Enchantment Upgrade Chances at best are misleading, if not outright lies.

muhammedwally · July 2018

I enjoy playing and mastering different classes, but horrible chances to rank up enchants and gear is now giving me more time and money in my pocket. If the chances of success were not a fabrication, many more people would probably get more enjoyment from the game, and stick around a bit longer. It will be a lesser headache for me to unslot enchants to share between characters than put up with continued disappointment and failure of a 10% chance of success taking between 50 to 80 preservation wards, or more without success. I can also sell of quite a few enchants as they wont be needed any more. Keeping stacks of platinum plates and jeweled statuetts wont take up much bag space either.

honestabe73 · July 2018

Thant's why I like the VIP, given the key's I have opened lockboxes and gotten coalescent ward's pretty consistently.

ecrana · July 2018

Starting countdown before someone inevitably comes in here and makes the standard "you know nothing about statistics" lecture.

plasticbat · July 2018

"You know nothing about statistics".

jonkoca · July 2018

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Sample size blah blah, bell curve blah blah, fat tail blah blah, black swan blah blah, standard deviation blah blah, Intermittant reward blah blah.

So there.

feanor70118 · July 2018

Cryptic will never listen, because they won't make easy, basic changes that maintain profitability and make the game more enjoyable (or in this case, less excruciantingly boring and frustrating where it should be rewarding) until at least three years have passed after it becomes plain that the vast majority of players hate the status quo. Here the simple change should be 1) Just allow players to bypass the RNG by dumping the amount of preservation wards that should be required for an upgrade into the enchantment; or 2) allow upgrades for an equivalent of AD plus some margin to encourage use of the zen market.

pterias · July 2018

I'm surprised none of the "statisticians" have tried to shut this down yet. The RNG is definitely skewed in this game. It really seems to me that the Pres Ward chances are actually one place worse than listed (10% instead of 20%, 5% instead of 10%, etc.).

Being able to just fill the enchant with pres wards until 100% like feanor suggested would be great. If there really is nothing wrong with the RNG, then there would be no downside for them to do this, it would all work out the same in the long run, right? Right?! I'm not holding my breath.

greywynd · July 2018

Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.

callumf · July 2018

I hate RNG

feanor70118 · July 2018

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.

100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?

minotaur2857 · July 2018

Statistician here, not shutting this down, but I did a few 5%s yesterday, not enough to be statistically significant but more were taking more than 40 attempts than were taking 20 or less.

plasticbat · July 2018

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?

He means right now: if you want to be 100% for a 20% chance, it costs $10 by using a c-ward. No RNG involves.
If it is changed to 100% for the current 20% chance by using 5 p-ward (to have the same effect of using a c-ward), it costs 50 cents.
Yes, I know people who uses c-ward to do 20% chance.
People got frustrated because of RNG and chose to use c-ward.
People got frustrated by too much clicking and chose to use c-ward.

You may not use a c-ward for 20%. You might have used that for 5%.
In that case, they got $10 for that 5% chance right now if you use c-ward.
What you propose means they will get $2 by using 20 p-ward.

Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.

marnival · July 2018

No matter what people argue or the statistic they come up with the RNG in this game is absolutly stupid crazy and this comes from some that played this game since beta and done so may combines that ended up with so many 1 in a million that I lost count of it long time ago.

When you fail 123 times in a row (my last crazy combine) on a 10% chanse you just want to actually go physical on somebody responsible. Of all things in this game I can not imagen anything that infuriated players more then this HAMSTER rng like running tong 200+ for a total of 4 UEs etc etc.

I know people that quite the game more or less soly because they could not stand this rng when it came to upgrade stuff loosing stack after stack of 99 green wards on 3, 5 or 10% upgrades.

During the years i opened my fair of many 1000nds of lockboxes and got 1 leg mount total.

Beeing able to put in enough wards to like 20 on a 5% chanse would be a good start beacuase as stated earlier the chanse is most likely half that what is stated on the actual combine.

It gone so so far that I use blue ward on 3 % chanse because I just cant stand seeing 250 green wards before a success.....

rainer · July 2018

If you don't feel like watching and you believe my summary:

Did 50 enchants from 7->10 to test exactly this RNG stuff

7 to 8 --- expected 75 wards --- used 80 wards --- 38,46% (40% expected)
8 to 9 --- expected 116,67 wards --- used 99 wards --- 33,56% (30% expected)
9 to 10 --- expected 200 wards --- used 168 wards --- 22,94% (20% expected)

Not a super big sample size. But I can pretty safely say that the percentages are correct...

