open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked Complete invention failure, wtf
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2009.12.06 18:41:00 - [1]
 

Ok i've been playing with the invention calculator thats available on the forum and also some of the other sites, anyway i ran 10 BPC's for ammo invention, according to every tool i've checked with my skills and its supposed to have a 45% success rate...

Now out of those 10 BPC runs it resulted in a ***ping 0 successes, with a 45% success rate shud result in atleast 3 or 4 successes, or for gods sake 1 success...

am i missing something?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.12.06 18:51:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 18:56:40
Originally by: Lord Helghast
am i missing something?

Only some basic statistics knowledge.

Your particular case is not completely incredible - with a 45% success chance (i.e. 55% failure chance) and just 10 attempts made, you have roughly 1-in-400 chances of a complete failure streak even under perfectly "normal" conditions.
Heck, you would have had a roughly 1-in-3000 chance of a 10/10 success streak too.

The EVE RNG at least SEEMS to be quite "streaky", even if it it might be not (it could still be "too streaky", but we don't really have a sure way to tell).

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2009.12.06 18:58:00 - [3]
 

wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.12.06 19:01:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 19:11:11

Originally by: Lord Helghast
wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row.

Actually, more like 99.75% chance to get AT LEAST one success.

0 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 0.25% (or 1 out of 395 )
1 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 2.07% (or 1 out of 48 )
2 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 7.63% (or 1 out of 13 )
3 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 16.65% (or 1 out of 6 )
4 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 23.84% (or 1 out of 4 )
5 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 23.40% (or 1 out of 4 )
6 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 15.96% (or 1 out of 6 )
7 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 7.46% (or 1 out of 13 )
8 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 2.29% (or 1 out of 44 )
9 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 0.42% (or 1 out of 240 )
10 success out of 10 tries with 45% success chance is 0.03% (or 1 out of 2,937 )


P.S. This is not "EVE math", it's "real-world math".

P.P.S. Notice how the total chance to get either 3,4,5 or 6 successes out of 10 tries is almost 80%.
Still, roughly 1 in 5 people doing a 10-slot run will get (2 or less) or (7 or more) even under completely normal circumstances.
It's not a sham, it's just basic statistics.

Devan Reale
Posted - 2009.12.06 21:15:00 - [5]
 

Get the associated skills required for the invention up to at least 4 on each. Your skill level directly affects success.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.12.06 21:31:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Devan Reale
Get the associated skills required for the invention up to at least 4 on each. Your skill level directly affects success.

That doesn't really have much to do with what he asked.

Tau Cabalander
Posted - 2009.12.06 22:29:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 06/12/2009 22:30:29

I feel compelled to post this yet again.

A corpmate just ran 60 torpedo inventions. He got 4 successes.

Stuff happens.


Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.12.06 22:53:00 - [8]
 

Shameless cross posting.

Random numbers are random. 45% chance is just that, a chance. If you run 10 chances and get 0 successes, someone else could be running 9 or 10 chances and 9 or 10 successes. From my other post:

Originally by: Dretzle Omega
The funny thing with RNGs is that they can produce a lot of non-random looking results sometimes. Which of the following strings of numbers is more random?

9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9

1, 5, 3, 8, 6, 2

The second list LOOKs more random, to the human eye. However, if you had a computer random number generator to generator a list of 6 numbers, taking them at random from 1 - 10, each list is equally as likely, because each list I've already predefined.

With RNGs, you can get some odd strings some times. It doesn't help (you) that CCPs approach generally seems to be screw the little guy, we only care about definite numbers as a whole.


Good luck on your next 10. Maybe they'll all be success? Smile

Yarinor
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.06 23:17:00 - [9]
 

Shameless cross posting.

Random numbers are random. 45% chance is just that, a chance. If you run 10 chances and get 0 successes, someone else could be running 9 or 10 chances and 9 or 10 successes. From my other post:

Originally by: Dretzle Omega
The funny thing with RNGs is that they can produce a lot of non-random looking results sometimes. Which of the following strings of numbers is more random?

9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9

1, 5, 3, 8, 6, 2

The second list LOOKs more random, to the human eye. However, if you had a computer random number generator to generator a list of 6 numbers, taking them at random from 1 - 10, each list is equally as likely, because each list I've already predefined.

With RNGs, you can get some odd strings some times. It doesn't help (you) that CCPs approach generally seems to be screw the little guy, we only care about definite numbers as a whole.


I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use.

Athar Mu
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2009.12.07 03:47:00 - [10]
 

After doing hundreds if not thousands of inventions mine worked out to be almost spot on the chance (give or take a percent). What you should do is keep track over the time that you are inventing and see if you do average the correct chance or whether you are above or below.

I always invent in batches of 10 and it definitely has good and bad streaks. Sometimes I got 10/10 others maybe 2/10...but it averaged out over time!

Keep trying and keep noting down your successes and failures.

