test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Enchant fusion & tier 3 craft odds...my record log.
shamurai7
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 99
Hello all!
I'm usually not one to do this type of experiment. However after an experience of 7 consecutive failures on an enchant fusion I thought I'd start making a record of successes.
I also started logging successes of my cleric tier 3 profession crafting but have a MUCH smaller pool to get a true average.
First off the odds according to their 60% success rate of fusing tier 4 ->tier 5 enchants and failing 7 times is 0.163% or 16 in 10,000.
(.4 to the 7th power.)
Now for comparison the odds for success 7 times in a row at 60% success rate is 2.8%, or 280 in 10,000. This is unlikely but plausible.
(.6 to the 7th power.)
This to me seemed VERY strange unless i'm a mathematical anomaly.
So my results in fusing 194 tier 4 enchants and runes yielded 72 successes. This calculates to a 37% success rate. A LONG shot from the advertised 60%.
Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.... I believe in math.
I could continue this logging but I think I have a large enough pool to determine the truth.
And as promised my much smaller log of tier 3 profession crafting.
This is taken from cleric crafting specifically shirts and pants advertised @ 60% chance of tier 3.
Results of 12 attempts show 4 successes and 8 failures. This so far is an even 30% success rate against their advertised 60%.
Consider though the much smaller pool can yield less accurate results.
I felt obligated to share this with you all as a fellow gamer. It isn't proof of anything, but it is very strong evidence of a rigged lottery.
Good day.
Update 1: Here is a small update with recent additions over the last several days.
31 more tier 4->tier 5 fusions yielded 13 successes. Raising the average to a 38% success rate.
MORE IMPORTANTLY!
Tier 3 profession crafting........
6 more attempts yielded 1 success. This is an astounding 5 of 18. Lowering the average success to 28% vs the advertised 60%.
I've decided not to abandon this and keep updating it periodically until the trend changes and the devs fix the odds they advertise. They are false.
Update 2:
I stopped logging enchants... The trend seems to have changed and I think they snuck in a fix without telling us. However I have continued logging tier 3 professions and it is still just as bad.
12 more attempts yielded 3 successes. I am at a total of 8 out of 30, or 27% success rate vs the advertised 60%.
I recommend anyone investing in mithral profesion supplies to sell them off and forget about it. With the rising prices of dragon eggs you will statistically make roughly 20 thousand AD over the course of about 1 solid week of crafting for your massive 3+ million AD investment in purple assets.
The failed pieces net roughly 30 thousand loss per piece and successes net approximately 110k profit with an average sale. Subtract your average of 3 failures and your making 20k.
Sell your mithral junk before the majority catches on to the lie because no one will want to craft these shirts and pants once they realize the truth.
I'm usually not one to do this type of experiment. However after an experience of 7 consecutive failures on an enchant fusion I thought I'd start making a record of successes.
I also started logging successes of my cleric tier 3 profession crafting but have a MUCH smaller pool to get a true average.
First off the odds according to their 60% success rate of fusing tier 4 ->tier 5 enchants and failing 7 times is 0.163% or 16 in 10,000.
(.4 to the 7th power.)
Now for comparison the odds for success 7 times in a row at 60% success rate is 2.8%, or 280 in 10,000. This is unlikely but plausible.
(.6 to the 7th power.)
This to me seemed VERY strange unless i'm a mathematical anomaly.
So my results in fusing 194 tier 4 enchants and runes yielded 72 successes. This calculates to a 37% success rate. A LONG shot from the advertised 60%.
Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.... I believe in math.
I could continue this logging but I think I have a large enough pool to determine the truth.
And as promised my much smaller log of tier 3 profession crafting.
This is taken from cleric crafting specifically shirts and pants advertised @ 60% chance of tier 3.
Results of 12 attempts show 4 successes and 8 failures. This so far is an even 30% success rate against their advertised 60%.
Consider though the much smaller pool can yield less accurate results.
I felt obligated to share this with you all as a fellow gamer. It isn't proof of anything, but it is very strong evidence of a rigged lottery.
Good day.
Update 1: Here is a small update with recent additions over the last several days.
31 more tier 4->tier 5 fusions yielded 13 successes. Raising the average to a 38% success rate.
MORE IMPORTANTLY!
Tier 3 profession crafting........
6 more attempts yielded 1 success. This is an astounding 5 of 18. Lowering the average success to 28% vs the advertised 60%.
I've decided not to abandon this and keep updating it periodically until the trend changes and the devs fix the odds they advertise. They are false.
Update 2:
I stopped logging enchants... The trend seems to have changed and I think they snuck in a fix without telling us. However I have continued logging tier 3 professions and it is still just as bad.
12 more attempts yielded 3 successes. I am at a total of 8 out of 30, or 27% success rate vs the advertised 60%.
I recommend anyone investing in mithral profesion supplies to sell them off and forget about it. With the rising prices of dragon eggs you will statistically make roughly 20 thousand AD over the course of about 1 solid week of crafting for your massive 3+ million AD investment in purple assets.
The failed pieces net roughly 30 thousand loss per piece and successes net approximately 110k profit with an average sale. Subtract your average of 3 failures and your making 20k.
Sell your mithral junk before the majority catches on to the lie because no one will want to craft these shirts and pants once they realize the truth.
Post edited by shamurai7 on
0
Comments
Edit: cleaned up my post a bit
Um...those two are mathematically identical. You're saying "50% chance of heads applies to just one coin flip, not coin flips overall"
If you have a 60% chance of making each fusion, then while you can happily get loads of failures or successes in a row, the global average should always tend to 60%.
Umm, you never studied anything more advanced then adding and extracting on maths, did you?
To get a statistically accurate view, you need a much larger pool, not silly and horrible extrapolation from a try that can give you about any result.
Take a coin, throw it 5 times, you'll get say 4 heads and 1 tails, does that mean there is 80% probability of getting heads in 10.000 throws? According to your horribly flawed logic, yes. Meanwhile if you ACTUALLY did 10.000 throws you would be very close to 50% for heads or tails, which is accurate.
Same case here. If you had 7 successful combines would you say its 100% rate? Well, you probably would, but you would still be horribly mistaken.
Sorry, but your "tests" hold absolutely no value statistically UNLESS you really do 100-200 or preferably more fusions.
And no, you aren't mathematical anomaly, you just have no clue about mathematic and statistic.
...or at least, "in the region of 60%". With 194 repeats, the chance of getting 37% or lower is very, very small.
He's 12 man... don't argue with him. He said 'maths'.
I'm aware my pool for enchants was plenty large enough. There should be no more than a 10% discrepancy. This tells me at most the true success rate is no higher than 47%....and at worst 27%.
I think the true success is probably 40 and not 60.
Yea, I have missed that somehow, I suppose I can take back few words I've said earlier, his results should be better then, but still I'd keep counting for the sake of math, the bigger pool of tries, the more accurate the outcome. I've done way to many statistic calculations to think that pools that go below 1k repeats are reliable in any way.
He is talking about rank 3 to rank 4...Pretty sure rank 2 has a 90% success rate so not really surprised you don't fail on them...I don't either except on a rare occasion.
I said rank2 was the only enchant I've had fail, not that rank 2 is the only enchant I've ever done. I have had the luck of not having a rank 4 or 5 fail yet. :rolleyes:
PD: i'm not native speaker so sorry about my english
So first you say that he needs to have done 100 at least, and then when it is pointed out he did 200, you change the goal posts......
My mind keeps a mental note of rough odds and 5 ->6 feels about right where it should be.
I wasn't inspired to track 4 ->5 until the 7 failures in a row.
I'll continue to track tier 3 crafting though because it doesn't 'feel' right so far. It would probably take me alone another year to get a reputable result from crafting though.
No, not really, I have addressed his 7 tries with the 100-200 thing, then added he would need to do much more anyway to get accurate result, I know selective reading is very comfortable, but what comes after coma is just as important in a sentence, so for the future please, read it all. And silveralucard said why. 200 repeats would give more accurate result, but would still leave a wide gap for error and look, its enough to be closer to the goal, but small enough to still show basically anything and exactly that happened. Repeating tries for as much as he can do(preferably thousands for most accurate result) would give the real outcome, but I doubt he or anyone would have the patience. I know I wouldn't.
I knew I was of course skewed very slightly by choosing to start with my initial 7 failures. I'm still convinced it's a 40% success rate. I do plenty of game development and I know how easy it is to let a mistake like that into your product.
However in this circumstance i'm offended because this costs players expensive green wards. Or even gives players a false sense of advantage.
The graphical user interface for this has NOTHING to do with the math happening in the background.
Without access to their numbers I can't prove anything.
Perhaps i'll look into the game files tonight... I almost guarantee though that this data is stored server side to protect from exploits though.
Let's hope they're not cynical and sneaky, eh? :P
A totally agree with skill kits....I got a very nasty vibe from them after my first 20 or so.....
Without even collecting data on these I can promise anyone that the 75% is a lie. I wasn't so concerned about these because they don't effect the players in such a negative way as enchant fusing does.
And how would you explain scoring 5 critical hits in row with 25% chance in your stats? As soon as you crit once your crit goes to 100% for next few hits?
Thats how chances work. Each try is independent, you can have a string of crits or no crit at all for lengthy time or actually one crit for every 4 attacks. What is a good way to tell how it works? A huge sample size with small error gap.
Your absolutely correct, but most people will not grasp that concept. Many will swear that previous results have an effect on subsequent results.
This can only apply in finite sample data such as drawing clubs from a deck of cards... The more clubs you pull the less likely youll pull another because the sample size of clubs was lessened by 1.
In the game though this doesn't apply. Your not drawing numbers from a hat with 100 pieces of paper marked 'win' or 'lose'.
Each drawing in the game starts you with a fresh 100 chances. (At least I hope that's how it works unless they have some jank system they are using.)
But only with a significant amount of test data - 194 tests is nothing even like a significant amount of test data it is likely there are millions of fusions attempted each week and probably 10s of millions since the game launched. Maybe if you tested 500 000 fusions you would see better results, but 194 simply is not a significant sample.
Yes it is.
But it does average to the advertised amount. That I know for fact because I've done... god knows how many thousands of fusions for profit. And I'm not the type to gamble... so I calculated the projected costs and profits and, in the long run, I always came out with what I was counting on. Only very minor variation across large enough volumes.
But I did have huge streaks. Exceedingly improbable streaks. In both directions.
With a 40% fail chance every fuse it's not even close to a large enough sample to draw any accurate conclusions...
Some people have no understanding of inferential statistics or probability, it isn't worth wasting our time trying to explain to them if they are not willing to listen.