I run dailies on 10 different characters. Over the last month I've noticed significantly less surveys. Prior to this, if I didn't do surveys every week, my bank space became very limited. Now I only wind up doing them once a week due to not having as many. I've spoken to several others that also say they have noticed far less surveys. Anyone else experiencing this or am I just getting horrid RNG lately?
Stinkyremy wrote: »Despite ^^^ spreadsheets, I think you misunderstand what RNG is.
If you flip a coin 100 times, as it has 2 sides that doesn't mean it will land 50 on each side despise being a 50% chance of being either side.
You could do 7000 writs and never get a survey, while another could do the same and get 7000 surveys.
Extreme example of course.
Stinkyremy wrote: »Despite ^^^ spreadsheets, I think you misunderstand what RNG is.
If you flip a coin 100 times, as it has 2 sides that doesn't mean it will land 50 on each side despise being a 50% chance of being either side.
You could do 7000 writs and never get a survey, while another could do the same and get 7000 surveys.
Extreme example of course.
is that directed at me? about how RNG works? appealing to the extremes does not make your argument a strong one
I am fully aware that with a 50% chance, that it's not going to hit 50/50 every single time you do 100 trials. But that is still the most likely outcome. some will be 49/51, rarely even 40/60... but the long term statistical average will be 50/50.
Yes, we have to make some basic assumptions that the drops follow a standard normal distribution. (I even account for this in my refining data) But as data sets get larger and larger (I think the over 150,000 writs I've done (and tracked) qualifies as "large") The odds will start to coalesce around the true average (Law of Large Numbers)
Stinkyremy wrote: »Despite ^^^s spreadsheets, I think you misunderstand what RNG is.
If you flip a coin and it has 2 sides that doesn't mean it is a 50 chanStinkyremy wrote: »Despite ^^^ spreadsheets, I think you misunderstand what RNG is.
If you flip a coin 100 times, as it has 2 sides that doesn't mean it will land 50 on each side despise being a 50% chance of being either side.
You could do 7000 writs and never get a survey, while another could do the same and get 7000 surveys.
Extreme example of course.
is that directed at me? about how RNG works? appealing to the extremes does not make your argument a strong one
I am fully aware that with a 50% chance, that it's not going to hit 50/50 every single time you do 100 trials. But that is still the most likely outcome. some will be 49/51, rarely even 40/60... but the long term statistical average will be 50/50.
Yes, we have to make some basic assumptions that the drops follow a standard normal distribution. (I even account for this in my refining data) But as data sets get larger and larger (I think the over 150,000 writs I've done (and tracked) qualifies as "large") The odds will start to coalesce around the true average (Law of Large Numbers)
Not really because you again seem to not understand what RNG means.
While my comment wasn't aimed at you it was OP, you could easily have a human counterpart do the exact same amount of writs or any action based on RNG and the counterpart could come out with a vastly different outcome.
For simple sake, you both flip a coin 100 times, yours is heads 83 times, his is heads 22 times.
Completely different outcomes because it in RANDOM
The only way you would be able to get close to making an informed assumption to the % rate of an RNG is if you had a large pool of statistics from different sources to measure against and observe a median.
This is common knowledge of statistical analysis.
Anyway, you do you, carry on and enjoy yourself.
Stinkyremy wrote: »Despite ^^^s spreadsheets, I think you misunderstand what RNG is.
If you flip a coin and it has 2 sides that doesn't mean it is a 50 chanStinkyremy wrote: »Despite ^^^ spreadsheets, I think you misunderstand what RNG is.
If you flip a coin 100 times, as it has 2 sides that doesn't mean it will land 50 on each side despise being a 50% chance of being either side.
You could do 7000 writs and never get a survey, while another could do the same and get 7000 surveys.
Extreme example of course.
is that directed at me? about how RNG works? appealing to the extremes does not make your argument a strong one
I am fully aware that with a 50% chance, that it's not going to hit 50/50 every single time you do 100 trials. But that is still the most likely outcome. some will be 49/51, rarely even 40/60... but the long term statistical average will be 50/50.
