[Transparency request] Publish the RNG engine of the lottery system

[Somnolence]

Do we need proof of that fairness?

Admittedly I don't know what the numbers are on how many successes there were and how many got the zero glitch, but the number of complaints with the system is naturally skewed to be 100% made up of people who got zero. The people whose lottery result was a real number have no reason to speak up.

Wrong, if the lotto pick was not fair then some people that won weren't actually supposed to and another participant should have won instead. For example there are 3 participants and rnd was 0.49. In this case second participant should have won. But if there was fake extra participant 0 then the function could have awarded the win to first real participant instead given certain implementations etc. etc.

[IdowhatIwant]

In computer science pure randomness does not exist. It is emulated with random number generator (RNG) engines whose performances can be very good or very bad, depending on how it is initialized, implemented, etc.
For instance, a badly initialized RNG engine will draw numbers that are NOT random at ALL and can even be PREDICTED.

After this MASSIVE screw up that we are witnessing on the housing system, I believe the player base have the right to know HOW the "fairness" of the system was actually enforced by Square Enix in FFXIV.

We want to know :
- what RNG engine did SE choose (at the very least Mersenne Twister??)
- how the engine was seeded
- a graph of the distribution of the engine actually picking 1B numbers : show the variance and the standard deviation.
- we also want the actual result of the lottery (all the tickets that were drawn) to prove the lottery was fair (graph of distribution, var and std)

As far as I'm concerned, I do not believe the system was fair seeing how it was buggy. I think I'm not alone in this case.

tl;dr: I want PROOF OF FAIRNESS OR ROLLBACK.

The system wasn't fair when it allowed multiple members of single fc to bid on a plot. So I don't know why getting this information would make any difference as to how "fair" it was. Quit stroking your ego you lost, suck it up we can't all be winners in a random lottery move on and act like an adult.

I didn't win either. But I also didn't exactly care or think I would win.

[dutiona]

The system wasn't fair when it allowed multiple members of single fc to bid on a plot. So I don't know why getting this information would make any difference as to how "fair" it was. Quit stroking your ego you lost, suck it up we can't all be winners in a random lottery move on and act like an adult.

I didn't win either. But I also didn't exactly care or think I would win.

In the country where I live, lotteries are strictly regulated and when there are suspicion of cheat or unfairness you CAN and SHOULD appeal.
Sorry for being the adult here...

[Iscah]

There is also the question of chance though. They didn't know they were bidding against the system as well. Maybe a FC bids multiple times on one house only then instead of spreading out bids, since they were bidding against +1 on every plot.

Wasn't the system already discouraging FCs from bidding on multiple plots? I thought I'd read people were risking forfeiting the whole deposit if the FC won multiple houses and didn't want the second one.

If they cannot prove this fairness, and the graph shows for instance that the tickets 2 or 0 was drawn a lot more that the other tickets then I (and we should all) demand a rollback because the system was not fair at all.

I still don't see the need to demand this simply on the fact that some percentage of people are complaining that they got a zero. There are naturally far more people going to speak up about their lottery producing a zero than any other number, and even if you could get all the stats about what number was rolled in every single lottery, it definitely is going to look skewed because the rolls aren't all on the same range. You would likely see more zeroes and ones than twos, and more twos than elevens, and more elevens than thirties, just because less plots have that many people bidding on them.

There'd be just as much chance of the lottery looking like this, minus the zeroes and mass complaints about them, if things had proceeded normally. Would you feel the need to demand the formulas then?

[Moonlite]

Wasn't the system already discouraging FCs from bidding on multiple plots? I thought I'd read people were risking forfeiting the whole deposit if the FC won multiple houses and didn't want the second one.

You only lose gil if win multiple. Gil is easy to make and doesn't have much use in the game besides house/glamour. This game will only ever have so many large plots.

[Padudu]

The system wasn't fair when it allowed multiple members of single fc to bid on a plot. So I don't know why getting this information would make any difference as to how "fair" it was. Quit stroking your ego you lost, suck it up we can't all be winners in a random lottery move on and act like an adult.

I didn't win either. But I also didn't exactly care or think I would win.

I wasn't expecting to win, but I don't think people should expect to lose to literally no one lol.. and they have recognized this as a bug apparently, so yeah they flubbed big time :/

[Canadane]

I’m sorry they’ll never actually give you their raw code.
That would only give people information to game the system, so as a general idea they’ll never show it.
Even then they’re very likely updating said code now.

[Iscah]

Wrong, if the lotto pick was not fair then some people that won weren't actually supposed to and another participant should have won instead. For example there are 3 participants and rnd was 0.49. In this case second participant should have won. But if there was fake extra participant 0 then the function could have awarded the win to first real participant instead given certain implementations etc. etc.

Random is still random. Everyone in that particular lottery still had the same chance of winning it as everyone else in the lottery. As long as that condition is met, that's ultimately all that matters, and even if a different person might have won in different circumstances I don't see that as being sufficiently concerning to require revoking the lotteries that produced winners. It hasn't improved or damaged one person's chance relative to the others, just shifted the random number they require to win.

[IdowhatIwant]

In the country where I live, lotteries are strictly regulated and when there are suspicion of cheat or unfairness you CAN and SHOULD appeal.
Sorry for being the adult here...

This is a video game dog where you are putting a bid into a plot, where 50 people from 1 fc can also bid on this same plot, but we will compare this to a countries lottery system and how it is strictly regulated. The lottery had to be regulated first in order to appeal anything about it, and your subscription and clicking I agree when you installed the game means you accept what they do.

[dutiona]

Wasn't the system already discouraging FCs from bidding on multiple plots? I thought I'd read people were risking forfeiting the whole deposit if the FC won multiple houses and didn't want the second one.




I still don't see the need to demand this simply on the fact that some percentage of people are complaining that they got a zero. There are naturally far more people going to speak up about their lottery producing a zero than any other number, and even if you could get all the stats about what number was rolled in every single lottery, it definitely is going to look skewed because the rolls aren't all on the same range. You would likely see more zeroes and ones than twos, and more twos than elevens, and more elevens than thirties, just because less plots have that many people bidding on them.

There'd be just as much chance of the lottery looking like this, minus the zeroes and mass complaints about them, if things had proceeded normally. Would you feel the need to demand the formulas then?

Yeah I know what you mean. That's why I ask in the OP to give the stats by exercising the RNG engine on 1B numbers so that we can see the (lack of?) skew. But yeah obviously, unless they always drew a floating point number between 0 and 1, then multiplied it and still stored the original number, I don't see how they can show us.
But asking is free, and they may comply exercising their RNG engine against a fixed range for 1B+ numbers and show us the result. We'll see.