We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
    Don't forget your lucky rabbit's foot and your horseshoe! And never craft after you've walked under a ladder or broken a mirror.
    Good point. Normandy in World War II could have taken 17 tries to success from a RNG standpoint. But these were determined craftsmen and even though the defensive emplacements were left intact because of error, the ground forces made it happen. Now apply this thought to LOTRO craftsmen and you'll see the fault in RNG behaviour determining failure 17 times in a row.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Balcony View Post
    Good point. Normandy in World War II could have taken 17 tries to success from a RNG standpoint. But these were determined craftsmen and even though the defensive emplacements were left intact because of error, the ground forces made it happen. Now apply this thought to LOTRO craftsmen and you'll see the fault in RNG behaviour determining failure 17 times in a row.
    Two things here:

    1) You're blurring success and critical success. Normandy was a successful attack in spite of environmental conditions, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a "critical success"; it was no Cannae. Bear in mind that LOTRO craftsman also never actually fail to produce a success; they never have things go sideways and produce useless slag. If you're going to use any sort of real-world comparison, you have to balance the decreased sense of control over critical successes against the lack of chance to fail.

    I'll offer a counter-example; Robert Lee's first invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania in the American Civil War. By all rights, given the relative talent ("skill of the craftsman") on both sides, Lee's invasion should have resulted in a "critical success"; he had McClellan out of position and moving too slowly, Jackson had already taken Harper's Ferry and resupplied fully for the first time in a year, and France and the UK were on the cusp of recognition and intervention. It was a chance to win the war outright.

    Then the cigars happened; a copy of Lee's Field Order 191, detailing his plans for the invasion, as well as the fact that he'd divided his force into multiple, widely-separated columns, was found by a group of Union scouts wrapped around a few cigars. This was the ideal opportunity for McClellan to overwhelm the separate columns and destroy them in detail, completely destroying the Army of Northern Virginia, which ALSO would have had the real effect of ending the war. McClellen himself said (paraphrased) "If I can't beat Lee with this, I'll resign and go home". In military terms, it was exactly like buying a 100% crit scroll from the LOTRO store.

    All that came of it was the Battle of Sharpsburg, the bloodiest single day of the entire war. McClellan (like always) moved too tentatively, giving Lee a chance to re consolidate some of his forces and his position, and essentially conduct a running point defense the entire day. McClellan also failed to commit his reserves at critical points, and the battle was essentially a standoff (although it was celebrated in the North as a victory). Lee's invasion was stopped, but he managed to withdraw his forces intact. McClellan stopped the invasion, but failed to deliver a killing blow.

    Lee had by far the better plan and greater skill, but due to an accident (well, officers with sloppy document security), "failed his roll". McClellan essentially had an auto-crit scroll, but through timidity, still failed his roll. Which one should the game emulate more?

    That's the problem with applying real-world examples to game mechanics; you can always find a counter-example

    2) Skill of the craftsman is already accounted for in the increased crit chance. I get where you feel it maybe should be adjusted to give that skill more weight on the dice, but again, contrast that with the lack of failure.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by clappi View Post
    I guess as far as math is concerned the RNG is WAI as well. This is exactly how pure randomness works; the behavior you describe matches actual dice. You have to get a fairly large sample size before you can really draw any conclusions or see any notion of pure randomness in the sample. Do you have such data somewhere that makes you think otherwise? I'd be happy to take a look at it with you.

    Let's assume the RNG/etc is working fine for the moment. If 100,000 people logged in per day, and lets say 1 in 10 craft just four gathering items (i.e. crit rate is 5%), we'd expect to see 22 quad-crits per year (by contrast we'd probably expect around 26K triple-crits per year). If we up the numbers of crafted gathering items to 40 then we'd expect to see at least 170 quad-crits per year (in this case upping the crafting count by 10x would actually provide a greater increase than simply increasing the crafters by 10x... but I haven't sat down to figure out by exactly how much). Now while these login/crafting numbers are completely arbitrary, hopefully they give some insight into how rare, or common, such events can be.

