test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

60% Chance to Make Gemmed Pants/Shirts... uh, no

rsomazzirsomazzi Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 16 Arc User
edited September 2013 in General Discussion (PC)
I've made a slew of pants and shirts, with epic Platesmith and epic tools. Although the UI says 60% chance to get a gemmed version, I am barely earning HALF that.

Perhaps they got the math wrong, or they've engineered crafting so that you cannot get the advertised rate. I know it's an average, and it's not guaranteed, but I am too far below (30%) the advertised rate to think this is really a 40/60 roll.

Anyway, I wanted to hear what other crafters are averaging with their shirts/pants.

thanks
Post edited by rsomazzi on

Comments

  • Options
    dirtyhookdirtyhook Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    All the percent rolls in this game feel off.

    I have failed 4 95% rolls in a row. Now that is quite a feat.

    But unless we see the actual formulas or have someone willing to put in a very large set of numbers it is all but impossible to know for sure.
  • Options
    krisst0fkrisst0f Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Same observation here. After using up about 60 eggs, I got a clear 40/60 ratio of gemmed to non-gemmed.

    That pissed me off so I went to sell off my epic tools for a little under 4M AD (I had invested >4M to get them)... I am glad I did...
  • Options
    kacman13kacman13 Member Posts: 15 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Same is true on fusing gems and runestones. Supposedly a 60% chance of success to fuse 4 rank 4s into a rank 5. After fusing 2-3 hundred, my success rate is well below 50%.
  • Options
    mrspumamrspuma Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Generally need a much much larger sample size than one or three hundred to gauge accuracy of RNG. :rolleyes:

    That said, I've always found computer-AI RNG algorithms in games to feel a bit off, especially depending on what they're using as the seed. They definitely do have tendencies towards going in "spurts." You'll succeed 5 times in a row then fail 15 times in a row etc. I've seen whole articles based around this. It's not something that's easy to solve, or at least maybe isn't worth it to get/do better algorithms for video gaming. Even wiki mentions this trait:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation#Computational_methods
  • Options
    kacman13kacman13 Member Posts: 15 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    mrspuma wrote: »
    Generally need a much much larger sample size than one or three hundred to gauge accuracy of RNG. :rolleyes:

    That said, I've always found computer-AI RNG algorithms in games to feel a bit off, especially depending on what they're using as the seed. They definitely do have tendencies towards going in "spurts." You'll succeed 5 times in a row then fail 15 times in a row etc. I've seen whole articles based around this. It's not something that's easy to solve, or at least maybe isn't worth it to get/do better algorithms for video gaming. Even wiki mentions this trait:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation#Computational_methods

    While you are correct about sample sizes, you miss the point that there is definitely something off about the RNG/success rate.

    With a 60-40 split, a 200 sample size has a margin of error of 6.8% and a 300 sample size's margin is 5.6%. So the average is 6.2%.

    A 60% success rate with a 6.2% margin of error, should provide the true success rate of ~56%-64%. Why is my success rate below 40% and closer to 35%?

    And no one ever sees the margin of error in their benefit, always benefits the failure side. There is something very wrong with the RNG!
  • Options
    beckylunaticbeckylunatic Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 14,231 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    kacman13 wrote: »
    And no one ever sees the margin of error in their benefit, always benefits the failure side. There is something very wrong with the RNG!

    Actual, this is at least in part a manifestation of a psychological effect called negativity bias, wherein people remember when things didn't go their way far more easily than they do when they did.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

    I don't numerically track my results. But I do get more successes than failures when I expect them and more failures than successes when I expect that.
    Guild Leader - The Lords of Light

    Neverwinter Census 2017

    All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
  • Options
    siestrionsiestrion Member Posts: 30 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Sometimes it really does feel very off. My tailor with 4 of the purple quality assets appears to be coming in under 50%, consistently. Then again, the tailoring recipes also seem off in requirements as compared to Mails, Leather and Plate. My platesmith, that also has 4 purple quality assets feels about right on the tier 3 success rates. However, I swear my mailsmith with 8 purple assets comes in higher than 60%, which I am not complaining about. But it just makes it feel off.
  • Options
    kiralynkiralyn Member Posts: 1,440 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    It's pretty easy, statistically, to get runs of good/bad luck.

    I remember back in WoW, people constantly complaining about not getting the 15% chance improved Alchemy results from the various Masteries. But when you run the numbers, it's quite possible to get failure runs of 10-20 in a row (1:1000 odds are still pretty good, when you've got enough people doing something. If 100k people are involved, 100 will have that "bad luck". And if only a quarter go to the forum to complain, it still looks like "everyone" is getting <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> results, OMG it must be broken!)
  • Options
    dirtyhookdirtyhook Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    rsomazzi wrote: »
    ....for items I paid real money for...

    See, first mistake. ;)
  • Options
    theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,861 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    Muaa haa haa. You are all failing to produced gemmed armors because I'm getting all the successes! Insert Evil Laughter Here!

    Seriously, I tend to get a success way more often than not these days. I exclusively run one armor task at a time, and am on Mindflayer shard. I'm also doing cloth shirt/pants.
  • Options
    jn2002dk1jn2002dk1 Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    So you got a run of bad luck and you jump to the conclusion that it's Cryptic's fault?

    Make 1000 then get back to me with numbers, you might have a case then
  • Options
    axer128axer128 Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    I doubt theres any issue with there RNG.

    However a simple math error where the chance becomes 1 - % chance instead of just (chance) is entirely possible. (so 40% instead of 60% as intended)

    "feels" like that to me too with the many shirts/pants i've crafted. But never did any solid tests.

    Since the same bug existed for a long time with several things (EG: Valiant Knight set was proccing 75% of the time instead of 25% for months.)

