RNG Fairness

[Darthgummibear]

I originally replied with this in a lot of other posts, but I think it needs to seriously be looked at, so that everyone is on equal footing.

A lot of people made great points in the plethora of post about today's current housing RNG debacle, but regardless of what they did, the RNG code is created by a person, and they inputted 0 as one of the possible choices for output. I have coded in Python and Mathematica before, and if you import random, and then you list the parameters, e.g. list=1,2,3,4,5... It is pretty easy to see, that when they listed their parameters for the housing lottery system, they included 0 (zero) in the list of possible choices that could be rolled. If they did in fact did put zero into their list, as in: listhousing or list1 (whatever you want to call it) = 0,1,2,3,4,5..., when as stated earlier, it should have been list1=1,2,3,4,5...

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

Lol, no. This would be a colossal dumpster fire that would make a lot of people quit the game.

[S0lara]

Lol, no. This would be a colossal dumpster fire that would make a lot of people quit the game.

Well, no, if what I had stated had been true, rolling back would have been fair, but I did use the subordinating conjunction "if"...and I never said that what I stated was absolute. I actually agree with you now though, because SE waited too long to address the issue, and it would have most definitely been a total dumpster fire.

[SamsonBlacke]

I originally replied with this in a lot of other posts, but I think it needs to seriously be looked at, so that everyone is on equal footing.

A lot of people made great points in the plethora of post about today's current housing RNG debacle, but regardless of what they did, the RNG code is created by a person, and they inputted 0 as one of the possible choices for output. I have coded in Python and Mathematica before, and if you import random, and then you list the parameters, e.g. list=1,2,3,4,5... It is pretty easy to see, that when they listed their parameters for the housing lottery system, they included 0 (zero) in the list of possible choices that could be rolled. If they did in fact did put zero into their list, as in: listhousing or list1 (whatever you want to call it) = 0,1,2,3,4,5..., when as stated earlier, it should have been list1=1,2,3,4,5...

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

hey guess what you're wrong

[S0lara]

hey guess what you're wrong

Hey genius, that's why I said if. Can you not read? Why don't you read my post before you try to be an forum troll.

[SilverSp]

theyre not gonna do anything about anything just say "oh well too bad so sad"

[Livilda]

theyre not gonna do anything about anything just say "oh well too bad so sad"

Please read:
https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...7fcff58ee4f9c5
They are already working on it. They have the correct lottery results, those results just weren't transmitted to the housing server.
Those results will be properly restored so that everyone who won a house will get their house.

[Avenger]

The diagram Livilda posted seems to be the best match for what Yoshi-P said in Update #3, specifically that the lottery results were calculated properly but some results were not properly communicated to the housing server, resulting in the "0" (mis)behavior.

The comments about probability don't seem to match Yoshi-P's explanation. However, they are mathematically correct for the scenario that OP was postulating: adding 0 into a lottery with 4 players would simply reduce everyone's winning chance from 25% to 20%, adding a 20% chance that everyone loses.

And everyone (like OP) should learn to program in Python (or any other easy-to-learn programming language) because it's fun! You could easily write your own lottery program and run it repeatedly to see what the results would be for different numbers of bidders with or without 0 added into the mix.

[S0lara]

The diagram Livilda posted seems to be the best match for what Yoshi-P said in Update #3, specifically that the lottery results were calculated properly but some results were not properly communicated to the housing server, resulting in the "0" (mis)behavior.

After reading the explanation, and the funny infographic Livilda posted, it all makes sense, and it is good to know that a 0 was not added. So, congrats to those who won fair and square!

Also, Avenger you rock for promoting coding! Yes, everyone should learn how to code!

[DragonFlyy]

I originally replied with this in a lot of other posts, but I think it needs to seriously be looked at, so that everyone is on equal footing.

A lot of people made great points in the plethora of post about today's current housing RNG debacle, but regardless of what they did, the RNG code is created by a person, and they inputted 0 as one of the possible choices for output. I have coded in Python and Mathematica before, and if you import random, and then you list the parameters, e.g. list=1,2,3,4,5... It is pretty easy to see, that when they listed their parameters for the housing lottery system, they included 0 (zero) in the list of possible choices that could be rolled. If they did in fact did put zero into their list, as in: listhousing or list1 (whatever you want to call it) = 0,1,2,3,4,5..., when as stated earlier, it should have been list1=1,2,3,4,5...

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

The issue is more likely that when they created the randomization, somewhere their function returned null. Since an integer can't be null, it becomes 0.