GM 100.0 Lockpicking, had Crystal Ball of Knowledge turned ON and saying, for each and every Lockpicking attempt, "Very Easy"...

Well, I failed to pick the Lock on that Chest some 17 times in a row....

Now, I understant the "streakiness" of the RNG and all that yet, at least to my opinion, with a skill as high as it can get (100.0 GM), the Crystal Ball of Knowledge saying flat out that it is a "Very Easy" task... how is it possible that then, the Ultima Online Code, gets my character to fail at picking that Lock 17 times in a row ?

Perhaps, just perhaps, something here might really be not functioning well in the way that the RNG has been coded to function and should be looked at ?

Just perhaps ?

popps , it is payback for your other topics and for asking nonsence. Your personal chance to open chest or to get artifact drops is decreased. 

"Very Easy" does not mean 100%.  Sometimes the RNG loves you and sometime the RNG hates you and you do know the it is rolled every time you attempt something so yes it is possible to hit a bad streak and please I do not need one of your BOOKS as a response.

That’s just the way it works.  17 attempts seems a little excessive but in the Yew prison when the skill level for all the locks was very easy for me it was the same, some locks opened on the first attempt and others took a surprising large number of attempts.  I think it’s the best place to get gains at the level you are at.  I think at 95 I rarely, if ever, get any gains from hoard or trove chests.

Also, don’t see any benefit from taking lockpicking over 90.  If you know of one please let me know.  Think once you reach 90 the probability of opening any chest does not change enough, assuming it does change, to make the 10 point investment worthwhile.

Arnold7 said:

Also, don’t see any benefit from taking lockpicking over 90.  If you know of one please let me know.  Think once you reach 90 the probability of opening any chest does not change enough, assuming it does change, to make the 10 point investment worthwhile.

Well first and foremost OCD  demands it second what are you going to invest those points in and how will OCD feel about it..

Lockpicking RNG is very dumb. 

You finally found something that is a legit complaint.  But with the cost of a  lockpick does it really matter.

Yes, understand OCD quite well really that’s why I keep asking about it.  At 95 can pick a trove in about 30 seconds.  OCD vs logic on this one with neither being being able to win over the other.

Arnold7 said:

That’s just the way it works.  17 attempts seems a little excessive but in the Yew prison when the skill level for all the locks was very easy for me it was the same, some locks opened on the first attempt and others took a surprising large number of attempts.  I think it’s the best place to get gains at the level you are at.  I think at 95 I rarely, if ever, get any gains from hoard or trove chests.

I understand that it is the way it works, I am only observing, that perhaps, it should work differently....

For example, the RNG could take into account failed attempts to "increase" the chance for a subsequent succesfull attempt....

Like in my example, if one has 100.0 Lockpicking, and the lock difficulty is such that it is "Very Easy" to pick that lock as the Crystal Ball of Knolewdge indicates, then, if the 1st attempt fails, then the 2nd attempt should not have the same odds to fail but, reduced odds to fail and increased odds to succeed...

Basically, to my opinion, the RNG should "remember" failed attempts and weight them versus the difficulty of the Lock and the Skill level being used, and then make subsequent attempts, all of these things considered, less likely to fail and more likely to succeed.

This way, a "streak" lasting 17 fails at 100.0 GM Lockpicking level, and with a Lock that, under these conditions, is "Very Easy" as the Crystal Ball of Knowledge indicates, should no longer be possible to occur, as after the first few fails, at the 3 or 4th attempt or so, the picking of the lock should take place....

My argument being, that a streak of fails can be understandable and acceptable on something difficult even at maxed out skill or even something easy but with a very low skill, but with tasks that are considered easy (or "very" easy...) at maxed out skill ?

No way, long streaks of fails should never happen at maxed out skills and with easy or even "optimal" tasks...

