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.