·Theme
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XIV
- General Discussion
- y does SE feel the need to put rng into everything?
y does SE feel the need to put rng into everything?Follow
kk I am trying to do chocobo coloring on my chocobo to get soot black. I looke donline and found a person who listed everything on how he got that coloring. I followed the exact steps he took and near the end I keep getting different colors even tho I doing same exact thing. so apparently SE added a rng factor.
Chocobos and atma are actually the two most heavily RNG things they've added. Dungeon drops are random but from a set pool, and drops from certain pools are guaranteed. (Not like the bad old days from FFXI where Kirin could get away with dropping one shiny wind crystal.)
I'm really glad I decided to aim for an easy color (lime green) and got it on the first try.
I'm really glad I decided to aim for an easy color (lime green) and got it on the first try.
Why is RNG a part of everything? Because this is an RPG. People complain way too much about randomness in RPGs when dice rolling has been a key characteristic of RPGs for such a long time.
ROLL FOR INITIATIVE
svlyons wrote:
Why is RNG a part of everything?
It's because that's how MMOs "program" you to keep playing it. We're all just pigeons in a Skinner box.
Quote:
Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns. [7]
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skinner_box
BUT!
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
Xoie wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Why is RNG a part of everything?
It's because that's how MMOs "program" you to keep playing it. We're all just pigeons in a Skinner box.
Quote:
Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns. [7]
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skinner_box
BUT!
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
I honestly didn't come here expecting to learn something so cool... thanks for sharing this!
Hairspray wrote:
Xoie wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Why is RNG a part of everything?
It's because that's how MMOs "program" you to keep playing it. We're all just pigeons in a Skinner box.
Quote:
Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns. [7]
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skinner_box
BUT!
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
I honestly didn't come here expecting to learn something so cool... thanks for sharing this!
Now he'll come here not expecting to learn anything cool over and over with the hopes of learning something cool again.
FUJILIVES wrote:
Hairspray wrote:
Xoie wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Why is RNG a part of everything?
It's because that's how MMOs "program" you to keep playing it. We're all just pigeons in a Skinner box.
Quote:
Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns. [7]
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skinner_box
BUT!
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
I honestly didn't come here expecting to learn something so cool... thanks for sharing this!
Now he'll come here not expecting to learn anything cool over and over with the hopes of learning something cool again.
Wait, What?!?!?!
This is the same thing I learned yesterday...
/disappointed
Xoie wrote:
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
And, ladies and gentlemen, this is why, for some people, Atma > Animus. One is not better than the other simply because the other has RNG in it.
Xoie wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Why is RNG a part of everything?
It's because that's how MMOs "program" you to keep playing it. We're all just pigeons in a Skinner box.
Quote:
Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns. [7]
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skinner_box
BUT!
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
Everybody is different.
Not everybody thinks along the same lines, etc, etc, etc.
There needs to be some sort of balance between RNG and Rewards -- many games take the RNG way too far, and are not rewarding enough. Some games might be too rewarding, maybe. Atma in FATEs is stressing the "RNG too far" limits; doing the same boring content hundreds of times on average to get your weapon is borderline ridiculous. However, handing it to you after 8 FATEs is a bit too fast.
It is difficult to find that "sweet spot", though sometimes I'd have to sit here and think "did the devs really think this is fun?" after you do 50, 100+ with no reward.
The best way to do RNG is a "Bad Roll Protection" system (phrase coined by Blizz), wherein each time you fail to get the reward, your chances of getting it from the next are a small sliver better until you are eventually guaranteed to get it if you do it enough times. That way, you don't get the one serially unlucky guy who has done it 10,000 times and still doesn't have it. The likelyhood of that is ridiculously small, but the fact that it is possible is the focus here: it really should not be possible for that to happen. That just gives the player a sense of dread and a "am I EVER going to see this?" and that is never healthy for a game.
When you get a reward, you should be happy. you SHOULD feel "Yay! I got my reward! That was great!" You SHOULDN'T feel like "Thank GOD that's done with". If you feel the latter, then the grind was simply too much and detracted from the fun.
