Think i know why RNG is inconsistent in PoE

"

Toshis8 wrote:

"

Char1983 wrote:

Cool, I think you still don't understand how RNG works ;).

The results are perfectly in line with what one would expect, the fact that it is 2 gems that didn't corrupt as you wanted after each successful corrupt is just by chance, it could also have been only one, or none, or three.

Technically there will always be red gaps between successful corruptions, they can small or big, but they are always there. How about trying to fill those red gaps with trash gems? Ofcourse, because of randomness you wont fit them perfectly, but i wonder how much you can cut you losses by doing this? Hope you know what i mean, its hard to convey my thoughts perfectly in english while its not my native language.

but there arent always gonna be red gaps between successful corruptions. this is where you fail to understand how rng works

So here is what i did:

1st part:

Took a control group of 80 trash gems and corrupted them. 9 of them got increased level. 11% Efficiency.

2nd part:

Took 20 good gems and 60 bad gems. Alternated between these two groups while corrupting, to try fill in the gaps with bad gems.

Out of 60 bad gems 9 got increased level. 15% efficiency.
Out of 20 good gems 6 got increased level. 30% efficiency.

Ofcourse i agree that sample is to small to firmly say anything, it could be coincidence, but you see the results.

Edit:

You know, i think this could be prevented if each item ID had its own string of random numbers. Maybe it does.

Still all gems have the same odds to get a good outcome, now matter in what order or time you corrupt them.

"

Delamonica wrote:

Still all gems have the same odds to get a good outcome, now matter in what order or time you corrupt them.

Its paradoxical. The result of the next roll doesnt depend on the previous outcome, but after a streak of bad rolls, good outcome is "getting closer".

Lets say that successful outcome is when "gem gets +1 level". Those odds are fairly small ( not like flipping a coind with a 50/50 chance), thus chance that successful outcomes will be clustered in groups of 3 or more are very unlikely. From todays experimantaion and many corruptions over the years i've observed that getting 3 successful outcomes in a row is rare, getting more - even more unlikely. Usually they stand alone or sometimes in groups of 2.

You can't teach some people. Don't bother trying.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

You can't teach some people. Don't bother trying.

Not sure what you meant? Me being stubborn or other way around :)

Probably both.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

Probably both.

:)

"

Toshis8 wrote:

Its paradoxical. The result of the next roll doesnt depend on the previous outcome, but after a streak of bad rolls, good outcome is "getting closer".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

"

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa)

You've fallen for the trap card.

"

Revnaut wrote:

"

Toshis8 wrote:

Its paradoxical. The result of the next roll doesnt depend on the previous outcome, but after a streak of bad rolls, good outcome is "getting closer".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

"

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa)

You've fallen for the trap card.

You simply misunderstood him. Think of it this way : You always have 50% chance to get heads if you flip a coin. The more times you try the less likely you are to not get a single one. So if you flip a coin 100 times you are more likely to hit heads atleast once compared to when you would do it just 10 times.