This game has seriously messed up RNG

[XiXiQ]

You claim your RNG is working, I believe you and don't need logs. Many, many people have expressed their experience is the opposite - using a ps4 I cannot get any logs. (best I could do was take notes just prior to HW, which was what made me decide it was a mug's game) Not knowing how the seed works, there might be a difference between processors/OS - yours might always be perfectly as expected, someone else's might always come out worse. Sadly, there's no way to get data out of a PS4 and compare to a PC. Any test you do won't necessarilly equate to my particular experience, or anyone else's.

[Frizze]

Not knowing how the seed works, there might be a difference between processors/OS

The determination is made on the server itself, so which system you play on makes no difference.

[MN_14]

I've tested a small sample of HT under SH2 on a 80 DUR recipe using mm2 once and then reclaiming and following with 5 HT for a total of 14 HT per synth. 224 HT attempts in total.

Synth 1 - 4/14 misses
Synth 2 - 2/14 misses
Synth 3 - 1/14 misses
Synth 4 - 3/14 misses
Synth 5 - 1/14 misses
Synth 6 - 4/14 misses
Synth 7 - 0/14 misses
Synth 8 - 2/14 misses
Synth 9 - 2/14 misses
Synth 10 - 2/14 misses
Synth 11 - 6/14 misses
Synth 12 - 5/14 misses
Synth 13 - 2/14 misses
Synth 14 - 5/14 misses
Synth 15 - 3/14 misses
Synth 16 - 2/14 misses

I'll do some more tests later but these stats (smallish sample size) indicate an average miss rate of 19.6% and 31% of the crafts had 4 or more misses. With 14 touches, the expected % of synths with 4 or misses is around 30% so the results are in line with expectations. Only the craft that has 6 misses is of real concern when it comes to NQing a 4* from all NQ mats as the others will typically give you mostly 100% with the others usually falling to 75-95.

[MN_14]

I’ve tracked the results of over 1100 HT over the last while and got the following:

Set 1 from before (14 HT per set):

0 misses – 1 occurrence
1 miss – 2 occurrences
2 misses – 6 occurrences
3 misses – 2 occurrences
4 misses – 2 occurrences
5 misses – 2 occurrences
6 misses – 1 occurrence

%miss = 19.6

Set 2

0 misses – 0
1 miss – 2
2 misses – 5
3 misses – 3
4 misses – 3
5 misses – 1
6 misses – 2

%miss = 22.32%

Set 3

0 misses – 3
1 miss – 2
2 misses – 3
3 misses – 3
4 misses – 2
5 misses – 1
6 misses – 2

%miss = 18.75%

Set 4

0 misses – 1
1 miss – 4
2 misses – 2
3 misses – 4
4 misses – 1
5 misses – 3
6 misses – 1

%miss = 20.09%

0 misses – 1
1 miss – 3
2 misses – 7
3 misses - 4
4 misses - 1

%miss = 14.73%

This is the only slightly odd run but if you notice, the cause of the deviations is an increase in the number of synths with 2 misses, which is simply a slightly above average result. This is only a small subset so everything will even out over a larger set as there will undoubtedly be sets where the results are slightly below average. Believe it or not, a small batch of synths with 4 misses (say 7/16) is only slightly below average and craft balance has been designed for you to be able to cope with them. You might not 100% as many crafts as you usually do, but you should not be at any major risk of an NQ.

Overall miss rate (1120 HTs) = 19.11%

From this set of samples, I don’t see any evidence of horribly broken RNG. Everything is within expectations and if there are deviations, its due to small normal random streaks. You do get small clumps of 5 or 6 misses, but those don’t happen often enough to highly influence the averages. You also get small clumps of 0-1 misses at around the same rate but unlike the large number of misses, you don’t think as much about them.

I do have to say that examining the expected results have been interesting. Statistically, 70% of the time, your results will be either average or above average, nearly 20% of the time, they will be slightly below average, and a bit over 10% of the time, your results will be worse than that.

I find this fascinating as it falls completely in line with what I’ve observed. ~70% of the time, I can craft a 4* item from 0-100%, ~20% of the time I get 84-94%, and ~10% of the time, I get 84% or worse. Everything is completely predictable, falling in line with calculated probabilities. The implication here is that if they were to smooth out RNG so that you get what seems to be an average result all the time (in terms of both misses and procs), you’d have no trouble crafting from 0-100% all the time since that’s how crafts have been tuned: an average result is enough for a 0-100% run.

[XiXiQ]

Thank you for taking the trouble to get out some figures, it seems to have cemented what both sides are thinking. Is it mathematically correct? probably. Are the strings of failures/clumping predictable? probably yes as well. Is anyone going to get "lucky"? on one craft, yes. Doing multiples? Nope.

as I already mentioned, I am seeing bad RNG around 30-40% of the time. So are you. You just don't find it bad or frustrating, but many of us do. There just should not be so many strings of failures during a single craft - and it should not be so predictable. Out of 10 attempts you KNOW 3 or 4 of them are going to end up crap. That's not "random", it's a repeatable pattern. Ironically, your test has borne out what people are complaining about (and no, they aren't seeing things). You're a glass half-full type, and that's good. I'm not so interested in seeing 30+% of my effort go up in smoke.