I think a lot of examples of bad RNG result from insufficient testing by the devs. Like, for Oldtime FFXI... did the devs actually test some of those things out when they implemented them, as in, doing it in a real environment without any sort of dev tools to fast-forward the process? Of course they didn't; they have a job to do and they don't have the time to actually do that and do their jobs at the same time.
Meh, DR popped while I was typing this post, and I forgot the rest of what I was going to say. Ah well, I think I got the idea across decent enough.
Lyrailis wrote:
The best way to do RNG is a "Bad Roll Protection" system (phrase coined by Blizz), wherein each time you fail to get the reward, your chances of getting it from the next are a small sliver better until you are eventually guaranteed to get it if you do it enough times. That way, you don't get the one serially unlucky guy who has done it 10,000 times and still doesn't have it. The likelyhood of that is ridiculously small, but the fact that it is possible is the focus here: it really should not be possible for that to happen. That just gives the player a sense of dread and a "am I EVER going to see this?" and that is never healthy for a game.
Everytime someone says "X is the Best Way" I get skeptical. Because often enough, that's not the case.
You need to understand that Bad Roll Protection has it's downsides. If your chances are going to get better each time you fail, the starting % must be far lower as opposed to a set chance. So, instead of having a 1% set drop rate, there will be a 0,01% drop rate initially. You will have far lower chance of getting an item sooner than the average player but on the other hand you will have far lower chance of being one of the few that gets their item after the average player. This is because in the end both RNG systems must result in a similar # of items entering the circulation, and if the item is guaranteed to drop on the other end of the spectrum... the opposite spectrum must bend as well.
All I see here is one option out of many options, rather than The System To Rule It All, as you would like to make it look like.
I have played a lot of rpg's and also a handful of MMO's and to be honest, the RNG woes in this game really do not bother me. I had to grind out an empyrean weapon in XI which took literally months, even with the RNG on side. Phantasy Star Online is another example. I obsessed over getting a rare katana in that, called the Orotiagito (sp). The katana had a 1/22 chance of dropping, pretty reasonable, but the mob it dropped from had a 1/128 chance of actually spawning. So I could go dozens of runs without seeing the mob I need, and then have a 1/22 chance of it actually dropping. Compare these figures to the 1/50 chance of getting an atma, and I will take the atma route any day. It isn't taxing, and although the drop rate isn't outstanding, it is far from the most punishing I've had to grind through. And before people point out the obvious, RNG is random, but I have had considerable more luck with atmas than I did empyrean drops or the Orotiagito. I've made 1 novus and an animus, and I haven't had too much trouble. The odd atma here and there can cause a delay of days or weeks, but if you dedicate playtime to actually working on the atmas, as your primary goal, they aren't too bad.
Quote:
You need to understand that Bad Roll Protection has it's downsides. If your chances are going to get better each time you fail, the starting % must be far lower as opposed to a set chance.
"Must"?
Not really. They could merely make the incremental gain small. There's two ways to do BRP:
1). Small starting %, significant gains each failure
2). Good starting %, small gains each failure
#1 you might start out with a 0.5% chance but gain 3% each failure.
#2 you might start out with a 10% chance, but only gain 1% each failure.
The whole idea of BRP is it allows you to make things exciting to get, but yet there's a way to prevent extreme dry streaks and the system can be tailored. In fact, the gains don't even have to be a constant -- you could start with 0.5% and give a gain of 0.5% + 0.5% each time, as so:
0.5%
0.5% + 0.5% = 1%
1% + 0.5% + 0.5% = 2%
2% + 1.5% = 3.5%
3.5% + 2% = 5.5%
etc etc.
You can have all the rarity and excitement of RNG, without the downsides of severe unluckiness/dry streaks that causes people to hate RNG in the first place.
Edited, Sep 13th 2014 9:33pm by Lyrailis
Lyrailis wrote:
Quote:
You need to understand that Bad Roll Protection has it's downsides. If your chances are going to get better each time you fail, the starting % must be far lower as opposed to a set chance.
"Must"?
Not really. They could merely make the incremental gain small. There's two ways to do BRP:
1). Small starting %, significant gains each failure
2). Good starting %, small gains each failure
#1 you might start out with a 0.5% chance but gain 3% each failure.
