ATMA nerfing - An addressal to those who object to it.

[Squa11_Leonhart]

It has come to my attention that when the subject of nerfing atma, that people fall into several categories

1. Those who object to it because they had to suffer as well.

2. Those who Ignore the worst end of RNG, and believe (choosing to ignore) that it is not a matter of a lack of effort, simply because they got their ATMA when the planets were aligned, during a blood moon whilst wearing their lucky colour for the day.

3. Those who suffered, and support the changes.

4. Those who have seen others suffering and support the changes.


Personally, I fall into the 4th category, I have not personally strived to collect atma, only really doing so alongside a friend (who on these forums goes by Kusari-Chan) that in doing the same amount of work, for the same amount of hours as I, recieved none, while I managed to collect a full set, including several duplicates in that period of time.

Addressing the 1st category - Get over yourselves, you chose to put that effort in and learned the masochistic way that it is a chore, some of you complained in game to friends that it was a bitch to do, all the while continuing at it, Your opinions are to be honest, laughable - Your objection has no substance and only serves to detract from the complaints from all the users who have put even more effort into trying to get them in earnest. There are many more who upon trying and seeing how bad the RNG is for themselves, or to others, that chose to give up on and are waiting even now for it to be nerfed and implemented as a progressable upgrade that can be tracked.

Addressing the 2nd category, read what i wrote in my opening paragraph, You are utterly ignorant and oblivious to the suffering of many players and refuse to put any attempt into understanding all of the people who have put more time and effort into gathering ATMA then you have, simply because RNG was in your favour - and yes, RNG does favour some more than others as it uses a 'seed value' to generate.

My understanding of these algorithms is that they will of a certainty generate a distribution over time, as opposed to true randomness where the distribution is a tendency rather than a certainty.

It's true that they generate a certain distribution over time, but it isn't guaranteed to be a uniform distribution. That is, no matter how many times you invoke the pseudorandom number generator (PRNG), some numbers may come up more often than others. Of course, you can use this fact to your advantage.

PRNGs have other flaws as well. Some of them, for example, are very non-random in their low bits, sometimes to the point where the lowest bit always alternates between 0 and 1. Therefore if you knew for certain that such a PRNG was used on a roulette wheel, and the game allows you to bet that the number will be odd or even, then you could always win by alternating your bets between odd and even.

Another flaw is that the difference (or some other characteristic) between successive PRNs may be somewhat predictable. Therefore you might be able to win in the long term at roulette by observing a large number of successive spins and noting if, for example, successive numbers almost always differ by at least 5. Then when you see the ball land on 15, you know next time to bet on numbers less than 11 or greater than 19.

Finally, all PRNGs eventually repeat their sequence (unless reseeded), so if you wait a really, really long time to observe all possible spins, you can make a note of when the pattern starts repeating, and then correctly predict every single spin from then on.

So yes, PRNG favours some more than others because of the sequence repeating at times.

Your claims that the people complaining on the forum could have got a set if they were in game farming, are laughable and a mockery of the issue, your perception that they are doing less work then you did is ignorance, and quite often wrong - A greater number of players have done more work then you ever had to and still not completed a full set. Some of you do understand this and are of the opinion "Shit Happens, I got mine so i don't care" - Yet care enough to deny others a better chance of getting them . .

It makes no sense to be honest.


Those in favour of the nerf, I support you - Pay no attention to those who don't and seek to detract from your arguments, they are not worth the time replying to them, there are some people who cannot be swayed to accept facts and reality.

[Lexiii]

So yes, PRNG favours some more than others because of the sequence repeating at times.

I completely agree with your post WRT the Atma nerf objectors, but... This makes no sense in the context of the quote you posted :P. It's 100% irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, Atma drop is true RNG, not PRNG. If you could study every single roll that the servers use and know exactly when it's reseeded, then this would apply. But you can't, so it doesn't.

[Squa11_Leonhart]

I completely agree with your post WRT the Atma nerf objectors, but... This makes no sense in the context of the quote you posted :P. It's 100% irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, Atma drop is true RNG, not PRNG. If you could study every single roll that the servers use and know exactly when it's reseeded, then this would apply. But you can't, so it doesn't.

