Why would it not be independently?
1 Like
It is, but you’re conflating doing something before a craft that you want to succeed with that thing altering the probability of it succeeding, even though the the probability of the second thing is independant of the first thing.
1 Like
I just went over this, come back to me when you successfuly get 4 head flips in a row
I really don’t understand what you’re getting at.
Every time when I pick up a coin I will have 50% odds of heads or tail.
If I put it down or pick up or do a backflip, it won’t have new probabilities - it will still be 50%.
What do I have to do to get increased odds of probability on these head flips on a coin?
1 Like
in a group of “flips” if you want to increase the odds of getting “heads” more then you need to roll the “tails” outside your group. If you roll a heads, then stop the test, flip till you get tails, then go back to the test are you more likely to now get a heads? independently no, but the rules of probability say yes!
Your still looking at all your enchants independently, but like i said no one enchants 1 time and walks away.
Everyone enchants 3 4 5 times then gets made it breaks… imagine trying to get 5 heads in a row and each time you rolled heads your chance went downfor another heads and up for tails… like what would you expect.
If I tell you that I have 50% chance of flipping a heads or tail but I have flipped tails 100 times in a row - what will the 101th flip be?
this is a perfect example. In an INDEPENDENT probability forumla its 50/50
in a group probability forumla its less that 1% chance to be tails
It doesn’t matter how many coin flips you’ve done before, the probability of the next one will always be 50%.
The reason we’re looking at enchants independently, is because they are independent.
1 Like
its only independent if your only doing 1 enchant.
How do you form a group event instead of an independent event?
Nope. Me enchanting 1 item has absolutely no bearing on enchanting another item un-related item at some point in the future.
1 Like
Do you have a mic? can we take this to discord chat?
Man, I take one nap and this all happens. Whew.
Could the devs introduce a new Glyph that can only be found at a small percentage (1-3% or something so that you really have to farm for them) that allows a 100% success rate on an item? Is that too much to ask regarding crafting or will it ‘break’ their system?
1 Like
Maybe it could help to not see the exact numbers but instead have some description ?
The less the people knows about rates in game the better they feel. Like droprates or weighting on items / affixes .
For example, Outcome is :
- Guaranteed (100%)
- Extremely Probable (90-100%)
- Highly Probable (70-90%)
- Somewhat Probable (50-70%)
- Unlikely (30-50%)
- Highly Unlikely (10-30%)
- Extremely Unlikely (0-10%)
And the same would go for the Chance for a Minor Fracture, and a Damaging Fracture. Those rates could be accessibles from the codex in game, but not directly displayed.
1 Like
I’m going to throw in my two cents here, and you may see this mentioned by me several times across the forums, but it is a top-down rule that affects every aspect of every game, so it is always relevant.
There are only five reasons to play any game.
- Fun
- Artistic expression
- Technical advancement (proof of concept games, technical demos)
- Social interaction
- Income (pro gamers, professional streamers, professional YouTubers, etc.)
If there is any game mechanic that does not directly and intentionally serve one of those reasons, it should be discarded. It isn’t helping the game, it is just adding clutter and diluting the experience.
Let’s take a look at the fracturing mechanics and see if it serves any of these purposes.
- Fun: The primary argument is that it is fun, in the same way slot machines are “fun.” However, it certainly seems like it is not, in fact, fun. Most crafting threads on these forums get a lot of feedback stating that the system is not fun and needs to be tweaked. So, I conclude it isn’t fun.
- Artistic expression: If the crafting experience is designed to express some concept in an artistic way, it is lost on me. Maybe that gambling sucks?
- Technical advancement: Mechanics for technical advancement should never stand alone in an end-consumer product. If they don’t serve any other purpose, get rid of them. End users generally don’t care about technical expertise.
- Social interaction: There are no unique avenues for social engagement in the crafting system.
- Income: There are no unique avenues for end-user monetization in the crafting system.
Therefore, I conclude that the crafting system is not currently serving any purpose, and the elements that prevent it from being fun need to be overhauled or removed.
