Square Enix's RNG

[Reinheart]

What bugs me is that your Quality will be at like 700/1000 and show as 41% or some such bs.

Just think of it so that HQ starts from 50% 500/1000 = 0% so 705/1000 is 41% (200/500 = 40%)

[Teleniel]

Just think of it so that HQ starts from 50% 500/1000 = 0% so 705/1000 is 41% (200/500 = 40%)

The Quality bar does not Linearly translate to the HQ percentage. I don't know the formula but it's some form of exponential
0/1000 > 100/1000 ... is 1 to 2% HQ chance
800/1000 > 900/1000 ... goes from 70 to 90% HQ chance

[Rivienne]

RNG doesn't mean if it's 25% chance that you will get 25% HQ by the end of a run. It means when you click on that node you have a 25% chance to get 1 hq. The next time you click, you have the exact same chance. RNG means that even in 1000 gathers, you could get 1 hq.

The same thing happens with a dice roll. It's completely random. Try it sometime.

That is how random works. Yes computers have pseudo-RNG but in the grand scheme of things it works just fine for a video game.

Distribution patterns. The farther away from that percentage you get the less likely it becomes that your results over a set of trials will deviate significantly from the probability of success.

So yeah, I do not think you understood me.. Distribution patterns and chances of success. I was using as an example the fact that the stated chances of success are flawed. The percentages listed do not accurately appear to reflect the distribution patterns, implying the distribution patterns themselves are flawed. Are you familiar with Bernoulli and Binomial Probability?

Chances of receiving my results of 38 (or less) over 300 tests at 0.25 probability is something around 1e-9. I could do the same test again, and I may when I have that much time, but based on my experience thus far every single time I mine, I anticipate similar results. These skewed results are normal. Not exceptions. And the fact I did 300 in a row to receive my tests should be at least somewhat representative of that. Obviously not definitive, but it does make things suspect since it does reinforce existing perceptions.

[Livi]

So you meant random is a joke? lol

[IronSoup]

The RNG for crafting is the same than the RNG to loot. If you wanna test it, it's pretty simple.

Example:
A Titan weapon chest.
5 people looting on the item.
The looting numbers were: 6-45-72-94-98.
The 98 got the item.

If you want to apply the RNG loot numbers to crafting, you can. Picture the looting numbers as "minimum %quality required for HQ". It is that simple. With the above example, even if you'd get 92% chance of HQ on your 5 crafts, 2 out of the 5 would have given a NQ because you were unlucky with the RNG system.

This is how the system works.

BUT there is a way to "exploit" (counter) the RNG system for crafting... just achieve 100% HQ.

[Rivienne]

BUT there is a way to "exploit" the RNG system for crafting... just achieve 100% HQ.

Looking at this type of "exploit": for gathering this also exists on 5 chance nodes once you reach level 25? or 30. I can't remember: gather 4 100% items (shards if the item you want isn't), then solid reason, and deep vigor. 5th item is 100% chance of HQ. This still means the best you can get is 1 HQ mat for every 4 NQ, or 1 HQ mat for 4 shards though. And only every 5 nodes, and only if you recover enough GP first.

[DoctorPepper]

I would have to disagree with the OP. Personally I have all crafts at 50 and have had just as many things with say 10-20% chance hq as things with 90-100% chance nq. I think you have just been getting bad luck, the thing about RNG is that it's exactly that, random. Unless you have a sample of several thousand results and see a clear distinctive pattern I really don't think you can justify that it's not working. Just because you get bad luck multiple times in one session doesn't make it anything more than bad luck.

[Amyas]

Keep this thread going. When I wake up i want to read about people bitching about RNG. I love RNG. My favorite way to get loot. I wonder if i'll get my Allagan weapon before 2.2? Just love being rewarded for clearing hard content. Wait. I haven't.

Just be glad something drops. And it wasn't dark matter.

[Mayin]

Distribution patterns. The farther away from that percentage you get the less likely it becomes that your results over a set of trials will deviate significantly from the probability of success.

So yeah, I do not think you understood me.. Distribution patterns and chances of success. I was using as an example the fact that the stated chances of success are flawed. The percentages listed do not accurately appear to reflect the distribution patterns, implying the distribution patterns themselves are flawed. Are you familiar with Bernoulli and Binomial Probability?

No fancy math required here. If it's not 100% then there's always a chance you wont get HQ. Simple as that.

[Tiggy]

So many people complaining, but I have yet to see someone make a spreadsheet and mark down at each given percentage the number of successes and failures they've seen at that percentage. Also, we would need this in a large sample size to be statistically valuable. Until I see some numbers to support the idea that the RNG is bad I will continue to believe it is just RNG being RNG.