Ok, ty.
So it means we are talking about unlimited completely independent rolls which in the long run (number of rolls large enough) are supposed to get closer and closer to the predefined chance of success, let's say 30%. Shorter streaks can result in anything between zero and 100%.
Which means that if an event is short enough and/or the number of rolls is small enough, there is certain chance that each and every roll could be fail. And from just these fails there is no way to affirm if these fails represent just one of very unlucky shorter streaks as a part of unlimited independent rolls or if fails are actually caused by bad code. (Same logic applies if all rolls are successful.)
I understand your data showed (I assume) a reasonably enough data from enough players with just fails that made players angry and maybe GF suspicious.
But I still wonder what would happen if those same players with same number of tries would reach a 15% success chance (you u can choose any percentage not very close to 30%) and if 15% success would be the end result even after a month of the event. Would GF consider that a bad coding as well? What about 45%?
Display More
Let's take it easy:
Take the current rates: 33% chance of success
So u can say 2 out of 6 tries are successfully.
Now take a dice with 6 faces. Your goal is to roll a 1 or a 2 (in that case your stigma wents up). If you roll a 3, 4, 5 and 6 it fails.
If you throw the dice 20 times, you can be lucky and get 20 times a 1 or 2, but you can also fail 20 times. Both is possible.
If you throw the dice 100 times, it is very unlikely you hit 100% success or fail, but still it is possible. The higher your number of rolls the more you will see the contribution will be like 33% success, 66% fail.