These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

What happened with Reverse Engineering?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#21 - 2012-06-25 00:34:05 UTC
If I spend a year getting well skilled to invent, grind 2 billion ISK for a freighter BPO, spend 6 months researching it, spend another month for one BP copy of it and toss in 20 or 30 mil for a good decrypter, I bloody well want to have a JF BP when it finishes in the lab.

Having some RNG based system for rockets is one thing, but let's face it, it's a stupid system for high end invention/RE.

Mr Epeen Cool
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-06-25 00:34:51 UTC
The law if independent trials, bites you in the butt. Pray harder to the Random Number God.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#23 - 2012-06-25 00:35:49 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
If I spend a year getting well skilled to invent, grind 2 billion ISK for a freighter BPO, spend 6 months researching it, spend another month for one BP copy of it and toss in 20 or 30 mil for a good decrypter, I bloody well want to have a JF BP when it finishes in the lab.

Having some RNG based system for rockets is one thing, but let's face it, it's a stupid system for high end invention/RE.

Mr Epeen Cool


Why are you researching a BPO that you're using to invent from? And the 2b isn't lost, you can always sell it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#24 - 2012-06-25 00:40:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
RubyPorto wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
If I spend a year getting well skilled to invent, grind 2 billion ISK for a freighter BPO, spend 6 months researching it, spend another month for one BP copy of it and toss in 20 or 30 mil for a good decrypter, I bloody well want to have a JF BP when it finishes in the lab.

Having some RNG based system for rockets is one thing, but let's face it, it's a stupid system for high end invention/RE.

Mr Epeen Cool


Why are you researching a BPO that you're using to invent from? And the 2b isn't lost, you can always sell it.


Because I need to build a freighter from it to make the JF from the BP that may or may not result from over a year of effort to attempt it. Guess you don't build/ invent, do you?

Mr Epeen Cool
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#25 - 2012-06-25 00:44:36 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Mr Epeen wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
If I spend a year getting well skilled to invent, grind 2 billion ISK for a freighter BPO, spend 6 months researching it, spend another month for one BP copy of it and toss in 20 or 30 mil for a good decrypter, I bloody well want to have a JF BP when it finishes in the lab.

Having some RNG based system for rockets is one thing, but let's face it, it's a stupid system for high end invention/RE.

Mr Epeen Cool


Why are you researching a BPO that you're using to invent from? And the 2b isn't lost, you can always sell it.


Because I need to build a freighter from it to make the JF that may or may not result from over a year of effort to attempt it. Guess you don't build/ invent, do you?

Mr Epeen Cool


You were asking for a BP, not a JF. If you're gonna say something about wanting to build it yourself, where's your tech moon?

And, the second try only costs another copy (50m) and 20-30m for a decryptor.

You're picking the least efficient way to invent JF BPCs and complaining that it's not efficient enough.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#26 - 2012-06-25 01:32:37 UTC
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
I'm trying to get what happened with reverse engineering in the last couple of weeks. For example I got only 3 Accelerated Ejection Bay BPCs from 60 reverse engineering works made with skills 5-5-4 from Intact Ancient Relics and it caused me to lose money on this according to total cost of each BPC.
As for now - my chance on reverse engineering is is like 40% and it makes me cry, because I'm just loosing money.
I'm wondering - will CCP 'repair' tech III reserch/production or it will be left unprofitable/low-profitable thing?

Yours sincere,
Liza Hawkeye

Short answer: You need to do the math.
Short solution: Download the program in my sig to have it do it for you.

T3 is profitable if you do it right.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#27 - 2012-06-25 02:10:23 UTC
To the OP: Check in the wormhole forum online.
See if anyone else is suddenly having issues with T3 reverse engineering.

But if you were 23/60, and you think you have a 73% expected success rate, I would say there is something definitely odd happening. Don't listen to the dullards. A sample size of 60 IS NOT considered trivial. And if you have results for 120, please post them. I would be very interested in seeing them.
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#28 - 2012-06-25 06:18:42 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
To the OP: Check in the wormhole forum online.
See if anyone else is suddenly having issues with T3 reverse engineering.

But if you were 23/60, and you think you have a 73% expected success rate, I would say there is something definitely odd happening. Don't listen to the dullards. A sample size of 60 IS NOT considered trivial. And if you have results for 120, please post them. I would be very interested in seeing them.



I think today I'll finish new batch of 120 reverses and sure I'll share the result.
Khalia Nestune
Mad Stacks
#29 - 2012-06-25 08:02:11 UTC
The problem here is that it's perfectly possible to have 100 straight fails. Not *likely*, but possible. You can't make any assumptions about changes to a system based on a random number generator from the results.

I am reminded of this Dilbert strip:

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/

http://www.mylootyourtears.com
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-06-25 08:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Victoria Sin
RubyPorto wrote:
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
I understand your position, but I'm not bad in statistics (I'm and economist) and I totally see that considering the number of jobs I'm doing - the average chance of getting BPC became much lower. And the chance of getting a good BPC is awfully low now.
Thats made me to post that thread to get an answer - did CCP change smth with reverse engineering chance or only I'm suffering from my bad luck or smth.