Yes, we have to make some basic assumptions that the drops follow a standard normal distribution. (I even account for this in my refining data) But as data sets get larger and larger (I think the over 150,000 writs I've done (and tracked) qualifies as "large") The odds will start to coalesce around the true average (Law of Large Numbers)
Not really because you again seem to not understand what RNG means.
While my comment wasn't aimed at you it was OP, you could easily have a human counterpart do the exact same amount of writs or any action based on RNG and the counterpart could come out with a vastly different outcome.
For simple sake, you both flip a coin 100 times, yours is heads 83 times, his is heads 22 times.
Completely different outcomes because it in RANDOM
The only way you would be able to get close to making an informed assumption to the % rate of an RNG is if you had a large pool of statistics from different sources to measure against and observe a median.
This is common knowledge of statistical analysis.
Anyway, you do you, carry on and enjoy yourself.
I only track on a per-patch basis, but updating on a weekly-ish basis. Have noticed no significant changes in expected drop rate from the 36 characters I do writs on most days.
Data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yQDUjYNQVsIFl0ktkbkSlfYPkzP6pgCOTMQ-qCuzfaI/edit#gid=1039171516
Folks , the clear title of the post is "SURVEYS"...............not writs.
I cannot fathom why some folks are confused.
Y'all are missing the part where ESO is using weighted RNG. Always has been.
There's no pure, unweighted dice roll anywhere.
the only way to get the surveys is from doing the daily crafting writs. 0.o They are intricately related.
VaranisArano wrote: »I'd be more inclined to believe that the amount of writs had deviated substantially over the last month for certain players enough to indicate that the RNG had changed for them or in general...if they ever actually brought the data.
S.
All I can is thanks to tmbrinks for his/her time and attention to tracking this valuable information and then publishing if for everyone to see.
RNG can be a cruel mistress but over time even she succumbs to gods of math and time and must obey their law of averages.
Be safe and have fun
All I can is thanks to tmbrinks for his/her time and attention to tracking this valuable information and then publishing if for everyone to see.
RNG can be a cruel mistress but over time even she succumbs to gods of math and time and must obey their law of averages.
Be safe and have fun
I only track on a per-patch basis, but updating on a weekly-ish basis. Have noticed no significant changes in expected drop rate from the 36 characters I do writs on most days.
Data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yQDUjYNQVsIFl0ktkbkSlfYPkzP6pgCOTMQ-qCuzfaI/edit#gid=1039171516
If @tmbrinks says there is no indication of a change then there is no indication of a change. Afaik, they are the only person active in the forum that actually tracks this type of information and does it across many characters.
It is easy to think something has changed from either a small sample or just casual observance. RNG can paint a very skewed picture in both situations.
I do love tm's spreadsheets
I do more writs per day than most and I also haven't noticed a lower drop rate as of yet.
Hopefully it's just a bad month for you mate and it will pick up soon.
All I can is thanks to tmbrinks for his/her time and attention to tracking this valuable information and then publishing if for everyone to see.
RNG can be a cruel mistress but over time even she succumbs to gods of math and time and must obey their law of averages.
Be safe and have fun
My thoughts exactly. Without their data, I wouldn't know how to begin checking on my own and while I haven't done nearly as many as they have - my short-term data is pretty on par with a few slight deviations (at most my monthly discrepancy is ranging around 3-7 since I've been keeping records which isn't all that long) and some of that can be attributed to maybe skipping a character and I don't realize to just the low luck of the draw. But I've not experienced any kind of significant drop unless, you know... I'm not doing them.
All I can is thanks to tmbrinks for his/her time and attention to tracking this valuable information and then publishing if for everyone to see.
RNG can be a cruel mistress but over time even she succumbs to gods of math and time and must obey their law of averages.
Be safe and have funI only track on a per-patch basis, but updating on a weekly-ish basis. Have noticed no significant changes in expected drop rate from the 36 characters I do writs on most days.
Data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yQDUjYNQVsIFl0ktkbkSlfYPkzP6pgCOTMQ-qCuzfaI/edit#gid=1039171516
If @tmbrinks says there is no indication of a change then there is no indication of a change. Afaik, they are the only person active in the forum that actually tracks this type of information and does it across many characters.
