Just to add some fuel...

[GomezAddams]

On top of losing auctions as the only bidder, not being able to get your refund, and the completely unfair lack of moderation on bidding (You can bid until you run out of money, although you can only own one house, effectively having the ability to win multiple houses in one week and cut however many other people out of a week's worth of waiting. There is no 'runner up' so those lots sit empty until the next bidding cycle, a freaking week later.), there's something I haven't seen anyone mention yet.

Every single person who won this week's lottery was NOT the actual winner. How to explain in layman's terms...

When you generate a random number in code, it looks something like random(100), meaning a random number between 0 - 99, NOT 1 - 100. Computers start at zero by default in almost every language. The problem we ran into is a rookie mistake that a first year student wouldn't even make after week 3. To compensate, you return the number generated PLUS 1. Somebody forgot the plus 1. It's really that simple. Yes, maybe other mistakes were made in other parts of the system as well, but there wouldn't be so many number 0 winners had that very simple part of the code been correct. Even if the number was written to a database before the award code read it, I highly doubt anyone would've accidentally subtracted a 1 before writing or after reading the database. The fact remains we got zeros and the numbers started at 1. Anyway...

The meaning behind this is that every single person who won this week was not the actual winner, it was the next person in line.

Let that sink in, and know they will do NOTHING about it. Every single one of those houses should be refunded and put back up for sale.

Have a nice day.

[Kaurhz]

You do realize that technical error or not, taking something away from someone due to a technical error that they could not influence will just substitute one PR nightmare for another, of equal if not worse magnitude.

[Shibi]

You assume it's the random selection that's at fault and not something like the database writes failing due to some lock or race condition, or any number of other myriad edge cases to stop the correctly chosen number being put into the database.

[Larirawiel]

When you generate a random number in code, it looks something like random(100), meaning a random number between 0 - 99, NOT 1 - 100. Computers start at zero by default in almost every language. The problem we ran into is a rookie mistake that a first year student wouldn't even make after week 3. To compensate, you return the number generated PLUS 1. Somebody forgot the plus 1. It's really that simple.

Not really. You could get also overflows if you add 1 to the generated number. And there are programming languages like C++ where overflows have disastrous effects.


Cheers

[IdowhatIwant]

You do realize that technical error or not, taking something away from someone due to a technical error that they could not influence will just substitute one PR nightmare for another, of equal if not worse magnitude.

Nope, people don't understand this. It is what it is. Even if they take away houses and give them to the correct winners, it is far to late for that as people have already relocated houses and bought furniture. You will get what you get when they announce a fix which will likely be your gil back at minimal.

[YukiB]

This is very likely not how the bug actually occurred, and even if it was "redistributing" the land to the "real" winner is not the solution. I broke it down in this post: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5906614

[Kaurhz]

Nope, people don't understand this. It is what it is. Even if they take away houses and give them to the correct winners, it is far to late for that as people have already relocated houses and bought furniture. You will get what you get when they announce a fix which will likely be your gil back at minimal.

Anyone who has dealt with a bad storm will know it. At the very least, the way I view it. The moment the results were released it was too late. People spent the Gil, they purchased the housing permit, and have on top of that already got around to furnishing as per your post, so it isn't just a simple nature of "Just take it away". Personally, I got the house I wanted and already spent upwards of 12M decorating it. Good luck with rolling that back, especially when many people are in the same boat.

At the very worst I estimate those who were subjected to this error will retain the Gil, and be allowed for a reroll, albeit with more competition. Possibly with an increased chance of winning if it is on the same plot.

[Aelin_Ashryver]

We all had equal chance for the number to roll 0 or our ticket. Having one extra 'ticket' makes no difference. It rolled what it rolled, and there is no guarantee what COULD have happened, as if it were fate that it roll one way and not the other, get over it. You lost. We were all in this lottery under the SAME circumstances and the people who won, won.

It's so beyond petty looking to take houses away from players that managed to avoid a bug and get the joy of winning. You deserve the loss with such a poopy attitude, you and every other saltminer that demands to take away things from others. There are hundreds of houses left open on my server, 7 plots were taken on my ward.. 7. Hardly upping competition for remaining spots to an astronomical degree now is it?

[MsQi]

When you generate a random number in code, it looks something like random(100), meaning a random number between 0 - 99, NOT 1 - 100. Computers start at zero by default in almost every language. The problem we ran into is a rookie mistake that a first year student wouldn't even make after week 3. To compensate, you return the number generated PLUS 1. Somebody forgot the plus 1. It's really that simple.

This has been pointed out a few times. It is only one possibility. They are unlikely to reveal the actual technical details. They will fix the issue and say "good luck next time" and carry on as if the housing system isn't utter crap.

[Scruit_Bigtime]

OPs explanation cant account for the situation where there was only 1 bidder AND that person won.
as by his example that wouldn't be possible.

no one knows the true nature of what caused this, its all speculation at this point.

but as mentioned above its too late to take back from those who won.

its a horrible mess to be in and i don't envy them the difficulties they'll face trying to come to a resolution to this that feels "fair and just" to all parties.