If your a statistician, tell me, would you assume the coin is unfair if you see a run of 40 heads when you flip a coin 400 times?


That would be unusual. It's (1/n)^x, where `n' is 2 (2 possible outcomes) and x is the number of coin tosses. For 10 in a row, you get 0.5^10 = 0.0009765625, which I believe is 1 in 1024 sets of 10 coin tosses.
Lexmana
#31 - 2012-06-25 08:17:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
To the OP: Check in the wormhole forum online.
See if anyone else is suddenly having issues with T3 reverse engineering.

But if you were 23/60, and you think you have a 73% expected success rate, I would say there is something definitely odd happening. Don't listen to the dullards. A sample size of 60 IS NOT considered trivial. And if you have results for 120, please post them. I would be very interested in seeing them.


You do realize that for most players in game right now everything is working as expected (otherwise they would all whine on the forums). What you see in this thread is the result of publication bias. So out of thousands of players only one is seeing something out of the ordinary on a sample of 60. This is very likely completely within the parameters.

Edit: after doing some calculations I have to adjust my position on this one. It is a not very likely event if everything OP says is true. But we will know better after the next batch.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#32 - 2012-06-25 08:33:52 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
I understand your position, but I'm not bad in statistics (I'm and economist) and I totally see that considering the number of jobs I'm doing - the average chance of getting BPC became much lower. And the chance of getting a good BPC is awfully low now.
Thats made me to post that thread to get an answer - did CCP change smth with reverse engineering chance or only I'm suffering from my bad luck or smth.


If your a statistician, tell me, would you assume the coin is unfair if you see a run of 40 heads when you flip a coin 400 times?


That would be unusual. It's (1/n)^x, where `n' is 2 (2 possible outcomes) and x is the number of coin tosses. For 10 in a row, you get 0.5^10 = 0.0009765625, which I believe is 1 in 1024 sets of 10 coin tosses.


Thanks.

The law of large numbers says that unusual things happen constantly.

So it's been a loong time since I took statistics, so my practical skills are pretty gone, how would you try to figure out how likely the outcome, 23 successes in 60 tries with an 80% chance of success, is?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Lexmana
#33 - 2012-06-25 09:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
RubyPorto wrote:
So it's been a loong time since I took statistics, so my practical skills are pretty gone, how would you try to figure out how likely the outcome, 23 successes in 60 tries with an 80% chance of success, is?

With those parameters it is acatually a very low probability for observing ≤23 successes (p=2.23E-12). With 50% chance of success the result would be barely significant (p=.046). You can try it yourself with this binomial calculator.

RubyPorto wrote:
The law of large numbers says that unusual things happen constantly.

That is a likely explanation. I am sure OP did not choose a random sequence but instead took one with the most extreme outcome out of quite a few possible other sequences with less extreme outcomes. We need to account for that and for all the other players that don't experience the same. This would increase the probability of this observation dramatically.

OP may have struck some very bad luck but the next batch of 60 is very likely to be better .

If OP observes a similar outcome in the next batch of 60 I will reconsider my position or the parameters were wrong to begin with.
Crellion
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#34 - 2012-06-25 09:07:04 UTC
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
I understand your position, but I'm not bad in statistics (I'm and economist) and I totally see that considering the number of jobs I'm doing - the average chance of getting BPC became much lower. And the chance of getting a good BPC is awfully low now.
Thats made me to post that thread to get an answer - did CCP change smth with reverse engineering chance or only I'm suffering from my bad luck or smth.


If your a statistician, tell me, would you assume the coin is unfair if you see a run of 40 heads when you flip a coin 400 times?


Considering that coin can give 3 results: top, bottom and edge, and we don't count physics in it - then the chance of each result is: 100%/3=33.3%. Everybody agree with it.
Then if we flip the coin for 400 times - we're waiting for the result of 133.3 tops, 133.3 bottoms and 133.3 edges.
If in our experiment results are 40 tops, 200 bottoms and 60 edges then the only thing we got from the result is that we did not enough tries.


I understand your position, but I'm still sure (even if it's against logic and is only empirically thoughts) that chances were reduced. Currently I'm having material for 120 more jobs - when I'll finish them (tommorow I think) - I'll present you results.


So scientific knowlledge leads everybody to agree that if you toss a coin a few million times 1/3 of those times it will land on its edge? Amusing Cool
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#35 - 2012-06-25 09:10:59 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
So it's been a loong time since I took statistics, so my practical skills are pretty gone, how would you try to figure out how likely the outcome, 23 successes in 60 tries with an 80% chance of success, is?

With those parameters it is acatually a very low probability for observing ≤23 successes (p=2.23E-12). With 50% chance of success the result would be barely significant (p=.046). You can try it yourself with this binomial calculator.

RubyPorto wrote:
The law of large numbers says that unusual things happen constantly.

