LABYRINTH ENCHANTS ARE RIGGED

"

Darkkrows wrote:

"

Qarl wrote:

Helmet enchants are evenly weighted. The repeats you report are certainly not mathematically impossible.

While getting that precise set of results again is not going to happen, getting a set of results with large number of repeats of things you don't want certainly can happen.

the enchantment should have been split into 4 major categories for RNG. Melee, Projectile, Spell, Defense. Let player choose that and RNG from there.


It complete makes no sense to roll a melee skill on a ranger character helm. It is kinda defeat purpose of Ascendancy class specialization.

It doesn't defeat the purpose it simply encourages you to trade/sell the good ones you happen to hit other players will be looking for and buying the particular one you happen to be wanting.

And once ES is brought more in line with Life Hopefully that will make it so there will be a larger amount of items that are being enchanted with different enchants to make it easier to find the one your looking for. Thats the biggest problem finding a particular chant especially if you are life based because everyone pretty much only chants Hubris helms ATM. Very few life based or helms that are not hubris are being chanted at least not enough to create and large market full of different enchants on lots of different helms. Then it may be possible to find players with the helm your looking for and the chant you want and you trade them for the one they are looking for and so on.

I still would like more chances at chanting based on say giving up my chest keys at the end. Instead of opening the chests you could choose to use the keys for extra chances at enchanting. IDK seems like it could work.

"

Qarl wrote:

Helmet enchants are evenly weighted. The repeats you report are certainly not mathematically impossible.

While getting that precise set of results again is not going to happen, getting a set of results with large number of repeats of things you don't want certainly can happen.

Qarl is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact the chance of it happening is much greater than our intuitive feel. The chance of a collision is much greater than what one might think. This is what is known as the "Birthday Paradox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Vapala wrote:

"

Tin_Foil_Hat wrote:

Actually the average run amount is about 100 before you hit the enchant you want, but someone who ignores numbers and just wants to complain and get free handouts isnt going to understand that.

Also, most people are lying about how many times theyve ran it and GGG can see that by simply looking at their logs, which is obviously what they did when they decided if it should change or not.

It's weird. I would think if there is 361 enchant and I need a particular one it would be 1/361.

I must be really bad at math esp that you seem very adamant about your results.

Can you please explain that one?

Once you are at it, can you also please calculate the proper amount of run to guarantee a 99% drop rate on a 1/361 chance? I am pretty sure you would need around 1400 runs to guarantee it at 99%

Please try to explain without insulting me, telling me to learn math etc.

I am not the poster you are asking but can answer that the statements of "Tin_Foil_Hat" are simply false.
For example the chance of not getting the (one out of 361 equally probable ones) enchantment that you want in 100 runs is (360/361)^100 ~= 76% => chance of getting it in 100 runs is ~= 24%.

I responded to Qarl's statement before reading the rest of the thread.

Tin_Foil_Hat's problem is a different one from the birthday problem. The birthday problem is calculating the chance of random collisions. I actually used that calculation when I was software engineering. TFH's math problem is described by Zrevnur. TFH was mistaken (or lying) when he was making his false assertions. Zrevnur (and Silmut) got it right. I especially enjoyed Silmut highlighting TFH's silly attempt at an insult when he told the guy to learn math while refusing to show his own incorrect math. Thanks all for laughs!

edit (for TFH consumption): Perhaps an interesting observation, if you look at the birthday paradox in the Wikipedia article that I linked, the chance of there not being at least one random collision starts approaching zero at 100. Perhaps you (Tin_foil_hat) were thinking that the birthday paradox could be used to solve the problem. Well if that was the case you're wrong there. The birthday paradox is the probably of any RANDOM two people having the same RANDOM birthday (a collision), not for a specific date of the year. Zrevnur and Silmut are doing the proper calculation for a specific wanted enchant.