Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Reverse Engineering is not 20%

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Crew Skills
Reverse Engineering is not 20%

psandak's Avatar


psandak
02.15.2013 , 04:03 PM | #51
Quote: Originally Posted by Khevar View Post
This argument is bordering on the "Gambler's Fallacy" Here is a halfway decent explanation of that concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Note that people with the Gambler's Fallacy make casinos very happy.
Very enlightening, but the statement below (quoted from wikipedia), makes all our attempts to change people's minds moot

Quote:
The gambler's fallacy is a deep-seated cognitive bias and therefore very difficult to eliminate. For the most part, educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the gambler's fallacy.

Telanis's Avatar


Telanis
02.15.2013 , 04:27 PM | #52
Quote: Originally Posted by HurricaneEagle View Post
It's 20% per RE.

When you RE Item 1-1, there's a 20% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
When you RE Item 1-2, there's a 20% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
When you RE Item 1-3, there's a 20% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Not

When you RE Item 1-1, there's a 20% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
When you RE Item 1-2, there's a 40% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
When you RE Item 1-3, there's a 60% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
When you RE Item 1-4, there's a 80% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
When you RE Item 1-5, there's a 100% you will learn schematic Adv Item 1.
You didn't read anything before commenting, obviously, since nobody said that.

Khevar's Avatar


Khevar
02.15.2013 , 04:35 PM | #53
Quote: Originally Posted by psandak View Post
Very enlightening, but the statement below (quoted from wikipedia), makes all our attempts to change people's minds moot
You know, just to digress for a moment, the first time I went to Vegas and learned to play craps, I was convinced that I could actually work out a viable strategy to win at that game. (Never mind the fact that far more intelligent mathematicians than me had yet to do so. ) My deep-seated belief in my own version of the Gambler's fallacy convinced me that I could work out a strategy that would net me big bucks.

It wasn't until the Nth version of my Martingale strategy program, running millions of dice rolls for each iteration, that I started to have a vague idea that perhaps I was being foolish, and that there is a very good reason for a table limit, why the odds are structured the way they are, and why card counting strategists are thrown out but dice counting strategists are welcomed with open arms.

It took quite a bit of convincing for me to come to terms with my own Gambler's Fallacy. I wonder what it takes for others.

Lodril's Avatar


Lodril
02.15.2013 , 10:04 PM | #54
Quote: Originally Posted by Khevar View Post
@Lodril, Quite the philosophical analysis of RE threads.
Dare I ask, do you hold a viewpoint of:
1. The RE tooltip percentage (20%) is probably accurate.
2. The RE tooltip percentage (20%) is probably incorrect.
3. Don't care poking fun at forum posters.
Months ago, my initial personal observations made it seem like the results were skewing low, but I figured it might just be my own impression and so I came to the boards to see what other people were saying. Lots and lots of people apparently shared the same sense about it, but a few were running tallies and doing the math. Not really my field, but some of the arguments against their conclusions have been amusing to me, so I occasionally peek back to see the discussions.

jgelling's Avatar


jgelling
02.15.2013 , 10:14 PM | #55
Quote: Originally Posted by Miravlix View Post
The usual gamers fallicy...

"Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes."

It's a 20% chance each time you re an item, it's not a 20% chance of all your re attempts.
In the case of crafting, perhaps the (game) universe should carry a memory of past results?

It's entirely possible to tweak the formula so that the average remains 20%, and yet a small percentage of players are not screwed horribly 30 times in a row. You just add a simple variable to track all the misses, and when they reach a certain threshold it either increases the odds, forces a success, or something similar.

There really isn't a good reason crafting to me should even be a completely random thing. Not only is that completely frustrating for unlucky players, it doesn't even make logical sense. In the real-world, you're much more likely to succeed at something the more you try at it - you're not 20% likely to succeed the first time and also 20% to succeed the 30th time.

You learn from your failures, so it'd make sense if the system had a variable that kept failures from getting out of hand. It may well, for all I know, but it wouldn't shock me in the least if Bioware's formula really was as dumb as a 0.2 saved as a constant in some file.

Timonius's Avatar


Timonius
02.15.2013 , 11:31 PM | #56
Quote: Originally Posted by jgelling View Post
There really isn't a good reason crafting to me should even be a completely random thing. Not only is that completely frustrating for unlucky players, it doesn't even make logical sense. In the real-world, you're much more likely to succeed at something the more you try at it - you're not 20% likely to succeed the first time and also 20% to succeed the 30th time.
This by far has made the most sense. I believe the success rate needs tweaking somewhere based on the crafting skill level. For example if your craft level is at 400 and you are trying to RE a level 20 green item, perhaps it should be more like a 50% chance to get a blue. This is purely an example and in no way reflects what it actually ought to be.
Improvements for higher level/quality items need a far greater analysis due to the greater impact on game economy. The point is that a veteran level 50 crafter ought to be able to RE and craft lower level items much easier due to the 'experience' factor.

Wittand's Avatar


Wittand
02.16.2013 , 10:18 AM | #57
The OP makes one mistake that has nothing to do with sample size.

He assumes that the difference between observed and expected results is normal distributed. But this is only the case for the binomial model with a fair coin (and enough tries). Crafting in SW:ToR however follows a binomial model with a weighted coin so the resulting distribution is not normal.
Most statistical tests fail whenever you test something that is not normal distributed.
In order to check if the chance for a success is truly 20% in the game you need to do more work like a series of SPRT .
An alternative is to check if the distribution resembles the expected result by applying more heuristic methods, like simply plotting the results of the experiments and compare the resulting image with a graph of the real distribution.

SuperGrunt's Avatar


SuperGrunt
02.16.2013 , 01:37 PM | #58
Quote: Originally Posted by jasonthelamb View Post
But think of it like rolling a 10-sided dice, where 2 certain numbers will give you a good result, the more you roll, the higher the probability you come across one of the two numbers you want.
But in the case of RE you aren't rolling multiple dice only 1 die. The more you roll it the more likely you are to get the desired number you want, but you still have the same probability of rolling a 10 as a 1.

Ok so for anyone who is still trying to figure this out and having problems understanding it I will relate some of my own experience with RNG in my Video Game Design studies.

My first C++ project was a text based RPG with a combat system. To make the combat system not be a Hulk Smash style thing. I had to come up with a Random function to randomize the damage while still making it possible to win and lose. I decided to make it possible to crit and miss based on the # generated with the random roll. I tried going the easy route and using the standard time based single Random function, that failed as you would get streaks of hits and misses that wouldn't end until time shifted enough to make a difference.

I attempted to change it by making nested Randoms with the result of the first being the basis for the subsequent result. Same result.

So I decided to introduce a pause into the function. At that point it actually worked, while it wasn't truly random, it did have enough variation within the outcomes to appear random. It worked because I forced a time shift into the code, same thing Bioware does by making us cast the RE. Granted it is a false random because the only thing that would actually be able to change the outcome of a Random function call is time, but by forcing a time change by making us cast the RE attempt. they allow for a series of nested Random #s to be generated, with the # generated affecting subsequent results until the cast is finished and a final # is selected. Your complaint that it isn't random is true, but to say that the tool tip is incorrect, is flawed, & unless you can get access to the code and find the specific string of code which relates to the RE results it is actually slanderous. Be glad that Bioware is letting you vent your frustrations here. If you took this to a public forum and made any money off of a website, or news article with that in it they could actually sue you.
My propsed changes to Loot Rules.
My Twitch channel, both a link and the address so you can choose how you visit it. twitch.tv/otawo

Zorash's Avatar


Zorash
02.16.2013 , 02:38 PM | #59
Quote: Originally Posted by jgelling View Post
In the case of crafting, perhaps the (game) universe should carry a memory of past results?

It's entirely possible to tweak the formula so that the average remains 20%, and yet a small percentage of players are not screwed horribly 30 times in a row. You just add a simple variable to track all the misses, and when they reach a certain threshold it either increases the odds, forces a success, or something similar.

There really isn't a good reason crafting to me should even be a completely random thing. Not only is that completely frustrating for unlucky players, it doesn't even make logical sense. In the real-world, you're much more likely to succeed at something the more you try at it - you're not 20% likely to succeed the first time and also 20% to succeed the 30th time.

You learn from your failures, so it'd make sense if the system had a variable that kept failures from getting out of hand. It may well, for all I know, but it wouldn't shock me in the least if Bioware's formula really was as dumb as a 0.2 saved as a constant in some file.
That will make the system ridiculously complicated. You seem to be only looking at half the problem you would be creating. By creating a system that remembers past failures, so you gaurantee or increase your chance of a success, you now need to do the opposite. You need to remember past successes, so when too many successes happen you need to increase the chance of a failure, to ensure the chance is still 20%.

Jilisipone's Avatar


Jilisipone
02.16.2013 , 08:31 PM | #60
Considering that setting a % value of something to occur in a computer program is simply a matter of a single decimal value....I feel pretty confident that the programmers can easily look in the code and see the 0.2 muliplier set and confirm that everything is correct.

Sample size is one of the most important parts of statistical mathmatics and anything less than 5 - 10k results in a game where there are millions of that calculation made every day is simply too small to be conclusive.