Displayed crafting crit chance: 45%. Actual: 10%

heckgoblin

Second thread on this topic, to follow up on an earlier one.

Been crafting Exotic Particle Field Exciters. Have now crafted 20. Out of those, two were ultra-rare. My chance to craft an ultra-rare console is 45% with two blue catalysts, according to the crafting screen. My ACTUAL chance to craft an ultra-rare console, however, is now 10%.

Don't feed me BS about sample size and probability. This is clearly broken.

mustrumridcully0

Sample Size and Probability.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

sirmayday

Of all of the supposed transparency in outcome probabilities, especially when it comes to DOff missions and crafting, STO is the most accurate/transparent I think I've ever seen. So...

...BS about probability and sample size?

scififan78

The thing is that it is 45% PER ATTEMPT, not overall.

mrtshead

heckgoblin wrote: »

Second thread on this topic, to follow up on an earlier one.

Been crafting Exotic Particle Field Exciters. Have now crafted 20. Out of those, two were ultra-rare. My chance to craft an ultra-rare console is 45% with two blue catalysts, according to the crafting screen. My ACTUAL chance to craft an ultra-rare console, however, is now 10%.

Don't feed me BS about sample size and probability. This is clearly broken.

It's not BS. You got unlucky - sucks to be you. Given your stated numbers, we can roughly estimate the probability of only hitting a 45% crit chance twice in 20 tries (I just put your probability to 50% and plugged it into Wolfram Alpha) and it looks like the odds of that are about 1/5500. Rare, but certainly within the realm of reasonable results, especially when you take into consideration the sheer number of players likely using the crafting system. The law of large numbers says (in essence) that while any individual's odds of having this happen are small, in aggregate the odds of SOMEONE in the population experiencing this will approach 1. In this case, you drew the short straw, but that doesn't mean the RNG isn't working properly.

sirmayday

In fairness, I calculate less than a .0002% chance of getting the results the OP observed. That, and for a striking number of situations, 20 trials is an adequate sample size. So, rather than probability and sample size, I sould say something like "bad luck is bad."

shandypandy

Richard Feynman:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

noroblad

Theoretical probability aside, all random number generators are flawed in some way. The best ones take many, many flops and are "more random" at the cost of CPU but even those operate under a forcing algorithm that typically prevents things that actually can happen (like getting the same number twice in a row, or 3 times, etc). The worst ones are little more than a single division to compute but have odd behaviors.

The point is that most programmers use built in random number generation for their language. And most of those languages use the fastest thing going, --- the poorly implemented stuff.

The result is that you can get a streak of "similar" numbers on a regular basis ... for example if rolling a number from 0 to 1 to use as a %, you can get 0, 10, 0, 0, 3, 0, ... this is not unusual for those types of generators. Its a well known issue that has to do with the flawed system of attempting to create random numbers from deterministic inputs coupled with the *desire* to be able to repeat the random numbers in many applications (using the random numbers as input to test a system, you want to duplicate your results sometimes to verify a test or track down a bug or something).

Or to put it simply: random numbers in your PC are not random as defined probability and statistics, and results may vary when using them.

heckgoblin

Taking the obscene, disgusting, excessive cost of crafting into account, it'd be nice if Cryptic modified their RNG to ensure that such long streaks of "bad luck" are broken up by the occasional booby prize.

I mean, there is literally no way for me to recover the amount of resources I've sunk into crafting at this point. I insert 6 mil EC worth of materials, I get a console worth less than 2 mil back, times 18. Hell, even the two ultra-rares I got were cheap garbage scarcely worth more than materials.

This is really depressing and disappointing. Like, quit STO and find a game that doesn't feel like prison **** disappointing. I'm reading more and more about Elite: Dangerous, and it's sounding a lot more fun than this TRIBBLE farm.

lored2death

Crapshoot takes on a double meaning with the monetized crafting system. Its a gamble to get anything decent and you normally end up with crappy shooters.

angrytarg

heckgoblin wrote: »

(...)
Don't feed me BS about sample size and probability. This is clearly broken.

No, it isnt. You still don't get the concept behind "probability".

I don't say this system is good, it's awful. It's gambling. But it's not broken.

nicha0

RNGs in MMOs typically use the time as one of the random factors, which is a nasty habit coders use. Problem is when you do something all at once or even establish a routine, your RNG is often the same or close (see old Doff results where you could crit 15/20 or fail 6+ on a less than 1% chance)

lored2death

sirmayday wrote: »

In fairness, I calculate less than a .0002% chance of getting the results the OP observed. That, and for a striking number of situations, 20 trials is an adequate sample size. So, rather than probability and sample size, I sould say something like "bad luck is bad."

