Science has solved your drop rate problems!

Daishichi · May 2016

Sure, they talk about cyber-security, blah blah blah, but really they did it just so you can get that monster helm or nirncrux node you've been denied.

https://threatpost.com/academics-make-theoretical-breakthrough-in-random-number-generation/118150/

Asherons_Call · May 2016

I prefer dice

susmitds · May 2016

It would take years before completion and decades before it is used in ESO.

So yeah, bad RNG to stay.

Bfish22090 · May 2016

i really am not going to read that jibberish

Rohamad_Ali · May 2016

Still sounds like witchcraft to me .

Shunravi · May 2016

Well, the problem with rng us the fact that it's random and stays random. Essentially, someone could get perfect drops every time, and someone could never get any.

Ironically the problem would be better solved by a worse rng algorithm, or a weighted system.

Samwell Slayer · May 2016

Bfish22090 wrote: »

i really am not going to read that jibberish

I agree with you, which is why I didn't read your comment.

Paradox and nerd diss in one. Score.

KhajitFurTrader · May 2016

Daishichi wrote: »

Sure, they talk about cyber-security, blah blah blah, but really they did it just so you can get that monster helm or nirncrux node you've been denied.

Well, all they talk about in the mentioned paper is that they found a way to make algorithmically created pseudo-randomness more reliable (or even "more random", if you prefer), by taking two independent, not-so-reliable sources of pseudo-random numbers and combine them in a certain way. Oh, and they're able to prove it mathematically, which is the most important bit about it, really.

I think the most common peeve with PRNGs is that they're misperceived as being "too random" (i.e. too unpredictable, which is rather the point of randomness) in the first place, so implementing this new method into the game would make matters even "worse" from this particular point of view.

Septimus_Magna · May 2016

Shunravi · May 2016

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You have a 1% chance of guessing right.

Guess right and I will vote awesome on your response.

You have a 1% droprate on getting an awesome.

Wollust · May 2016

Shunravi wrote: »

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You have a 1% chance of guessing right.

Guess right and I will vote awesome on your response.

You have a 1% droprate on getting an awesome.

69

Shunravi · May 2016

Wollust wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You have a 1% chance of guessing right.

Guess right and I will vote awesome on your response.

You have a 1% droprate on getting an awesome.

69

Nope, but a solid guess

Shunravi · May 2016

Of course choosing numbers like 69 and 42 will net you an awesome anyways...

Shunravi · May 2016

CURSE YOU WEIGHTED HUMAN BIAS FOR THROWING OFF MY ANALOGY!

oh well....

rotaugen454 · May 2016

Darn, 42 was gonna be my guess...

Yinmaigao · May 2016

I was gonna guess taco, but remembered it wasn't a number

Daishichi · May 2016

Haha...this was my first foray into forum humor, and this is about the response I expected.

As for ESO's RNG, I can't really complain...my experience would annoy most of you. This week I went to Upper Craglorn to consciously farm nirncrux for the first time...and my first node gave me a Potent AND Fortified Nirncrux.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have lottery tickets to buy.

W0lf_z13 · May 2016

bacon ... the answer is ALWAYS bacon!!

Yinmaigao · May 2016

W0lf_z13 wrote: »

bacon ... the answer is ALWAYS bacon!!

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Bacon tacos for all!!!

Daishichi · May 2016

Shunravi wrote: »

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You have a 1% chance of guessing right.

When this silly thread has 100+ posts, ZOS will probably tweak the not-at-all-random number generator so I never see a rare motif again.

But still: 7

Shunravi · May 2016

Daishichi wrote: »

Haha...this was my first foray into forum humor, and this is about the response I expected.

As for ESO's RNG, I can't really complain...my experience would annoy most of you. This week I went to Upper Craglorn to consciously farm nirncrux for the first time...and my first node gave me a Potent AND Fortified Nirncrux.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have lottery tickets to buy.

You have been blessed by RNGesus.

Yinmaigao wrote: »

W0lf_z13 wrote: »

bacon ... the answer is ALWAYS bacon!!

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Bacon tacos for all!!!

Yesssssss

Daishichi wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. You have a 1% chance of guessing right.

When this silly thread has 100+ posts, ZOS will probably tweak the not-at-all-random number generator so I never see a rare motif again.

But still: 7

Sadly no

Rohamad_Ali · May 2016

KhajitFurTrader wrote: »

Daishichi wrote: »

Sure, they talk about cyber-security, blah blah blah, but really they did it just so you can get that monster helm or nirncrux node you've been denied.

Well, all they talk about in the mentioned paper is that they found a way to make algorithmically created pseudo-randomness more reliable (or even "more random", if you prefer), by taking two independent, not-so-reliable sources of pseudo-random numbers and combine them in a certain way. Oh, and they're able to prove it mathematically, which is the most important bit about it, really.

I think the most common peeve with PRNGs is that they're misperceived as being "too random" (i.e. too unpredictable, which is rather the point of randomness) in the first place, so implementing this new method into the game would make matters even "worse" from this particular point of view.

So they're spinning two Wheel of Fortune's to solve the problems of one ...

Daraugh · May 2016

That's really interesting. Henry Yuen's blog post, linked in the article, about the difficulty of finding true randomness was a good read! I never really thought about the difficulty of true randomness within the generation of the base numbers the generator has to work with.