Rashmika Clavain
Gallente
Posted - 2009.12.07 11:18:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Lord Helghast

am i missing something?



Originally by: Akita T

Only some basic statistics knowledge.


Jack Sabastian
Posted - 2009.12.07 15:11:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Yarinor
I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use.


Not entierly true. There is no way to create a truely random number programticly. But with very little hardware support it is possible to get a random noise generator. (For example a CCD in a can, or a geiger counter )

The random data coming out of those devices then needs to be sanitized to remove biases in the data. But what you end up with is truly random numbers.

Hardware random number generators is what is used in gambling machines so all those people writing down the out come of slots to find patterns are SOL.

Beldor
Posted - 2009.12.07 15:27:00 - [13]
 

btw:i am doing invetion 1+ year.But i never get failrow as now(last 3 days)

T2 missiles 0/20 success cca 48% chance each
T2 medium rigs (with max +ME decr) 1/15 success cca 53% chance each


maybe is something wrong with CCP chance calculator after patch(or with meConfused)

Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.12.07 15:57:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 07/12/2009 15:58:11
Originally by: Yarinor
I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use.


True. In order to produce a random number the computer needs some seed to start from. What's not random about it is that given the same seed, the RNG will always produce the same string of numbers. However, using real world actual data, it's easy to produce that seed. Take the date down to the nanosecond, or the weather and windspeed on a changing spot on the planet (it looks like a better way is posted a few posts up). Whatever. It ends up being virtually random.

But that's actually beside the point. I was posting about RNG, computer random number generators, which actually seem to provide worse streaks then you'll see in real life, sometimes.

Originally by: Beldor
btw:i am doing invetion 1+ year.But i never get failrow as now(last 3 days)

T2 missiles 0/20 success cca 48% chance each
T2 medium rigs (with max +ME decr) 1/15 success cca 53% chance each


maybe is something wrong with CCP chance calculator after patch(or with meConfused)


There's a similar post in the missions forum. IF something is different after the patch, it's more likely that the RNG got reset, or something. Post a petition if you really feel sordid; CCP can at least look at it then and if nothing is wrong, skew your results for the next few attempts.

However, it is telling that we always get these kind of posts after a patch, thinking CCP changed something. More likely, the bad (and good) streaks are happening all the time. The patches just give people something to blame them on.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.12.07 16:30:00 - [15]
 

My last row of inventions was 45/100 with 46% chance. The one before the patch was 55/100.

You need to do a lot of inventions to get anywhere near reliable results, I'm afraid.Sad

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2009.12.07 18:30:00 - [16]
 

ok im gonna go ahead and run 100 of the bpc's and see the result and come back with my outcome, or shall i say i'll run 90 more and see how it turns out...

the fact of the matter is that whatever seed eve is using is assinine for invention, give atleast a little bit of randomness to the RNG, use Unix time down to the nanosecond, or something

Though i have read a large # of people saying that after dominion, (and some others after all patches) that the streaking happens ALOT more often, so perhaps their is a bug in the RNG after the patch deployment.

mechtech
SRS Industries
SRS.
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:40:00 - [17]
 

I'm just going to put this out there... The eve developers are incredibly talented, having put together arguably the most complex game ever made.

To imply that they couldn't put together a random number generator (there are thousands of public algorithms for efficient, solid, RNGs out there as well) is a very unbelievable claim to make.

The RNG works, and you got unlucky. Just to confirm people's doubts though, it would be nice to have a line in some patch note that states that a dev went over the RNG and found it to work as intended.

FroschForscher
Caldari
The German Star-Fighters
United European Star-Force
Posted - 2009.12.07 21:53:00 - [18]
 

come on. there´s nothing worng with the rng. its just that only the bad streak people post on the forums post patch

Jacabon Mere
Caldari
Capital Storm.
Reverberation Project
Posted - 2009.12.08 01:59:00 - [19]
 

Invention is certainly weird though. I am not sure that its just a simple rng. It always seems to average out in the long run, but i always seem to get an aweful lot of either 90 - 100% batch success rates or 0 - 10% success rates. probably in the order of one every 5 or 6. Which is cetainly way out of the order of probability while still falling under the overal chance. Seems to me to be there to dissuade fly by nighters who just want to test out invention and seems to favour the serious i'm going to get building T2 stuff.

When ever i get a 6 out of 6 mackinaw invention batch i promise myself i am going to quit while i'm ahead.

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2009.12.08 02:44:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Yarinor
RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use.


Sure there is, all you need to do is seed it with something from outside the system. Then keep in mind that each 'sample' of the RNG is actually driven by human interaction, which means that you're not relying on the RNG to be random, you're relying on YOU to be random.

It's actually pretty much impossible for the RNG in Eve to not be random. You'd have to be the only player online (ever) in order for that to be the case, and even then it's still going to be statistically random.

