A Random Comment

[IndigoHawk]

For those asking for increase in success after failing:
Basically you are asking the system to be less random or not random at all so that everyone can win. If it is truly random, then expect some people to instantly win and some people to almost never win.
If you want a system that increases your success rate after failing, just ask for a system so that everyone can win in a certain amount of time. No need to talk about RNG.

You talk about that like it's a bad thing. Being unlucky isn't fun.

If you're running a lottery, the results should be random, because you can't afford everyone to win. But if you're paying $15/mo as a gamer, why are you paying for unfun RNG when you could instead pay $15/mo for fun pseudo RNG?

There's no problem with helping unlucky people, and there's no reason to take your suggestion and get rid of random to turn everything into tokens.
Instead use pseudo random to keep it a bit random but still fun.

[Felessan]

Human use "better than safe sorry" and "common sense" statistics, not "A causes B".

Human mind works in "A cause B", and a major part why people are bad with true randomness is that neural networks are meant to approximate hidden formulas (those "F: A -> B" in nature). And when there is a random, they are stuck as they try to found causation and pattern, and there is no for it.

I appreciate the response on the matter, and while it really might just be a fallacy, consistent and predictable outcomes really do still raise a flag. When your norm is to fail more than succeed, regardless of the fact that it is significant odds in your favor (70% or greater success chance), and has been occurring over thousands of instances from any given individual, it might still be worth looking in to. I would not question the system in place if it weren't for the fact that the opposite does not hold up... ever.

This is another cognitive bias.
You really should keep track your success and fails as humans perceive fails more seriously than successes (up to 2 times), so even if you have absolutely uniform distribution which gives you 50%/50% chances, in a long run you'll feel that you fail more than succeed due to difference in mental perception.
In nature it's more important to punish for failure, that to reward for success. Thus discrepancy in strength.

Tiggy, the time and cpu clock etc. are all known and constant variables, let's go with the system clock, the seed is 9am on the 1st June 2014, you can (if you know the seed date) know what the 1,000,000,000th number is, it isn't random, it has an end result which can be known, there is a 0% chance that you *know* if a coin is going to be heads or tails next toss, it's true random.

It actually can, as you can get an unpredictable seed if you apply the same chaos theory. For instance game can take a first several bytes of data from last TCP packet it got at the moment of seed generation. As there lots of such packets, its not really possible to determine seed and thus number will be random.
Most of randomness in real world occur due to the same reasons. There are explicit formulas for many parts, even human behavior is algorithmic by its nature. Problem arise due to many formulas sensitive to very high orders/small parameters (so called butterfly effect) making proper tracking almost impossible.