Video proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOggI2o322U

minotaur2857 · July 2018

rainer#8575 said:
If you don't feel like watching and you believe my summary:

Did 50 enchants from 7->10 to test exactly this RNG stuff

7 to 8 --- expected 75 wards --- used 80 wards --- 38,46% (40% expected)
8 to 9 --- expected 116,67 wards --- used 99 wards --- 33,56% (30% expected)
9 to 10 --- expected 200 wards --- used 168 wards --- 22,94% (20% expected)

Not a super big sample size. But I can pretty safely say that the percentages are correct...

Video proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOggI2o322U

Have done MUCH bigger samples than this which say otherwise (thousands getting into tens of thousands of wards), consistently using 20-30% more than I should, and have mastercrafting results that fall outside 99% of results if the numbers are right. My results conflict with @thefabricant although he was doing his tests in somewhat different conditions to the ones I was using, and avoided the things that IMO cause most problems.

The sort of thing I've had, last 200+ 10%/5%/3% chances, NOT ONE has worked first time and also it's like 5% on the 40->20% chances for working first time.

rainer · July 2018

Just giving you my test with my results on video, so you can watch it for yourself. Use it as you like.

The sample size is only 50 because I want this to be on video, and making a 5 hour video is not a viable option. It should be sufficient to roughly verify the RNG.

kemnimtarkas · July 2018

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?

You assume an equal value that doesn't account for the impact of RNG. A 1% weapon enchant upgrade could easily eat up that whole 100 p wards and not complete the upgrade.

reg1981 · July 2018

I'm on the other side of the coin here. I refine in batches, never 1 enchant at a time and I use way less wards than I should in most cases.

I refine in an empty blacklake instance because location location location lol Superstitious refining

minotaur2857 · July 2018

rainer#8575 said:
Just giving you my test with my results on video, so you can watch it for yourself. Use it as you like.

The sample size is only 50 because I want this to be on video, and making a 5 hour video is not a viable option. It should be sufficient to roughly verify the RNG.

Live or test server ? looks pretty empty.

pterias · July 2018

There are long-standing "superstitions" that busy instances or servers reduce RNG chances. It's hard to be certain, but I believe there is at least some truth to it from my own experience over the years. If that is true, tests done on the test server should generally look "correct", regardless of the situation on live.

---

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.

plasticbat said:
Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.

Again, if the RNG really is square, then this shouldn't be a problem. No one would use C-wards, even on 3% (unless they wipe their butt with AD), because the wastefulness of it would be apparent.

On the flip side, purposely frustrating with the RNG in hopes they'll crack in frustration and blow a bunch more money is unethical and immoral as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be tolerated.

plasticbat · July 2018

pterias said:
There are long-standing "superstitions" that busy instances or servers reduce RNG chances. It's hard to be certain, but I believe there is at least some truth to it from my own experience over the years. If that is true, tests done on the test server should generally look "correct", regardless of the situation on live.

---

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.

plasticbat said:
Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.
Again, if the RNG really is square, then this shouldn't be a problem. No one would use C-wards, even on 3% (unless they wipe their butt with AD), because the wastefulness of it would be apparent.

On the flip side, purposely frustrating with the RNG in hopes they'll crack in frustration and blow a bunch more money is unethical and immoral as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be tolerated.

First of all, I did not say its RNG is tuned correctly or not.
Second, doing 20 times to to 5% or 33 times for 3% or 100 times for 1% itself is frustrating to me even if the chance is spotted on. Hack! Even 20 times for 3% is frustrating to me even though I beat the odd.
Third, I did not say if that practice is intentional or not.
Forth, I almost always beat the odd but it is also always a frustrating experience.
Fifth, I don't mind it is changed to what was proposed.

pterias · July 2018

plasticbat said:

pterias said:
There are long-standing "superstitions" that busy instances or servers reduce RNG chances. It's hard to be certain, but I believe there is at least some truth to it from my own experience over the years. If that is true, tests done on the test server should generally look "correct", regardless of the situation on live.

---

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.

plasticbat said:
Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.
Again, if the RNG really is square, then this shouldn't be a problem. No one would use C-wards, even on 3% (unless they wipe their butt with AD), because the wastefulness of it would be apparent.

On the flip side, purposely frustrating with the RNG in hopes they'll crack in frustration and blow a bunch more money is unethical and immoral as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be tolerated.
First of all, I did not say its RNG is tuned correctly or not.
Second, doing 20 times to to 5% or 33 times for 3% or 100 times for 1% itself is frustrating to me even if the chance is spotted on. Hack! Even 20 times for 3% is frustrating to me even though I beat the odd.
Third, I did not say if that practice is intentional or not.
Forth, I almost always beat the odd but it is also always a frustrating experience.
Fifth, I don't mind it is changed to what was proposed.

