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

[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.

[Mindylou]

SE can say its 95%...all they want but we really dont know what thay have coded ..just because it says it doesnt mean that what they are really offering, dont put it past them to be sneaky...lol

tbh i think its wayyyyyyy off.

[Mallea]

I have been crafting and have gotten NQ so many times while having 98% and 99% chance of HQ. It is just very frustrating with the RNG. R quad it just doesn't make sense in the Lore. A master crafter would not fail that much at making HQ when they have been doing it forever and are a "Master" in it.

This raises what I think is an important issue. Shouldn't there be a reward for experience? For instance, the more Iron Ingots a crafter makes the less likely their actions will fail and the more likely they are to create an HQ item. Persistence should be rewarded and would provide a richer gaming experience; more so than arbitrary RNG. In this way the mechanics can still control how quickly players progress. And as you say, this notion makes more sense in the context of lore/player immersion. LOL ... NOTHING is less immersive than that wretched sound when a crafting touch fails.

[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.

[Kyros]

Random by definition means "no pattern". Having the 5x fails in a roll spaced out as a characteristic would be a pattern.

Exactly. Gosh. If you are finding patterns in your Random seed, then it really isn't random. They don't have to be spaced out, they can be wherever they damn want, as long as they fall within what's expected. That's why normality curves exists. If you are constantly having outliers outside your standard deviation, then your seed isn't working properly. it's as simple as that.

Here, a simple Wolfram example. Chance of 5 failures in a row is 1 in 3125. OP here had it happen in >500 touches. Likewise, chance of 3 fails in a row is 0.8%, or 1 in 125, and OP had it happen 19 times. I can't say much about the 5 failures since that requires a much bigger sample size, but the 3 fails in a row is such a huge outlier that really makes me question the seed working as intended.

On second thought, it seems he used no SHII, and I have no idea which touch skill he was using, so disregard that math.

[Bishop81]

...

The OP's example is kind of vague.

Just exactly which touch is she using? Is Steady Hand I//II up?

[Kitfox]

I think OP is greatly underestimating his sample size in comparison to every crafting / gathering attempt that are happening every second. I'm quite positive that the rates even out somewhere across to board.

To gasp at an incredible 10 fails in a row at 99% rate of success, is to greatly underestimate the total number of things happening. Very improbable things happen... all the time.

[Noxifer]

To gasp at an incredible 10 fails in a row at 99% rate of success, is to greatly underestimate the total number of things happening. Very improbable things happen... all the time.

That's true. There are people who got their drops (whether ATMAs, Crystal Tower minions, Zodiac drops, raid loot, Triple Triad card) the first time they ran it. There are people who still haven't gotten something after going at it hundreds of times.

If you ask me, it makes for a very skewed system, where the lucky people sit in their corner and go "bah, the RNG isn't that bad, it only took me three attempts", and the unlucky people in many cases give up and decide it's not worth the stress. Personally, I much prefer RNG systems where you have a 'cap' on how unlucky you can be. Say you have a 5% chance of a particular drop, but if you haven't gotten it after 500 attempts, you're guaranteed to get it (numbers picked from the air). Or increasing chances for each failure (so those 5% might be 5.2% after the first attempt, 5.4% after the second, and so on).

Out of random curiosity, though... I wonder how large a sample size would be needed in order to 'even out' at the suggested probability rate.

[Yukiko]

(..) For instance, the more Iron Ingots a crafter makes the less likely their actions will fail and the more likely they are to create an HQ item. (..)

In most games this is called EXP or just XP (Experience Points). While we have that in FFXIV too its just used as brickwall not for success rate. In older Final Fantasy games we can use Skills/magic and fill a bar, when reaching 100% we can use that same skill even when not being that job or when not having equipped that gear... There are even some games where you get stronger skills by using the older skills more often (think on FFVIII summons and friendship to them).

[Ulathskullsplitter]

SE can say its 95%...all they want but we really dont know what thay have coded ..just because it says it doesnt mean that what they are really offering, dont put it past them to be sneaky...lol

tbh i think its wayyyyyyy off.

Lol yup. Never really know unless someone runs an extensive test. Just the other day I was mining adamantite for red scrip turn ins. It says 95% chance. I had three swings with my collectability over 470 and missed all 3. So frustrating. 95% and i miss 3 in a row.