Game's RNG seems whack

[Starfox71rt]

You do know just because it 72% success rate doesn't mean that you will get 720/1000 right? It's a 72% chance each time you make a swing. But, I do agree, RNG can be rough in this game. lol

While that's true, over a large enough sample size it should regress back to the 72% success rate. If you were to double DSN's sample size (original being 513/1000 or 51.3%), that would mean there would have to be 927 successes out of the next 1000 (92.7%) to get back to the proper success rate (1440/2000 or 72%). Even if you double that sample size to 4000, DSN would have had to get 2367 successes out of the next 3000 (79%) to get back to 72%.

Further, if you evaluate the 207 extra fails from the original use case in a vacuum, the odds of that many fails at a 72% success rate are astronomically high. So high in fact that you have a better chance of winning the PowerBall lottery (1 in 175,000,000) 13 times in a row. [Disclaimer: While I did do the math to get the odds, I'm not statistically versed enough to determine if I incorrectly evaluated the 207 fails]

The point is, it doesn't seem like the math is right. It could be either the algorithm to determine success or fail or the way the game calculates the stated success rate to you.

[Bichcat]

I agree with the OP. For some time now I've been thinking that this game has one of the worst RNG I've ever seen.

[Syamic]

RNG is put into games to piss people off and make them keep trying to do stuff. So the longer it takes the more you play = more money for the company.

RNG will never be of any good to player's.

[RyuujinZERO]

Tin-foil hats maybe. But ever thought maybe this is something to do with how the random values are generated?

Ask yourself "what is random, how can I make a random number?" - oddly it's not an easy as it sounds, even a thrown dice is seeded from something (the trajectory of the throw, to momentum and torque, the initial position of the die, the surface it lands upon etc). All these little factors can be traced back to a non-random source, a careful dice thrower can in fact weight the outcome in his favour. A computer is no different, it cannot generate a "truly" random number, the random value is seeded from somewhere, whether pulling values out of memory, looking at the system clock, grabbing pixels off a photograph of yoshi-p, whatever.

There is always the potential the random source is less random than might've been intended and creates unintended patterns in it's results.

[Toranja]

Stochastic is stochastic.

[Virtuso]

I along with multiple FC mates have experianced the Primal "books" being a dime a dozen as well. It does feel like the "Random" aspect of it isn't quite so random.

[Thunderz]

RNG is RNG

It is why people are still playing

just deal with it

[Rhindas]

Yeah I've failed a 95% chance in gathering 8 times in a row before. During a leve of course. -.- It got to the point I don't even bother trying to gather without 100% success because even 99% is a waste. But I know I'm Murphy's Law's bitch so I never really gave it much clout until I saw the amount of topics on forums around the internet.

I don't have a recorded sample size but I've lost count of how many times Hasty Touch + Steady Hand II has failed. 20% shouldn't happen that much. I was almost convinced that it was a legitimate bug that Hasty Touch wouldn't work on the first attempt, it failed so many times in a row.

[Castillan]

I don't have a recorded sample size but I've lost count of how many times Hasty Touch + Steady Hand II has failed. 20% shouldn't happen that much. I was almost convinced that it was a legitimate bug that Hasty Touch wouldn't work on the first attempt, it failed so many times in a row.

Here's a thing, ever noticed how it seems to be WAY worse on 40 Dura crafts? On 60/70/80 crafts, HT+SH2 seems fine, but on 40 Dura crafts, it's almost as if the 30% bonus from SH2 is multiplicative rather than additive (ie. 50 * 1.3 => 65%, rather than 80%).

[Castillan]

Tin-foil hats maybe. But ever thought maybe this is something to do with how the random values are generated?

Ask yourself "what is random, how can I make a random number?" - oddly it's not an easy as it sounds, even a thrown dice is seeded from something (the trajectory of the throw, to momentum and torque, the initial position of the die, the surface it lands upon etc). All these little factors can be traced back to a non-random source, a careful dice thrower can in fact weight the outcome in his favour. A computer is no different, it cannot generate a "truly" random number, the random value is seeded from somewhere, whether pulling values out of memory, looking at the system clock, grabbing pixels off a photograph of yoshi-p, whatever.

There is always the potential the random source is less random than might've been intended and creates unintended patterns in it's results.

Precisely. I've worked in IT for 25 years. In my time, I've seen both good RNGs (the Unix/Linux one) and bad ones (one that just added a prime number incrementally and kept taking the modulo of the result by another prime number to generate a percentile chance, or one that just replayed and cycled a pre-recorded set of numbers). A computerised RNG is wholly dependent upon the underlying algorithm used.

When it comes to computerised RNGs, if something seems whack, chances are, it is.