Starman complain about "Portalarium Crafting Math" #6 with data.

I agree with what you're saying. However I'm not sure we're seeing the full picture when it comes to (for example) "I had two failures when it was supposed to be a 90% success rate." Is that based on a total population of 10 attempts? 100 attempts? We don't know. If there are 6 people with the same anecdotal story, is that total population based on 1000 attempts? 10k attempts? Again, we don't know.

As for 100% having failures, that sounds like a bug.

It's certainly in the realm of possibility that the RNG is broken, but nothing in this thread has proven (or even gotten close to proving) that. If it turns out it's broken, I'm all for having it fixed post haste.

Again I agree that "people" are finding the RNG crafting system unrewarding, and I think that's good feedback. I just don't want them to create a false narrative like "the math is broken" to support their dislike of the system.

 

@Berek We've (I've) offered to test the rate of Exceptional item creation and Masterworking for the Devs, on a live server using my live character. Assuming they provide me with enough raw material to come to a conclusion. Of course, once I've completed a test I'm more than happy to return the results. In addition, the Devs could then set my skills back to the levels they were when I began the test.

 

Also if someone at 100% gets fails where is the reasons behind it, again to reiterate the demand for more depth in the crafting system please. To just fail, fail, fail because of only a calculation is boring after a while imo. It will not keep the crafter engaged for long. So I do wish for more to crafting. I know this is a debate issue with punching keyboard keys to craft verses being engaged in the actions we take during crafting. It was said that some are very opposed to making crafting more than pushing the keys, but I do think a middle ground could be found to make it more fun. There definitely needs to be some risk verses rewards added in that are satisfying. To just lose an item you worked hard for to get ingredients for or spent a lot of hard earned in game gold to buy resources for to have it just 'fail', no reason is too frustrating. If there are reasons for failures and a chance of alleviating some of these, or some scenario to an interesting experience happening, then people will come back for more if they like to craft and want to craft, not get disheartened by the failure. Why? because the failure won't just be a failure, perhaps it will be an interesting opportunity. So I copied this from the game 'The Repopulation' as an example of some things that could be added or changed in our system. I am sorry to go off topic from statistics but I don't feel that discussing undone statistic will further the conversation for a good crafting system in our game. So I will start a new thread.

 

I think the issue is: very large sample sizes will always show properly.

The vast quantities of materials required means a full weekend of farming = 15 minutes of 'combines' and the similar amount of MW/Ench

There is more than one RNG method they can be using with Unity and C#

Even to the point where they look at generating a seed set and then running some flattening passes to keep it from being all clumped up. Because 3-4 failures at 93 % is far too clumped.

1, 94, 95, 97, 12, 45, 33, 62, 21, 56

Could look better. But sets like this are constantly coming up

 

I think we both agree that no one has enough information to say one way or the other that the "math is broken" but the enjoyment is broken. But I think we both agree that we need to be accurate about what is experienced and saying the math is definitely broken is wrong but that is about as much as saying it is definitely providing the expected result is just as wrong

You've got a good point there. Maybe the problem is the method of RNG and not the RNG itself. Ultimately some changes need to come into effect in the crafting space.

I still think the biggest issue so much wouldn't be the failures if you made it consistently worthwhile to produce. Value of end product and intermediary products in the game need to reflect the value it took to create them including profit due to time invested. I think the RNG failure rate wouldn't matter as much if the value on the end product catered for it in the long run. It would balance out the issue people have a bit more making failure a little less harsh. When you could have all the successes you want in a row but still be broke from successes and out of mats before you can get to your end product.

But I do think you are right that it needs to be more engaging and involve some semblance of skill rather than pure RNG. That would make it way more interesting and potentially help out with the player economy.

 

How is throwing away a week of gathering resources having any impact on the economy?

We're already in this situation. 99% of the stuff that gets crafted can't be sold because no-one wants it or can easily make it for themselves. The 1% of stuff that can be sold isn't going to be sold at a price that makes up for the mats required to manufacture all the rest of it.

 

I say again sequences that do not fit the odds are in fact proof of randomness, you might not like it but the nature of randomness means that future results are not based on prior results. An anecdotal of ten rolls says nothing until you examine the other 99990 rolls that followed it to see if the statistics fit the distribution of not only expected number distribution but meet expectations of sequences that do not fit the overall odds. The only one that can do that test is Portalarium. Forum anecdotes about improbable sequences will be biased by those upset about their bad luck and should not be indicators the generator is broken.

I just rolled 10 d100's and these are my results 4/10 rolls exceeded 80% and 7/10 rolls exceed 50% which means nothing more than I was lucky.

96 48 96 85 26 45 83 60 11 61

That is because the RNG is a uniform distribution. Had instead I rolled 100 d10's and added in random groups of 10, only then would you start to see a normal distribution of numbers in the middle, with very unlikely numbers in the 10's and 90's.

 

And I say again: we don't want randomness, it's not fun. Telling us to go craft 99990 other things is not the answer to that problem.

 

It isn't randomness. I fail 3x on a gathering node very regularly.

Not 1x, not 2x, but always 3. With a supposed 7% failure rate.

There are always 2 exceptional procs in a row. Alternating with an excep, non, excep.

I would find it hard to believe that others have not experienced this as well

 

But this thread is not about not liking the RNG, it is an accusation that the RNG is broken. You would be best to start another thread to campaign for removal of the RNG from crafting because you do not like it, rather than campaigning to have it removed because the 'RNG is broken'.