#2 you might start out with a 10% chance, but only gain 1% each failure.
The whole idea of BRP is it allows you to make things exciting to get, but yet there's a way to prevent extreme dry streaks and the system can be tailored. In fact, the gains don't even have to be a constant -- you could start with 0.5% and give a gain of 0.5% + 0.5% each time, as so:
0.5%
0.5% + 0.5% = 1%
1% + 0.5% + 0.5% = 2%
2% + 1.5% = 3.5%
3.5% + 2% = 5.5%
etc etc.
You can have all the rarity and excitement of RNG, without the downsides of severe unluckiness/dry streaks that causes people to hate RNG in the first place.
Edited, Sep 13th 2014 9:33pm by Lyrailis
You didn't understand what I am saying. Whether the gain after failure is small or big doesn't matter. What matters is that the # of items entering the circulation stays constant within all the possible options. In this case, the alternative option can be a set % drop rate.
If SE wants X items to enter the circulation, the BRP system must keep the same ratio of items entering the circulation as any alternative option (set drop %). If that is not the underlying assumption the comparison gets incredibly silly. If the BRP system puts out more items the comparison is not fair, as the set % drop rate should then be raised to make the comparison fair again. The fact is that SE has decided on a number for items entering the circulation and that number must stay constant no matter what system you choose for the RNG.
So once again: if the % at which items enter circulation rises over time above the threshold of the constant drop rate % (up to a certain drop), if nothing else is changed this means that over-time, more items will enter the circulation than in the constant drop rate % scenario. There really is no way for me to say this in simpler terms. Thus the way you explain the BRP is fundamentally flawed. To make up for the increased drop rate in one end, the other end must pick up the slack to balance the two systems. The starting drop rate should be much much lower than the constant drop rate % (to the point that it's incredibly unlikely to see your item drop ahead of "the average", actually ruining the potential benefits of RNG). Otherwise the BRP/set % comparison does not work.
There is no one system to rule them all, only personal preferences. BRP is a personal preference. SE could utilize this system in the future to provide options, but it would still be only one means to an end.
Edited, Sep 15th 2014 5:07am by Hyanmen
Quote:
The fact is that SE has decided on a number for items entering the circulation and that number must stay constant no matter what system you choose for the RNG.
How are you sure that it is "number of items entering the circulation" and not "Average Time Spent doing the activity"?
Especially for things like Atma (the most complained about RNG lately) that cannot be traded on the market, sold, etc at all?
The BRP system removes the extreme bad ends of the spectrum (players spending 200+ hours and still not having it) while only minorly reducing the extreme good ends (players getting the whole schbang in <20 FATEs) but the average would not be affected all that much. They want you to sink some time into it, but I highly doubt doing dozens upon dozens of FATEs, or blowing 100+ hours into it is hardly what they had in mind (or at least surely they didn't have that in mind).
A system that removes the extreme bad end is far better than "everyone has to put in slightly more time". It is more fair that way. Why should some people spend 200 hours (the serially unlucky) trying to get something most people get in, say, 20-50? That is not fair at all. I'd rather see that you are guaranteed to get it within 100 and the average goes up to 30-60, and nobody has to put in 200.
Obviously the hour numbers are made up, but you get the concept I'm trying to get across. The extreme unlucky is incredibly unfair and not healthy for the game; anybody who gets hit by this is tempted to quit the game, does a lot of complaining even if they don't, and they spread dissent and horror stories which might give new players pause in joining the game if they hear RNG-based grind is terrible. Meanwhile, raising the "average" bar just a notch while preventing the extreme unlucky streaks in the first place is far more healthy for the game; there's a lot less complaints about RNG if players have more faith that it won't bend them over and scr*w them like it has so many times in the past and truth be told, the 'average' would hardly even notice it.
Edited, Sep 15th 2014 7:25am by Lyrailis
Lyrailis wrote:
Quote:
The fact is that SE has decided on a number for items entering the circulation and that number must stay constant no matter what system you choose for the RNG.
How are you sure that it is "number of items entering the circulation" and not "Average Time Spent doing the activity"?
Especially for things like Atma (the most complained about RNG lately) that cannot be traded on the market, sold, etc at all?