Its almost like the crafting system is one gigantic lockbox with those odds...except worse. Ouch.

peterconnorfirst

lored2death wrote: »

Its almost like the crafting system is one gigantic lockbox with those odds...except worse. Ouch.

…Pakled-Ferengi-Nightmare comes to mind.

But true. For me it’s far healthier to play the fun parts of this game, the few that are left at least, in order to mount recourses and pay a solid price on the exchange.

mrtshead

lored2death wrote: »

Its almost like the crafting system is one gigantic lockbox with those odds...except worse. Ouch.

You misread what he wrote - those are the odds of having results as BAD as the OP, not the results for getting something good.

heckgoblin

Anyone out there who has managed to craft *more* ultra-rares than rares? If the RNG is truly random, there should be some folks like that. Best I've heard of, is people roughly approaching the displayed probability, but have never heard of someone exceeding it.

sheldonlcooper

I will say this. My chance for crit on the 20 hour mission is somewhere in the 70's. I used to get crit more than this - maybe 90%. Now It's around 50% the past couple weeks. Sample size is pretty decent.

mrtshead

heckgoblin wrote: »

Anyone out there who has managed to craft *more* ultra-rares than rares? If the RNG is truly random, there should be some folks like that. Best I've heard of, is people roughly approaching the displayed probability, but have never heard of someone exceeding it.

I have certainly overshot my displayed value, and I'm sure other's have as well. The thing is, people who are happy or at least getting what they expected tend to not report that, which means we are much more likely to hear from people who are unhappy, which in turn leads to a mistaken perception that there is a problem when none really exists.

mrtshead

sheldonlcooper wrote: »

I will say this. My chance for crit on the 20 hour mission is somewhere in the 70's. I used to get crit more than this - maybe 90%. Now It's around 50% the past couple weeks. Sample size is pretty decent.

Please, please tell me you are not trying to assert a stealth nerf or something, because those numbers look perfectly random to me - you got a cluster of "good" and a cluster of "bad", but taken across the whole it looks like your average would be about 70%, which seems to be working all the way around.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

heckgoblin

TRIBBLE YOU! *runs away crying*

thatcursedwolf

nicha0 wrote: »

RNGs in MMOs typically use the time as one of the random factors, which is a nasty habit coders use. Problem is when you do something all at once or even establish a routine, your RNG is often the same or close (see old Doff results where you could crit 15/20 or fail 6+ on a less than 1% chance)

If you've got your routine down to the millisecond, accounting for otherwise unpredictable lag, you're more machine than human.

sheldonlcooper

mrtshead wrote: »

Please, please tell me you are not trying to assert a stealth nerf or something, because those numbers look perfectly random to me - you got a cluster of "good" and a cluster of "bad", but taken across the whole it looks like your average would be about 70%, which seems to be working all the way around.

The cluster of good lasted 4 months. The cluster of bad is 2 weeks. That is all.

heckgoblin

Yeah, I don't have any sort of routine. Sometimes I start crafting jobs early in the day, sometimes toward the evening.

Terrible, terrible crafting luck then, I guess. This must be my penalty for all those lockbox ships I've won.

mustrumridcully0

nicha0 wrote: »

RNGs in MMOs typically use the time as one of the random factors, which is a nasty habit coders use. Problem is when you do something all at once or even establish a routine, your RNG is often the same or close (see old Doff results where you could crit 15/20 or fail 6+ on a less than 1% chance)

Seeds for randomization algorithms are often dates. Your routine doesn't matter, unless you're a time traveller*.



*) and don't just travel at the speed of 1 second per second through spacetime like the rest of us.

riccardo171

http://i.imgur.com/7z8wN2V.jpg

It's called gambler's fallacy, meaning that it's not true that after a long series of identical outcomes you'll have more chances to get a different one.

Follow my advice, don't go down too hard with crafting :P
Probability trolled you, not Cryptic.

czertik123

well, make 4 sided dice, one each side put color you want (white, yelow, blue, purple - and add purple/blue mix fopr 5 sided) - to represent crafting.
Throw it - and you see what result you will get from that particular attemt.
Im sure it will be VERY accurate ?
why ?
because on doffs mission i sow o many missins with 3% faulure and 30% crit chance actualy failing and so many 20% failure and 4% crit getiting crited so i realy dont belive in displayd numbers.