Some adjustments to the loot system?

[Niwashi]

Anyone saying two people can roll need the same number needs to show some evidence because it's do far quite evident than its not possible.

A) Horribly complicated algorithm to create an entirely new version of how rolls take place after each player (who may be trying to roll at the same time, so even defining "after each" would eliminate normal threading).

B) Trivially simple random number generator roll, then an extra tie-breaker decision if necessary. And which apparently the devs themselves have said they use.

I think you're wrong on where the burden of proof would lie. Assume the one that actually makes sense over the one that doesn't unless there's clear proof to the contrary. And what proof does anyone have? That only a few people have noticed it happening? With 100 possibilities, there usually wouldn't be a tie anyway. (Ok, maybe a bit more often for 24 man content, but there how often do people actually check all 24 rolls for duplicates?)

[JunseiKei]

You can attempt a force a logoff if you change data centers after getting d/c'd. It works 90% of the time since somehow your character gets "moved" and forces the d/c.

Have tried that, along with friends. Has never once worked, much to our dismay. Might be because of using a tunnel service (which we switch off when a DC happens), but yeah, switching datacenters has never worked.

[Lambdafish]

However what I would like to see implemented is to be able to easily see who has not rolled on an item yet.

SE won't do that because they are afraid of "witch hunting" and will appeal to the easily offended. So many systems could be improved with a system like the one you propose (namely the infamous "A member of your party cannot enter this duty") and I wish SE would see that the benefits far outweigh the potential for offence (if there even is any).

[ChloeGrace]

Get rid of rolls completely. No more RNG involved in loot.
Use a token system. Defeat X boss, get two tokens toward gear for the job you are currently playing, or one token for a different job (your choice).
Cash them in at a vendor. 4? 10? 20? The amount is moot. It should be just enough to encourage players to complete the content each week without making it too grindy.

In the past, I've had to do normal so many times, I capped tomestones just on that without ever getting the lot on the items I need.
The flip side was getting 4 pieces of fending gear in a single run of a 24-man as bard (which only ever happened once).

But it's supposed to average out, right? That's not the issue. Most people only have a limited amount of play time each week (work, school, RL commitments). The unreliability of the time investment is just frustrating and serves no purpose other than to reward the people who get lucky, or who have the time to grind until they get their loot.

[Emstidor]

Get rid of rolls completely. No more RNG involved in loot.
Use a token system. Defeat X boss, get two tokens toward gear for the job you are currently playing, or one token for a different job (your choice).
Cash them in at a vendor. 4? 10? 20? The amount is moot. It should be just enough to encourage players to complete the content each week without making it too grindy.

In the past, I've had to do normal so many times, I capped tomestones just on that without ever getting the lot on the items I need.
The flip side was getting 4 pieces of fending gear in a single run of a 24-man as bard (which only ever happened once).

But it's supposed to average out, right? That's not the issue. Most people only have a limited amount of play time each week (work, school, RL commitments). The unreliability of the time investment is just frustrating and serves no purpose other than to reward the people who get lucky, or who have the time to grind until they get their loot.

Hard pass, there's too many damn tokens as it is, the last thing I want is having to juggle another set for every freaking dungeon, raid, treasure map and trial.

[Arutan]

The only adjustment they should make is putting 2 weapons instead of 1 in the chests. The further we go, the less chance your weapon will have to loot. 2 job more for 5.0 and you will have 1/17 chances to loot your weapon.

[Pells]

I think you're wrong on where the burden of proof would lie. Assume the one that actually makes sense over the one that doesn't unless there's clear proof to the contrary. And what proof does anyone have? That only a few people have noticed it happening? With 100 possibilities, there usually wouldn't be a tie anyway. (Ok, maybe a bit more often for 24 man content, but there how often do people actually check all 24 rolls for duplicates?)

Tie numbers, if possible, would be incredibly common. They would be roughly happening in a quarter to a third of four-man dungeons (assuming everybody rolls).

Math, for those who'd care:
Chance of no ties in four rolls for a single item: 99/99 * 98/99 * 97/99 * 96/99 = 94.05%
Six items per dungeon (two per boss): 94.05% ^ 6 = 69.21%.

This is for no ties, so the chance of seeing at least one tie in a single dungeon run would be a little over 30%.

With 8 people rolling: 99/99 * 98/99 * 97/99 * 96/99 * 95/99 * 94/99 * 93/99 * 92/99 = 74.8%.
You'd see it a quarter of the time in eight-man raids, as well.