The BRP system removes the extreme bad ends of the spectrum (players spending 200+ hours and still not having it) while only minorly reducing the extreme good ends (players getting the whole schbang in <20 FATEs) but the average would not be affected all that much. They want you to sink some time into it, but I highly doubt doing dozens upon dozens of FATEs, or blowing 100+ hours into it is hardly what they had in mind (or at least surely they didn't have that in mind).
A system that removes the extreme bad end is far better than "everyone has to put in slightly more time". It is more fair that way. Why should some people spend 200 hours (the serially unlucky) trying to get something most people get in, say, 20-50? That is not fair at all. I'd rather see that you are guaranteed to get it within 100 and the average goes up to 30-60, and nobody has to put in 200.
Obviously the hour numbers are made up, but you get the concept I'm trying to get across. The extreme unlucky is incredibly unfair and not healthy for the game; anybody who gets hit by this is tempted to quit the game, does a lot of complaining even if they don't, and they spread dissent and horror stories which might give new players pause in joining the game if they hear RNG-based grind is terrible. Meanwhile, raising the "average" bar just a notch while preventing the extreme unlucky streaks in the first place is far more healthy for the game; there's a lot less complaints about RNG if players have more faith that it won't bend them over and scr*w them like it has so many times in the past and truth be told, the 'average' would hardly even notice it.
Whatever the rule they are using is, it must stay constant among all the different RNG systems. Let's assume that they are looking at the average time spent for Atmas. The law of averages determines that if extreme "bad ends" of the spectrum are removed, same will have to be done to the extreme "good ends". I know you are still trying to make it sound that the difference in the "bad end" of the spectrum is somehow greater than the difference in the "good end", but in reality the effect is equal on both. That is the only way the time spent is not decreased in favor of the BRP system.
More importantly, the RNG is affected on the spectrum as a whole, not simply at the extreme ends. You are less likely to get a drop before the average up until the very point at which the average is determined to be, almost completely ruining the good sides of having an RNG (which were already discussed earlier in this thread). People like to have a chance to get ahead. Take away some of that chance, and you slowly but surely ruin the whole idea. Trying to appeal to all demographics more often than not has bland results that end up pleasing nobody.
Then, again, I'm all up for options. Bring on the BRP, for some of the contents. It should have its place in the game. For me, though, it would have made the Atma grind a lot less thrilling. Of course, I am also of the group that doesn't think I will fall outside the average group - why would I think that? It's statistically very unlikely. RNG has screwed me over and it has blessed me many times in the past. Over time the differences are evened out, that is the law of averages.
Edited, Sep 15th 2014 1:22pm by Hyanmen
Lyrailis wrote:
Xoie wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Why is RNG a part of everything?
It's because that's how MMOs "program" you to keep playing it. We're all just pigeons in a Skinner box.
Quote:
Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns. [7]
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skinner_box
BUT!
It's even more insidious than that. If you can expect a reward for something, even if you love to do it, you're actually less motivated to do it, and you tend to do a less inspired job. There's an effect called "Overjustification" in which expected rewards demotivate you even more than not getting a reward at all (when it's something you love to do).
However, when there is an expected reward, no reward, or a random reward, motivation is the highest when, you guessed it, there's a random reward.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php
So that's why there's so much emphasis on RNG for rewards. It's what motivates humans the most especially when it comes to games.
Everybody is different.
Not everybody thinks along the same lines, etc, etc, etc.
There needs to be some sort of balance between RNG and Rewards -- many games take the RNG way too far, and are not rewarding enough. Some games might be too rewarding, maybe. Atma in FATEs is stressing the "RNG too far" limits; doing the same boring content hundreds of times on average to get your weapon is borderline ridiculous. However, handing it to you after 8 FATEs is a bit too fast.
It is difficult to find that "sweet spot", though sometimes I'd have to sit here and think "did the devs really think this is fun?" after you do 50, 100+ with no reward.
The best way to do RNG is a "Bad Roll Protection" system (phrase coined by Blizz), wherein each time you fail to get the reward, your chances of getting it from the next are a small sliver better until you are eventually guaranteed to get it if you do it enough times. That way, you don't get the one serially unlucky guy who has done it 10,000 times and still doesn't have it. The likelyhood of that is ridiculously small, but the fact that it is possible is the focus here: it really should not be possible for that to happen. That just gives the player a sense of dread and a "am I EVER going to see this?" and that is never healthy for a game.