That is a likely explanation. I am sure OP did not choose a random sequence but instead took one with the most extreme outcome out of quite a few possible other sequences with less extreme outcomes. We need to account for that and for all the other players that don't experience the same. This would increase the probability of this observation dramatically.

OP may have struck some very bad luck but the next batch of 60 is very likely to be better .

If OP observes a similar outcome in the next batch of 60 I will reconsider my position or the parameters were wrong to begin with.


That is an awesome tool.

One in 500 billion chance of that result (or worse) with the the 80% parameter. That seems... let's say odd.

Are we sure that the OP's success chance calculations are right?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Lexmana
#36 - 2012-06-25 09:32:26 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

That is an awesome tool.

One in 500 billion chance of that result (or worse) with the the 80% parameter. That seems... let's say odd.

Are we sure that the OP's success chance calculations are right?

Yeah, I am starting to think there is something wrong with the premisses for this calculation. We will know if OP can replicate similar findings in the next 60 trials.

I would like to think that if OP is correct (something changed) we would have many more reprots with similar findings.

The most severe mistake that can be made in these calculations is not including all data. Maybe OP "forgot" to include some jobs that didn't fit the pattern? Also, selecting a sequence might be a problem. If someone runs 1000 of these jobs and want to report the most extreme sequence 60 observations long there are about 940 possible sequences to choose from. If we include a range of sequence length (30-80) it would multiply about 50 times.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#37 - 2012-06-25 09:59:40 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Lexmana wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

That is an awesome tool.

One in 500 billion chance of that result (or worse) with the the 80% parameter. That seems... let's say odd.

Are we sure that the OP's success chance calculations are right?

Yeah, I am starting to think there is something wrong with the premisses for this calculation. We will know if OP can replicate similar findings in the next 60 trials.

I would like to think that if OP is correct (something changed) we would have many more reprots with similar findings.

The most severe mistake that can be made in these calculations is not including all data. Maybe OP "forgot" to include some jobs that didn't fit the pattern? Also, selecting a sequence might be a problem. If someone runs 1000 of these jobs and want to report the most extreme sequence 60 observations long there are about 940 possible sequences to choose from. If we include a range of sequence length (30-80) it would multiply about 50 times.



Still, so long as it's a sequence of 60 in a row, only one in 500 billion sequences of 60 will have 23 or fewer successes at an 80% chance of success. Even if there's 50,000 such sequences in 1000 actual runs, there's only a one in Ten Million chance that such a sequence exists in the 1000 run data set.

@OP, are you sure you're using the intact relics every time?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Lexmana
#38 - 2012-06-25 11:10:43 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Still, so long as it's a sequence of 60 in a row, only one in 500 billion sequences of 60 will have 23 or fewer successes at an 80% chance of success. Even if there's 50,000 such sequences in 1000 actual runs, there's only a one in Ten Million chance that such a sequence exists in the 1000 run data set.

@OP, are you sure you're using the intact relics every time?


I do agree that the probability is still very low. We have to exclude the possibility of using the wrong relics. With 60% chance of success p=0.000569 it is a very likely outcome even if we assume a very low selection bias. With 50k possible datasets p=1. With 1000 datasets p= 1-(1-0.000567)^1000=.43.

However, observing very small probabilities does happen in a game like EVE. If we assume that such event will always be posted on the forums. If we assume that 50k players are producing dataets with 50k possible sequences 10 times a year we would get a probability of OPs observation of of p=1-(1-2.23E-12)^(50000*50000*10)=.10. About once every decade Big smile.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#39 - 2012-06-25 11:15:54 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Still, so long as it's a sequence of 60 in a row, only one in 500 billion sequences of 60 will have 23 or fewer successes at an 80% chance of success. Even if there's 50,000 such sequences in 1000 actual runs, there's only a one in Ten Million chance that such a sequence exists in the 1000 run data set.

@OP, are you sure you're using the intact relics every time?


I do agree that the probability is still very low. We have to exclude the possibility of using the wrong relics. With 60% chance of success p=0.000569 it is a very likely outcome even if we assume a very low selection bias. With 50k possible datasets p=1. With 1000 datasets p= 1-(1-0.000567)^1000=.43.

However, observing very small probabilities does happen in a game like EVE. If we assume that such event will always be posted on the forums. If we assume that 50k players are producing dataets with 50k possible sequences 10 times a year we would get a probability of OPs observation of of p=1-(1-2.23E-12)^(50000*50000*10)=.10. About once every decade Big smile.


If only WHs had been out that long.

I think that incorrect relics are the root of the problem. I doubt CCP would stealth nerf reverse engineering out of the blue.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
brinelan
#40 - 2012-06-25 11:21:07 UTC
Liza Hawkeye wrote:


8/23 are not the BPC for 1 exact subsystem but for 2 subsystems. So it's 3+5. and 15 BPC for other 2 subsystem that are unworthy of production.

I'll monitor my future reverses, but I'm not sure that results will be better...


You could always stop re'ing caldari... if you only have a 1/4 change that your successful bpc is worth money, is it even worth bothering with?
Previous page123Next page