations a very large number of times and not end up with a 0 response. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have caught the issue beforehand but I can see a world in which the error was missed, especially if there were essentially rushing the system out the door.

It could be rushing. I could be something overlooked. It could be the system is more complex than we think and it was a corner case they didn't test. None of us can really say what they should or shouldn't have known because we aren't looking at and working with their code.

[MiaShino]

What my guess would be, and it's just a guess, is that they likely tested the results for a very large number of entries. The odds of ending up with a 0 when there's only 2 entries is relatively high (that being even odds of getting a 0, 1 or 2). If, however, you test with 2000 entries the ends up ending up with a 0 result are tiny. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have caught the issue beforehand but I can see a world in which the error was missed, especially if there were essentially rushing the system out the door.

The last part of the post seems to be precisely what hath occurred. How do you even miss the eventuality that there will be only one bidder on the house? That.. that is the easiest possible thing to test for and one of first things I personally would have tested against because of how fricken common it might be.

One quick glance at the code could have told you zero was possible outcome because why the heck would it not be?

Five minutes of reading your debug statements would have caused realizing to occur.

I do not believe they do any Q&A testing at'all over there. Twenty four hours of maintenance to release catastrophically broken system? Would fully expect to lose my job if I did this - be demoted - or spend substantial time being reamed by my boss and rightfully so. You are yelled at for more insignificant things in this industry. How half of these people managed to maintain a job and have not been blacklisted by nearly every tech company in field boggles the mind.

Main expac launch? Bork the login system to point sales must be suspended now this..

Am sick if paying these corporations to be their Q&A team. I assisted in solving their little audio bug and it took me ten minutes of thinking about it before had working solution. They claimed to be incapable of re-producing the issue yet after post is translated they somehow understand how to fix it.

How about they start paying me? Pretty sure the solution is not "complex because many variables" and is just "oopsie poopsie we forgot number start as zero". I firmly believe this because of the number of amateurish issues within their codebase. I could see them being this dumb.

Heck! Still waiting for NTT nodes on hop 3 - 4 to be fixed.

Wondering how the lead manager of mmo project doth not understand how latency works yet is even allowed to release statements like that.

I am wondering many things about this company and can state this. If my friends are told to re-enter the lottery they rightfully won they will no longer subscribe. Without them (my reason for even playing) I too shall unsub. Sure sure I am just one lala but there are limits for all. Keep screwing up and you will kill your game, simple. This is one big screw up of many recently.

It could be rushing. I could be something overlooked. It could be the system is more complex than we think and it was a corner case they didn't test. None of us can really say what they should or shouldn't have known because we aren't looking at and working with their code.

It is simple pseudo RNG function that selects number then writes number to database then compares against your entry number. Why would it be any more complex then this? How would it be more complex then this?

Have personally written thousands of similar functions they are not complicated. Probably lifted code from the system that selects Cactpot winners because why re invent the wheel.

[PharisHanasaki]

Probably lifted code from the system that selects Cactpot winners because why re invent the wheel.

But the Jumbo Cacpot is not a lottery. It draws a four-digit number, and people have to had bought a ticket with exactly those numbers to win.

It's like Powerball, numbers are drawn, if you bought a ticket with said numbers you win. This is why there can be zero, one, or multiple winners.

[MiaShino]

But the Jumbo Cacpot is not a lottery. It draws a four-digit number, and people have to had bought a ticket with exactly those numbers to win.

It's like Powerball, numbers are drawn, if you bought a ticket with said numbers you win. This is why there can be zero, one, or multiple winners.

There is still pseudo random function deciding those initial four numbers. RNG function for /roll (which could also return zero pffffff). RNG function for deciding drop chance. RNG function for calculating success rate for gathering. All likely lifted from same code because why would you not re use old code if it is functional. Key part being if functional.

It is precisely a lottery. Did you pick the correct numbers that the function selected? Then you win.

Were you entrant ten when the rng function selected ten? Then you get the house.

Function can include zero (many do) as valid outcome but if default entrant begins at one then zero should be ignored. It seems based on other poster that there is inherent flaw with their random number generator. I could have told everyone that because of how hard the fricken thing streaks.

[TaleraRistain]

It is simple pseudo RNG function that selects number then writes number to database then compares against your entry number. Why would it be any more complex then this? How would it be more complex then this?