That is at least how I see it.

popps said:

Arnold7 said:

That’s just the way it works.  17 attempts seems a little excessive but in the Yew prison when the skill level for all the locks was very easy for me it was the same, some locks opened on the first attempt and others took a surprising large number of attempts.  I think it’s the best place to get gains at the level you are at.  I think at 95 I rarely, if ever, get any gains from hoard or trove chests.

I understand that it is the way it works, I am only observing, that perhaps, it should work differently....

For example, the RNG could take into account failed attempts to "increase" the chance for a subsequent succesfull attempt....

Like in my example, if one has 100.0 Lockpicking, and the lock difficulty is such that it is "Very Easy" to pick that lock as the Crystal Ball of Knolewdge indicates, then, if the 1st attempt fails, then the 2nd attempt should not have the same odds to fail but, reduced odds to fail and increased odds to succeed...

Basically, to my opinion, the RNG should "remember" failed attempts and weight them versus the difficulty of the Lock and the Skill level being used, and then make subsequent attempts, all of these things considered, less likely to fail and more likely to succeed.

This way, a "streak" lasting 17 fails at 100.0 GM Lockpicking level, and with a Lock that, under these conditions, is "Very Easy" as the Crystal Ball of Knowledge indicates, should no longer be possible to occur, as after the first few fails, at the 3 or 4th attempt or so, the picking of the lock should take place....

My argument being, that a streak of fails can be understandable and acceptable on something difficult even at maxed out skill or even something easy but with a very low skill, but with tasks that are considered easy (or "very" easy...) at maxed out skill ?

No way, long streaks of fails should never happen at maxed out skills and with easy or even "optimal" tasks...

That is at least how I see it.

So if you're rolling a d20 and you don't roll a 20 each time you fail it should increase the odds of rolling a 20 next time?

Having read various posts about the UO RNG over many, many years. I think I can say with a relative degree of certainty that the team will probably have the same feeling about it as previous dev teams. 
Previous teams expressed the opinion that they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole 😂

popps said:

For example, the RNG could take into account failed attempts to "increase" the chance for a subsequent succesfull attempt....

You mean make RNG less random? Now it generates a value each time. What you asking is make it dependant. Which will be abused and exploited almosy immediately. 
And all this because you broke some lockpicks totay? 
 With 50% chance rate I have many imbuing attempts on first try. You suggest I  will need to have guaranteed failure there first or what? 

@Gwen The devs could add streak breaking code. For example after every 10th random number they reset the random number generator and have it start at a different spot. It is a called reseeding.

popps said:

GM 100.0 Lockpicking, had Crystal Ball of Knowledge turned ON and saying, for each and every Lockpicking attempt, "Very Easy"...

Well, I failed to pick the Lock on that Chest some 17 times in a row....

Now, I understant the "streakiness" of the RNG and all that yet, at least to my opinion, with a skill as high as it can get (100.0 GM), the Crystal Ball of Knowledge saying flat out that it is a "Very Easy" task... how is it possible that then, the Ultima Online Code, gets my character to fail at picking that Lock 17 times in a row ?

Perhaps, just perhaps, something here might really be not functioning well in the way that the RNG has been coded to function and should be looked at ?

Just perhaps ?

TimSt said:

@ Gwen The devs could add streak breaking code. For example after every 10th random number they reset the random number generator and have it start at a different spot. It is a called reseeding.

The RNG is so imbedded in the spaghetti PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH IT.

popps said:

Arnold7 said:

That’s just the way it works.  17 attempts seems a little excessive but in the Yew prison when the skill level for all the locks was very easy for me it was the same, some locks opened on the first attempt and others took a surprising large number of attempts.  I think it’s the best place to get gains at the level you are at.  I think at 95 I rarely, if ever, get any gains from hoard or trove chests.

I understand that it is the way it works, I am only observing, that perhaps, it should work differently....

For example, the RNG could take into account failed attempts to "increase" the chance for a subsequent succesfull attempt....

