The Numbers are Broken

poodlemasterb16_ESO

I fail at least half the time on 80% improvement. I have yet to make a 60% improvement.

I have a level 6 blacksmith and he has crafted enough for a pattern to emerge. The numbers are broken.

My other crafters face similar problems but the blacksmiths are glaring.

Viblo

Strange I've done 20+ crafts at 80% and haven't failed once.

Jirki88

It's called RNG for a reason.

LadyInTheWater

Is there something preventing you from doing 100% improvement? I haven't crafted anything higher than blues yet, so maybe there's a cap on the higher-level items?

I know that at the level of improvements I've been doing, I can use 5 tempers for 100% chance. Are you unable to do that?

TrapnoteTom

I've failed when I had a 100% chance to improve.

LadyInTheWater

TrapnoteTom wrote: »

I've failed when I had a 100% chance to improve.

Did you submit a bug report for it?

And if it's intended for us to still have a small chance at failure even at 100%, why would anyone risk it at 80%?

poodlemasterb16_ESO

Viblo wrote: »

Strange I've done 20+ crafts at 80% and haven't failed once.

I have easily that many, across all my chars. He fails a lot more than the others.

LadyInTheWater wrote: »

TrapnoteTom wrote: »

I've failed when I had a 100% chance to improve.

Did you submit a bug report for it?

And if it's intended for us to still have a small chance at failure even at 100%, why would anyone risk it at 80%?

If I can't make 80% of my attempts at 80% the numbers are broken. Any miss at 100% is broken.

I have 6 chars and I build stuff for all of them. In return they all gather and submit what they find to the bank for my crafters to work with. I do a lot of improving and I hate to waste that extra bit for 100%, I really should not have to, I am happy to fail 20% of the time.

I did submit a bug report.

taylorwilenskiub17_ESO

I've failed at 100% 2 or 3 times...not sure if it is a bug or if there is intended to still be a chance of failure at 100%...if it is the latter, why would it be labelled at 100% lol?

LadyInTheWater

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

If I can't make 80% of my attempts at 80% the numbers are broken.

If you made 10 attempts at 20%, and only failed 2 of them, would you have come to the forums asking for it to be fixed? Or would you count yourself lucky?

Iago

nobody should fail A 100 percent chance.

poodlemasterb16_ESO

LadyInTheWater wrote: »

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

If I can't make 80% of my attempts at 80% the numbers are broken.

If you made 10 attempts at 20%, and only failed 2 of them, would you have come to the forums asking for it to be fixed? Or would you count yourself lucky?

I would submit that as a bug as well.

LadyInTheWater

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

I would submit that as a bug as well.

I don't doubt that.

But I doubt you'd come to the forums starting a thread, stating that the numbers were broken because you were too successful, and it needed to be fixed.

Now, I've had about 8 successes in a row at 20%, so I'm sure other people have as well. Yet, I haven't seen any threads started because of it.

Now, that makes me think of two things:

1) The numbers are truly random, not cumulative. So, whether it's 10 failures in a row at 80% or 10 successes in a row at 20%, the numbers are functioning correctly.

2) You do, in fact, know that it's not broken; you're just not happy with it.

As for the failures at 100%... Personally, I have yet to see that. I'll look on YouTube and see if anyone's uploaded a video of it. But I also don't find it unreasonable to allow a small percentage of failure, regardless. It's not going to cripple anyone's gameplay.

El_Barto_227

Google binomial distribution. an 80% chance does not mean that it will work 8 out of every 10 times you do it, or even 80 out of 100. It means each individual attempt has a 8/10 chance of success, independent of the other tattempts.
But sometimes you can win a lot, sometimes you fail a lot, although when you do a lot (hundreds) of trials, you should see roughly 80% of them being successes and 20% failure, if you keep count of them.

Kind of tricky to explain without some sort of demonstration. It's unlikely, but not impossible, to have a lot of wins or losses.
Think dice. In Monopoly, if you roll 2 doubles in a row, you go to jail. It's unlikely that you will, but it can still happen.

In fact, the likelihood of a certain number of wins or losses can be calculated and even graphed with a normal distribution curve. Yay for statistics.

Viblo

For this to be any sort of help, we will need a large pool. You need to attempt improving 10,000 times or more and then come back saying it is broken. With such a low amount of data points there is no way to say if it is or isn't broken. At this point it is just luck or the lack of that is being used to say it is broken.

And for those that have honestly failed at 100%, report it as soon as it happens so there is a time stamp on the data and they can view easier. I failed at what I thought was 100% once but I noticed that I had clicked the + one too many times and it went from using 4 honing stones to 1 honing stone right before I hit R and I failed of course. Now I realize it was just server lag and I always wait a few seconds now before hitting improve. I've done probably 100+ improves at 100% and never failed after doing that.

LadyInTheWater

Viblo wrote: »

I failed at what I thought was 100% once but I noticed that I had clicked the + one too many times and it went from using 4 honing stones to 1 honing stone right before I hit R and I failed of course.

Yeah, I've had that happen as well. That taught me not to rush through things.

poodlemasterb16_ESO

LadyInTheWater wrote: »

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

I would submit that as a bug as well.

I don't doubt that.

But I doubt you'd come to the forums starting a thread, stating that the numbers were broken because you were too successful, and it needed to be fixed.

Really. Why would you say that?

Now, I've had about 8 successes in a row at 20%, so I'm sure other people have as well. Yet, I haven't seen any threads started because of it.

Now, that makes me think of two things:

1) The numbers are truly random, not cumulative. So, whether it's 10 failures in a row at 80% or 10 successes in a row at 20%, the numbers are functioning correctly.

2) You do, in fact, know that it's not broken; you're just not happy with it.

gameplay.

