.01% x 100 = 1%. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't make a difference if you run once or 1 million times, the chances of a drop remain the same as they are not cumulative. If the belt drops at a rate of .01% chance and assuming everyone chooses need, you'll have a .002% chance of winning it.
I know they are not cumulative, otherwise my answer would have been 1% chance and not 10%, no, what I did was I stuck the numbers into the formula I posted above to calculate the chance of succeeding by the 100th try and I got out the numbers, surprisingly, if you were aiming to get just 1 belt, that is your chance of getting it, in a 100 tries. Go back a few posts if you want to see the explanation.
The sum is the chance of succeeding within four rolls. The percentage for each roll is the chance of that roll being the successful one.
In the case of rolling four-sided dice, the percentage number is the chance of that step being the one where we finally roll a 1. It gets smaller for each subsequent branch because there's an increasing chance of discounting those branches.
No. Because in the case that you roll a 1, subsequent rolls don't exist. The first roll has a 100% chance of existing and a 25% chance of success; 25%. The second roll has a 75% chance of existing and a 25% chance of success. Each additional step eats another multiplicative 25% from the next step. This does not impact the numbers from the previous steps; the first roll will always have a 25% chance of being the successful one in an unknown number of rolls. The chance of the second roll being successful is reduced by removing all those branches in which the first roll was successful (25% of all branches); the chance of the third roll being successful is reduced by another 25%, and so on.
Imagine this being a casino-style game: You get a table similar to roulette, with say, seven fields on it. The first six fields corresponds to six rolls, the seventh corresponds to "does not succeed within six rolls." The game is to roll a four-sided die until it comes up a 1. What is the likelihood of winning if you place your bet on the third field? (That is also the number he initially stated as being the chance of succeeding ON a given roll.)
I understand what you getting at, yes, the probability of that branch being the likely one does decrease each time, but that is simply because it becomes more and more likely that you will have succeeded before. The fact that that particular branch is less likely to be the successful one the the prior branch doesn't in any way actually effect the fact that the probability of succeeding is still 1/4 on that branch though. In that particular branch, the number of possible outcomes will always be 4 times larger then the number of successful outcomes, as for example in my previous post with the example of the 3/16, the probability of it succeeding on that failed branch is 3/12 not 3/16, as there are only 12 possible outcomes on that branch.
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited November 2014
Now someone just needs to explain how to calculate the probability of succeeding k number of times after n number of tries in a way such that I actually understand it That's one thing in statistics I have never understood well at all.
*edit, is it possible for a mod to move all of this probability stuff into its own thread in the correct section of the forums? I feel it has gone off topic (sorry chem ) but i feel the content discussed still has merit for a discussion of its own separately
There are times I wish this forum would allow us to vote on how well a given post was written (good or bad). I agree with all of your points; and it is those points along with problems in matchmaking with PVP (not class performance in general, but more so with matchmaking) that I don't continue to invest money in this game (they received $20 from me). I've only been playing since late August / early September of this year (I didn't write the start date down), and it is starting to weigh on me for how grindy it is to get anywhere once you get to 60.
By the way, I do appreciate your guides and input; between you and Kalec, I think a lot of ground is covered.
Thank you.
Thanks very much man!
Many forums have some sort of reputation meter, where you can vote people positive or negative based upon our posts. I wish we had that here so we could
a) Listen to the people who are actually helpful
and
b) Ignore the trolls.
About guides - i just published my new mod 5 guide, check it out! I think i made a lot of improvements that will make it more useful to you.
About PvP - I think a good matchmaking system would solve a ton of problems. How about you have a rating, they match teams and players of similar rating, and your rating is adjusted based upon ONLY wins and losses. Seems simple, right?
When they put out tenacity, I thought, great... a very complicated solution to a very complicated solution to a very simple problem. They overthought it IMO
That's off topic for this thread, but thank you. I appreciate it.
Many forums have some sort of reputation meter, where you can vote people positive or negative based upon our posts. I wish we had that here so we could
a) Listen to the people who are actually helpful
and
b) Ignore the trolls.