When you get a reward, you should be happy. you SHOULD feel "Yay! I got my reward! That was great!" You SHOULDN'T feel like "Thank GOD that's done with". If you feel the latter, then the grind was simply too much and detracted from the fun.
I think a lot of examples of bad RNG result from insufficient testing by the devs. Like, for Oldtime FFXI... did the devs actually test some of those things out when they implemented them, as in, doing it in a real environment without any sort of dev tools to fast-forward the process? Of course they didn't; they have a job to do and they don't have the time to actually do that and do their jobs at the same time.
Meh, DR popped while I was typing this post, and I forgot the rest of what I was going to say. Ah well, I think I got the idea across decent enough.
That is actually really good..
My problem with RNG is SE seems to not know how to do it or has no time to really care.
Crafting is a example.. I get like 56 percent chance at HQ and I get 8 fails in a row. Well 50 percent to me is 1 out of 2.. I see this in gathering all the time or crafting..
Their percentages mean nothing.
Yea its odd when someone does atmas in 3 day and others cant do it in 3 months. That is not even close. I see most probably are either 3 months or 3 weeks. Rare you see someone that took days but there are some.. That is way to big of a difference.
Edited, Sep 15th 2014 10:36am by Nashred
FFXI: Nashred
Server: Phoenix
FFXIV : Sir Nashred
server: Ultros
Server: Phoenix
FFXIV : Sir Nashred
server: Ultros
Nashred wrote:
Crafting is a example.. I get like 56 percent chance at HQ and I get 8 fails in a row. Well 50 percent to me is 1 out of 2.. I see this in gathering all the time or crafting..
Their percentages mean nothing.
Their percentages mean nothing.
Funny thing about probability is that it has no memory.
If you were to begin crafting and say, "You know I'm feeling unlucky. I'll bet I'll fail 8 times in a row," it probably won't happen. You have a 44% chance of failing each time, so your odds of failing 8 times without a break are 0.44^8 which is about 1 in a 712 chance. Better odds than you'd get in the lottery, but it's no common occurrence.
But the crazy thing is, the more times you failed, the more likely it was you'd fail 8 times in a row. By the time you failed 7 times in a row, the odds that you would fail an eighth time wasn't 1 in 712 anymore, it was 44%. What happened before makes no difference as to what happens next.
Xoie wrote:
Nashred wrote:
Crafting is a example.. I get like 56 percent chance at HQ and I get 8 fails in a row. Well 50 percent to me is 1 out of 2.. I see this in gathering all the time or crafting..
Their percentages mean nothing.
Their percentages mean nothing.
Funny thing about probability is that it has no memory.
If you were to begin crafting and say, "You know I'm feeling unlucky. I'll bet I'll fail 8 times in a row," it probably won't happen. You have a 44% chance of failing each time, so your odds of failing 8 times without a break are 0.44^8 which is about 1 in a 712 chance. Better odds than you'd get in the lottery, but it's no common occurrence.
But the crazy thing is, the more times you failed, the more likely it was you'd fail 8 times in a row. By the time you failed 7 times in a row, the odds that you would fail an eighth time wasn't 1 in 712 anymore, it was 44%. What happened before makes no difference as to what happens next.
I routinely get 3-4 fails in a row at 80-82% crafting (mainly Gathering, I mean).
Heck, one day, I saw this:
SSFF FFFF FFSS
While gathering an 81% item. But then I walked up to a few nodes after that, 11% HQ and HQ'd 3 in a row.
XIV loves ridiculous streaks. Probabilities like those 6 failures at 81% in a row would nearly be good enough to win a lottery. Just what is the probability of 6 fails at 81% in a row? 1 in at least 10,000? 20k? I see 3-4 fails in a row quite often at ~80%. If I had luck like that IRL; I'd have won TDN by now.
Edited, Sep 15th 2014 10:22pm by Lyrailis
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XIV
- General Discussion
- y does SE feel the need to put rng into everything?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC