Random numbers are random, as the internet likes to say.
If there is a 5% chance at getting a mount from boxes, and it worked like you expect, i'd have many by now.
There is?!? Lies I say. Lies. Intertubes RNG is not my friend.
0
thevlakaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
you're an idiot for paying for features that should have nothing to do with cash grabs.
0
damoniiMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 9Arc User
edited May 2013
Essentially Mr OP what you did is this
roll 20d10 with success on a roll of 9-10
You kept rolling 1's
This is not the people who make the algorithms fault but rather your own for rolling terribly or your dice for being terrible.
For arguments sake here is what you thought you were doing [Roll 1d10 +20] with a DC of 9 which is not how the mechanic works as it would simply be to easy to faceroll it and destroy the economy. Also your an idiot
My kits have a 75% chance to gather and I often break 1-2 in a row before getting the item think I'm honestly sitting around 45-55% success by level 20.
Same for me, nearly everytime i lose 1 or 2 kits on a node... thats no 75% chance <.<
I realize most of what we're seeing here is anecdotal evidence, but I myself have lost 3 skill kits in a roll, even though I had a 75% chance of success.
So have I.
But I also remember several times where I managed to succeed on the first attempt.
So are 3 out of 4 kits working for me? Within the margin of error for the sample size, I would wager.
Its really amazing how many ignorant people are trying to be a smartass on this thread...
50% chance means than on (almost) infinite tries , half of them will work.
When you consecutively try that the chances of failing are 50% the first time, 25% the second time (if the first one fails), 12,5% for the third one and so on. I ve had several times when with a 60% chance of success, the fusing failed 6 (!!!!) times in a row. The actual chance of that happening is 0,40^6=0,4% or 4 in a 1000.
That is not bad luck, that is not RNG, that is just false advertizing as the chances of success are way lower than the ones listed. I ve done plenty of fusing prior to Gauntlgrym patch and after it. The difference after the patch is insane. To fuse the same amount of runes, i am now using 3 to 4 times more wards. I have confirmed the same results with a few hundred people from various guilds. There is a ticket already submitted for PW to fix that and reimburse the amount of materials lost. Whether other steps will follow is really up to their company.
0
drquinchMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 26Arc User
edited July 2013
Ward are available from both the cash shop and with invocation coins (save up for a week). Alas player are levelling so fast in this game that this throttle on aquiring wards via invocation is causing some level of frustration. My way around things is to level multiple alts to "farm" invocation coins (so I get six ward packs a week instead of one). Alas its going to take time to get even one toon fully kitted out.
Wow... this reminds me of STO's Duty Officer system, where it's very possible to get a Catastrophic Failure even though the success of said DOFF mission is 100%...
*sings* "I like Gammera! He's so neat!!! He is full of turtle meat!!!"
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
0
jihancritiasMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Yeah I'm already a little surprised with the 90-95% rate. Didn't seem right. Can only imagine how much more awful it becomes and overall how bad the enchantment system is.
I seriously don't understand how you have the galls to charge $10 for those wards. You get the graphics of a f2p, but can sink you far more then p2p. It's amazing not one review site has talked about the horrible cash shop in this game.
It is sad. I've bought the 7 day celestial box repeatedly and gotten one blue ward. That or you have to buy them from other players that got lucky, or bought them. 10$ for one thing that you need a crazy amount of is really horrible. I haven't bought one, and I never will. If they cost 1$ I would. 10$ is 5$ short of a sub for other games. After everything else they charge for, that's just insulting. Sure, people will say you don't need them, or you can earn them. How much leadership or 24k ad a day (tough to just get that) will you have to do to compete in pvp, or join groups with their stupid high gs requirements, do you need? It's supposed to take time, but it should for everyone. As it stands, there is a huge gap in pvp "skill lol" from p2w players and those that don't want to spend so much that they can't afford mt dew.
Its really amazing how many ignorant people are trying to be a smartass on this thread...
50% chance means than on (almost) infinite tries , half of them will work.
When you consecutively try that the chances of failing are 50% the first time, 25% the second time (if the first one fails), 12,5% for the third one and so on. I ve had several times when with a 60% chance of success, the fusing failed 6 (!!!!) times in a row. The actual chance of that happening is 0,40^6=0,4% or 4 in a 1000.