    *EDIT: For those interested, it looks like if we increased the number of crafted items to 40 in the above example we should expect 2-3 (more often 2 than 3) people see one or more quad-crits per day (or quad-fail to crit with a 95% crit chance)... approximately 867 per year.

    I'm not saying there is no bug. I have no way of knowing that. But I haven't seen anything here yet that would make me think something's necessarily broken. If we want to get Turbine to look at something we need to give them something more compelling than what's been posted in this thread (and almost all threads of this nature). Anyone feel like writing a plugin to log RNG-related stats? Folks could then more easily volunteer hard data for analysis.

    There is a problem with the RNG! Your or Turbine's failure in seeing it does not negate it!

    The problem is how the RNG handles low freguency attempts. In using my dice example to compare to the OP's 95% crit chance the OP would have a 1 in 20 chance in none critting on each attempt made. In other words a successfull crit in dice terms would be any roll of 1 - 19, only a roll of 20 would result in failure. The OP did that 4 times in a row. Therefore, the RNG had the OP roll four 20s in a row! Although the odds of doing so are not impossible, the problem with the RNG is that these events occur more offen than statistically they should!

    My proof is my own experience in the game. I have been playing Lotro since June of 2007. My primary style of game play is crafting. I have crafted thousands of items over that time. What I have found is that the occurrence of these rare events like the example given by the OP happen more often than statistical probabilities would suggest.

    Unfortunately, I have not keep the data to support my claim, but I have found many on these forums and on other forums across the internet to have experienced similar issues with Turbine's RNG that do support it.

    I do not pretend to know the code Turbine uses to determine random number outcomes. My experience with it suggests that it works very well over larger frequency sizes. But apparently the code allows individuals like the OP, myself and many others to have either bad strings of luck or good strings of luck just too often!

    It is the occurrence of those strings that is at issue here!

    How many times in terms of lotro crafting events would a given individual roll four 20s in a row on a 20 sided dice as the RNG is trying to emulate? Answer: Rarely!
    The thing is that I have already done something equivalent to the OP's experience several times in just 6 years of playing when statistically it should have happened only once or none at all over that course of time. And it is not just me this is happening to as pointed out in this thread and the many others made regarding this phenomenon.

    So, how do you explain this???

    Welden
    Last edited by jorlan; Aug 15 2013 at 08:22 AM.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by jorlan View Post
    There is a problem with the RNG! Your or Turbine's failure in seeing it does not negate it!

    The problem is how the RNG handles low freguency attempts. In using my dice example to compare to the OP's 95% crit chance the OP would have a 1 in 20 chance in none critting on each attempt made. In other words a successfull crit in dice terms would be any roll of 1 - 19, only a roll of 20 would result in failure. The OP did that 4 times in a row. Therefore, the RNG had the OP roll four 20s in a row! Although the odds of doing so are not impossible, the problem with the RNG is that these events occur more offen than statistically they should!

    My proof is my own experience in the game. I have been playing Lotro since June of 2007. My primary style of game play is crafting. I have crafted thousands of items over that time. What I have found is that the occurrence of these rare events like the example given by the OP happen more often than statistical probabilities would suggest.

    Unfortunately, I have not keep the data to support my claim, but I have found many on these forums and on other forums across the internet to have experienced similar issues with Turbine's RNG that do support it.

    I do not pretend to know the code Turbine uses to determine random number outcomes. My experience with it suggests that it works very well over larger frequency sizes. But apparently the code allows individuals like the OP, myself and many others to have either bad strings of luck or good strings of luck just too often!

    It is the occurrence of those strings that is at issue here!

    How many times in terms of lotro crafting events would a given individual roll four 20s in a row on a 20 sided dice as the RNG is trying to emulate? Answer: Rarely!
    The thing is that I have already done something equivalent to the OP's experience several times in just 6 years of playing when statistically it should have happened only once or none at all over that course of time. And it is not just me this is happening to as pointed out in this thread and the many others made regarding this phenomenon.

    So, how do you explain this???