I wasn't trying to accuse you two of anything, sorry if it came across that way (was in a hurry). Those two quotes were just relevant to my accusations against the company.

feanor70118 · July 2018

kemnimtarkas said:

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?
You assume an equal value that doesn't account for the impact of RNG. A 1% weapon enchant upgrade could easily eat up that whole 100 p wards and not complete the upgrade.

That's the sound of the whole point flying far overhead.

feanor70118 · July 2018

plasticbat said:

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?
He means right now: if you want to be 100% for a 20% chance, it costs $10 by using a c-ward. No RNG involves.
If it is changed to 100% for the current 20% chance by using 5 p-ward (to have the same effect of using a c-ward), it costs 50 cents.
Yes, I know people who uses c-ward to do 20% chance.
People got frustrated because of RNG and chose to use c-ward.
People got frustrated by too much clicking and chose to use c-ward.

You may not use a c-ward for 20%. You might have used that for 5%.
In that case, they got $10 for that 5% chance right now if you use c-ward.
What you propose means they will get $2 by using 20 p-ward.

Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.

And strangely, the entire point of this thread is that frustration should not be a ubiquitous factor in the game.

plasticbat · July 2018

feanor70118 said:

plasticbat said:

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?
He means right now: if you want to be 100% for a 20% chance, it costs $10 by using a c-ward. No RNG involves.
If it is changed to 100% for the current 20% chance by using 5 p-ward (to have the same effect of using a c-ward), it costs 50 cents.
Yes, I know people who uses c-ward to do 20% chance.
People got frustrated because of RNG and chose to use c-ward.
People got frustrated by too much clicking and chose to use c-ward.

You may not use a c-ward for 20%. You might have used that for 5%.
In that case, they got $10 for that 5% chance right now if you use c-ward.
What you propose means they will get $2 by using 20 p-ward.

Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.
And strangely, the entire point of this thread is that frustration should not be a ubiquitous factor in the game.

My reply was referred to "no downside". I just pointed out there is a "downside" for the company regardless ethnically or not, their intention or not.

hercules125 · July 2018

If they would just up the chance of success after each fail, I think it would help with the overall frustration level. For example, your item has a supposed 10% chance, then just up the chance by 10% on successive attempts until you get to 100% on the 10th try.
I can't see them doing this, since it would probably cut into their profit margin and that's their primary consideration - player satisfaction is irrelevant.

strathkin · July 2018

Honestly I do FIND the chances are closer to the % chances identified. Though everybody has an extremely lucky or even lucky streak from time to time.

YET having said that.

I would never click CONTINUE like more than 3-5x times; if I get that many failure's I pause and take a break for awhile, otherwise trying to rush it I simply find's I'm giving up more wards. I believe in the term 'patience is a virtue' so close the window, move around and do other things for 30 seconds or a few minutes, before you try again especially if you have more than 5 failures in a row.

I'd definitively never just MASS click on the CONTINUE prompt like 20-75 times...

But ALSO if anyone thought it is BAD now, I mean it's 3x better than it was prior to MOD 13. You also don't have to sacrifice Enchantments while upgrading; which was a HUGE beneficial change in my opinion.

krailov · July 2018

plasticbat said:

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?
He means right now: if you want to be 100% for a 20% chance, it costs $10 by using a c-ward. No RNG involves.
If it is changed to 100% for the current 20% chance by using 5 p-ward (to have the same effect of using a c-ward), it costs 50 cents.
Yes, I know people who uses c-ward to do 20% chance.
People got frustrated because of RNG and chose to use c-ward.
People got frustrated by too much clicking and chose to use c-ward.

You may not use a c-ward for 20%. You might have used that for 5%.
In that case, they got $10 for that 5% chance right now if you use c-ward.
What you propose means they will get $2 by using 20 p-ward.

Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.

I would make a suggestion on this then:
Either the Pres to 100% option (C-ward equivalent) is only offered on the lower % RNG points (like 10% chance or less refines - maybe on a 1.5 conversion rate), or that they introduce a Pres to C-Ward converter.

This way Cryptic still get a good portion of their money (possibly more as more P-wards are purchased!), those that have poor chances (and know it) can opt to go straight to C-Ward, and those that like their chances can still try...

