thank you I will add your data to what i have and post an update

I am working on coming up with a more stringent test but the statistics expert at work doesn't think there would ever be a need for it, but in theory it is possible.

Once again i will state that your dealing with a joint distribution where each distribution in very different from a binomial one we are talking about?

You're dealing with a random number generator. As a software developer, I can say with confidence that implementing RNG is very easy. I can tell you that you have never made a random number generator, if you have you wouldn't make that statement because there is no such thing as a true random number generator. They all have a bias the only question is can you live with the inherent bias.

look i don't understand what your problem here is so I will try to make it clear. You are trying to define a probability of an out come of a number of events that are related to one another. If we defined it that way then that would have a different probability of one type of situation occurring over another, that is true. The point your missing is I am looking at each event, either i get a plan or i don't. This is called a binomial sequence or process. In a binomial process the rate of one event is/should converge to the stated probability of each individuality event in this case 20 percent. Now since we can only do so many test we need to find a way to check if the test set matches what the stated probability of an individuality event. to do this you compute the confidence interval for any given sample size. (the interval changes based on the number of test just as you would expect) for the number of test that i have done the rate of success is outside of the confidence interval. I know this is true. I know that being out of this interval means that rate of 20 percent that Bioware is telling us is WRONG with only a .3 percent chance that I am out of the confidence interval. So this post was to do one of two things. 1) someone else would generate their own test set and see if they get the same results. If they do that is just more demand that number two needs to occur. 2) the developers have said they like it when we tell the with data, when we can, when there is a problem. I am telling them that the math says there is a problem. I don't understand what you think but I know what I have done and what is means. I also know how easy it is for Bioware to not have tested this enough. In fact if you look at my sample you will see that I hit a 20 percent rate at one point and I though that life was good but that rate didn't hold and things have dropped off. The link should take you to a plot i have made. http://www.flickr.com/photos/10439526@N08/8463791003/in/photostream in fact if you look at the plot you will see that the rate of successes hit 20 percent at one point. The red is the confidence interval and the blue is the rate of the times i got a plan from reverse engineering my greens.

Actually the confidence interval test is valid with almost any sample size since, the tightness of the bounds will change with the number of samples used. As for calculating dice rolls that is standard stuff done in any class. (Even in HS) As for this idea that the sample standard deviation, I am not using the standard deviation that the developers are telling us we should see. Since it seem that it is making an issue I am a flight controls engineer with a masters in engineering, my specialty is Kalman filtering witch is just a fiance statistical tool. I spend my days making math models of IMUs and then validating the models i make with test results for autonomous vehicles, missile and rockets.

Actually the confidence interval calculation is what I us at work to validate math models with test results for products we build. At my job we say that if a test data falls outside the 90 percent confidence interval we say that it fails to validate the model. In this case the programers are telling us 20 percent is the outcome we should see. As for how it is computed I used what we have used at work it also agrees with with my college text and I see similar things on wikipedia as well. As for the people that are complain that this is just a RNG "thing" the point of a confidence interval test is to define a band of what kind of results you can expect to see from a set of sample tests that are all independent from one another.

after going through too many materials i decided to check the reverse engineering rate of going greens to blues which is stated to be at 20% according to the tool tip in game. I have collected the number of reverse engineering attempt and success that i have had going from a green to a blue, I have not counted the times where I RE'ed and there was no chance of a plan to me gained. Reverse Reverse Engineering Engineering Attempts Successes 9 - 1 15 - 2 5 - 1 6 - 1 1 - 1 5 - 0 5 - 1 5 - 0 10 - 1 19 - 5 15 - 4 8 - 2 10 - 2 10 - 2 1 - 1 24 - 7 10 - 0 7 - 2 5 - 0 9 - 2 10 - 1 5 - 1 5 - 0 10 - 1 10 - 0 10 - 1 10 - 1 10 - 0 4 - 1 15 - 0 9 - 2 10 - 1 5 - 0 5 - 0 5 - 0 10 - 1 5 - 1 10 - 1 10 - 0 5 - 0 2 - 1 5 - 0 10 - 0 7 - 1 13 - 2 8 - 1 15 - 2 This gives a 13.4 percent mean. Using a standard confidence calculation with 99.7 percent boundary if 20 percent is the true mean as defined in the tool tip the average for the sample above should be between 14.3 to 25.7 percent. With the mean sample is out of the 99.7 boundary that mean that it is almost impossible that the 20 percent is the true rate of getting a new plan.