A Random Comment

[hqdm]

I appreciate the dev reply but well, I don't understand it still, I guess.
RNG relating to spiritbond results, because I do a lot of that, I can see it's more or less even result over a great many results.
But relating to other things, it doesn't feel like that. I'm aware of cognitive bias, that part I did understand.
A few days ago I failed ~12 infusions in a row on my Det IV sphere scroll.
A few days before that, first overmeld at 29%, this

I mean, it was expected to some extent that there would be failure.
and I suppose it might be part of my bias that I notice it more because Det IV are really kinda expensive
but it just feels like the listed %s don't match up with the results at all?
The most striking example I can remember quite clearly:
I basic synthed an ingot at 2% HQ chance and it became HQ. When crafting the result, I only reached 98% HQ and it became NQ, back to back.

[Zaero]

1 post to go WAATMA. Stay classy ff14 forums.

[Waeksyn]

I really don't challenge that SE's RNG algorithm works correctly. Random is random. The impact, though, of being on a bad "losing streak" is really not good for the game. For some actions in the game (melding, atma, other) the RNG method should be tossed in favor of one that DOES look at history.

Let's say the chance of success at an overmeld is 25%. If you fail, the next attempt at the same action would have a higher chance of success - say 35% or whatever. If you fail again, the chance increases again. Eventually, if you continue to fail, you will hit 100% success probability. When you succeed, the series gets reset. This would totally eliminate the crushing effect of really bad luck - farming atma for hours at end, spending millions of gil to get that last overmeld.

[VitaminMT]

I really don't challenge that SE's RNG algorithm works correctly. Random is random. The impact, though, of being on a bad "losing streak" is really not good for the game. For some actions in the game (melding, atma, other) the RNG method should be tossed in favor of one that DOES look at history.

Let's say the chance of success at an overmeld is 25%. If you fail, the next attempt at the same action would have a higher chance of success - say 35% or whatever. If you fail again, the chance increases again. Eventually, if you continue to fail, you will hit 100% success probability. When you succeed, the series gets reset. This would totally eliminate the crushing effect of really bad luck - farming atma for hours at end, spending millions of gil to get that last overmeld.

Nah, how about we don't do that at all.

[Laurell]

I don't have any fancy words, or even an opinion on RNG, to add to the subject but I do have 2 numbers:

[Nyalia]

I don't have any fancy words, or even an opinion on RNG, to add to the subject but I do have 2 numbers:

Oh, cool! It looks like the max HQ rate for fishing is 20%. I had thought it was only 15%, like the other gathering classes. Maybe it is 15% and you just got really lucky? Your catch rate is 19.4% HQ.

[Yukiko]

I begin to understand...
The puzzle forms a picture...


Dear Hiroshi_Minagawa,

Can you please ask the main programmer “K” with which numbers they are calculating and how a "normal" player in 10 years should ever reach that? True, when counting with lets say 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 trys in total just "3" or "9" times in a row is nearly nothing...

My question now is how realistic those PRNG of yours is, i doubt the mathematic algorythm is made for human lifetime, its made for computers with higher number counts than actually "crafting" or similar small numbers!

Can you please test your generator on a 2 axis "worm" up, down, left, right and tell me in which direction he is "drifting"?

You confirmed to use a PRNG, and that a TRNG is causing too much server stress, but even then: why nearly everything ingame is involving a known unreliably system? At least please add a net for unlucky players!

thanks for listening.


Edit: At this rate i will not toss a coin and bet in gold saucer...

[Nyalia]

Random anecdote: mining Umbral Rocks, having six hits at 12% HQ chance, 95% success rate, I got five HQ in a row (well, six, but the sixth was free since I hit five times). Next time I went? 32% chance, 95% success rate, I got four NQ and had two misses. Random is random.

Also, I did a long-term analysis on my pre-2.3 melds for all eight crafter classes. I had streaks of bad luck, and streaks of good luck. I noticed the bad luck much more than the good luck, and thought I spent way more than the expected value on my melds due to numerous failures. Actual result, looking at the final numbers (actual money spent vs expected value of money spent), I spent significantly (10%) less than I should have due to good luck outweighing the bad. Did I notice the good luck? Nope. That's the bias we're talking about here. Succeed at a meld first try with an 8% chance to succeed? Barely registers as abnormal. Fail 10 times in a row with a 45% chance to succeed? Very noticeable.

[Waliel]

there is a 0% chance that you *know* if a coin is going to be heads or tails next toss, it's true random

If you know all the forces and whatnot that affects the coin toss, you can calculate the result 100% accuracy. For starters, the heavier side is more likely to be facing ground. There are actually machines that will flip the coin with 100% accuracy.

[VitaminMT]

I do really appreciate how the opening post said something to the effect of "humans are want to see patterns where there aren't any, so just chill out.", only to be followed up by armchair mathematicians coming in saying "yeah well nuh uh because see this happened to me and...". Dang, man.