It is easy to think something has changed from either a small sample or just casual observance. RNG can paint a very skewed picture in both situations.I do love tm's spreadsheets
I do more writs per day than most and I also haven't noticed a lower drop rate as of yet.
Hopefully it's just a bad month for you mate and it will pick up soon.All I can is thanks to tmbrinks for his/her time and attention to tracking this valuable information and then publishing if for everyone to see.
RNG can be a cruel mistress but over time even she succumbs to gods of math and time and must obey their law of averages.
Be safe and have fun
My thoughts exactly. Without their data, I wouldn't know how to begin checking on my own and while I haven't done nearly as many as they have - my short-term data is pretty on par with a few slight deviations (at most my monthly discrepancy is ranging around 3-7 since I've been keeping records which isn't all that long) and some of that can be attributed to maybe skipping a character and I don't realize to just the low luck of the draw. But I've not experienced any kind of significant drop unless, you know... I'm not doing them.
Thank you all. That's why I keep the data. I like knowing what they should be, and being a math and science teacher myself I teach all my students to use data and information to prove their hypothesis. I know I do enough writs and have enough data that it would be statistically relevant. And I just want to share it with everybody, so they can make their own conclusions.
Being a math and science teacher myself
BTW, I teach high school mathematics and statistics
Is this a mathematical principle?They are intricately related.
Being a math and science teacher myselfBTW, I teach high school mathematics and statistics
To be absolutely clear it is not my intent to bait or mock you or violate the ZoS Terms. I am merely seeking clarification and guidance.
using the universal formula [z2 * p(1-p)] / e2 / 1 + [z2 * p(1-p)] / e2 * N] what would the standard sample size of your data be?
I would like to look through your data, but 781+ days of data from 32 characters x 6 writs or a sample size of 150,000 is overwhelming. I can barely squeeze in the time doing the writs , i cant imagine the diligence it takes to enter 192 sets of data every day for 2+ years!!Is this a mathematical principle?They are intricately related.
Thanks in advance for your answers
Being a math and science teacher myselfBTW, I teach high school mathematics and statistics
To be absolutely clear it is not my intent to bait or mock you or violate the ZoS Terms. I am merely seeking clarification and guidance.
using the universal formula [z2 * p(1-p)] / e2 / 1 + [z2 * p(1-p)] / e2 * N] what would the standard sample size of your data be?
I would like to look through your data, but 781+ days of data from 32 characters x 6 writs or a sample size of 150,000 is overwhelming. I can barely squeeze in the time doing the writs , i cant imagine the diligence it takes to enter 192 sets of data every day for 2+ years!!Is this a mathematical principle?They are intricately related.
Thanks in advance for your answers
1. sample size is used in getting information from a random sample. Thus, your standard sample size would be adequate. ~500 "trials" for about a 5% error, ~1000 "trials" for about ~3% error. This is of EACH INDIVIDUAL TRIAL. So you'd have to do 500 alchemy writs, to have an idea within about 3% of the drop rate. You aren't getting that in a few weeks (yes, there are some more "fine" adjustments we can make to this, but I'm not going to argue any more complex statistical theories about it. It doesn't need to be overthought). Long story short, you need sample sizes in the high hundreds to make any sort of relevant conclusions about if drop rates have changed... and even then a rate of between 9.5%-15.5% (3% margin of error on either side of the expected drop rate of 12.5% is a plausible outcome)
2. Add-ons track the data. Dolgubon's does this nicely. I'm just compiling it, analyzing it, tracking it from patch to patch to look for trends. Once I have the spreadsheet set up, I spend literally about 5 minutes, once a week, to update it. So it's not a huge time sink.
3. One begets the other. You can't get surveys without doing daily writs. That wasn't meant to be some "mathematical principle" in that statement. It was merely a mention that they can be (and need to be) talked about together. Varanis and I have both be long time contributors to the crafting forums... there's an understanding of what they mean when statements are made, and the particular language that is used when describing things, so there was no confusion in what he "meant" in my eyes.