That is not bad luck, that is not RNG, that is just false advertizing as the chances of success are way lower than the ones listed. I ve done plenty of fusing prior to Gauntlgrym patch and after it. The difference after the patch is insane. To fuse the same amount of runes, i am now using 3 to 4 times more wards. I have confirmed the same results with a few hundred people from various guilds. There is a ticket already submitted for PW to fix that and reimburse the amount of materials lost. Whether other steps will follow is really up to their company.
It is still RNG... It is still possible to have odds that bad. Just someone else is having a lucky streak somewhere.
However you could be right that the advertised numbers are incorrect. Sadly there is a very real motivation for the company to give lower % then advertised... that being that people spend more money. However it is also impossible to prove since RNG is by nature random. With a 4 out of 1000 chance of it happening to you there is someone who is even more unlucky. On the other hand someone could be lucky. Unless we actually have a view at exact statistics or the underlying code it is impossible to tell if they are messing with the RNG numbers.
0
jihancritiasMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
roll 20d10 with success on a roll of 9-10
You kept rolling 1's
This is not the people who make the algorithms fault but rather your own for rolling terribly or your dice for being terrible.
For arguments sake here is what you thought you were doing [Roll 1d10 +20] with a DC of 9 which is not how the mechanic works as it would simply be to easy to faceroll it and destroy the economy. Also your an idiot
If YOU'RE going to call someone else an idiot, use correct grammar.
Also, I've never, ever rolled 1 repeatedly on a 1d20 die. Twice in a row, at most, but no more than that.
20% of 20 is 4... Sounds to me you hit it spot on.
20% of 20 is 4, but this is not what the problem is. THe OP does't understand how % chance works. You have 20% chance on every single attempt and this does NOT guarantee you'll have 20% success from your whole batch of attempts.
;
Foundry - Fight Club? (nw-dluqbofu7)
- JailBreak (in development)
roll 20d10 with success on a roll of 9-10
You kept rolling 1's
This is not the people who make the algorithms fault but rather your own for rolling terribly or your dice for being terrible.
For arguments sake here is what you thought you were doing [Roll 1d10 +20] with a DC of 9 which is not how the mechanic works as it would simply be to easy to faceroll it and destroy the economy. Also your an idiot
I might point out that you are indeed dealing with a coded RNG here.
For everyone displaying their Math powers, I am happy you feel confident enough in your intellectualism to put it on display here. I am certain everyone else is very impressed. But this is not a creature that lounges in the embrace of a planck-length analog world. This is only a simulation of randomness. This is only some code that tries to approximate the occurrence of random numbers and the coders figured that it would be good enough for government work or this game. Just look at some of the other systems, the AH, the dungeons, the que system, the chests; do they seem to be exemplars of excellence and precision?
But trying to apply mathematical axioms to it is pressing the code way beyond what it is meant to do. Producing the numbers it currently produces is likely pressing it beyond what it can do. Unless you plan to account for the invariance in the coded RNG you are really just arguing about thing unrelated t the OP. not that you shouldn’t argue these things, I say go nuts on the math speak all you like. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with this thread.
The RNG in this game is to math what 8-bit baseball is to the major leagues. Is it possible that the RNG is giving you the business and dumping your odds? Without a doubt it is.
I would encourage you to play smart. A 20% chance means there is probably a significantly less that 20% chance it will work out and a significant more than 80% chance you will lose any money you bet on it. It’s a little like trying to pull an inside straight every hand.*
So just because there is no good option doesn’t mean you have to play a bad one. Don’t waste your money. And don’t imagine that the company doesn’t fully understand everything I have laid out here.
Remember, the house always wins.
*from a system that inaccurately represents some aspects of cards.
20% of 20 is 4, but this is not what the problem is. THe OP does't understand how % chance works. You have 20% chance on every single attempt and this does NOT guarantee you'll have 20% success from your whole batch of attempts.
;
Precisely, probability is one of the trickiest areas of mathematics because it looks so simple.
I can tell you that the odds on me rolling 6 6s in a row on a die is 1 in 6^6 (46656). However the odds of me rolling a 6 on each individual roll will forever be 1 in 6 no matter how many times I roll the die.
Comments
There is?!? Lies I say. Lies. Intertubes RNG is not my friend.
roll 20d10 with success on a roll of 9-10
You kept rolling 1's
This is not the people who make the algorithms fault but rather your own for rolling terribly or your dice for being terrible.