A computer is not capable of true RNG Lexiii, it is Pseudo RNG.

This is why its easier to win big (and lose big) on digital slot machines vs the old mechanical type.

[Lexiii]

A computer is not capable of true RNG Lexiii, it is Pseudo RNG.

I am a computer engineer. I am more than aware of how PRNG works. The reason your assumption is wrong is that in order to analyze a PRNG for flaws, you need access to every roll. You don't know how many times the server has rolled, when it will roll next, what the results of any of those rolls are, etc. Because of this, it's as good as true RNG, assuming it has equal distribution over time. It's also likely that they are using Mersenne Twister, which as to my knowledge has no major flaws unless you use a low entropy seed.

Also, computers *can* have true RNG, they just need an external source of entropy. The 'safest' sources of entropy are things like radioactive decay or CBR. All Linux machines (which SE's servers likely are) use various things like disk I/O as a source of tamper-proof unpredictable entropy.

[Squa11_Leonhart]

The reason your assumption is wrong is that in order to analyze a PRNG for flaws, you need access to every roll.

No you don't, you just need to know that a seed generated sequence repeats every so often and you can figure a winning scenario out based on drops over a sample time.

Its done with digital blackjack all-to-often.

Being a computer engineer doesn't ultimately turn you into a math genius.





Could you go get employed by AMD though, they need some help making good cpu's again, ever since they fired the NEC guys they aquired its all gone to hell over there :x

[Shougun]

I am a computer engineer. I am more than aware of how PRNG works. The reason your assumption is wrong is that in order to analyze a PRNG for flaws, you need access to every roll. You don't know how many times the server has rolled, when it will roll next, what the results of any of those rolls are, etc. Because of this, it's as good as true RNG, assuming it has equal distribution over time. It's also likely that they are using Mersenne Twister, which as to my knowledge has no major flaws unless you use a low entropy seed.

Also, computers *can* have true RNG, they just need an external source of entropy. The 'safest' sources of entropy are things like radioactive decay or CBR. All Linux machines (which SE's servers likely are) use various things like disk I/O as a source of tamper-proof unpredictable entropy.

Just wait till we find the accurate formulas to each decay (we certainly have great tools to get near but I mean the exact input output, if we can comprehend that information as we are currently evolved.. XD). It's all predetermined, there is no RNG *waves hand in air* muahahahaha.. lol

As per RNG in the game, I don't mind it if there were nets - at least for contents that have high range. (No net needed for dodo tendons). Of course there appears to be no nets for certain contents and I hope SE changes that.

[Lexiii]

No you don't, you just need to know that a seed generated sequence repeats every so often and you can figure a winning scenario out based on drops over a sample time.

*Assuming you know every roll*. Say you're watching the output of SE's RNG from your end. You see a pattern: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The pattern is obvious. It rolls a 4, you know 5 is next. Except... you get a 1! Someone else on the server got a roll and they stole your 5! What you are proposing is impossible because the server shares the PRNG state with other players. The only way to game it is with an uneven distribution... and even that will not help you in this case.

Agreed about AMD though. <3 them, bought an FX-8350 because $/performance and features is better than Intel, but... they are slacking .

[Teirshin]

I am a computer engineer.

Um, grats? (claim whatever you want if it makes you feel better about yourself, it carries zero weight here)

I am more than aware of how PRNG works.

Um, grats again? (see point above)

Also, computers *can* have true RNG, they just need an external source of entropy. The 'safest' sources of entropy are things like radioactive decay or CBR. All Linux machines (which SE's servers likely are) use various things like disk I/O as a source of tamper-proof unpredictable entropy.

And.... SE having already made claims that they would have difficulty alphabetizing a list.... do you honestly think they put any more effort into writing a shi##y RNG script than they had to?

I'm thinking... no.

[Exstal]

5. Those who've played in games where the RNG was much worse and don't support the changes
6. Those who've played in games where the RNG was much worse and support the changes

[Squa11_Leonhart]

5. Those who've played in games where the RNG was much worse and don't support the changes
6. Those who've played in games where the RNG was much worse and support the changes

I don't care what other games did, they are irrelevant to what is going on in this game.

I don't even care if the rng is better/worse than a previous game in the series - the fact remains they are not this game; so they are irrelevant.