    Welden
    So, let me paraphrase, make sure I've got this right:

    Whether you admit it or not, there's a problem. My proof is entirely anecdotal, and I didn't keep any of it, but YOU need to understand that there's absolutely, definitely a problem whether proof is provided or not, because the distribution trends to the expected more over large samples than small samples (even though that's Statistics 101). Never mind the math, I know it's wrong.

    Are we on the same page?
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    So, let me paraphrase, make sure I've got this right:

    Whether you admit it or not, there's a problem. My proof is entirely anecdotal, and I didn't keep any of it, but YOU need to understand that there's absolutely, definitely a problem whether proof is provided or not, because the distribution trends to the expected more over large samples than small samples (even though that's Statistics 101). Never mind the math, I know it's wrong.

    Are we on the same page?
    Excuse me!!!

    It is MY EXPERIENCE with this game that supports my claim! It is the experience of others on these forums and elsewhere that also supports it! This is something I have followed through the course of my gaming experience here! I just didnt make it up! If I had then there would have been NO posts made by me in this thread!

    There is a problem or perhaps better stated...there is an indication that there is a problem!

    Now to the math...

    To have a 95% crit chance is like rolling a 1-19 on a 20 sided dice. Therefore, a roll of 20 results in a failure.

    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in one roll? Answer: 1 in 20 or 5%
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in two rolls? Answer: 1 in 400 { 1/(20x20)} or .25%
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in three rolls? Answer: 1 in 8,000 { 1/(20x20x20)} or .0125%
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in four rolls? Answer: 1 in 160,000 { 1/(20x20x20x20)} or .000625%

    Now to the math behind my claim...

    If I were to attempt a 95% crit in game using only 4 attempts each try how aften would I fail in every 1000 attempts? Answer: 1 in 160 { 1000 x 1/(20x20x20x20)} or .625%

    As I stated I have crafted 1000s of items over the course of my gaming life in Lotro. I have had these streaks occur many times, too many times as the math will show.

    My question: What are the chances of rolling four 20s in a row multiple times (lets say 4) over all my crafting life in lotro (this roll of the die situation represents a failed attempt). Since I have crafted thousands of times and for the sake of simplification, I am going to use 10,000 as my sample size. I will break down my crafting sample size into 4 parts also for simplification and to clarify my point.

    Objective: I want to achieve 4 total times the 4 consecutive rolls of 20 in 10,000 attempts.

    In the first part of this attempt I accomplish my task in the first 1000 rolls. What are the odds of doing so? Answer as shown above: 1 in 160
    In the second part of this attempt I accomplish my task in the next 4000 rolls. What are the odds in doing so? Answer: 1 in 40 { 4000 x 1/(20x20x20x20)} or 2.5%
    In the third part of this attempt I accomplish my task in the next 1000 rolls. What are the odds? Answer: again 1 in 160
    In the fourth and final part of this attempt I accomplish my task in the last 4000 rolls. What are the odds? Answer: again 1 in 40

    So, now what are the overall odds of rolling four consecutive rolls of 20 four times in 10,000 tries as outlined above (1000 + 4000 + 1000 + 4000 = 10,000)?

    Answer: Here is the math simplified (1/160 x 1/40 x 1/160 x 1/40) = 1/40,960,000. THAT IS ALMOST 1 IN 41 MILLION!!!

    I have accomplished this or similiar many times in my crafting experience and apparently many others who craft have as well.

    My contention...too many!

    So, my conclusion is that the RNG works as intended over the greater range of the number of occurrences it computes but breaks down on the lesser! My earlier statement is that Turbine's RNG would never fly in places like Las Vegas because it seems to me that the computer code of the RNG is still not on par to the good old fashion rolling of the die.
    Last edited by welden; Aug 15 2013 at 12:08 PM.
    Welden of Elendilmir

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by welden View Post
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in one roll? Answer: 1 in 20 or 5%
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in two rolls? Answer: 1 in 400 { 1/(20x20)} or .25%
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in three rolls? Answer: 1 in 8,000 { 1/(20x20x20)} or .0125%
    What are the chances of rolling a 20 in four rolls? Answer: 1 in 160,000 { 1/(20x20x20x20)} or .000625%
    As has been stated multiple times this math is incorrect because there's only one RNG for every event in the game. That means that while the RNG is picking for numbers for your crafting, it's picking dozens, if not hundreds, of numbers for other players at the same time in between those rolls. That means you're not rolling a 20 four times in a row. It means you're rolling a 20, a bunch of other people are also rolling numbers, and by the time it comes around to you again (when your second item is crafted) you get a 20 again.

