LABYRINTH ENCHANTS ARE RIGGED

"

HarukaTeno wrote:

"

TheNightFly wrote:

For instance, you're supposed to have a 78% chance to hit. That means precisely 78 hits and 22 misses in every interval of 100 attacks.

You're mixing up "chance" with "rate". Big mistake.

In short&simple words: you can easily have 50 (and even more) attacks "miss" with 78% chance to hit.
Hence, "the chance".

"

HarukaTeno wrote:

"

TheNightFly wrote:

But 100 is a big interval in which the results can vary wildly so, to produce a smoother outcome, I would use an interval of 10 attacks instead.

Second mistake.
If you're trying to describe probability theory (here) to someone who doesn't know anything about it - you're doing it seriously wrong.

"

Perq wrote:

"

Umbra_the_Wolf 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.

I'm calling B.S. on this flat-out, that's what this post is about. not math. It's about a slots-machine style game getting one more quarter from us, ie- more time in the game with less return than we invest to create a stable base. RIGGED.

By taking some assumptions we find something we don't like
1. If I'm right, then that means the game is set up to be able to mathematically cater to the house (to continue the gambling analogy)
2. If you're right, then still Random Number Generation is so evil it's almost a miracle it's used by POE in its base form, ie- raw numbers without filters. In which case it begs for some kind of filter like what we have for chromes on intelligence, dexterity, armor and mixed defense gear for changing colors.

No matter who is right or wrong, the entire LAB is a pile of steaming crap that was quite obviously created to keep people addicted by pouring as much time of their lives into it for as long as possible. One more quarter. One more level. One more enchantment. It's all the same in the end.

[Removed by support] Not even Diablo 2 was this horrible.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so its just the basic RNG sucks kind of thread. I was almost fooled you were inventing new math here.

Hmmm, so yeah. Have you looked around, like, ever? Everything in this game is RNG. Like it or not, it is what it is.

"

TheNightFly wrote:

Whether it's mathematically likely or not these results are still crappy and unrealistic, which is very discouraging. I would have expected a greater variety of outcomes and only a few pairs.

When the results seem ridiculously skewed and unrealistic like this it's because it isn't rigged. The results are produced entirely by RNG without enforcement. Random number generators never produce even distributions. The system needs to be 'rigged' by forcing specific results to happen after a number of random results over an interval of outcomes to produce realistic results.

For instance, you're supposed to have a 78% chance to hit. That means precisely 78 hits and 22 misses in every interval of 100 attacks. But 100 is a big interval in which the results can vary wildly so, to produce a smoother outcome, I would use an interval of 10 attacks instead. That would leave an adjusted ratio of 7 hits and 3 misses per interval of 10 attacks. Truncate the fractional values and add them to an accumulator that adds +1 to the adjusted values whenever it's >1. I would use RNG at the beginning of each interval to decide hit or miss but only until the maximum number of hits or misses is reached. The outcomes of the remaining attacks must then be forced as either misses or hits, respectively. Game applications should employ something like this anywhere RNG is used.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

silumit wrote:

DalaiLama, see my post above, the post you are quoting is totally wrong :)

Hmm, sorry about that! I wonder if I had that browser window open for commenting while my attention was on something else for awhile. Your formula looks good. What numbers did you plug in? The 4,4,6 or did you include the 9 too?

I didn't notice the 9x when I was using a binomial calc. Even a single enchant with 7 repeats is about 1 in 1.4 million. Possible with hordes (tens of thousands) of people playing at 7 and maybe even 8. 9 sounds like something *might* be broken?

"

Umbra_the_Wolf wrote:

GUYS THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT MATH.

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

"

Summoner wrote:

It's not impossible, but a brief simulation suggests it's unlikely. According to this, there're 362 possible helmet enchantments (2 levels each). I used excel's random function to generate 110 values between 1 and 362, and the frequency formula to bin them by value. In 5000 trials I got a max of 6 repeats once (0.02%), a max of 5 repeats 31 times (.62%), a max of 4 repeats 476 times (9.52%), a max of 3 repeats 3275 times (65.5%), and a max of 2 repeats 1217 times (24.34%).

All of the 5000 trials had at least one repeat; but if the odds of all results are equally likely, Umbra_the_Wolf's results are extremely improbable.

That is really cool. I thought 9 was unlikely, but it looks like it is far more unlikely than I originally thought. Even though the OP clearly plays fast and loose with words like 'everyone' and 'impossible', the claim about it being rigged is a bit less far-fetched than I originally thought.

"

silumit wrote:

if you want to know the probability of rolling it, say, 6 times of 110(not necessarily consequentially, just 6 hits), it is the same as probability of NOT rolling it 110-6=104 times, or (361/362)^104 = approx.75%.

No, this is incorrect. To see why, try working out the probability of rolling it 10 times using your method. Or 100 times.

If you use your brain, you'll see that the Excell simulation is probably the best way to go in this case. ;)