Like in my example, if one has 100.0 Lockpicking, and the lock difficulty is such that it is "Very Easy" to pick that lock as the Crystal Ball of Knolewdge indicates, then, if the 1st attempt fails, then the 2nd attempt should not have the same odds to fail but, reduced odds to fail and increased odds to succeed...

Basically, to my opinion, the RNG should "remember" failed attempts and weight them versus the difficulty of the Lock and the Skill level being used, and then make subsequent attempts, all of these things considered, less likely to fail and more likely to succeed.

This way, a "streak" lasting 17 fails at 100.0 GM Lockpicking level, and with a Lock that, under these conditions, is "Very Easy" as the Crystal Ball of Knowledge indicates, should no longer be possible to occur, as after the first few fails, at the 3 or 4th attempt or so, the picking of the lock should take place....

My argument being, that a streak of fails can be understandable and acceptable on something difficult even at maxed out skill or even something easy but with a very low skill, but with tasks that are considered easy (or "very" easy...) at maxed out skill ?

No way, long streaks of fails should never happen at maxed out skills and with easy or even "optimal" tasks...

That is at least how I see it.

It is called RANDOM for a reason.  Good thing you do not go to Vegas

Last night a lady rolled dice for an hour until she hit a seven. Was a fun and profitable time at the craps table.

Her RNG was broken.

Oh boy... we really need an event to be dropped in so popps can stop trying to dissect literally every random part of the game and start arguments with his posts. 

keven2002 said:

Oh boy... we really need an event to be dropped in so popps can stop trying to dissect literally every random part of the game and start arguments with his posts. 

Why, so we can hear how unfair it is that a Camping/Taste ID mule cannot get as many drops as a Sampire?

Victim_Of_Siege said:

keven2002 said:

Oh boy... we really need an event to be dropped in so popps can stop trying to dissect literally every random part of the game and start arguments with his posts. 

Why, so we can hear how unfair it is that a Camping/Taste ID mule cannot get as many drops as a Sampire?

  😂  

Victim_Of_Siege said:

keven2002 said:

Oh boy... we really need an event to be dropped in so popps can stop trying to dissect literally every random part of the game and start arguments with his posts. 

Why, so we can hear how unfair it is that a Camping/Taste ID mule cannot get as many drops as a Sampire?

You taste first then camp is his problem 

Furthermore.... I just casted create food and got 10 muffins in a row...

vortex said:

Furthermore.... I just casted create food and got 10 muffins in a row...

Do you know the Muffin man, The Muffin man, the Muffin man. Oh, do you know the Muffin man
Who lives down jewellery lane?

Why yes, his name is vortex, and he has muffins for all

Lots of discussion over something that is most likely working as the original programmers of UO intended it to work.  If you lose hard to obtain resources you may have a legitimate complaint.  But otherwise, RNG is working as designed.  I do a lot of chests.  Sometimes they open on the first attempt and sometimes I wonder if they will ever open but In either case I have them open within a minute.  When I fail to make something that requires something hard to get I and I get the message I lost some resources it is always something minor.  Assume most things just can’t be changed by just modifying a line of code and that developers really can’t anticipate what will crash when they roll the dice making even minor changes.  The RNG frustrates me to sometimes but I realize now it’s an old, old game and most things we don’t like are now part of the games culture and are not going to change.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^  LIKE

the last time I went out treasure hunting.
i destroyed 22 lockpicks before it opened the chest.
(then i remembered that i could use magery to unlock it)

the next 3 chests opened right away, without breaking a lockpick.

usually when I start breaking lockpicks
I just switch to something else

This blows my mind...

"Something is really not right with the RNG Code...."

It's RNG, honestly there is a constant tirade of people (Not just the OP) complaining because RNG does not favour them, thats the entire nature of RNG.  On a dice, some roll a 6 everytime, some do not, some dont roll a 6 for a loooong time.

This entire... 'I'm not getting the results I want, fix it' attitude is becoming soooo tiresome.  Some people win the lottery, some don't.  Learn to live with it.