    Odds are low that you'd get four 20s in a row. Odds are significantly higher when you consider that there happens to be a bunch of numbers in between those 20s.
    [CENTER][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v341/tindragon/Base.png[/IMG]
    Steam: Sneakeh Snake[/CENTER]

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by TinDragon View Post
    As has been stated multiple times this math is incorrect because there's only one RNG for every event in the game. That means that while the RNG is picking for numbers for your crafting, it's picking dozens, if not hundreds, of numbers for other players at the same time in between those rolls. That means you're not rolling a 20 four times in a row. It means you're rolling a 20, a bunch of other people are also rolling numbers, and by the time it comes around to you again (when your second item is crafted) you get a 20 again.

    Odds are low that you'd get four 20s in a row. Odds are significantly higher when you consider that there happens to be a bunch of numbers in between those 20s.
    If this is the case then there in lies the problem....

    Yet there are trillions (if not more) of random events that happen at any given moment in real life. Do these random events in life's RNG affect our own randomly determined outcomes? It shouldnt...at least I dont believe it does from what I have experienced. So how is Turbine's RNG different in this regard?

    Example: If someone rolls three 7s in a row in Nebraska will that affect whether or not I roll three 7s in Vegas?

    Interesting point you have brought up...
    Last edited by welden; Aug 15 2013 at 12:30 PM.
    Welden of Elendilmir

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by TinDragon View Post
    As has been stated multiple times this math is incorrect because there's only one RNG for every event in the game. That means that while the RNG is picking for numbers for your crafting, it's picking dozens, if not hundreds, of numbers for other players at the same time in between those rolls. That means you're not rolling a 20 four times in a row. It means you're rolling a 20, a bunch of other people are also rolling numbers, and by the time it comes around to you again (when your second item is crafted) you get a 20 again.

    Odds are low that you'd get four 20s in a row. Odds are significantly higher when you consider that there happens to be a bunch of numbers in between those 20s.
    This is irrelevant unless you are claiming the RNG has a problem with streaks (i.e. is not providing independent random samples), in which case not picking sequential samples is actually going to improve your randomness.

    If the RNG is working fine your odds of getting four 20's in a row are the same as randomly picking four 20's out of a random string of random samples.
    If the RNG is streaky your odds of getting four 20's in a row increases if random samples are not taken between yours.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by welden View Post
    Example: If someone rolls three 7s in a row in Nebraska will that affect whether or not I roll three 7s in Vegas?
    Since they're using different die, no. (That'd be more along the lines of someone crafting on Silverlode affecting your crafting on Elendilmir.) A better example would be if someone rolling three 7s across the table from you in Vegas would affect your odds of rolling three 7s. Are the odds attached to the die, the person rolling, or both?

    Basically, what I'm saying is there's no bug in the actual system. Is it implemented properly? Who knows, but probably not. But is it working the way it's intended to be working based on their implementation plan? Pretty high chance of a 'yes' there.

    Side question: I read through most of the posts here but I might have missed it, so... did the OP ever come back and explain exactly what he was crafting with a 95% crit chance?
    Last edited by TinDragon; Aug 15 2013 at 12:43 PM.
    [CENTER][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v341/tindragon/Base.png[/IMG]
    Steam: Sneakeh Snake[/CENTER]

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by TinDragon View Post
    As has been stated multiple times this math is incorrect because there's only one RNG for every event in the game. That means that while the RNG is picking for numbers for your crafting, it's picking dozens, if not hundreds, of numbers for other players at the same time in between those rolls. That means you're not rolling a 20 four times in a row. It means you're rolling a 20, a bunch of other people are also rolling numbers, and by the time it comes around to you again (when your second item is crafted) you get a 20 again.

