Crafting Success

[Script Wrecked]

Actually, I remember my running success well, a whole bunch (fourteen?) of Crystal Rods I at something daft like 25% success.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[aragwen]

Unfortunately, from Orth's link, I only get a grey screen with a box titled "Distribution of Layonara Crafting Dice Rolls".
 

 
 1 | 45953
2 | 45591
3 | 45469
4 | 45877
5 | 45970
6 | 45742
7 | 45544
8 | 45665
9 | 45901
10 | 45926
11 | 45771
12 | 46076
13 | 45560
14 | 46142
15 | 46425
16 | 45714
17 | 45787
18 | 45810
19 | 45765
20 | 45859

 
 So from above is seems rather well distributed.
 Guess someone else is getting the high rolls.
 
 I have failed 5 times in a row on 80% success, it happens

[Script Wrecked]

I have failed 5 times in a row on 80% success, it happens

Failing 5 times in a row is fine, as long as you got the commensurate 20 successes as well.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Hellblazer]

The only sad thing in this is that, the rolls gets distributed across the whole server.

1 it makes the % that you see of your chances of success skewed.

2 it doesn't reflect a very balanced system.

When someone makes a painting, his chance of making it right is not affected by 20 other people painting at the same time around the world. I know that unfortunately it's probably some coded thing in the core system of the game. But it is still sad.

[Weeblie]

The only sad thing in this is that, the rolls gets distributed across the whole server.

1 it makes the % that you see of your chances of success skewed.

2 it doesn't reflect a very balanced system.

When someone makes a painting, his chance of making it right is not affected by 20 other people painting at the same time around the world. I know that unfortunately it's probably some coded thing in the core system of the game. But it is still sad.

For a normal RNG, it has no bearing if you have "your own RNG" or "you are sharing RNG output with others". Just because the previous roll was a 20 (for someone else) does not mean that the chance for the roll after (for you) to also be a 20 is far less than the chance of it being a 4.

The NWN RNG is very unlikely to be cryptographically secure as it is "half proven" to have a somewhat faulty seeding mechanism. But that is not related to what you just mentioned.

So, in summary, do you have any proof at all that the rolls of others (or your own previous rolls) have any meaningful impact on the "future" rolls? In this case, meaningful means that the rolls outputted would be less pseudo random than they otherwise would have been (i.e. compared to if you had your "own" RNG).

[Dorganath]

There's two ways to look at this.  The first would be a statistical analysis of all results over a long period of time. orth's statistics link does a pretty good job of illustrating to the rolls shake out.

1 | 45953 - 5.013%
2 | 45591 - 4.974%
3 | 45469 - 4.961%
4 | 45877 - 5.005%
5 | 45970 - 5.016%
6 | 45742 - 4.991%
7 | 45544 - 4.969%
8 | 45665 - 4.982%
9 | 45901 - 5.008%
10 | 45926 - 5.011%
11 | 45771 - 4.994%
12 | 46076 - 5.027%
13 | 45560 - 4.971%
14 | 46142 - 5.034%
15 | 46425 - 5.065%
16 | 45714 - 4.988%
17 | 45787 - 4.996%
18 | 45810 - 4.998%
19 | 45765 - 4.993%
20 | 45859 - 5.003%

(NOTE:  Percentages added by me.  Results rounded to last decimal point.  Total sample size: 916547 crafting attempts)

As this data shows (and it is live data taken over the last few years), the distribution of numbers is fairly even across the board.

Any success or failure calculation is nothing more than a straight comparison of numbers.  It's a DC vs. a d20.  That's it.

As with most "random" number generators in a computer, the result is only "pseudo-random" and as such may occasionally be subject to apparent non-random statistical perturbations.

Taken over a large number of results, statistically speaking, they're hovering right around an even distribution.

Second:

But I'm not refering to the probability of any particular outcome. I'm refering to the average of all outcomes.

The problem is, each result, each roll of the dice, is not a statistical element but a result on its own.  There is no statistical leveling or any other sort of mechanism to ensure that for each d20 rolled that in 20 rolls each possible result will have showed up once...or even in 100 rolls that each result will have showed up 5 times...or whatever the calculated probability should be.

Really, when the crafting system tells you that you have a 65% chance of success, it means for that particular attempt, not all attempts.

From personal experience, I've had both more and less success in any given session than the crafting system has told me I should statistically have.

[Hellblazer]

For a normal RNG, it has no bearing if you have "your own RNG" or "you are sharing RNG output with others". Just because the previous roll was a 20 (for someone else) does not mean that the chance for the roll after (for you) to also be a 20 is far less than the chance of it being a 4.

The NWN RNG is very unlikely to be cryptographically secure as it is "half proven" to have a somewhat faulty seeding mechanism. But that is not related to what you just mentioned.

So, in summary, do you have any proof at all that the rolls of others (or your own previous rolls) have any meaningful impact on the "future" rolls? In this case, meaningful means that the rolls outputted would be less pseudo random than they otherwise would have been (i.e. compared to if you had your "own" RNG).

well, that's what i keep hearing in these very thread.

[jrizz]

if you took a D20 and rolled it say 500,000 times you would end up with a very close even distribution. So think of it this way your rolls are evened out over the course of your play time.

[Script Wrecked]

Perhaps I should have done this initially. Here are my numbers(1):

Code: [Select]

 % TRY EXPECT ACT   DIFF
--- --- ------ --- ------
 15   6   0.90   2   1.10
 20   5   1.00   2   1.00
 25  91  22.75  20  -2.75
 30  49  14.70  13  -1.70
 35 564 197.40 200   2.60
 40 167  66.80  74   7.20
 45 608 273.60 306  32.40
 50 332 166.00 165  -1.00
 55 799 439.45 444   4.55
 60 367 220.20 224   3.80
[COLOR=Blue] 65 745 484.25 470 -14.25[/COLOR]
 70 118  82.60  76  -6.60
 75 632 474.00 472  -2.00
 80   7   5.60   6   0.40
 85 288 244.80 240  -4.80
 90  46  41.40  44   2.60
 95 158 150.10 147  -3.10
100 604 604.00 603  -1.00

Overall, not as bad as those four runs at 65% would suggest.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.



(1) assuming I can accurately pull these numbers out of the logs.

[Dorganath]

A quick calculation gives your average diff as 1.025, which, if I understand your math, skews things slightly in your favor.

Though I'm not sure how you got this result:

100 604 604.00 603  -1.00

At 100% success, you always succeed.

Though if we can mostly trust these numbers, it looks like you should attempt things at 45%