Jump to content

Reverse Engineering is not 20%


Darth_Sweets

Recommended Posts

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 :(

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Khevar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by SuperGrunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%.

It needn't be - if it was something as simple as a variable that guaranteed success on say, the 15th time at the absolute worst, the overall increase in the odds would be fairly insignificant, since only a small percentage would be so unlucky, on average. That would be the equivalent of bumping the odds to something like, say, 22%, but more importantly it would "smooth out" the discrepancies caused by random luck.

 

If you'd feel badly that it wasn't a "real" 20%, you could slightly reduce the chance to account for the improved effective odds, either in an absolute sense or on a sliding scale that improves up to you reach the backstop.

 

Now, when you describe these formulas, of course they sound "complicated" to people that freak out over math. But this is stuff the average player needn't ever see. But it'd be trivial for Bioware to program, and honestly, on their end, their gameplay formulas SHOULD be complicated. Gameplay should feel complicated, unpredictable, but never random and frustrating.

 

If Bioware won't let players do anything else to improve their odds over time, they should at least do something to tamp down on sheer randomness. Players REALLY don't like total, uncontrollable randomness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Who cares. You are all looking at this from the wrong end of the horse.

 

A crafting system with no learning curve, no proficiency rate, just relying on an 80 percent failure rate across the board is the problem, not how close we come to that 80% failure rate. A craftier with a skill of 400 should never fail on a level 10 item pattern no more then a master carpenter would fail 80% of the time trying to nail two simple pieces of framing lumber together. The entire system from the UT companion mission mess, to the RE rate is a failure.

Edited by Blackardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

The current crafting system is equivalent to wearing level 50 tank gear that does not increase any stats, improve one's chances to mitigate damage, dodge, absorb. A crafting system without a learning curve, without the ability to improve one's skill, chances, percentages is a failed system. Its really that simple.

Edited by Blackardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current crafting system is equivalent to wearing level 50 tank gear that does not increase any stats, improve one's chances to mitigate damage, dodge, absorb. A crafting system without a learning curve, without the ability to improve one's skill, chances, percentages is a failed system. Its really that simple.

 

How are you defining "failed system"? You may not agree with or like the current system as it is, but that doesn't inherently make it a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares. You are all looking at this from the wrong end of the horse.

 

A crafting system with no learning curve, no proficiency rate, just relying on an 80 percent failure rate across the board is the problem, not how close we come to that 80% failure rate. A craftier with a skill of 400 should never fail on a level 10 item pattern no more then a master carpenter would fail 80% of the time trying to nail two simple pieces of framing lumber together. The entire system from the UT companion mission mess, to the RE rate is a failure.

Might I point out that the current crafting / RE system being poorly designed is NOT the subject of this thread?

 

If this is important to you, please start another thread.

 

This thread is a discussion of probability and analysis of the 20% chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, as others have mentioned you are relying on the results of a pseudorandom number generator. The problem with pseudorandom number generators is that to approximate randomness, the numbers have to be taken and use in order. You've partitioned your results between different sets of attempts, and that's not to mention the fact that you are almost certainly drawing from a random number pool that is also used by other users. Your results aren't statistically valid for that reason, the number of trials or anything else notwithstanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Classic gambler's fallacy. Did you even read the wikipedia link above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you defining "failed system"? You may not agree with or like the current system as it is, but that doesn't inherently make it a failure.

You are basically arguing a logical fallacy.

 

My opinion was not entered into the debate, just the evidence at hand, which I've already explained. A crafting model must have a learning curve, variables based on level and participation in the particular chosen craft in order to even be considered "crafting". A system based solely on an 80% failure rate with no variables, no learning curve is a poorly thought out, poorly designed system. It is a stretch to even call this a crafting system.

 

it is no more crafting then buying cartel packs on the cartel market and hoping for a roll that provides particular armors, just more tedious. This particular system is so far out of whack that economically it is far more lucrative an endeavor to farm mats then to perform the actual crafting because of the randomness of the draw. In fact, low level mats are at the highest mark-up comparatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I point out that the current crafting / RE system being poorly designed is NOT the subject of this thread?

 

If this is important to you, please start another thread.

 

This thread is a discussion of probability and analysis of the 20% chance.

 

Might I point out that you are not the board police, the OP, or any part of the development team, so I will politely invite you to keep that opinion to yourself. ;p

 

I might also point out that no one in this thread, no player has sufficient data available to do an accurate assessment of this particular aspect of the system which makes attempting to do so a colossal waste of time and effort, especially when this is not even the problem with the system. You are, in fact, attempting to find a way to make a failed system less of a failure rather then concentrate on repairing the problem at hand. That represents the validity of my contention in relation to this thread....not that I have to defend that to you. ;p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic gambler's fallacy. Did you even read the wikipedia link above?

 

No that is not the gambler´s fallacy. The gambler´s fallacy is assuming that if you have not rolled a 6 with a normal dice the likelyhood of rolling a six increases.

The poster you quoted simply stated that not rolling a six has the probability of 5/6 with one roll, but 25/36 with two rolls, ... . With increasing the number of rolls the likelyhood of not having rolled a six converges against zero, while for every single throw the chance of not rolling a six remains 5/6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, as others have mentioned you are relying on the results of a pseudorandom number generator. The problem with pseudorandom number generators is that to approximate randomness, the numbers have to be taken and use in order. You've partitioned your results between different sets of attempts, and that's not to mention the fact that you are almost certainly drawing from a random number pool that is also used by other users. Your results aren't statistically valid for that reason, the number of trials or anything else notwithstanding.

Why do you believe that only a pseydorandom number generator is used and not real randomness ?

Not to mention that it does not matter either way, since picking elements at random from the sequence created by either should result in a random sequence of numbers.

The question is how the number generator picks the numbers and how they are distributed (Poisson-,Uniform- , Binomial- ). The simplest of those is ofcorse the Uniform-distribution that assigns every value between 1 and 100 the chance of 1/100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because generating 'real randomness' is either computationally expensive, or requires specialized hardware to do so.

 

Since even the most basic computer random number generators are good enough to fool the naked eye, and coupling that with the fact that a user adds additional randomness to the process wheter a real RNG is used or not is not really the point, the 20% rate ,if it is true, should be noticebale even if they use a deterministic, every fifth request to the server results in a succes, model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are basically arguing a logical fallacy.

 

My opinion was not entered into the debate, just the evidence at hand, which I've already explained. A crafting model must have a learning curve, variables based on level and participation in the particular chosen craft in order to even be considered "crafting". A system based solely on an 80% failure rate with no variables, no learning curve is a poorly thought out, poorly designed system. It is a stretch to even call this a crafting system.

 

it is no more crafting then buying cartel packs on the cartel market and hoping for a roll that provides particular armors, just more tedious. This particular system is so far out of whack that economically it is far more lucrative an endeavor to farm mats then to perform the actual crafting because of the randomness of the draw. In fact, low level mats are at the highest mark-up comparatively.

 

In the real world, I agree that crafting is a skill you develop over time and get better at as you go. In a game, where playing a PvE story is the most important aspect of that game, not so much. Pure randomness does a couple of things in a game environment:

 

- it creates specialists. certain players get lucky and can craft things that other players cannot. Those who cannot seek out those who can. This creates a form of community and builds the game economy. Yes, eventually there are more of those who can versus those who cannot, but that is when expansions and crew skill level caps increase and new schematics become available.

 

- it is a time and money sink. For those who really want a specific schematic they have to invest time and in game money to the process of acquiring a schematic they really want. This encourages players to keep playing. Some players dislike this and do not participate; they either leave the game or seek out the specialists described above.

 

I think one of the big issues here is SWG. In that game, being a crafter was a legitimate "class." you spent all your time crafting stuff for other players. You gained a reputation and players sought you out to craft gear for them. There was also the gear deterioration factor - gear wore out over time - so gear would have to be replaced, creating a consistent demand. SWTOR has none of these factors. Some players want those factors in SWTOR, but they do not work in SWTOR because SWTOR is a very different game than SWG.

 

Most MMOs I have played are more like SWTOR than SWG. You are presented with a trainer NPC that "teaches" you how to make items, you then make those items. Some randomness mechanic makes certain items desirable and valuable. You sell those items to players who are unwilling to make it themselves.

Edited by psandak
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...