    Odds are low that you'd get four 20s in a row. Odds are significantly higher when you consider that there happens to be a bunch of numbers in between those 20s.
    Actually the math he provided was the definition of independence P(A and B)=P(A)xP(B) and has nothing to do with the values being in a row. Now I’m no expert for RNGs, but independence would be one of the first things I would aim for, right after matching expectation in large quantities.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by welden View Post
    Excuse me!!!

    It is MY EXPERIENCE with this game that supports my claim! It is the experience of others on these forums and elsewhere that also supports it! This is something I have followed through the course of my gaming experience here! I just didnt make it up! If I had then there would have been NO posts made by me in this thread!
    Right...which is why I said "anecdotal evidence". "This is what I've seen happen to me" is anecdotal. Doesn't mean you're making what happened to you up, just means that it is what it is.

    Know when the cumulative weight of anecdotes adds up to fact? The answer is "never".

    Why does that matter? Again, I understand Turbine's resources are finite; I don't want Turbine spending resources to run off and validate their RNG functionality every time somebody has anecdotal evidence (meaning, they saw something that they didn't expect) that it's broken. I don't want them doing it every time 20 people have anecdotal evidence that it's happening.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by welden View Post
    If I were to attempt a 95% crit in game using only 4 attempts each try how aften would I fail in every 1000 attempts? Answer: 1 in 160 { 1000 x 1/(20x20x20x20)} or .625%
    I recommend checking around for some statistics primers. This line of math does not hold up. If you have a 10% chance something will happen and you try it 10 times you do not have a 100% chance it will happen.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by clappi View Post
    I recommend checking around for some statistics primers. This line of math does not hold up. If you have a 10% chance something will happen and you try it 10 times you do not have a 100% chance it will happen.
    How are these 'stats'.
    We found that this had a lot of problems where players would run into streaks, and they only remembered the ####ty streaks. So what we decided to do was we took a page out of Warcraft 3, which had a very elegant design which they referred to as 'progressive percentages.' ...In Lich King, every creature that is part of the collection quest has the item 100% of the time, but we do a progressive system where we up the chance the player [gets the item] each time he kills it.
    http://www.wowwiki.com/RNG

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by welden View Post
    Objective: I want to achieve 4 total times the 4 consecutive rolls of 20 in 10,000 attempts.
    <incorrect>You should, on average, beat this. On average a person would see 6-7 (more often 6 than 7) four consecutive rolls of any given number in 10,000 samples.</incorrect>
    On average a person would see 6-7 (more often 6 than 7) four consecutive rolls of any given number in 1,000,000 samples.

    *EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, this means that the average person would see, on average, 6-7 four-consecutive-20's and 6-7 four-consecutive-19's and 6-7 four-consecutive-18's, etc, over those 1,000,000 attempts (a total of 4,000,000 rolls).
    Last edited by clappi; Aug 15 2013 at 09:33 PM.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  15. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Balcony View Post
    How are these 'stats'.

    http://www.wowwiki.com/RNG
    Cool. I'm not refuting any kind of notion that there may be a problem somewhere.So far all "evidence" has not shown any kind of indicator of one. I'm merely trying to express that when some folks have bad rolls thought to be so outlandishly rare that the only explanation is a bug in the RNG is not necessarily true, and that the likelihood is perhaps more common than they may think.

    Regardless, bad math can lead folks to a disillusioned sense of dissatisfaction. I'm only trying to alleviate that sense by showing the correct math.

    *EDIT: That post you linked seems to hold up that only the bad rolls are remembered, and so are held unfairly in the spotlight as proof the RNG is unfair. Perhaps that was your intent and I misinterpreted your post. In any case, it says nothing to the math bug I was correcting.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Balcony View Post
    How are these 'stats'.
    That may be an elegant system, but it's not random...it's deterministic. What you quoted basically said "players were remembering only the bad streaks, and it made them THINK the RNG was broken. So, we instituted a non-random system that eliminates that complaint/perception".