    Though if that was the case, trying with the just say 10% on the a rank 3, should give you a 90% shot at it..
    -Group tools in dire need of improvement, please read and reply to improve our community.
    -Epic Dread Vault Crushed.
    Characters (Dragon): Axer (60 Guardian, Leader of Crush It!), Controller (60 Wizard), Warlocker (60 Warlock)
  • Options
    buffsmadbuffsmad Member Posts: 100 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    Ofc less than half that is possible. Chance tends towards that 'success' over high numbers of repititions.

    I have 1 blue tool and overall I have 'felt' I was doing much better than expected with mailsmithing then I hit a bad run with cleric pants, 4 unslotted in a row. :( But perhaps that should be a success because the recipes were popping up more frequently. :D Next, Shirt was gemmed :D Another pants on their way.....
  • Options
    adinosiiadinosii Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,294 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    I am doing mailsmithing, with 4 purple assets. I don't have any exact numbers, but I am pretty confident that I have gotten at least 60% rank-3 results for the 40-50 pants/shirts I have made recently.
    Hoping for improvements...
  • Options
    j4k06sj4k06s Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 71 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    I kind had a similar feeling about skill nodes, which should be at 75% success rate.

    When i failed looting a skill node, and tried again quickly a couple of times. I could could get into a kind of everlasting fail where every one failed until I took a couple of seconds pause before trying again.

    I guessed this had something to do with when the system updates "random" values. Like new seed after every other second from last start of attempt, which could end in this loop, if there was not a couple of seconds between starts.

    But that is of course pure speculations... and has nothing with the long periods in professions ;)
  • Options
    hwlrmnkyhwlrmnky Member Posts: 90
    edited September 2013
    I'm not sure what assumptions anyone is making but please remember this: our chances are not cumulative. If, for example, we have an 85% chance to fuse successfully that means that every single time we have a 15% chance to fail. In other words, our past failures do not weight our chance of future success on the next roll. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's a classic. Casinos rely on our brains making the erroneous assumption when calculating.
  • Options
    fondlezfondlez Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    hwlrmnky wrote: »
    I'm not sure what assumptions anyone is making but please remember this: our chances are not cumulative. If, for example, we have an 85% chance to fuse successfully that means that every single time we have a 15% chance to fail. In other words, our past failures do not weight our chance of future success on the next roll. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's a classic. Casinos rely on our brains making the erroneous assumption when calculating.

    No amount of false fallacy covers an almost regular appearance of rolls of both 1 and 100 within the same dungeon run by the same player with at most 4 bosses/chances per run.

    There is definitely something off about the RNG in this game.
  • Options
    frishterfrishter Member Posts: 3,522 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    jn2002dk1 wrote: »
    So you got a run of bad luck and you jump to the conclusion that it's Cryptic's fault?

    Make 1000 then get back to me with numbers, you might have a case then

    Well if they got the lockbox issue wrong, who's to say it can't go the other way. The thing about the lockbox situation was that it would lose them money and was completely obvious. When odds are too low, then it's pretty hard to find out if there is an issue. I'm not trying to accuse them, but I can't have faith that they have it right and if it was wrong, I don't have faith that they'd notice/fix it in a hurry. Having said that, there seems to be a lot of bad streaks in this game.
  • Options
    valwrynvalwryn Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,620 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    Maybe the percentage they're claiming is the MAX if you have a certain combination of bounty items, facing a certain direction, carrying a certain treasure item from the Tower District, or start at a certain time of day. :rolleyes:

    Whatever it is, it's simple and easily overlooked.
  • Options
    chudovishyechudovishye Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    rsomazzi wrote: »
    I've made a slew of pants and shirts, with epic Platesmith and epic tools. Although the UI says 60% chance to get a gemmed version, I am barely earning HALF that.

    Perhaps they got the math wrong, or they've engineered crafting so that you cannot get the advertised rate. I know it's an average, and it's not guaranteed, but I am too far below (30%) the advertised rate to think this is really a 40/60 roll.

    Anyway, I wanted to hear what other crafters are averaging with their shirts/pants.

    thanks

    You're probably right. It's not consistent, and of course it's a percent (I'd say 70% is more realistic considering how much AD you have to invest in it in the first place), but yeah, sometimes I'm like WTF.
  • Options
    jn2002dk1jn2002dk1 Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    frishter wrote: »
    Well if they got the lockbox issue wrong, who's to say it can't go the other way. The thing about the lockbox situation was that it would lose them money and was completely obvious. When odds are too low, then it's pretty hard to find out if there is an issue. I'm not trying to accuse them, but I can't have faith that they have it right and if it was wrong, I don't have faith that they'd notice/fix it in a hurry. Having said that, there seems to be a lot of bad streaks in this game.
    I didn't say that can't be wrong. What i'm saying is the posters with anecdotal evidence proves nothing except how little they understand statistics

    Is it possible it's messed up? Sure but we'll need a MUCH larger sample size to even consider this

    Incidentally these types of threads pop up in any game i've ever played which contains some sort of random mechanics
    Sadly, not understanding the principles behind these things doesn't keep people from posting their irrelevant opinions
  • Options
    frishterfrishter Member Posts: 3,522 Arc User
    edited September 2013
    jn2002dk1 wrote: »
    I didn't say that can't be wrong. What i'm saying is the posters with anecdotal evidence proves nothing except how little they understand statistics

    Is it possible it's messed up? Sure but we'll need a MUCH larger sample size to even consider this

    Incidentally these types of threads pop up in any game i've ever played which contains some sort of random mechanics
    Sadly, not understanding the principles behind these things doesn't keep people from posting their irrelevant opinions

    I was mostly using your quote to add to my opinion on the matter rather than arguing with you :P
Sign In or Register to comment.