By all means ask for a Doom/Gauntlet system but all this crap about 'favoured accounts' etc is just nonsense, its RNG, end of story.

Arnold7 said:

Lots of discussion over something that is most likely working as the original programmers of UO intended it to work.  If you lose hard to obtain resources you may have a legitimate complaint.  But otherwise, RNG is working as designed.  I do a lot of chests.  Sometimes they open on the first attempt and sometimes I wonder if they will ever open but In either case I have them open within a minute.  When I fail to make something that requires something hard to get I and I get the message I lost some resources it is always something minor.  Assume most things just can’t be changed by just modifying a line of code and that developers really can’t anticipate what will crash when they roll the dice making even minor changes.  The RNG frustrates me to sometimes but I realize now it’s an old, old game and most things we don’t like are now part of the games culture and are not going to change.

They would not have made talismans that had resource saving charges if they knew RNG was on our side.

You don't get a chest on every paragon you don't pick the lock on every try. 

Yui_Zii_Ariya said:

This blows my mind...

"Something is really not right with the RNG Code...."

It's RNG, honestly there is a constant tirade of people (Not just the OP) complaining because RNG does not favour them, thats the entire nature of RNG.  On a dice, some roll a 6 everytime, some do not, some dont roll a 6 for a loooong time.

This entire... 'I'm not getting the results I want, fix it' attitude is becoming soooo tiresome.  Some people win the lottery, some don't.  Learn to live with it.

By all means ask for a Doom/Gauntlet system but all this crap about 'favoured accounts' etc is just nonsense, its RNG, end of story.

Excuse me ?

This has nothing to do with "getting the results that one may want " but, rather, to have a mechanics that was to make some sense and logic....

Being at 100.0 Lockpicking skill is as good as it can get. It is the maximum possible.

If the Crystal Ball of Knowledge says that picking a given Lock ic "VERY EASY", what exactly is not clear about a task being "VERY EASY" if I may ask ?

There is only a lower level to "very easy" and it is, "too easy".

Now, to me, it makes ZERO sense, none, nada, that at maxed out skill, on a VERY EASY Lock to pick, yet, one has to fail 17 times in a row....

It-makes-no-sense-whatsoever to me !!

Now, if it was a Lock that was "too challenging" or even "challenging" I could possibly understand,  but on a task tagged as "VERY EASY" ?

No way.

It is just a wrong mechanics, to my opinion, one that gets a player to have to fail 17 times in a row on something which should be VERY EASILY achieved.

If a task is labelled as "VERY EASY" well, THEN, guess what ?

It should be VERY EASILY done succesfully !!!

And infact, this is what happens with spells which, when VERY EASY to be cast, never fizzle and even when they do, it happens in really once in a blue moon, if even....

That is at least the way I see it.

popps said:

Yui_Zii_Ariya said:

This blows my mind...

"Something is really not right with the RNG Code...."

It's RNG, honestly there is a constant tirade of people (Not just the OP) complaining because RNG does not favour them, thats the entire nature of RNG.  On a dice, some roll a 6 everytime, some do not, some dont roll a 6 for a loooong time.

This entire... 'I'm not getting the results I want, fix it' attitude is becoming soooo tiresome.  Some people win the lottery, some don't.  Learn to live with it.

By all means ask for a Doom/Gauntlet system but all this crap about 'favoured accounts' etc is just nonsense, its RNG, end of story.

Excuse me ?

This has nothing to do with "getting the results that one may want " but, rather, to have a mechanics that was to make some sense and logic....

Being at 100.0 Lockpicking skill is as good as it can get. It is the maximum possible.

If the Crystal Ball of Knowledge says that picking a given Lock ic "VERY EASY", what exactly is not clear about a task being "VERY EASY" if I may ask ?

There is only a lower level to "very easy" and it is, "too easy".

Now, to me, it makes ZERO sense, none, nada, that at maxed out skill, on a VERY EASY Lock to pick, yet, one has to fail 17 times in a row....

It-makes-no-sense-whatsoever to me !!