'streaky' is something that naturally occurs, it's not something unique to an Eve RNG, the same streaks occur outside the world of computing. The result for invention isn't calculated on your client machine, so you can't even begin to imagine how silly it sounds that all of 'your' results in the row are anything other than perfectly random. (Random DOES mean there WILL be streaks, that's the nature of random!!!!).

Just think the RNG is producing a random sequence of numbers and between you putting on your two jobs it's also being used for thousands of hit calculations among other things.

Since there are tens of thousands of inventors, putting on hundreds of jobs, something with a one in 400 chance probably happens many times per day.

FroschForscher
Caldari
The German Star-Fighters
United European Star-Force
Posted - 2009.12.08 02:49:00 - [21]
 

play poker and understand up- and downswings. make 100k invention attempts. then come back

Qual
Gallente
Cornexant Research
Posted - 2009.12.08 08:30:00 - [22]
 

Random numbers tend to be, well, random. Whats to say?

It is not the game that favors doing large sets over small, it is the very nature of statistics.

Ancallan
Petals of Derketo
Posted - 2009.12.08 08:56:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Ancallan on 08/12/2009 08:57:50
My favourite part about invention is that, in its lifetime, it has never failed to generate threads about failures that inevitably dissolve into discussions about random number generators.

Also, one of my favourite posts on some Python forums was about about random number generators. Specifically, the guy was wondering why he was getting different numbers when using the random() function...

ingenting
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2009.12.08 10:27:00 - [24]
 

just another post patch invention nerf troll thread, let it die

Gaius Clabbacus
Posted - 2009.12.08 10:47:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Yarinor
Shameless cross posting.

Random numbers are random. 45% chance is just that, a chance. If you run 10 chances and get 0 successes, someone else could be running 9 or 10 chances and 9 or 10 successes. From my other post:

Originally by: Dretzle Omega
The funny thing with RNGs is that they can produce a lot of non-random looking results sometimes. Which of the following strings of numbers is more random?

9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9

1, 5, 3, 8, 6, 2

The second list LOOKs more random, to the human eye. However, if you had a computer random number generator to generator a list of 6 numbers, taking them at random from 1 - 10, each list is equally as likely, because each list I've already predefined.

With RNGs, you can get some odd strings some times. It doesn't help (you) that CCPs approach generally seems to be screw the little guy, we only care about definite numbers as a whole.


I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use.


OTOH it is fairly easy to make a pseudo-random number generator that provides a uniform distribution. If you reseed it at downtime the parallel nature of EVE should be sufficient to make it impossible to predict. Of course EVE players are retared dedicated enough to try anyways. Maybe the ultimate end-game puzzle for our industrialists?

Hamatitio
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.12.08 13:27:00 - [26]
 

Looking at as purely a 45% chance (even rounded up to 50%) makes it seem less likely.

Lets number everything from 1 - 100 out. Reach into a magical bag of goodies and pull out a number, do this 10 times, its not unlikely that out of 10 times, all 10 came up as being above 45. (simulating a 55% failure rate).

Thats one way of putting it that won't make someone go "BUT I FLIPPED MY COIN 10 TIMES!!"

TheBlueMonkey
Gallente
Fags R Us
Posted - 2009.12.08 13:54:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: TheBlueMonkey on 08/12/2009 13:57:16
As everyone says,
It's chance based, you were unlucky, 10 attempts isn't enough to call it broken etc etc etc etc.

Keep trying untill you get something :)

Count yourself lucky you started with ammo and no ships as some do.

edit:
I believe it's also noncumulative chance so the previous sucess or failure shouldn't matter.

Ehbdfgf Intaki
Posted - 2009.12.08 16:27:00 - [28]
 

Everybody assume that this process is random ! Did CCP ever gives us the real algorithm they use. - no
I still do thousand of Invention and reverse engineering and i continue to think they manipulate the result at some point but eh, its a game and i still enjoy it.

Ehb

ingenting
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2009.12.08 17:38:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: ingenting on 08/12/2009 17:38:45
Originally by: Ehbdfgf Intaki
Everybody assume that this process is random ! Did CCP ever gives us the real algorithm they use. - no
I still do thousand of Invention and reverse engineering and i continue to think they manipulate the result at some point but eh, its a game and i still enjoy it.

Ehb
ofc its manipulated somehow, it's a man made script, probably written to keep it around a certain overall % of success.

edit: besides, no computer calculated "random" number generator is completely random, anyone with basic programming knowledge knows this

mxzf
Minmatar
Shovel Bros
Posted - 2009.12.08 21:34:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: FroschForscher
come on. there´s nothing worng with the rng. its just that only the bad streak people post on the forums post patch


This.

People might comment to corpies about that 10/10 set they just got back, but you really don't bother posting it on the forums. However, if someone feels like they were cheated out of some ISK they're going to complain (useless and annoying as it is, it's an understandable first reaction). And the post-patch paranoia adds to this too, I saw a good number of these after Apoc 1.5 too, I seriously doubt they even touched the code of the function that controls the RNG (that kind of code isn't something that needs tweaking often).


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only