2 Likes
Was reading through the thread and about 100 posts into it wanted to write something VERY similar to this. Waited until I got through the thread and saw you Brough it up.
On a more philosophical level (which the feelers or the thinkers can disregard as they please) we have heads and we have hearts. BOTH need to be served especially when it comes to entertainment. I don’t give two $hits if everything is working according to probabilities. If it feels bad, it’s not fun. On the opposite side, part of the fun is also the risk so I also don’t want to know how the probabilities are manipulated to give me a better ‘feeling’.
What I want in a game, every single time I play it (or a movie, or listening to music, or reading a book, or contemplating a painting or sculpture) is to come away each and every time on the PLUS side of fun, enjoyment, enlightenment (which is emotional.) If I don’t, then I won’t do that activity in that particular way (I get nothing out of watching hallmark movies, some people do and that’s wonderful, but since I don’t, knowing it’s a hallmark movie, I don’t sit down to watch them. Same thing with true crime fiction. I don’t enjoy it. I don’t watch or read it.)
I feel the crafting system currently as is leans more towards the NEGATIVE side of that curve. It’s not enough to make me quit the game because I know EHG has shown a track record of working their arses off to make this game better and better. I suspect they have ideas all gleaned from the forums input and not the community tester group as well.
Please note: I am not asking for a ‘give me everything, right now, all the time, every time’ I ask for it mentality. Risk vs. Reward can be very fun in a game, and most definitely should be.
For me, I don’t roll the dice if there is ANY change of a ‘damaging’ fracture.’ (the one that bricks the item, not just fractures it.) That to me is the biggest dislike that puts it into the negative factor. I could completely live with the apparent overdose (I know, I know statistically it isn’t happening, I get that) of 85% or plus fractures IF IF, the chance of a damaging fracture was gone. So fractures would still happen as they currently do but I now feel the risk of getting higher is worth it my fun meter would shift more into the PLUS side.
1 Like
Why do you insist on looking at the system from the perspective of a single crafting attempt?
No-one crafts a single affix onto the gear, they try to get it from t3 to t5 or even t0 to t5, you are always crafting multiple times in a row, what matters is not each individual “coin flip” but rather getting ALL of them. The point is to get those 2 or 3 or even 4 t5 affixes, so the probability is to be calculated as such prior to the attempt.
Each time you do not win every single flip that is necessary to get the specific affixes you wanted on your crafting attempt you are going to throw that item away and start again, which is particularly annoying when you consider how hard it was to get that gear piece with decent affixes to begin with. The combined probability is the more important thing here and even if every attempt was a 95% that would still be a 22% failure rate for t0 to t5.
when you talk about your t20s you make no mention of the thousands of gear pieces you likely had to chew through to get the affixes you want or just how many times the crafting failed. It seems that they skipped your memory.
I have no clue what you’re talking about.
Because ultimately, that’s all that matters. Every time you hit the button to craft an affix onto a piece of gear, the RNG doesn’t care if it’s a new item, or an item you just crafted something on the second before. All that matters is the probability of success/failure & whether you roll “above” it or not on this craft. If you have an 8% chance to fail (because you’re crafting on an item with 2 instability), it matters not one jot that you got to that 8% because you crafted an affix with a Glyph of Stability that hit the jackpot & gave you 2 instability, or you found an item with 2 instability on the ground/gambler & wanted to craft something on it on a blank affix slot.
From that point of view, each time you craft is independent. If you look at it from a “I’m going to craft this white item up to t20” then yes, you are trying to get 20 success rolls in a row on that one item, which is improbable. But it doesn’t change the fact that the probability for the next craft is whatever the game tells you which isn’t based on whether your last few crafts succeeded or not.
To think otherwise is to fall into the Gambler’s Fallacy (that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future or vice versa).
Each time you start on a new item, that just affects the probability for the next roll, it doesn’t “reset” your luck (“good” or “bad”).
All the “combined” probability tells you is whether or not it’s worth your time starting from a further away (ie, lower total tiers on an item) starting point to get up to your desired end point (probably 4x t5 affixes), if you think that it tells you anything about your next probability, you’re wrong.