[MN_14]

The point here is that 30% of the time, your result will be below average. It does not mean that 30% of the time you will NQ.

The better you are at increasing your IQ stacks and quality, the higher your HQ yield will be. If your strategy is too rigid, then yes, that 30% might be a problem. However, you can simply improve your techniques and end up with 84-100% even when you're under conditions of below average RNG. This allows for player techniques and strategy to come into play. That would not happen if you got an average result each time (and 100%). No one would need HQ materials or have any variation to their craft because following a strict static RNG based (artificially manipulated) rotation would be enough to guarantee an HQ.

The fact, however, is that even though your miss rate is above average 30% of the time, roughly 95% of your overall crafts should still be HQ at the end of the day, not 70%. It's your own methods that make up the difference.

Additionally, you could always start with 2000-3000 quality. From these tests (and most of my crafts), the maximum numbers of misses I've seen has usually been 6 and that should be enough to absorb those.

Different player levels will yield different results even while under the same rules. There's room for players to learn, practice, and develop more effective strategies over time. As a side note, none of the posted rotations I've seen so far are designed specifically for flexibility, so it's something that you'd need to develop on your own (unless someone writes up a suggested guide).

RNG based systems probably aren't for everyone but you can excel at them if you learn the mechanics.

[XiXiQ]

The point here is that 30% of the time, your result will be below average. It does not mean that 30% of the time you will NQ.

I've said a few times now with what I make, the RNG isn't affecting the HQ outcome much. However, when you are borderline stats (which is what you usually are when attempting to make the next set of gear/tools), that's exactly what it means - you will fail 30%-40% because of RNG.

[MN_14]

I've said a few times now with what I make, the RNG isn't affecting the HQ outcome much. However, when you are borderline stats (which is what you usually are when attempting to make the next set of gear/tools), that's exactly what it means - you will fail 30%-40% because of RNG.

I never had that kind of failure rate even when crafting new tools and gear. The hardest set of crafts in HW was the 2* i170s back if you crafted them with melded white gear. That was mostly because you started with less cp plus they were balanced to be a tad harder at minimum requirements. Since your gear was a bit weaker, you made up for it by starting with some HQ mats.

You do want to use a bit of strategy rather than mechanically follow a rotation. Statistically speaking, the more you use PT, the shorter your synth has to be able to meet the required amount of IQ stacks and quality (only case where this doesn't work as well is all NQ). So if you had 1100 quality, you could simply spend cp on PT and then truncate your craft.

For the crafted 2* mats, I started with 1100-1500 quality and out of my first 50 materials, I NQed only two of them. For the tools and body pieces, I typically started from 2400-3000 so I didn't NQ a single one of my i170 pieces for all 8 classes. Even with borderline stats, it only takes a modest amount of quality to make up for it.

For 3* and 4*, your stats are good enough for you to craft from all NQ even at minimum requirements.

[ADVSS]

Regardless of how true the rng is, stuff like quicksynthing a level one item shouldnt really fail
at level 60 when one basic synth could probably complete 10 of them at one time...Though i still feel like, esp with gathering that failing every hit on a node at 95 percent, multiple nodes in a row, isnt necessarily bad luck, like i said even crafting things yourve done many times in the past should/would be nice with a minor fail safe, similar to how quicksynth needs you to have made the item maybe multiiple times of creating it should make it less fail, compared to the first time you "attempted" to make it. Actually thats the word im looking for, youre "attempting" to craft an item in the end, really. Sad

[MN_14]

I can agree that quick-synthing lower level crafts should not fail. However, from what I've heard, failures only happen if your gear is in need of repair. I've never observed any failures for low level crafts if my stats are above whatever the minimum requirements are for failure free quick synths for a given item.

To clarify, with my tests, there isn't any real observable pattern where inexplicably bad results pop up over and over. Keep in mind though, that this is crafting RNG I'm looking at only and i haven't studied any other types of rolls (though they're likely using the same algorithms). Yes, below average results show up because they're supposed to (there's already a calculated percentage over how often they will show up; there's no specific order but over a large sample size, you can count the occurrences and everything works out).

That's exactly how RNG works. There's a predictable pattern when it comes to random events because the most unlikely situations don't happen too often (lowest probabilities). So what you'll usually see is a scattering of the most common results. Over large sample sizes, predictable patterns have to show up otherwise your percentages will never be accurate. Since you know what the patterns are going to be like, you can use that to your advantage when coming up with a crafting strategy.

Out of 10 HTs at 80%, you know full well that most of the time there will be 2 misses, but regularly, there will be 1 miss or 3 misses, and less frequently 0 misses or 4 misses or more.

However, unlike loot rolls and gathering, you have control over how your craft can turn out. Unless you're following a absolutely static rotation, you have the ability to influence your probabilities of building enough IQ stacks and quality. It's been balanced for you to be able to completely mitigate most of the effects of common above average miss rates. However, the big downside of the posted rotations is that they are designed with only completely average RNG in mind and on top of that, require around 2000 quality for you to reliably HQ at 100%. Easy to use, yes, but you won't master crafting. You can't ignore the fact that you will also have below average rates and have to design a strategy that can mitigate misses. Despite common belief, the fact that there are a lot of RNG based steps is what makes everything controllable (more steps = more resilience against a single bad roll).