About guides - i just published my new mod 5 guide, check it out! I think i made a lot of improvements that will make it more useful to you.
About PvP - I think a good matchmaking system would solve a ton of problems. How about you have a rating, they match teams and players of similar rating, and your rating is adjusted based upon ONLY wins and losses. Seems simple, right?
When they put out tenacity, I thought, great... a very complicated solution to a very complicated solution to a very simple problem. They overthought it IMO
That's off topic for this thread, but thank you. I appreciate it.
In some ways I like upvoted comments to see what is most agreed upon, however I also think the system can suck because generally people can really suck. It turns into a popularity content. If people disagree with you, even if your post is constructive or for the best for the game.
Two examples:
1) "Perma stealth is OP because...", that would instantly get downvoted by the TRs just because they don't like what they here even if some of the perma stealth changed should and are being changed.
2) "cockatrice needs to be fixed". If it genuinely is broken or isn't working as intended then people will downvote you just because they won't want it nerfed. For the cockatrice it may not matter as much since the ones that don't own it are more than the ones that do. If it's something that the majority have and is too strong, you'll get downvoted for it.
I personally find downvoting quite rude that should be reserved for those that are toxic, spamming etc rather than a difference in opinion.
As for pvp balancing I think there's too many variables now. We have extremely strong glyphs, an extremely massive gs gap, a big difference in skill effectiveness, pots that imo should be usable in pvp. Personally I think it's turned into a balancing nightmare.
0
chemboy613Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,521Arc User
In some ways I like upvoted comments to see what is most agreed upon, however I also think the system can suck because generally people can really suck. It turns into a popularity content. If people disagree with you, even if your post is constructive or for the best for the game.
Two examples:
1) "Perma stealth is OP because...", that would instantly get downvoted by the TRs just because they don't like what they here even if some of the perma stealth changed should and are being changed.
2) "cockatrice needs to be fixed". If it genuinely is broken or isn't working as intended then people will downvote you just because they won't want it nerfed. For the cockatrice it may not matter as much since the ones that don't own it are more than the ones that do. If it's something that the majority have and is too strong, you'll get downvoted for it.
I personally find downvoting quite rude that should be reserved for those that are toxic, spamming etc rather than a difference in opinion.
As for pvp balancing I think there's too many variables now. We have extremely strong glyphs, an extremely massive gs gap, a big difference in skill effectiveness, pots that imo should be usable in pvp. Personally I think it's turned into a balancing nightmare.
This is a good criticism as well. I would like to have a warning sign "THIS PERSON IS A TROLL" and "THIS PERSON IS KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HELPFUL" would be nice.
I'm not sure what the best system for that is, but i would like one
PvP balance is a nightmare for sure. That's why i say just match up on something like a ranking. you get points for win and loss. If the sample size is large enough it "should" match people of similar strength.
I have just been to preview and refinment stones are still bound on account. So I guess they will stick to their decisions.
Of course they do. Also I wouldn't expect any generosity such as reduced RP requirements, increased RP drop rates and the likes. Short/Mid Term Profit > Player Happyness (= Long Term Profit).
Why is that? he posted on Friday the 7th of November that he would talk to the developers on Monday , how is that a curious leap of logic? he didn't say " oh I'll talk to the developers a week next Monday" at this point we have been waiting a week for him to get back to us with the results of that followup.
0
chemboy613Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,521Arc User
To be fair, he may not have had much power over those decisions. I mean the forums did have quite a number of people accept that it would be happening and provided feedback to improve the current system which of course takes them time if they were to even consider it.
0
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
edited November 2014
And just because he said he'd bring it up with them doesn't mean that we get to be privy to that discussion.
If anything changes, it's going to take time. Chances of them reverting on the binding of farmed RP was pretty much always nil.
And just because he said he'd bring it up with them doesn't mean that we get to be privy to that discussion.
If anything changes, it's going to take time. Chances of them reverting on the binding of farmed RP was pretty much always nil.
I wouldn't have said nil, but they have had a pattern of over binding everything. On the plus side it's SUPPOSEDLY not retroactive. I bought loads of stacks in guild bank slots due to the fact that it wouldn't be unexpected for them to mess it up and make them bop.
0
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
edited November 2014
That would only be possible if they made all the refining stones BoP regardless of where they were sourced.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but there is no way for the game to tell where existing refining stones came from, so it's all or nothing on extant items.
Why is that? he posted on Friday the 7th of November that he would talk to the developers on Monday , how is that a curious leap of logic? he didn't say " oh I'll talk to the developers a week next Monday" at this point we have been waiting a week for him to get back to us with the results of that followup.
Talk to them doesnt mean they will change their minds
May the RNG Gods smile on you today!
Adorable Temptress - 23.4k Temptation SW
Mara Angelbane - 22k Thaum CW, Vaya Con Dios 15.2k Dragon CW.
Mara Shadowskiss - 21.5k Destroyer GWF, Mara - 17.2k Sentinel GWF
Mara Duskwalker - 15.4k Healing DC
Mara Hawkeye -14.6k HR
Mara Spiritforge - 16.9k Tanky GF
Bad Religion - 14.7k Pew Pew DC
Mara Shadowstouch,Maara - TR's
0
chemboy613Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,521Arc User
tl;dr? They didn't come up with an idea of softening the impact of that change?
It took them so long to fix dragon hoard coins clogging up inventory space, our best bet was to say no to bta, not suggest ways to improve the system and accept them becoming bta.
0
chemboy613Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,521Arc User
edited November 2014
They did a ton of good with this patch - EXCEPT this. Depressing.
Yes RP are BTA and there are no other changes mentioned in the patch notes. There has been a rumor in the german community, that there would be changes to soften the blow, but I found nothing in the patch notes.
I play four chars. As it is I can either limit this to one or kiss my chances of running with legendary items goodbye. The smart move will be, to wait till 26th December with refinement and get the double refinement boost.
IMO they made it impossible for newer players to catch up to someone who played for a longer time. I cant see a way for a new player to get 3 leg. artefacts and 4 leg. equip without spending thousands of dollars.
Comments
I know they are not cumulative, otherwise my answer would have been 1% chance and not 10%, no, what I did was I stuck the numbers into the formula I posted above to calculate the chance of succeeding by the 100th try and I got out the numbers, surprisingly, if you were aiming to get just 1 belt, that is your chance of getting it, in a 100 tries. Go back a few posts if you want to see the explanation.
I understand what you getting at, yes, the probability of that branch being the likely one does decrease each time, but that is simply because it becomes more and more likely that you will have succeeded before. The fact that that particular branch is less likely to be the successful one the the prior branch doesn't in any way actually effect the fact that the probability of succeeding is still 1/4 on that branch though. In that particular branch, the number of possible outcomes will always be 4 times larger then the number of successful outcomes, as for example in my previous post with the example of the 3/16, the probability of it succeeding on that failed branch is 3/12 not 3/16, as there are only 12 possible outcomes on that branch.
*edit, is it possible for a mod to move all of this probability stuff into its own thread in the correct section of the forums? I feel it has gone off topic (sorry chem
Thanks very much man!
Many forums have some sort of reputation meter, where you can vote people positive or negative based upon our posts. I wish we had that here so we could
a) Listen to the people who are actually helpful
and
b) Ignore the trolls.
About guides - i just published my new mod 5 guide, check it out! I think i made a lot of improvements that will make it more useful to you.
About PvP - I think a good matchmaking system would solve a ton of problems. How about you have a rating, they match teams and players of similar rating, and your rating is adjusted based upon ONLY wins and losses. Seems simple, right?
When they put out tenacity, I thought, great... a very complicated solution to a very complicated solution to a very simple problem. They overthought it IMO
That's off topic for this thread, but thank you. I appreciate it.
