This might be a bit simplistic, so please tell me how I'm approaching wrong: Change Guard from a flat damage reduction to mirror your current defense chance? If you're wearing gear that gives you a 31% chance to avoid, your guarded target takes 31% less damage?

I've seen success chance issues in other games, too...that is, there were issues where a parameter was input wrong like I mentioned (one particular category was supposed to be 100%, while some others had a failure chance...the 100% didn't get set). I've also seen issues where a player was supposed to have an improving chance over time (like the baseline is 5%, but can be increased via some rating), and the improvement wasn't reflecting. What we're talking about here is a bit different...everybody has the same 60% RE chance. That chance has been at that level for quite awhile....and it's incredibly likely (not guaranteed, but likely) that's a parameter, which is unlikely to be messed up unless a change is made to it. All that said, as you tried to corner me with, I don't have access to any part of the engine code...sure, it's possible the RNG is implemented in such a convoluted, unusual fashion that it applies inconsistent results to different people intermittently. The most likely behavior for anything even close to that would be everybody seeing 100% success, 100% failure, or rolls just crapping out and not happening at all, and we're not seeing that, but sure, it's possible. But what's more likely? Concepts like the gambler's fallacy and human beings' general struggle to deal with randomness are well documented, and computer RNG is fairly basic to implement. On the other hand, people anecdotally complain that it doesn't "feel right"....and only ever when they have poor luck, not good luck. So which do you feel is the more likely cause? I've never in my life claimed developers don't made mistakes. On the contrary, I'm all too painfully aware that bug-free software doesn't exist outside of 100-level classroom assignments of a hundred lines or less. But I do know what's more likely here. Basically, one of us is suggesting that the OP's observation is just that...an anecdote, driven by some well-understood bias phenomena. That person has provided some context and explanation for why they feel that's the case. The other made the immediate assumption that the system's somehow flawed (with the extra implication that we might even have been misled). That person's supporting their assumption with demands for negative proof they know nobody can provide. So, in lieu of your credible evidence (or really, any evidence) otherwise, I'm going to stick by what I said....it's unlikely to be a bad parameter specific to augments, and vanishingly unlikely to be a "broken RNG".

I would be stunned...and I mean absolutely beyond floored....If anybody at BW wrote a spec of "RNG code". Why would they? That would be like taking your car in for an oil change, and having the tech go drill and refine the oil, and reengineer a new filter from scratch. Again, this isn't 1975; random number generation doesn't require custom code. Most languages have RNG utility functionality that works perfectly fine to generate "random enough" results. So do operating systems, DBMS.....It would be beyond ridiculous to "code" RNG. Maybe you meant there was a decimal misplaced somewhere in the comparison parameter? Think that through....does anybody have any results indicating a 600% success chance? Or 6%? Ever notice that the people who're most willing to assume a developer screwed up somewhere are usually the ones who least understand how things work?

I've found REing to be especially bad, in terms of bias, both because you're more focused on the result, and because bad luck hurts more. Most crafting, you set it and forget it. You tend not to notice if your luck was especially good or bad when you mass-craft a stack of components, for example....when it's done, you end up with one stack, and if you had a run of good luck on crits, that stack is just a little bigger than normal; it doesn't stick out. REing, you tend to craft each item one at a time (why craft more blues than you need to?). Once the item is made, you open your inventory and look for that specific item, click a separate button, then click on the item again. You look and listen for the successful learn result. Those things all focus your mind on the result more than normal. If it's a success, you move on. If it's a failure you have to recraft that item, and go through all the same steps again. You have to keep repeating that more focused set of activities more times, making failures stick out more....and that's all on top of the fact that our brains are wired to pay attention to negative results more than positive ones as it is.

Quality stuff right here.

But your experience is within a guild setting. The guy you're talking about had an investment in the guild, and in developing the players in it, with an immediately accessible benefit in it for him (readily available, competent players). He was also doing it voluntarily, and (one presumes) after being asked or directed to by guild leadership. ....none of which translates to an essentially PUG scenario.

And before anybody's tempted to remind anybody that computers can't REALLY do random numbers, or how easy it would be for there to be a mistake somewhere.... No. Just no. This isn't a newfangled thing people started wrangling with on the advent of MMOs and game forums. Methods of generating pseudo-random numbers that very closely approximate truly random systems have been around for a long time. They're sufficiently random that a human being can't tell the difference, and they usually have less deterministic error that would result from wear on the edge of a physical die, or casting variations in a flipped coin. This isn't 1975....for any given application, computer RNG can be considered more than "random enough".

