The RNG deception.

"

stayflyazn wrote:

"

Idioticus wrote:

You do know that these two are essentially the same thing, right? You're practically even admitting it in the next sentence.

"

Z3roSh0t wrote:

Can't believe this actually needs to be said, but in any situation in which the outcome is based on rng your chance for success is directly proportional to the number of iterations you can perform.

Crafting in this case is no different. Just because the chance on any given iteration is the same does not mean 2 people will have the same chance to succeed.

flip a coin. it gets tails. what are the chances that it gets heads on the next flip? its it higher cuz you flipped a tail before? no. the chance of flipping heads is the same for each and every flip. now, better is one of those words where personal opinion can hav an influence. what i said is that you get more chances with more fuses, but not better chances as in having a higher probability on the actual roll. you see, the current system doesnt discriminate btw those who play more and those that don't, you can roll thousands and never get it, or you can roll less that ten to get you there.

Flipping a coin has a 50% chance of getting tail.
Flipping a coin 3 times has a 87.5% chance of getting at least 1 tails.

You cannot be serious that having more attempts doesn't directly translate to having a better chance at getting something done.

If this weren't the case, we'd have equal amount of successes on each and every amount of attempts.

Just because you read somewhere that each individual attempt is separate of the whole, doesn't mean that there's no difference between 1000 attempts and 1 attempt.

"

Idioticus wrote:

"

stayflyazn wrote:

"

Idioticus wrote:

You do know that these two are essentially the same thing, right? You're practically even admitting it in the next sentence.

"

Z3roSh0t wrote:

Can't believe this actually needs to be said, but in any situation in which the outcome is based on rng your chance for success is directly proportional to the number of iterations you can perform.

Crafting in this case is no different. Just because the chance on any given iteration is the same does not mean 2 people will have the same chance to succeed.

flip a coin. it gets tails. what are the chances that it gets heads on the next flip? its it higher cuz you flipped a tail before? no. the chance of flipping heads is the same for each and every flip. now, better is one of those words where personal opinion can hav an influence. what i said is that you get more chances with more fuses, but not better chances as in having a higher probability on the actual roll. you see, the current system doesnt discriminate btw those who play more and those that don't, you can roll thousands and never get it, or you can roll less that ten to get you there.

Flipping a coin has a 50% chance of getting tail.
Flipping a coin 3 times has a 87.5% chance of getting at least 1 tails.

You cannot be serious that having more attempts doesn't directly translate to having a better chance at getting something done.

If this weren't the case, we'd have equal amount of successes on each and every amount of attempts.

Just because you read somewhere that each individual attempt is separate of the whole, doesn't mean that there's no difference between 1000 attempts and 1 attempt.

It doesn't matter if you flipped 100 heads prior to flipping said coin, you will still have a 50% chance to get heads. (Actually it's like 49.99999987% due to the possibility of it landing on its axis).

However, if you know you will be flipping the coin 100 times, you can assume ahead of time that you will get 50 Tails, and 50 Heads.


If you need the coin (Fusing) to land on heads (6-Link), it doesn't matter if you flipped it 1000 times before, you will still have as much of a chance to get it on your next flip as the guy who hasn't flipped once.

However, if he only has one total flip, and you have 1000 total flips, your chances of getting that head are much higher then his, even though the probability of each flip is the same.


=

RNG

Umm... If one would master the flow of the coin's dynamics, that one could be the falsely accused RNG.

"

Mikekowa wrote:

It doesn't matter if you flipped 100 heads prior to flipping said coin, you will still have a 50% chance to get heads. (Actually it's like 49.99999987% due to the possibility of it landing on its axis).

However, if you know you will be flipping the coin 100 times, you can assume ahead of time that you will get 50 Tails, and 50 Heads.


If you need the coin (Fusing) to land on heads (6-Link), it doesn't matter if you flipped it 1000 times before, you will still have as much of a chance to get it on your next flip as the guy who hasn't flipped once.

However, if he only has one total flip, and you have 1000 total flips, your chances of getting that head are much higher then his, even though the probability of each flip is the same.


=

RNG

You are correct that you could do 2000 previous attempts and on your 2001st attempt you have the exact chance to succeed that you did on chance 1, but the reality is that this type of system breaks the economy and will eventually put a barrier between high-end gear/players and new/low gear players that's so large they will be pushed away from the game. Pure RNG systems like this that not only don't reward for continued effort but actually punish for failed attempts (going from 5L to 2L for example) cause serious issues.

Basically the current system discourages the use of orbs without having 1000s already stashed, and many many players will never see that kind of wealth before just getting frustrated and leaving. It's okay to require 1000s of orbs to acquire said items, but don't punish players for taking "pot shots" at the RNG to play their luck with the wealth.

Also, it's a little disingenuous to use a 50% probability to try and defend a .1% (roughly) probability. While the two are technically the same, in the 50% case if one player is given 5 chances and another given 50, there's an extremely high chance that both players walk away with success in hand, while with a lower probability if you give one player 500 chances and another 5000 chances there's a very very good chance the player with 500 will never get it. Even if you repeat this scenario a ton, the person with 500 chances would probably only ever get it around 10-20% of the iterations of said scenario.

I have no problem, 0, nada, zilch, with RNG. My problem is actually in how this game handles failed attempts potentially reverting your item from nearly top-tier (or just very useful) to completely worthless in one orb. As I stated earlier I also have some issues because not all of us can play 8+ hrs per day (actually even playing 2 is a struggle for a lot of us), and while I don't expect to get top tier gear by playing that little, I don't really want to be punished (above and beyond losing wealth) for taking occasional shots at playing RNG to maybe get it on dumb luck.

"

metalxheart wrote:

where did you get that the average 6L is 1500
Christ only said 1500 as an example for recipe
i'm assuming avg is around 500 -750 so the 1500 is 2x or 3x the cost
just in case ppl dont want to gamble

First time i try to 6L cost me 1800 fusings second time i spend 1900 and didnt get 6L...so i dont think avg is 500-750

"

Zguza_Do_Suz4 wrote:

"

metalxheart wrote:

where did you get that the average 6L is 1500
Christ only said 1500 as an example for recipe
i'm assuming avg is around 500 -750 so the 1500 is 2x or 3x the cost
just in case ppl dont want to gamble

First time i try to 6L cost me 1800 fusings second time i spend 1900 and didnt get 6L...so i dont think avg is 500-750

you just belong to the group GGG decided is an acceptable loss.

Since a lot of people don't really seem to understand, if your chance of a 6L is 1 in 750, you will on average need around 1200-1500 fuses to have a greater than 80% chance of success. If the set rate is 1 in 1000 that goes up to about 2200 for > 80% chance.

Probabilities are pretty deceitful with regards to your chance to succeed.

I teach mathematics for a living... have been doing it for almost 40 years. You can't teach people this stuff on a forum. I quit trying years ago. People who don't understand it aren't going to magically figure it out from six lines of text. They don't even want to.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

I teach mathematics for a living... have been doing it for almost 40 years. You can't teach people this stuff on a forum. I quit trying years ago. People who don't understand it aren't going to magically figure it out from six lines of text. They don't even want to.

I see what you mean... I did try :p

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

I teach mathematics for a living... have been doing it for almost 40 years. You can't teach people this stuff on a forum. I quit trying years ago. People who don't understand it aren't going to magically figure it out from six lines of text. They don't even want to.

I do math for a living, and can confirm that companies make money off of the average person's misunderstanding of probabilities. I think some people are hard-wired to reject the whole notion of randomness.