What planet are you from. I find what I see as a broken thing in this game and you insult me.

If the numbers are truly random then there would be no point to the percentages. As there are percentages, I expect them to
reflect the reality of the numbers they represent.

I have found in a reasonable sample that they are not. You tell me you make many 20% attempts further reinforcing my point.

The numbers are broken.

Dragonheart013

It's already been explained to you how these percentages work, and the explanation given is the correct one. This is hardly the first game to use this concept. I hate to tell you that you've just gotten *really* unlucky.

If you want to go on insisting that the numbers are broken after it's been explained to you, then you might as well just go home and forget about posting on here, as you clearly don't want to be helped, you just want to complain. And I'm sorry to hear that, because people did try explaining to you quite clearly how it works.

poodlemasterb16_ESO

Dragonheart013 wrote: »

It's already been explained to you how these percentages work, and the explanation given is the correct one. This is hardly the first game to use this concept. I hate to tell you that you've just gotten *really* unlucky.

The math is in no way a problem for me. It obviously is for some. I have a big enough sample to determine the numbers in the game are wrong. I have back up anecdotal evidence as well from our friend in the water.

No one has explained anything coherent at all.

El_Barto_227

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

Dragonheart013 wrote: »

It's already been explained to you how these percentages work, and the explanation given is the correct one. This is hardly the first game to use this concept. I hate to tell you that you've just gotten *really* unlucky.

The math is in no way a problem for me. It obviously is for some. I have a big enough sample to determine the numbers in the game are wrong. I have back up anecdotal evidence as well from our friend in the water.

No one has explained anything coherent at all.

How many is "big enough".
Thousands?

Vandril

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

Dragonheart013 wrote: »

It's already been explained to you how these percentages work, and the explanation given is the correct one. This is hardly the first game to use this concept. I hate to tell you that you've just gotten *really* unlucky.

The math is in no way a problem for me. It obviously is for some. I have a big enough sample to determine the numbers in the game are wrong. I have back up anecdotal evidence as well from our friend in the water.

No one has explained anything coherent at all.

Except for the fact that the math obviously is a problem for you, since you just said that no one explained anything coherent at all when one explanation was the factual mathematical explanation behind the function of a percentage.

Are you aware that you can theoretically flip a coin 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times and always get heads? Despite the 50% chance of getting tails, it does not mean you EVER will, as EACH time you flip the coin you STILL have only a 50% chance of getting it, regardless of the results of each other time you flipped the coin.

The idea that previous results effect the chances of the next outcome of the same action under the same circumstances is a flawed human perception. It's a trick of the mind, nothing more.

CapuchinSeven

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

If I can't make 80% of my attempts at 80% the numbers are broken.

Not really, no. I'm not sure you understand what you're saying, or the mathematics you're talking about.

Greeniewolfub17_ESO

Actually, in the math, if every attempt has an eighty percent chance of succeeding, then with a really big sample, yes, even the average actual success rate should come out to be roughly an eighty percent success rate. However, the sample size often needs to be in the thousands if not the tens of thousands before the deviations get small enough for the actual success rate to start to flatten out around the eighty percent range. In smaller samples (even in the hundreds) with an eighty percent chance of success rate it is not uncommon to have the actual success rate still equal zero.

That said, computer "randomization" codes are never truly random but really based on any of a number of algorithms, some better at imitating "random" at others, but all of which have a pattern if you look hard enough. It would not surprise me if the algorithm they use is skewed so that some players are more "lucky" than others. MMO's and even computer games in general are rather notorious for this happening, especially if the algorithm they use factors in some sort of identifying info from the character or player as a randomization variable.
I myself have noticed that of my two characters, one tends to have a much higher success rate on nearly any "roll" then the other, so it would not surprise me at all to find out that the randomization algorithm(s) in ESO rely on one or more bits of info from the character or some similar flaw that makes some characters or players far more likely to be "lucky" or "unlucky" than others.

edited to fix typos.

Tetujin

You don't need hundreds or thousands of trials to get a good sense if something is going wrong with a binomial probability.

Sure the chance of getting exactly 8 out of 10 successes at 80% is only about 30% [10!/8!2!*(0.8^8 )*(0.2^2)], but according to my handy binomial calculator there is almost 97% chance you would get at least 6 sucesses out of 10.

You can't guarantee that you are not unlucky, cursed, haunted by demons or making some kind of mistake that you are just blind to, but at some point it's definitely worth reporting at least.

If you really believe there is something wrong, just record every one of the next 20-100 results you get and then come back and post them. And give a slow count to 3 before hitting craft each time to make sure lag isn't a factor. Real numbers are more likely to make them think about it, since everyone gets upset and complains when they have a bad stretch.

Using my handy binomial calculator (for 80%):
15 or fewer successes out of 20: ~37%
12 or fewer out 20: ~1%
8 or fewer out of 20: ~0.01%

Incidentally, odds of literally getting 8 successes in a row at 20% [0.2^8]: 0.000256%.

Odds of getting 3 failures in a row at 80% [0.2^3]: 0.8% (so not 'likely' for the first three times you craft, but bound to happen eventually).

Odds of getting 6 failures in a row [0.2^6]: 0.0064% (again, just the chance of it happening on your next 6 attempts, not the chance of it ever happening to you).

DJ_Pandatripp

Why waste material and not just go 100%?
You don't know RNG til you played FF14 and fail 5+ 99% in a row.

killedbyping

Never yet failed at 100% chance.
Done some numbers of Epic aswell.
Theres is however a minor bug which may reset number of your used tempres to 1 after you reach 100%, therefore reducing the chance back where it started.
Just be more cosious and dont press R button untill you sure you have 100%.