    As said before, determinism is a perfectly acceptable way to design success chances in a video game...it certainly works better at giving players their expected distribution over small samples.

    Just don't use it as an example of a "well-designed RNG", because nothing about it is random. If you want determinism, say so.
    Last edited by Ailedra; Aug 15 2013 at 02:20 PM.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by clappi View Post
    You should, on average, beat this. On average a person would see 6-7 (more often 6 than 7) four consecutive rolls of any given number in 10,000 samples.

    *EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, this means that the average person would see, on average, 6-7 four-consecutive-20's and 6-7 four-consecutive-19's and 6-7 four-consecutive-18's, etc, over those 10,000 attempts (a total of 40,000 rolls).
    I'm not sure how you got this result since you didn't even outline your calculation but as I see it we do 4 throws 10,000 times, the probability that one throw is a 20 is 1/20 the probability that all 4 throws are 20 are (1/20)^4, so the probability that any of the 4 throws is not 20 is 1-(1/20)^4 and the probability that this happens 10,000-times is (1-(1/20)^4)^10,000 this is the probability that we get no 4 20s in 10,000 attempts and it is rougly 0.939, so the probability of getting 4 20s at least once in 10,000 attempts is roughly 6.1%.

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by fusei View Post
    I'm not sure how you got this result since you didn't even outline your calculation but as I see it we do 4 throws 10,000 times, the probability that one throw is a 20 is 1/20 the probability that all 4 throws are 20 are (1/20)^4, so the probability that any of the 4 throws is not 20 is 1-(1/20)^4 and the probability that this happens 10,000-times is (1-(1/20)^4)^10,000 this is the probability that we get no 4 20s in 10,000 attempts and it is rougly 0.939, so the probability of getting 4 20s at least once in 10,000 attempts is roughly 6.1%.
    If you have a 1% chance of something happening and you do 100 samples you will, on average, see 1 occurrence. If you have a 0.000625% chance of something happening and you do 10,000 samples you will see, on average, 6-7 occurrences (more often 6 than 7), or 6.25 occurrences if you ignore the fact you cannot have a partial occurrence in a binomial population.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by clappi View Post
    If you have a 1% chance of something happening and you do 100 samples you will, on average, see 1 occurrence. If you have a 0.000625% chance of something happening and you do 10,000 samples you will see, on average, 6-7 occurrences (more often 6 than 7), or 6.25 occurrences if you ignore the fact you cannot have a partial occurrence in a binomial population.
    See that's why you always should include the calculation 0.000625% = 0.00000625 if you take that times 10,000 you have an expectd value of 0.0625 so much less than 1.

  20. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by clappi View Post
    ...
    Regardless, bad math can lead folks to a disillusioned sense of dissatisfaction. I'm only trying to alleviate that sense by showing the correct math.
    ...
    The problem isn't correct or incorrect math. Some crafters think 4 failures in a row at a high percentage of success is ridiculous from a users standpoint. As usual that can be something that needs correcting or not. It's LOTRO's decision to make not ours.

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Balcony View Post
    The problem isn't correct or incorrect math. Some crafters think 4 failures in a row at a high percentage of success is ridiculous from a users standpoint. As usual that can be something that needs correcting or not. It's LOTRO's decision to make not ours.
    Yes, I agree with all this. The root problem Turbine has is one of customer satisfaction. In the end it does not matter how the math works out. But I didn't want people thinking if they only achieved 10% wins on a 10% chance that something was broken.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by fusei View Post
    See that's why you always should include the calculation 0.000625% = 0.00000625 if you take that times 10,000 you have an expectd value of 0.0625 so much less than 1.
    Oops. Yes, I'm sorry. My calculation there was wrong.
    [CENTER]Othrandir[/CENTER]
    [CENTER]Resistance - Brandywine[/CENTER]

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    62
    Just bad luck buddy.

    But if it makes you feel better, I once got 9 crits in a row with a 5% chance
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0520a0000001dd81c/signature.png]Elistirne[/charsig]

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload