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%

jgelling's Avatar


jgelling
02.16.2013 , 11:23 PM | #61
Quote: Originally Posted by Zorash View Post
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.

jgelling's Avatar


jgelling
02.17.2013 , 03:36 AM | #62
Quote: Originally Posted by Zorash View Post
Yawn, yet another condescending poster.
You can't even yawn at your post, since it begins and ends and says nothing in between. It's just sad.

Blackardin's Avatar


Blackardin
02.18.2013 , 10:11 AM | #63
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.
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.
May the Schwartz be with you....

Blackardin's Avatar


Blackardin
02.18.2013 , 10:16 AM | #64
Quote: Originally Posted by SuperGrunt View Post
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.
May the Schwartz be with you....

ItchyThePenguin's Avatar


ItchyThePenguin
02.18.2013 , 11:05 AM | #65
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackardin View Post
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.
Jedi Guardian -- Miscreant (55)
Formerly of Mind Trick and Corellian Run -- Now of The Shadowlands

Khevar's Avatar


Khevar
02.18.2013 , 12:45 PM | #66
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackardin View Post
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.

Telanis's Avatar


Telanis
02.19.2013 , 09:32 AM | #67
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.

psandak's Avatar


psandak
02.19.2013 , 10:05 AM | #68
Quote: Originally Posted by SuperGrunt View Post
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?

Blackardin's Avatar


Blackardin
02.19.2013 , 04:11 PM | #69
Quote: Originally Posted by ItchyThePenguin View Post
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.
May the Schwartz be with you....

Blackardin's Avatar


Blackardin
02.19.2013 , 04:21 PM | #70
Quote: Originally Posted by Khevar View Post
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
May the Schwartz be with you....