Have personally written thousands of similar functions they are not complicated. Probably lifted code from the system that selects Cactpot winners because why re invent the wheel.

Have you seen their code? They did make this comment in the statement.

"We are working to identify the issue in the corresponding program; however, as the process is very complex and there are many patterns involved for the lottery conditions, it will require some time to pinpoint the problem."

I'm using that to say it may be more complex or implemented a different way than any of us with coding experience might predict and since we aren't the ones working with their code, maybe cut them a little slack.

[MiaShino]

Have you seen their code? They did make this comment in the statement.

"We are working to identify the issue in the corresponding program; however, as the process is very complex and there are many patterns involved for the lottery conditions, it will require some time to pinpoint the problem."

I'm using that to say it may be more complex or implemented a different way than any of us with coding experience might predict and since we aren't the ones working with their code, maybe cut them a little slack.

Welp they said it and there is nooooo way they are lying because they would never do that. Right? Right??

I do not require seeing their code to postulate how it likely works because how it works is how it has always worked. Seriously doubt they are using radiometric decay (possible by the way) for their random number function. Probably simple weighted numbers function we have all seen and written ourselves. Again, why would it be more complex and how could it even be more complex?

I. Do. Not. Trust. Them. If they would stop writing sloppy as heck code perhaps I might. Worked with plenty of amateur coders. Have fired amateur coders before for doing less damage then this has done and this was on little side projects.

What patterns? You forgot to ignore zero, how is that complex? if == 0 too hard or something? Honestly. Will not convince me that they were not being big dumb here. They can use alllllll the buzzwords and pr they wish. Anyone else who works in software development knows how to recognize inefficient and sloppy code without having to actually see the code. It allows us to begin formulating debugging solution as early as possible. Can we still be wrong? Yup yup! But goal is to be as close to mark as possible with as little information as possible.

[Manofpassion]

Have you seen their code? They did make this comment in the statement.

"We are working to identify the issue in the corresponding program; however, as the process is very complex and there are many patterns involved for the lottery conditions, it will require some time to pinpoint the problem."

I'm using that to say it may be more complex or implemented a different way than any of us with coding experience might predict and since we aren't the ones working with their code, maybe cut them a little slack.

They're not getting any slack from me. This was one of the first things they announced for ew. It was one of the things I was looking forward to the most, to finally getting my fc a med. End result? I lose to 0. If it was a person, I can say, “fuck”, but move on. Losing because one of the most famous video game companies in Japan, nay the world, don't know how to test for bugs is not a good feeling. They announced ishgard housing like a year ago now, you're telling me they couldn't work out the kinks in that time? Shoddy workmanship. I pay for product, I like product to work. I'm a traditionalist in that sense.

If in the followup statement when they fix it (if they can fix it) and they use the same excuse of blaming 1.0 spaghetti code, me and many players are gonna lose it. To a layman like me, if you can't manage a simple lottery system, you are incompetent. This isn't rocket science. Lotteries have been held since time immemorial. Gachas are literally just lotteries, square enix has lot of gachas, lotteries isnt new to them or this field. This kind of a mess up is embarrassing.

[MiaShino]

Gachas are literally just lotteries, square enix has lot of gachas, lotteries isnt new to them or this field. This kind of a mess up is embarrassing.

You must cut the billion dollar corporation some slack though.. How dare we hold them accountable for the thing we are paying for? That is just sillyness!

420 million (nice)? Smol indie dev have hard time working on simple pseudo random function you are big meanie pants!

Wonder if there would be anyone saying to cut EA some slack if the publishers were different?

[TaleraRistain]

Anyone else who works in software development knows how to recognize inefficient and sloppy code without having to actually see the code. It allows us to begin formulating debugging solution as early as possible.

I do work in software development and that's why I'm saying we don't know what they did if we don't see their code. I get plenty of users at work who have some manner of coding experience and try to wax poetic on "Well all you have to do is blah" and when I say "no" it's "well why not" and the answer is "because it doesn't work that way".

If all the code was always written exactly the same way everywhere, we could just have computers write it for us and we'd be out of jobs. You need a human programmer because there's variation in code, in how databases are set up, in how everything communicates, etc.