Tag...I'm in. I haven't burnt myself out with it recently. Any random system (or simulated random system, like computer RNG) requires streaks to be considered truly random....several consecutive results that seem to defy the stated odds. Even a 99% chance of success must occasionally encounter several failures in a row. If the system doesn't contain those streaks, it's not random...it's deterministic. That's how probability works. Not even going to go into the notions of sample size as it regards statistical relevance, or confirmation bias.....Google is a robust tool. All you need to understand is: Streaks mean the system's working, not broken.

Subscriber reward...

The forum timestamps are in GMT, not your time zone. So far as connection, I've been on for a few hours, no unusual lag. It may or may not be your ISP (your router showing connection means just that: it's connected), but whatever the issue is, it's not the server.

So... Because other people who aren't them rage quit in the past (or yelled at and belittled, in the case of the other poster), everybody's just assumed to be responsible for teaching or just dealing with the miscues...just in case they might also be a horrible person? Wouldn't it be more rational and adult to write the previous folks off as being the problem, instead of pushing the uncomfortable off on every new person? You might as well just say "I don't want to momentarily risk feeling bad, so Ima make it this other guy's problem instead." ...and people are calling the OP selfish. Look, I'm truly sorry lousy people play this game and feel the need to belittle everybody that's not them....I really, truly am. There's no need for it, and I know its uncomfortable when it happens. But that solution's just downright passive-aggressive. It makes the overall problem worse, not better.

And there's no such thing as an auto lease, right? Setting that aside, that comparison is flawed because the business models are not the same. If the car dealer intended to develop and install new or upgraded options to your car post-purchase, it'd be a little bit closer, while still not the same: a driver doesn't get bored with their car, stop driving it, and impact the dealer's revenue by doing so if there aren't enough enjoyable roads and places to go with it. So, you either didn't actually make your point, or you accidentally made the opposite point.

This. I'll go a step further: if you join a content run (Op, FP, whatever), don't know what you're doing, and don't speak up, courtesy and obligation concerns stop. At that moment, you've shifted the burden of your performance to somebody else. Well, mostly....that doesn't excuse anybody from basic "dont be an aggressive toolbag" expectations, but that's universal regardless.

I was reacting to the quoted poster's implication that the people who're applauding this delay would continue to defend further delays ad nauseum. That's extremely hyperbolic to the point of entirely nonsensical...and I suspect it comes from playing a forum persona, more than from a real rational process. I wasn't measuring the probability that there will be further delays. I agree, it could happen. If it did, the devs would have to provide some awfully compelling reasoning to get me to support it.

This thread has been fascinating to watch. If I queue GF as a tank, the only expectation I'm taking on is to tank any Op I might get. Most folks reasonably assume that includes at least enough general knowledge (class, gearing, boss, etc) to be minimally competent doing so. If I can't fulfill that expectation (end up not being able to finish the run, don't know the Op, etc), it's on me to communicate that, so the group can figure out what to do about it (replace me, teach me, whatever). That's it. Exactly zero additional expectations (teaching, etc) are assumed. If anybody has any expectations beyond that, that's on them, not me. I have no responsibility to communicate my inability or unwillingness to meet any of those additional, imposed expectations....again, those invalid expectations are owned by whomever put them on me....if they want me to take them on, they have the burden of communication. That's our baseline. Expectations are a little different for premade runs. Guild leaders (including guild Ops leaders) have different expectations, based on how that guild runs. Non-Guild premade (Fleet PUGs, etc) have expectations based on discussions while building it. But if those discussions don't occur, you default to the above baseline...your responsibility it to do your job, and communicate when you can't. That's what happened here. The OP received no extra communication when joining the guild run to tank. They executed their only resulting expectation: tank it. When they couldn't do so because the group didn't know what they were doing, they communicated it. That's it. Job done. Anything they did after that, so long as it wasn't belittling, is entirely kosher. TLDR: yes, there are a lot of entitled attitudes in this thread. Mostly, that entitlement surrounds wanting the community to assume extra expectations that are favorable to "them" ("them" having a variable definition), but without wanting to actually communicate those expectations. Be an adult. Say what you need, and will/won't do. The OP did. The rest of the raid didnt.