Square Enix's RNG

[Murakamo]

I would actually like to know what random number generator they're using, and whether or not it has passed all the tests out there for random number generation. There are plenty of bad generators out there, and if they wrote the one they're using themselves, then there's a high probability it IS broken.

I've seen events happen more than a few times that simply should not have occurred, like failing over and over again with 98 and 99% chances for success. And by not occurring, I mean that the probability of these events is on the order of 1:1,000,000,000, and they occur all the time.

They've already had to fix issues with loot drops in coil, so it really makes you wonder what else is broken in this domain.

This.

I have had strings of 5 failures in a row at about 80% success. If you do the math, that is about 0.00032. I have had someone tell me their worst string was 6 failures at 90% in a row.

Whilst, I know just having 1 person I know of isnt a very good sample size, the thought that the example that happened to me as well as a few other strings of bad luck happen just doesnt seem... right.

Merely a feeling. I am not claiming to have any statistical evidence. I would just like to know what peoples thoughts are.

[Moirear]

I understand probability quite well. Did statistics in University. When I frequently see sequences that have less than a 1 in 100,000 chance occurring, every 500 chances or so, and others complain of the same thing, we're either all incredibly unlucky, or the system is prone to excessively long sequences of extreme values.

You're all incredibly unlucky, because some others are incredibly lucky. My results are fairly average.

That's just how it can go. And most RNGs are basically pseudo-RNGs because they're not based on natural phenomenas that are truly random, so they can occasionally be perceived as prone to extreme values.

You're doing the math on a few samples, but you'd have to gather the data from all players, all checks, all the time to get a more reliable picture of how well the system works at acting random.

[Tiggy]

This.

I have had strings of 5 failures in a row at about 80% success. If you do the math, that is about 0.00032. I have had someone tell me their worst string was 6 failures at 90% in a row.

Whilst, I know just having 1 person I know of isnt a very good sample size, the thought that the example that happened to me as well as a few other strings of bad luck happen just doesnt seem... right.

Merely a feeling. I am not claiming to have any statistical evidence. I would just like to know what peoples thoughts are.

This is entirely within tolerances for RNG. It's just a bad string of luck.

Honestly people. We really do need hard numbers here and not anecdotal evidence. If you think something is wrong then document it and prove with a high enough sample size. PROVE IT PEOPLE! This is something the player base can absolutely prove. Stop complaining and actually do something to prove to SE that there is a problem. That's what gets things done around here.

[Murakamo]

This is entirely within tolerances for RNG. It's just a bad string of luck.

Honestly people. We really do need hard numbers here and not anecdotal evidence. If you think something is wrong then document it and prove with a high enough sample size. PROVE IT PEOPLE! This is something the player base can absolutely prove. Stop complaining and actually do something to prove to SE that there is a problem. That's what gets things done around here.

Why should we have the prove anything when SE has the formula for their RNG generators sitting on the desk of their office? SE knows if something is up and they can choose to investigate it or not.

[Sirtet]

Thanks to this thread I finally figured out what RNG stands for

I couldn't get past it standing for Ranger.

lol

[Tiggy]

Why should we have the prove anything when SE has the formula for their RNG generators sitting on the desk of their office? SE knows if something is up and they can choose to investigate it or not.

Because SE probably knows it works perfectly as they sit there laughing there asses off at the players raging. Random number generating algorithms are very common and extensively tested. It is very probable SE is using a standard algorithm, and didn't write their own since there wouldn't be much benefit in reinventing the wheel. Which would mean there isn't a problem at all. If the players would take the time to try and prove the problem exists they might actually discover it works just fine, or if they find there is a problem then it might garner some real attention from SE who is likely sitting back feeling very confident in their industry accepted algorithm. So far no one cares to study this with a large enough sample size and they just want to complain instead. If I was SE I would expect that the generator is working perfectly because there is no real reason to expect that it isn't. From a programming perspective what everyone thinks is happening is actually a very unlikely scenario. It is more likely that personal perceptions are playing strongly in players minds and are making them perceive a problem that does not actually exist.

[Rivienne]

What did you do 300 times? All I saw was you mentioning AK, which any RNG factors therein are far more obscure than 98% HQ success rate, so I am not sure what one has to do with the other.

AK? No idea what you think you read, but I brought a specific test in my first post on thread of mining 100% chance nodes, and using unearth to increase HQ percentage. with a stated chance of 25%, I saw instead 38HQ over ~300 attempts (75 nodes total, so 300 is the minimum. It may be closer to 310 but for simplicity I rounded).

I am btw, neutral on this subject, I am not complaining, or defending the system. I am defending the possibility that the system is flawed however. Based on my experience and testing, the system seems flawed. That doesn't mean it is, but my one stated example was large enough to be meaningful, though not definitive. However for personal play, the system works good enough for me.

Regarding loot drop: I don't care at all. When stuff drops, better than my gear it is an oooh free upgrades moment. I don't go looking for them however, so I am not interested either way in chance rates of loot drop.

But gathering is very clean and easy test for the RNG system, which other people can easily test to backup or refute my numbers. Mine any 100% chance item with a 15% chance HQ over a sufficient sample size, of 50+ nodes. Use unearth consistently at every node to ensure that every node is given the same 25% chance at HQ. (25% is a good number of this type of test, because the sample size doesn't have to be prohibitively large to be meaningful). Count the total number of NQ and HQ at the end of the test. I would expect results of 18-25% HQ.

[Inquisitor]

My own personal experience is that, over time, HQ gathering percentages do tend to match the listed percentage. Not that my sample size is statistically significant, but NO single player (or even a couple of players comparing notes) is going to have a large enough sample size avoid being an outlier on the bell curve.

The displayed percentages may, in fact, be incorrect and I've been lucky. My experience is no more or less valid than others.