Everything you need to know about CW:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?780981-Chem-s-CW-Compendium-Everything-you-need-to-know
In some ways I like upvoted comments to see what is most agreed upon, however I also think the system can suck because generally people can really suck. It turns into a popularity content. If people disagree with you, even if your post is constructive or for the best for the game.
Two examples:
1) "Perma stealth is OP because...", that would instantly get downvoted by the TRs just because they don't like what they here even if some of the perma stealth changed should and are being changed.
2) "cockatrice needs to be fixed". If it genuinely is broken or isn't working as intended then people will downvote you just because they won't want it nerfed. For the cockatrice it may not matter as much since the ones that don't own it are more than the ones that do. If it's something that the majority have and is too strong, you'll get downvoted for it.
I personally find downvoting quite rude that should be reserved for those that are toxic, spamming etc rather than a difference in opinion.
As for pvp balancing I think there's too many variables now. We have extremely strong glyphs, an extremely massive gs gap, a big difference in skill effectiveness, pots that imo should be usable in pvp. Personally I think it's turned into a balancing nightmare.
This is a good criticism as well. I would like to have a warning sign "THIS PERSON IS A TROLL" and "THIS PERSON IS KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HELPFUL" would be nice.
I'm not sure what the best system for that is, but i would like one
PvP balance is a nightmare for sure. That's why i say just match up on something like a ranking. you get points for win and loss. If the sample size is large enough it "should" match people of similar strength.
Everything you need to know about CW:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?780981-Chem-s-CW-Compendium-Everything-you-need-to-know
Of course they do. Also I wouldn't expect any generosity such as reduced RP requirements, increased RP drop rates and the likes. Short/Mid Term Profit > Player Happyness (= Long Term Profit).
Maybe he meant today... :rolleyes:
Curious leap of logic you have there.
Why is that? he posted on Friday the 7th of November that he would talk to the developers on Monday , how is that a curious leap of logic? he didn't say " oh I'll talk to the developers a week next Monday" at this point we have been waiting a week for him to get back to us with the results of that followup.
Everything you need to know about CW:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?780981-Chem-s-CW-Compendium-Everything-you-need-to-know
If anything changes, it's going to take time. Chances of them reverting on the binding of farmed RP was pretty much always nil.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
I wouldn't have said nil, but they have had a pattern of over binding everything. On the plus side it's SUPPOSEDLY not retroactive. I bought loads of stacks in guild bank slots due to the fact that it wouldn't be unexpected for them to mess it up and make them bop.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but there is no way for the game to tell where existing refining stones came from, so it's all or nothing on extant items.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
Talk to them doesnt mean they will change their minds
Mara Angelbane - 22k Thaum CW, Vaya Con Dios 15.2k Dragon CW.
Mara Shadowskiss - 21.5k Destroyer GWF, Mara - 17.2k Sentinel GWF
Mara Duskwalker - 15.4k Healing DC
Mara Hawkeye -14.6k HR
Mara Spiritforge - 16.9k Tanky GF
Bad Religion - 14.7k Pew Pew DC
Mara Shadowstouch,Maara - TR's
I'll toast a scotch to that!
Everything you need to know about CW:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?780981-Chem-s-CW-Compendium-Everything-you-need-to-know
Everything you need to know about CW:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?780981-Chem-s-CW-Compendium-Everything-you-need-to-know
Yeah patch notes are in the news section - http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/neverwinter/news/detail/9005213-patch-notes-11%2F18%2F14
It took them so long to fix dragon hoard coins clogging up inventory space, our best bet was to say no to bta, not suggest ways to improve the system and accept them becoming bta.
Everything you need to know about CW:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?780981-Chem-s-CW-Compendium-Everything-you-need-to-know
I play four chars. As it is I can either limit this to one or kiss my chances of running with legendary items goodbye. The smart move will be, to wait till 26th December with refinement and get the double refinement boost.
IMO they made it impossible for newer players to catch up to someone who played for a longer time. I cant see a way for a new player to get 3 leg. artefacts and 4 leg. equip without spending thousands of dollars.