For arguments sake here is what you thought you were doing [Roll 1d10 +20] with a DC of 9 which is not how the mechanic works as it would simply be to easy to faceroll it and destroy the economy. Also your an idiot
Same for me, nearly everytime i lose 1 or 2 kits on a node... thats no 75% chance <.<
So have I.
But I also remember several times where I managed to succeed on the first attempt.
So are 3 out of 4 kits working for me? Within the margin of error for the sample size, I would wager.
50% chance means than on (almost) infinite tries , half of them will work.
When you consecutively try that the chances of failing are 50% the first time, 25% the second time (if the first one fails), 12,5% for the third one and so on. I ve had several times when with a 60% chance of success, the fusing failed 6 (!!!!) times in a row. The actual chance of that happening is 0,40^6=0,4% or 4 in a 1000.
That is not bad luck, that is not RNG, that is just false advertizing as the chances of success are way lower than the ones listed. I ve done plenty of fusing prior to Gauntlgrym patch and after it. The difference after the patch is insane. To fuse the same amount of runes, i am now using 3 to 4 times more wards. I have confirmed the same results with a few hundred people from various guilds. There is a ticket already submitted for PW to fix that and reimburse the amount of materials lost. Whether other steps will follow is really up to their company.
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
It is sad. I've bought the 7 day celestial box repeatedly and gotten one blue ward. That or you have to buy them from other players that got lucky, or bought them. 10$ for one thing that you need a crazy amount of is really horrible. I haven't bought one, and I never will. If they cost 1$ I would. 10$ is 5$ short of a sub for other games. After everything else they charge for, that's just insulting. Sure, people will say you don't need them, or you can earn them. How much leadership or 24k ad a day (tough to just get that) will you have to do to compete in pvp, or join groups with their stupid high gs requirements, do you need? It's supposed to take time, but it should for everyone. As it stands, there is a huge gap in pvp "skill lol" from p2w players and those that don't want to spend so much that they can't afford mt dew.
However you could be right that the advertised numbers are incorrect. Sadly there is a very real motivation for the company to give lower % then advertised... that being that people spend more money. However it is also impossible to prove since RNG is by nature random. With a 4 out of 1000 chance of it happening to you there is someone who is even more unlucky. On the other hand someone could be lucky. Unless we actually have a view at exact statistics or the underlying code it is impossible to tell if they are messing with the RNG numbers.
If YOU'RE going to call someone else an idiot, use correct grammar.
Also, I've never, ever rolled 1 repeatedly on a 1d20 die. Twice in a row, at most, but no more than that.
20% of 20 is 4, but this is not what the problem is. THe OP does't understand how % chance works. You have 20% chance on every single attempt and this does NOT guarantee you'll have 20% success from your whole batch of attempts.
;
- JailBreak (in development)
Hehe.........
For everyone displaying their Math powers, I am happy you feel confident enough in your intellectualism to put it on display here. I am certain everyone else is very impressed. But this is not a creature that lounges in the embrace of a planck-length analog world. This is only a simulation of randomness. This is only some code that tries to approximate the occurrence of random numbers and the coders figured that it would be good enough for government work or this game. Just look at some of the other systems, the AH, the dungeons, the que system, the chests; do they seem to be exemplars of excellence and precision?
But trying to apply mathematical axioms to it is pressing the code way beyond what it is meant to do. Producing the numbers it currently produces is likely pressing it beyond what it can do. Unless you plan to account for the invariance in the coded RNG you are really just arguing about thing unrelated t the OP. not that you shouldn’t argue these things, I say go nuts on the math speak all you like. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with this thread.
The RNG in this game is to math what 8-bit baseball is to the major leagues. Is it possible that the RNG is giving you the business and dumping your odds? Without a doubt it is.
I would encourage you to play smart. A 20% chance means there is probably a significantly less that 20% chance it will work out and a significant more than 80% chance you will lose any money you bet on it. It’s a little like trying to pull an inside straight every hand.*
So just because there is no good option doesn’t mean you have to play a bad one. Don’t waste your money. And don’t imagine that the company doesn’t fully understand everything I have laid out here.
Remember, the house always wins.
*from a system that inaccurately represents some aspects of cards.
+1 vote.....
Precisely, probability is one of the trickiest areas of mathematics because it looks so simple.
I can tell you that the odds on me rolling 6 6s in a row on a die is 1 in 6^6 (46656). However the odds of me rolling a 6 on each individual roll will forever be 1 in 6 no matter how many times I roll the die.