Now, if it was a Lock that was "too challenging" or even "challenging" I could possibly understand,  but on a task tagged as "VERY EASY" ?

No way.

It is just a wrong mechanics, to my opinion, one that gets a player to have to fail 17 times in a row on something which should be VERY EASILY achieved.

That is at least the way I see it.

The ball message refers to skill gains not % of success.

It is telling you won't gain skill.

@Mariah can link you to the ball info. And what those messages mean.

You are mixing two things that are not related.

The game mechanics do not allow you to be 100% successfull  at 100 lockpicking.  You have proven what others already know.

At 80 you are less successfull. 

UO works as intended. 

Now argue that the ball tells sucess chance instead of learning something.

popps said:

Yui_Zii_Ariya said:

This blows my mind...

"Something is really not right with the RNG Code...."

It's RNG, honestly there is a constant tirade of people (Not just the OP) complaining because RNG does not favour them, thats the entire nature of RNG.  On a dice, some roll a 6 everytime, some do not, some dont roll a 6 for a loooong time.

This entire... 'I'm not getting the results I want, fix it' attitude is becoming soooo tiresome.  Some people win the lottery, some don't.  Learn to live with it.

By all means ask for a Doom/Gauntlet system but all this crap about 'favoured accounts' etc is just nonsense, its RNG, end of story.

Excuse me ?

This has nothing to do with "getting the results that one may want " but, rather, to have a mechanics that was to make some sense and logic....

Being at 100.0 Lockpicking skill is as good as it can get. It is the maximum possible.

If the Crystal Ball of Knowledge says that picking a given Lock ic "VERY EASY", what exactly is not clear about a task being "VERY EASY" if I may ask ?

There is only a lower level to "very easy" and it is, "too easy".

Now, to me, it makes ZERO sense, none, nada, that at maxed out skill, on a VERY EASY Lock to pick, yet, one has to fail 17 times in a row....

It-makes-no-sense-whatsoever to me !!

Now, if it was a Lock that was "too challenging" or even "challenging" I could possibly understand,  but on a task tagged as "VERY EASY" ?

No way.

It is just a wrong mechanics, to my opinion, one that gets a player to have to fail 17 times in a row on something which should be VERY EASILY achieved.

If a task is labelled as "VERY EASY" well, THEN, guess what ?

It should be VERY EASILY done succesfully !!!

And infact, this is what happens with spells which, when VERY EASY to be cast, never fizzle and even when they do, it happens in really once in a blue moon, if even....

That is at least the way I see it.

Do you have any clue in that little brain of yours what is meant by RANDOM, no you do not.

Victim_Of_Siege said:

OMG  Now that is funny

Another popps thread where he's going to argue with people about "how he thinks things should work" vs how they really do work (as designed)....

IBTL

Mariah said:

https://uo.com/wiki/ultima-online-wiki/gameplay/quests/ortlem-the-mystic/

@ popps you are misunderstanding the message you receive @ Pawain is right, the messages relate to your chance of gaining skill from what you are attempting, not your chance of success in doing it.

I am not sure I grasp what the difference might be, though....

The Crystal Ball of Knowledge, when it says "VERY EASY", it does not refer to a "very easy" to gain skill.... infact, we all know, that the best chance to gain a skill is when the Crystal Ball of Knowledge says "OPTIMAL"....

Otherwise, if it referred to gaining the skill, the best chance at gaining skills would be when the message received was "TOO EASY"....

So, I need to conclude that, the message given by the Crystal Ball of Knowledge actually DOES refer to the task at hand... that is, at that given skill level, the opening of the Lock....

YET, even if that opening of a Lock at that skill level is indicated as "VERY EASY", still, one can fail 17 times in a row or, perhaps, even more....

@popps What sort of sick, perverse pleasure do you get from bringing up STUPID S**T over, and over, and over? Again, and again, and again. That NO ONE CARES ABOUT!!!! Just give it a F*****G rest.