PS - It is 1,000 x .10 to equal $10.00
PPS - On a side note, several (over 5) toons to upgrade Vistani weapons - 50% chance?? NO WAY! more like 10%!! RNG is totally off on that front!

pterias · July 2018

krailov said:

plasticbat said:

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?
He means right now: if you want to be 100% for a 20% chance, it costs $10 by using a c-ward. No RNG involves.
If it is changed to 100% for the current 20% chance by using 5 p-ward (to have the same effect of using a c-ward), it costs 50 cents.
Yes, I know people who uses c-ward to do 20% chance.
People got frustrated because of RNG and chose to use c-ward.
People got frustrated by too much clicking and chose to use c-ward.

You may not use a c-ward for 20%. You might have used that for 5%.
In that case, they got $10 for that 5% chance right now if you use c-ward.
What you propose means they will get $2 by using 20 p-ward.

Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.
I would make a suggestion on this then:
Either the Pres to 100% option (C-ward equivalent) is only offered on the lower % RNG points (like 10% chance or less refines - maybe on a 1.5 conversion rate), or that they introduce a Pres to C-Ward converter.

This way Cryptic still get a good portion of their money (possibly more as more P-wards are purchased!), those that have poor chances (and know it) can opt to go straight to C-Ward, and those that like their chances can still try...

PS - It is 1,000 x .10 to equal $10.00
PPS - On a side note, several (over 5) toons to upgrade Vistani weapons - 50% chance?? NO WAY! more like 10%!! RNG is totally off on that front!

Hmm, I like this general idea. Another approach to get to the same end could be to put in 50% more Pres Wards than statistically needed to guarantee it? For example, if something has a 10% chance, it should take 10 PWs on average. What I'm talking about is you could put 15 PWs into it and get a 100% chance of success. 5% would take 30 and 3% would take 50. That way people could just jump to it without having to resort to a Coal, but would still spend more PWs than the listed percentage would imply to be necessary.

callumf · July 2018

Generally speaking - really whatever is going on, RNG accurate or inaccurate, it isn't a satisfying use of one's time. Playing clickety clickety clickety looking at and watching fail after fail after fail on a 5% isn't fun, unless you are a tax collector in real life.

It is a boring waste of time with added frustration - the devs think people will pay real life money to avoid this... but with so many enchants to raise a lot of people either don't bother or leave the game [anecdotal evidence only].

But one would need to see the accounts to make a judgement on whether RNG policy on enchant upgrades is a success or failure

minotaur2857 · July 2018

pterias said:

krailov said:

plasticbat said:

feanor70118 said:

greywynd said:
Downside? Coal Wards are $10@. Pres wards are $.10@.
100 x .10 = 10.00.

So no downside.

Failed second grade math, did you?
He means right now: if you want to be 100% for a 20% chance, it costs $10 by using a c-ward. No RNG involves.
If it is changed to 100% for the current 20% chance by using 5 p-ward (to have the same effect of using a c-ward), it costs 50 cents.
Yes, I know people who uses c-ward to do 20% chance.
People got frustrated because of RNG and chose to use c-ward.
People got frustrated by too much clicking and chose to use c-ward.

You may not use a c-ward for 20%. You might have used that for 5%.
In that case, they got $10 for that 5% chance right now if you use c-ward.
What you propose means they will get $2 by using 20 p-ward.

Yes, there is a downside for the company.

Company makes money when you overpay to solve your frustration.
I would make a suggestion on this then:
Either the Pres to 100% option (C-ward equivalent) is only offered on the lower % RNG points (like 10% chance or less refines - maybe on a 1.5 conversion rate), or that they introduce a Pres to C-Ward converter.

This way Cryptic still get a good portion of their money (possibly more as more P-wards are purchased!), those that have poor chances (and know it) can opt to go straight to C-Ward, and those that like their chances can still try...

PS - It is 1,000 x .10 to equal $10.00
PPS - On a side note, several (over 5) toons to upgrade Vistani weapons - 50% chance?? NO WAY! more like 10%!! RNG is totally off on that front!
Hmm, I like this general idea. Another approach to get to the same end could be to put in 50% more Pres Wards than statistically needed to guarantee it? For example, if something has a 10% chance, it should take 10 PWs on average. What I'm talking about is you could put 15 PWs into it and get a 100% chance of success. 5% would take 30 and 3% would take 50. That way people could just jump to it without having to resort to a Coal, but would still spend more PWs than the listed percentage would imply to be necessary.

Nitpick, 10% chance, on average 10 attempts, one of which DOESN'T use a pres ward so 9 wards.

And 50% more is utterly useless, as on average it takes me 20-30% more than it should

Enchantment Upgrade Chances at best are misleading, if not outright lies.

Comments

Might is not always right - the powerful sometimes forget that.