A tie roll would practically be guaranteed in a 24-man run.

[Dzian]

Tie numbers, if possible, would be incredibly common. They would be roughly happening in a quarter to a third of four-man dungeons (assuming everybody rolls).

Math, for those who'd care:
Chance of no ties in four rolls for a single item: 99/99 * 98/99 * 97/99 * 96/99 = 94.05%
Six items per dungeon (two per boss): 94.05% ^ 6 = 69.21%.

This is for no ties, so the chance of seeing at least one tie in a single dungeon run would be a little over 30%.

That's wrong for 2 reasons. Firstly you're multiplying when you should be adding. and second it assumes that everyone can roll on every drop. if an aiming piece drops for example at best 2 out the 4 people in that dungeon are going to be able to need roll. the likely hood of those 2 people rolling the same number is 1.011% Also the rolls aren't cumulative every roll is independent.. so the likely hood does not increase as you see more loot.

If it was something all 4 people could roll on the likely good of a double roll would be 3.033%

I think your off by a factor of 10. Because 30% is way to high. 3/99 is 3.033% and every roll is independent of the last not a cumulative system.

With 8 people rolling: 99/99 * 98/99 * 97/99 * 96/99 * 95/99 * 94/99 * 93/99 * 92/99 = 74.8%.
You'd see it a quarter of the time in eight-man raids, as well.

Again wrong. you're multiplying again. If all 8 people rolled the likely hood of seeing any double roll would be 7.077%.

Mathmatically expressed the % chance of any double roll is ((N-1)/99)*100 (where N is the number of players rolling)

Logically this means the 8th person has a 7/99 chance to roll any number someone already has. and a 92/99 chance of rolling a unique number.. so the chance of seeing a duplicate roll from 8 people is 7.077%

each additional roll increases the likehood of any double by an additive amount not a mulplicative one. if a 9th person rolled the likely hood of a double would rise by 1.011% to 8.088%. if a 10th person rolled another 1.011% to 9.099% and so on.

A tie roll would practically be guaranteed in a 24-man run.

in 24 man content the likely hood of seeing any double roll is at best 23/99 (23.23%.). factor in the likely hood of that tie roll being the top roll of the 23 numbers rolled (1/23 chance. 4.3%)
so you have at best a 23% chance of seeing any double roll. and within that 23% you have a 4.3% chance of it being the top number. and seeing a tie break. mathematically this basically adds back up to 1.011%

Factor in the drop rates of items that all 24 people can roll on like minions. And the likelihood of seeing double rolls falls drastically because most runs you won't see the drop so there can't be any rolls on it at all. If the minon has a 10% drop rate for example the likelihood of seeing a double roll on it is effectively 2.3%

Even if 2 people roll a 98 it doesn't matter because if one rolls a 99 you wont see a tie breaker. So if a double roll did happen there's typically then a 95.7% chance it wouldn't result in a tie breaker.. if 2 people rolled a 17 for example chances are no one would even notice it unless those 2 people happened to say omg only a 17 in alliance chat or something.

its also in part down to how people read.. if you were in a race and you're time was 1:48.7. if you look at someone elses time and see 2 minutes something you stop reading because you've already won. if you see 1 minute x you continue reading. 1:5x.x something again you stop reading you've already won.
if you see 1 minute 4x you continue reading 1 minute 49. woooooo i won. 1:47 fk i lost...

loot rolls are the same. if you've got 85 then all you typically do is glance at other rolls 70something 60 something 50something. beaten all of them
80 something you look at that one. 81 phewwwww. 87 fkkkkk..
90 something Dam it!! even if that's not the highest roll you tend to stop looking at the rest once you see you've lost
this is generally why people don't notice double rolls. people only read as much as they need to.

you could go in to a math class room and put 3.1455378008 on a black board and how many people would say it's pi. because they stopped reading at 3.14 and didn't notice the grade school upside down calculator boobless 55378008 on the end..

[Enyalios]

I'm happy how it is, I did 120 T11 runs for an aiming wrist band. Never had to do that since

[Canadane]

I think you're wrong on where the burden of proof would lie. Assume the one that actually makes sense over the one that doesn't unless there's clear proof to the contrary. And what proof does anyone have? That only a few people have noticed it happening? With 100 possibilities, there usually wouldn't be a tie anyway. (Ok, maybe a bit more often for 24 man content, but there how often do people actually check all 24 rolls for duplicates?)

I can show you a thousand VODs without matching rolls.
I only need one saying otherwise.