Real Math and Sq Enix Math - the twain shall never meet

[fortuona]

i wish you would post your data. would be interesting to see.

[Mallea]

i wish you would post your data. would be interesting to see.

Steel Ingots, using a macro with five Touch skills -- going for HQ ingots (was not using Standard Touch at the time).

100 ingots made -- 500 touches

Result: 181 failed touches or 36.2% failure rate

Two sequential failed touches occurred 41 times

Three sequential failed touches occurred 19 times

Five of Five touches failed once

Total times HQ failed when >98% : 8 times

Total times HQ succeeded when <20% : 2 times


Similar results occurred on my Weaver when making Linen Yarn, as did my Leathermaker when converting Toadskin to Leather.

Regrettably, I did not keep records when my crafters were at lower levels; however, the precipitous number of failed touches is what caused me to begin keeping a log.

[Malakai]

To the people saying "well random is random. It's not 100%" everyone gets that, the issue is the proc rates. When you think about and see how high the proc rate is for a 3%-20% chance to fail/NQ it's absurd. Since 3.0 the proc rates have worsened, and most of the people who are strictly craft/gather have noticed it. The real question is why does such a low chance to fail have a high chance to proc constantly, but yet the low % chance to succeed has an abysmal realistic proc rate? For example why can the 20% fail rate for SH2 + HT fail back to back 4/8 times in 1 synth for 3 separate synths but a 20% chance to HQ will proc maybe 1 out of every 200 or so synths? The same with gathering, 98% chance to gather and you gather 500 items but you miss about 45 attempts, some of them twice in a row. That 2% proc rate is pretty high. But yet your 12% chances to get an HQ only proc'd about 20 times during that whole session.
The game is too heavily reliant upon it's RNG system to keep people from progressing too fast. It's been stated by Yoshi P himself in interviews when they design something, for instance relics in 2.0, they have a time frame when they feel people should obtain/complete them. So really progression is gated behind RNG. On top of that we have the materia system where we need to meet certain requirements just to gather/craft things. That's all the materia is good for in all honesty, because stats and skills have no hold over RNG. Then there's the RNG of melding which is horrid. All in all you can have the most pimped out fully melded HQ gear and still fail as miserably as if you were in the NQ gear with a few melds. So is RNG a bad thing? No, it's not, not saying it is. But when it becomes something that is heavily relied upon and becomes a gate towards progression more so than skill, then it becomes a bad thing.

[Malevicton]

Well here's the dev response: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...Random-Comment

Do with it what you will

[Yukiko]

[Seig345]

I'm no math expert here, but, isn't there an essential difference between a 93% chance of success, and a 93% rate of success?

[Lyrinn]

I'm no math expert here, but, isn't there an essential difference between a 93% chance of success, and a 93% rate of success?

Rate is just chance averaged over many trials.

[Seig345]

Rate is just chance averaged over many trials.

Yes, the point where I'm confused is, the system's 93% is referring to individual chance, not a rate of success, yet the OP refers to it as a rate, and then accuses the rate of being suspiciously closer to 78% than 93%. Seems like a mismatch of terminology here.

As infuriating as it is to fail on a 93% chance of success, I always took it to mean that an RNG was picking a number from 1-100, and that I'd succeed if it picks any number from 1-93, but 94-100 = failure. Random unfortunately means that even if the odds are in your favor, it doesn't mean you're guaranteed more successes than failures (although even in the OP's example, a 78% rate of success is still more successes than failures). As far as homework grades go, 93% is great, but if you go into RNG with that thought process, you're bound to be frustrated.

[Lyrinn]

Yes, the point where I'm confused is, the system's 93% is referring to individual chance, not a rate of success, yet the OP refers to it as a rate, and then accuses the rate of being suspiciously closer to 78% than 93%. Seems like a mismatch of terminology here

As infuriating as it is to fail on a 93% chance of success, I always took it to mean that an RNG was picking a number from 1-100, and that I'd succeed if it picks any number from 1-93, but 94-100 = failure. Random unfortunately means that even if the odds are in your favor, it doesn't mean you're guaranteed more successes than failures (although even in the OP's example, a 78% rate of success is still more successes than failures). As far as homework grades go, 93% is great, but if you go into RNG with that thought process, you're bound to be frustrated..

It's frustrating because of basic statistics - Law of Large Numbers says the rate will trend towards the expected value over a large sample size. When you do take a large sample and it's not remotely close to the expected value, it makes you wonder if something is up. Of course, this is where confidence intervals and stats tests come in to play but that's more work than anyone is willing to put in.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

There was a dev post on this awhile back, its surely buried in the 29000 threads in general discussion now, but its there.