Lottery "conditions" need to be posted for all to see, we need more transparency.

[GomezAddams]

Yoshi's words: "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."

Let's take "process is very complex and there are many patterns involved for the lottery conditions" part.

It's transparency time, SE. What is the complexity of choosing a random number between 1 and foo? More importantly, what "patterns" could possibly involved?

I admit I only recently graduated with my programming degree, but I'm also 46 and I have a brain. This statement ticks me off to no end. Here's why:

If the lottery is fair, the drawing is simply a random pick from those who were allowed entry. Rules for allowing entry may be a bit picky and complicated, but since you allow bidding on infinite plots until a bidder goes broke, I highly doubt it's all that complex of a system. If there are other criteria involved, they need to be spelled out in no uncertain terms in a very public and easy-to-find place.They are not. They are being kept secret.

My personal opinion: there is no complicated set of circumstances at all, and this is straight PR to cover up someone's ineptitude or mistakes. But let's assume for a moment that Yoshi's statement is true.

In a nutshell, it means the lottery system is not fair at all and is coded to favor some, while omitting others.

Positive side possibilities: This could be a preventative measure to keep an individual or FC from winning more than one plot a week and making plots remain empty another cycle. I don't think this is the case, but it's a possibility.

Negative side possibilities: These are more likely and more numerous if complex patterns are being used. Again, these are possibilities, not accusations.

1. Older FCs and FCs with more members are being favored.

2. Players with less gaps in subscription and/or long-term players are being favored over casuals and come-and-goers.

3. Some other favoritism is being enabled.

4. Players with a history of coming here and complaining could be excluded from ever winning.

That's just a few possibilities, but I feel they are the most likely scenarios if there is some hidden, complex algorithm at work in picking a simple random number out of a pool of consecutive numbers. This is shady af.

We need those algorithms if they want to keep our trust, or they need to just come out and say they screwed up on something simple. It happens. Apologies are old, and solve nothing. I'm sick of apologies. I want fixes and transparency, not excuses and more long waits. We waited ten years, and you've had more than enough time. As I stated in an earlier post, from now on this company will be forever be known by me as the company that couldn't deliver it's promises. From the diminishing content all the way to needless nerfs and changes. SE screwed up first semester code. That's all I see.

[Seraphor]

Did you even bother to read the updates? I'm not sure how it can be more transparent without actually giving us the code. There's so much wrong with your post.

The lottery was bog standard random number between 1 and the highest bid, and it worked. No one had any better chance than anyone else.
What didn't work was communicating the results of the lottery to the housing servers, which messed up when they didn't receive the data, and produced the 0 error. Those plots still had legitimate winners, and that data is still saved on the backend where the lottery was run.

The housing servers which deal with actually allocating the plots are the complicated part, they need to be able to tell if the player is a new buyer, if they're relocating, in they're in an FC, if their FC already has a house, if other members in their FC have placed bids on other plots, etc.

The main complicated part is working out how to correct the mistake. Some players have already reclaimed their refund, even though they actually won their plot. Some haven't, and some that did have already spent their gil. How they reclaim that gil is the issue and they need to design, test and implement a system for doing that.

"but since you allow bidding on infinite plots until a bidder goes broke" they don't, you can only make one bid, regardless of how much gil you have.
"Players with a history of coming here and complaining could be excluded from ever winning." ...what?
"they need to just come out and say they screwed up on something simple" they did.
"I'm sick of apologies." but you just said....
"I want fixes and transparency, not excuses and more long waits." the fixes take time dude...
"We waited ten years, and you've had more than enough time." how petulant is this?
You're 46, it's about time you grew up Karen.

[Mika_Zahard]

Its obvious OP didnt read the follow ups, else he wouldnt have made the post..

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Considering I have been subbed constantly since release, with no breaks in said sub ever, and I didn't win my lotto, I'ma call BS on your "assumptions" lol.

And my account is legacy. So there's 0 favoritism. Just get over your loss. I did. And I've wanted an Ishgard plot for 8 years.

[Kaurhz]

Your 'possibilities' are laughable conspiracies at best.

[Roehann]

As someone much older than you with a BS in Computer Engineering, graduate of 1992, I look forward to the grey hairs you find yourself with thinking that programing anything on this scale is always such a simple matter.

I for one believe that SE does their very best to be above board and honest with it's users, more so than some people in real life surrounded by real life events. If you choose to distrust them, please just leave. To attempt to 'call them out and demand such an answer' make you look silly.

[sagacious]

Considering I have been subbed constantly since release, with no breaks in said sub ever, and I didn't win my lotto, I'ma call BS on your "assumptions" lol.

And my account is legacy. So there's 0 favoritism. Just get over your loss. I did. And I've wanted an Ishgard plot for 8 years.

hahahah I love this response

[GomezAddams]

Actually, I DID read the follow up, and I found nothing in it that actually explains what happened. Hence the "I don't believe this crap for a second" attitude in my post. Yes, he did elaborate on how the plots look at the lottery system, and it blatantly displayed room for coercion on their end. Why does it matter how many people in the same FC bid on a plot? Or how many from separate FCs? To quote Yoshi again:

Lottery entry condition patterns for “Plot A,” which is being lotted on

There were no entry applications for Plot A.
There was only one lottery application for Plot A.
There were multiple lottery applications for Plot A.
There were multiple lottery applications for Plot A, but all belonged to the same free company.
There were multiple lottery applications for Plot A, but the applicants vary.
Various other cases

I will point out again that a fair and uninfluenced lottery looks ONLY at the balls in the drawing. The criteria of whoever bought the ball was checked at the time of the bid (says so in this ridiculous follow up), and should have absolutely zero influence on the outcome of the drawing. Same if there was only one entrant. A random number between 1 and 1 is ALWAYS 1. Stating that there are criteria made at the drawing time is, quite literally, verifying my fears that certain people and FCs are being favored.

I have a 3000 character limit, there's not even room for me to go into this in any detail. Which I'm sure is intentional. I simply left this follow up out of the OP because I find it irrelevant and simply more PR. But there's my take on that as well. The follow up came right out and said they are doing more than simply drawing a number in the quote above, even though he had already stated they weren't doing just that. Inconsistency is just another way of blowing smoke up our butts.

[Seraphor]

Lottery entry condition patterns for “Plot A,” which is being lotted on

There were no entry applications for Plot A.
There was only one lottery application for Plot A.
There were multiple lottery applications for Plot A.
There were multiple lottery applications for Plot A, but all belonged to the same free company.
There were multiple lottery applications for Plot A, but the applicants vary.
Various other cases

Because each of those scenarios results in that plot behaving in a different way.

No applications: There were no participants
1 entry: a winner, and no losers.
Multiple entries: a winner, and the losers get to reclaim their entry fee.
Multiple entries same FC: no matter who wins, the house is allocated to the same FC.
etc.

Again this is about the housings servers and how the plot is managed after the fact. It's not about the weight of the RNG used in the lottery.
Nowhere does it say that these checks had any influence on the lottery, just on the plot management.

"I have a 3000 character limit, there's not even room for me to go into this in any detail. Which I'm sure is intentional." LMAO, how much tinfoil did you buy?
You can bypass the character limit by editing your post.

[LianaThorne]

Can't we just accept that someone made a mistake and they're working to fix it? Are we really gonna tinfoil hat this? There's no "priority system".

They have the winners of all the lotteries, it was a display issue. They don't have any obligation to go into more detail on what. I'm someone who got hit with the bug too and will accept the results whether or not I lose. It's literally no different to if everything had worked smoothly on launch and I still lost the plot to someone else. You should probably practice patience or do the same.