HQ system still really sucks

[Celia]

I dunno, I quite like the HQ crafting system as is. I can't take NQ mats and make them into an HQ item with ease, but HQ mats to an HQ item is cake.

[Taggerung5]

Sample size is the only relevant factor. Would you test accuracy, hit on two of six swings. Stopping at six swings. And then proceed to ask how to beat it?

Yes, actually. But I wouldn't need to ask how to beat it. I'd just throw more acc on.

[Jynx]

Yeah I know well that RNG can be cruel mistriss that makes you want to break controlers and throw cats at small children.

I was the guy who went 0/78 on Sozu and cried myself to sleep after many moons wasted in that dark dungeon. But hell I found the time I spent down there more interesting than I did when they made him a force pop. Guess that's just the way I was built though as not many people seem to agree these days.

[Ryans]

Are people really trying to argue against percentages? Flipping a coin 100 times isn't guaranteed to be 50/50, it is possible to get 100/-. Deal with it or play a different game. As so many have said, the entire gear system is RNG so if you don't like how the majority of gear is obtained then you don't like the game. You are asking them redesign their entire ideology of how gear should be obtained (which we aren't even sure hasn't already happened in their plans for 2.0).

Just be glad you don't need anything beyond NQ accessories and AF to complete any of the content (Ifrit Extreme might be the exception, haven't done it).

[Malix]

RNG is RNG

[Elexia]

Nah. HQ system works perfectly fine. What you should be saying is "the chance for double down to succeed is very low" because that's the only problem with it. You get 90+% chance to HQ then it suddenly drops to 10-30% chance for double down.

Otherwise, HQing is actually a helluva lot better than what it used to be.

Even more of a shame that HQ gear in this game is not game breaking...at all. heh.

Also I know there is a quote of Yoshi saying if you have all HQ materials then you are guaranteed HQ...however that is not true...so I don't really understand what SE is talking about...

You are if you're smart about it...the problem is, when they introduced 'double down' that kinda screwed everything up lol.

[Kafeen]

Sorry, noob question time.

What is RNG?

I've always know it to mean Ranger in the past but people seem to use it differently here.

[Elexia]

'Random Number Generator', what people fall on to try to explain why someone's lucky may or may not suck.

[Asiaine]

Hello everyone. Some interesting posts and thoughts back and forth. One of the things I notice is the suggestion of x% not really being x%. I.e., I keep failing with 80% but succeed on 20%. Also some suggestions of when/how-often double down will occur.

The ASSUMPTION is that the % being shown is honest: If it says 80% chance of HQ, then it really means 80% chance of HQ. And if one fails 100 times in a row, then they are just very very unlucky (and keep falling into that 20% category). However, if someone wants to challenge this assumption, they are in fact saying: The code is buggy (80% is not equal to 80%) OR the code is lying (80% means something else entirely). If they wish to challenge this, please make sure you have some 'proof' (not screenshots or anything, just a good clean record). Recommend:

100 attempts of same item, same ingredients.
Identical stats (food included if applicable).
The exact same steps are taking during synthesis. (This can be achieved by always finishing with 30%/60% advance progress)
Record the Quality and HQ % plus result
Record the HQ % if double down
Record the final result

With a sample size less than 100, there is not enough data to know what is going on. I would honestly recommend 1000, but 100 might be enough to get a 'clue'.

[AmyNeudaiz]

Hello everyone. Some interesting posts and thoughts back and forth. One of the things I notice is the suggestion of x% not really being x%. I.e., I keep failing with 80% but succeed on 20%. Also some suggestions of when/how-often double down will occur.

The ASSUMPTION is that the % being shown is honest: If it says 80% chance of HQ, then it really means 80% chance of HQ. And if one fails 100 times in a row, then they are just very very unlucky (and keep falling into that 20% category). However, if someone wants to challenge this assumption, they are in fact saying: The code is buggy (80% is not equal to 80%) OR the code is lying (80% means something else entirely). If they wish to challenge this, please make sure you have some 'proof' (not screenshots or anything, just a good clean record). Recommend:

100 attempts of same item, same ingredients.
Identical stats (food included if applicable).
The exact same steps are taking during synthesis. (This can be achieved by always finishing with 30%/60% advance progress)
Record the Quality and HQ % plus result
Record the HQ % if double down
Record the final result

With a sample size less than 100, there is not enough data to know what is going on. I would honestly recommend 1000, but 100 might be enough to get a 'clue'.

This. /10char