 

Entirely possible to see the same sequence if someone left in a hardcode seed that for debugging reason has an improbable sequence at the start of every action sequence. But do you have recorded proof that the rolls are coming up the same sequence, or do you think this is only proof that Portalarium can do since they hide the rolls. Certainly if that bug existed then it would be happening to everyone and obviously noticed and very easy to test that everyone hits the same sequence.

Roll20 (used to play tabletop RPG online) also used to get complaints about their broken RNG and they added a log to their site to prove to all the complainers that it was nothing more than their bad luck.

https://wiki.roll20.net/images/e/e5/Qr.png

It did not stop games from having RP hilarity over improbable sequences despite the guarantee of a uniform expected distribution.

Adding the log is not going to change anyones bad luck or them not liking RNG in crafting, but it certainly would proof if an RNG is biased. It is very unlikely that rolling a d10 ten times will be a uniformly distributed 1-10, as it does require very large datasets to prove that improbably sequences fit uniformity expectations. Anecdotal forum posts are not proof.

 

Having a greater crafting attrition rate, whatever it is, increases the prices of both the raw materials and the finished goods. Supply and Demand.

If everyone had perfect gear already, there would be less gold exchanging hands.

And I'm not saying the 95% breakage doesn't hurt. It hurts, plenty.

 

I know the discussion is about a single roll and I will keep out of that. But frustration is built in to the system by the math. Consider that you want to be successful 5 times or more with your rolls to produce the item you want. The math on a string of rolls is simple. It is the odds of winning a single roll multiplied by itself 5 times. So if I am crafting an item at 50% chance then that is 1/2. To succeed two times with the same item, the chance is 1/2 times 1/2 or 1/4. To succeed three times in a row the chance is 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 or once in 8 crafting attempts You would expect to lose 7 items for every 8 you try. Now at 5 successes you will lose 31 of every 32 you try. Considering that each of the 32 items can have 50 to 100 materials, the losses are staggering. Even if every roll turns out as expected by everyone posting here, you can expect to lose 31 out of every 32 items when getting to +5 at 50% chance. If you have a sliding scale for success rate per roll like we do, then the multipliers are the fractions created by the odds multiplied. For example if the first roll is 90%, the second is 72% and the third is 48%, then the odds of hitting the three in a row successfully are 31%. (311040/1000000).

 

Since the rolls are hidden, it's impossible to have concrete data. But it certainly appears that only one seed exists. Perhaps that is why it's not available to us for debugging purposes. Would be too easy to 'cheat'.

My exceptional chance is closer to 45% when watching the progression on components and doing a combine at the optimal time.

Haven't tried to use that process for MW/Ench though

 

For anyone with the patience to check the math given the huge job in gathering materials to use, I believe a general rule of thumb for determining if there is a high chance of error in the assumed numbers, is to always check for a degree of deviation that exceeds the square of the sample size.

For example, if you craft 100 items, then any result that is more then 10 away from the expected math indicates a high probability that something is amiss.

So, as it relates to exceptional items, results of less then 15 and higher then 35 are indicators that there is something up. You have a 10% margin of error. Not great but this is about the maximum I'd expect a player to work to achieve 'hard evidence' under live conditions.

To get a result with only a 2.5% margiun of error you'd need 1600 attempts to be made.

This is why it's insincere to ask players to provide evidence to their feedback that 'RNG is broken' because at any reliable margin of error to demonstrate an issue, the time involved is ludicrous.

Crafting isn't fun, whether or not the RNG is broken. Even under the assumption RNG is working as inteneded, there are no barriers to clumping to prevent straigt failures and people are rolling on hours and hours of work in an instant.

I'm curious if there are any games out there that have such a binary crafting 'risk versus reward'.

FFXIV lets you use skills and gear while crafting to affect the outcome and with enough preparation you can get 100% exceptional rates on all but the most difficult items to make.

Black Desert won;t destroy items below a threshold 'sword+n'

Archeage won't affect an item until it's high enough to risk losing quality, or after moving past that point it then has a chance of destruction.

As to this whole mechanic being 'good for the economy', it actually prices crafting too high for items to move freely because the costs the crafter needs to recoup versus the time and effort into making a +9 is way more then the actual usefulness of the item.

Inflation would take care of this at some point when total wealth amopngst players was high enough to pay the prices but there is aggressive action taken against any inflation as if it was a naturally bad thing.

 

The values compared to raw material values are already out of whack.

Adding the huge exceptional and breakage rates would price items in the 6 figure range. Not to mention the bonuses being random and not always fitting to the role that item typically is used by

 

You don't think the low population has a lot to do with this problem?

The economy is broken, it's not implemented entirely, and there's plenty of things that can be improved. But the RNG math isn't one of them.

 

RNG accounting for 100% of the input to determine if your Grandmaster crafted Bronze sword is any better then a bronze sword made by a character the day they were created seems like an issue to me.

 

Well that's where we can get circular. Is the RNG maths one of the reasons why the population is low?

 

Ok here is a sum up from a person who plays a huge amount and crafts at a high level. Simply if it's working the way they intended or not it's just not FUN. You can not discount that most of us have played games for years and this system has he lowest %'s I have experienced. No reward for going over 40 in a crafting skill really?

And they lied back from kickstarter when they said that they would never make this an endless resource grind game.

At this time their idea of reward is the resources themselves. Evidenced in they make sure every node is guarded stating this is risk vs reward. Their system of non-liniar leveling is bad logic in that they focus the whole system at lower level new players. This discounts anyone who spends more time and effort playing the game. To get nothing when you hit GM is insulting. Much more than the RNG needs to change. And to say to the people who paid for this game to be made we are just going to keep it this way is spitting in our faces.