Fix your random number generator

Saying all this, there does need to be a cost to higher crafting, but it may result in higher retention and lower negative reaction if the outlier results are reduced on either side. Even with an increase base cost to balance this may be more palatable. It may increase the cost of crafting higher end items across the board, but this may be a preferable outcome that a constant drip of histrionics on the forums.

Things that are worth it, need to be painful to attain.

 

lyndoman, you seem to want to marginalize the problem, saying that one guy, me, just gets unlucky and gripes.
this has been going on for MONTHS and its DAILY. cant be a bad luck guy who has this bad luck DAY IN AND DAY OUT. its the system.
this is not a bad game and i accept the material losses ,WHEN its fair, when the percentages actually match the experience.
just did a crafting run of 20 swords at 29% exceptional. i should get 6.
the first 12 failed on it and the total was 2 out of 20. why cant i be the lucky guy instead?
i have never gotten more than 7 out of 20 exceptional, and i do weapons 20 at a time.
the continual triple fail mining at 94% is proof that its a problem. i never get 4 fails but i do get 3 fails ALOT. i mean, ALOT.
im not an unlucky guy, i just want the percentages to REFLECT REALITY in the game. that is all.

 

I giggled a little seeing this post ignored sorry. But yes this is a thing in game atm to some degree with some systems. (time of day, season, etc)

afaik the way some chances are calculated is that there is a roll of 1-100. If that roll falls outside a threshold determined by a % success, then it fails. While using Bronze/Silver tools i dont come across this issue nearly as much as when i use prosperity tools either.

That being said, i prefer Bronze/silver tools over prosperity and dotn recall failing 3x in a row in a very long time. BUT i also do not grind resources hardcore as fast as possible either. Just kinda collect what i come across.

Some info to consider

 

Woooot? In which Dimension? Is there a proof that such System is in the Game or is it just a "since i craft naked in the full moon i feel like i have a 5% better chance to succeed" thing?

 

You are not alone; I fail at 95% success more than I success with 45% chance of success. And negative results are extremely common, and I have never enjoyed a freak streak of good crafting fortune. If the RNG was a list, I should have been on a crafting roll equal to my usual, mathematically impossible failure rate. But alas I have not even been so lucky.

The RNG is rigged.

 

The RNG has never felt normal imho. It's felt punative and frustrating with that odd sensation of yeah something is not quite right.

 

I have observed the randomness in this game and it seems quite decent, it is almost as random as it can get with pseudorandom numbers

The trouble is that our brain evolved to see patterns, we are not living in random world. We see too many patterns in random noise. Most people expect random flipping of coin look like this (HTTHTHHTHH). I generated one sequence right now and it looks like this (HTTHHTHHHH). It was the first one I generated now and look how non random it looks like even though it has the same chance of appearing as the one I listed before and that one was well thought out to look random.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread but Apple had to change random order of the songs being played because it was too repetitive for osme songs while others were not played at all. That is random for you.

I agree that they should change the system to be less random, but do not say their random system does nto work, it does, but people tend to notice series of failures or criticval successes and those series are perfectly normal for random system.

 

You might be right, but if we'd see those odds in an online casino... they'd get closed down. If you want the game to be so hard, then reduce the chance % that is written on the character to at least approximate what people will see in the results, simple.

 

Yeah, I suggested some time ago in similar thread system that each fail would increase your chances and in each success reset them, so the overall chance would be the same, but people would not see those long streaks of bad luck. Not sure how it works in online casinoes but the roulette in real casinoes can have really long streaks of one color.

Anyway I think that truly random systems are bad, because you need to analyze thousands of events to see if the percentage holds up. The shorter sequences often look like the percentage might be different and not everyone has degree of statistics to understand how unrepresentative small sample sizes are. We might need to analyze milions of events to be sure that the percentages hold up.

I made over 10000 crafting of wood pulp from scrap at 98% chance of success and it seems that my chances are actually slightly higher and I saw several shorter streaks of 10 craftings with 3 failures, maybe one with 4... it gets lost in the all the data but at times random systems do suck really bad.

 

I guess we shoud use a much shorter algorythm.. its a game after all... but yeah nice suggestion, another one from UO that was skipped over way too often.

 

Since the last Release I observed, that I also failed more as before with 91% or 94%.
Interesting that this happened to a lot of people. So it could be more as a coincidence, as I thought it was ...

 

It happens to me also. Whenever I fail minings with 96% successful rate, very often it happens several times in a row. And it is very often. And also in other scenarios like magic fizzle chance.

 

People have challenge me on this since day one. What I do every time I craft is calculate the percentage. I usually create stuff in batchs of 25 to 50. Just since just persistence alone I have crafted and enchanted thousands of items. Only a few times have I hit say my 25% masterworks percentage, most of the time Im in the 10% to 20% range. I dont recall *ever* getting more the 25%. Enchanting seems worse. The last time I tried to enchant 10 items wtih just 2 shots, one at 97& and the other around 80% (if I recall right), I ended up with 1 item, the others broke. Unfortunately this is common.

W have asked the devs to produce numbers in the past and have met nothing but silence. Oh about a year ago Chris did look into the math and ran some tests and said it was fine.

 

I have run tests, I have over a thousand trials for both blacksmithing and enchanting, and the result is that the RNG is fine. Can we please complain about real problems with crafting?

 

I agree with that, i'm sad to said that, but the RNG system here, need more love, its happen to me a lot of time, to fizzle spell, 2, 3 or some time 4 time in a row, with spell at 85% exemple.

 

Wow. Is this applicable to us or what? PS I know NADA about programming - so if this is not our system let me know. But it appears RNG does not work over time.

http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/1316949/faulty-randomness-uniform-rng.html

 

It's a question with no details and no responses. There's literally no way to tell what that guys actual problem is or if the problem even exists and his tests aren't just bad. So no, that is not in any way relevant to anything.

 

Does anyone know the % chance of exceptional for component crafting, not end product exceptional?
I have had the horrible negative streaks, but with the exceptional components I have had incredible good streaks as well. I batch smelting, but generally do single shot on spools of thread. I have had an exceptional hit on spools of thread 14 times in a row. With 16 out of 20. Typical is 6 out of 20 for me, so where did they phenomenal streak come from and what is the exact % chance since it is not listed anywhere?

 

I wonder what my Atari used. I remember typing RND() *100 to get something close to random when I tried my hand at programming. [Anyone else have Atari Basic on their resume?]

 

I just cant believe that. If I have never even basically hit the matched percentage of success and never gone above it in dozens and dozens of large bulk crafting sets, I seriously doubt you are. I'd love to see your set of data.