Science & Industry

this old chestnut.

it is random, and your sample size is TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINY. Do many many many more and you will see the system actually works just fine.

see threads like https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365901&find=unread

As has been said nothing odd about your results...

Except that you used decryptors to invent ammo... now I find that odd, though I freely admit it's been a very long time since I actually invented ammo.

Anyhow best of luck stick with it, and don't worry. It happens. Kinda more annoying as the invention tries get more expensive though.

RELEVENT

Get educated scrub.

Anecdotally my post-Crius runs without using meta items to boost the probability has been 40-45%. Using meta items to boost probability my average across non-ships is 55-65%. I've only been record the results post-Crius off and on.

And yeah, I really wish people would use the Search function; they'd see this this comes up every single FRIGGIN' time there's a patch, whether it's relevent to Industry or not.

Each individual attempt at inventing is independant of the others. This means that you can't put X amount of jobs in and expect Y to be succesful, that is just stupid. I've had runs where I put in eleven invention jobs at 46% and had ten come out succesful and others where only two were succesful. Sample size on each was to low to make any conclusion, but overall the many thousasnds of independant trials of invention chance i've done, it has worked out to about where it states invention chance is.

If you can't grasp basic probability theory I suppose you will just have to be one of those people who whine on the forums about how you were supposed to get Y succeful runs on your X attempts at inventing, "CCP must have changed something."

1) Each individual attempt at inventing is not independent of the others. It is generated by a computer. Computers do not make random things (unless CCP seeds their generator with random data which I highly doubt). You can predict the next outcome based on the previous outcome. That of course does not matter for this discussion, but let's at least be factually correct.

2)
But you can say what is the Probability of Y out of X jobs being successful. This is what probabilistic system analysis is. And if you understood my posts, you would see that is what I was saying.

3)
And math will tell us what is the probability of that happening. In this case it is approx .252%. If this results happens (on average) more often than once every 396 batches then we can so that the system is not "fair" (as in unbiased or random) even if your average invention rate works out to 46%.
We can also say that if someone experiences a result what has a probability of occurring once every 1.9 billion batches that it is unlikely that the system is actually "fair" given the short amount of time that Eve has been in existence. Or that he was lying (still the most likely in my opinion)

4)
When in this post did I either
a) Claim you you should get a particular result. I stated the probability of a particular result given a "fair" system and suggest that either people were lying about their results (most likely) or the system was not "fair" and that we would need a lot more data to prove that.
b) whine about anything unless doing math is whining is which case, yes, i do whine all the time
c) say anything about CCP changing their algorithm.


Also, spell check is your friend. It's embedded in browsers these days. There really is no excuse.

I'm going to stop you right here. This is a clasic example of the Gambler's fallacy. Each time you put in an invention job means you flip the coin on wheather it is succesful or not when you deliver it. YOU CAN'T BASE THE NEXT OUTCOME FROM THE PREVIOUS OUTCOMES! Each is an independant trial of the invention chance.

You can toss a coin and have 20 heads come up in a row and the next toss have tails, you can also toss a coin and have heads come up 20 times and have heads come up the next, the odds are both 1 in 2,097,152. Therefore, it is equally likely to flip 21 heads as it is to flip 20 heads and then 1 tail when flipping a fair coin 21 times. Furthermore, these two probabilities are equally as likely as any other 21-flip combinations that can be obtained (there are 2,097,152 total); all 21-flip combinations will have probabilities equal to 1 in 2,097,152. From these observations, there is no reason to assume at any point that a change of luck is warranted based on prior trials (flips), because every outcome observed will always have been as likely as the other outcomes that were not observed for that particular trial, given a fair coin. Therefore, the result of each trial comes down to the base probability of the fair coin: 1⁄2.

You being able to "predict" the outcome, based on previous outcomes, is a flat out fantasy your rational mind tries to put on random events.

EDIT:

Gambler's fallacy arises out of a belief in a "law of small numbers", or the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population. According to the fallacy, "streaks" must eventually even out in order to be representative. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic, which states that people evaluate the probability of a certain event by assessing how similar it is to events they have experienced before, and how similar the events surrounding those two processes are. According to this view, "after observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, for example, most people erroneously believe that black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red", so people expect that a short run of random outcomes should share properties of a longer run, specifically in that deviations from average should balance out. When people are asked to make up a random-looking sequence of coin tosses, they tend to make sequences where the proportion of heads to tails stays closer to 0.5 in any short segment than would be predicted by chance (insensitivity to sample size); Kahneman and Tversky interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones. The representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non-random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect.

No point in arguing with him.

If he doesn't understand that flipping a fair coin is not the same thing as a computer's rand function, and he doesn't understand how you use Bayes' theorem to calculate the probability of a particular outcome there's nothing we can do.

He just quotes "random is random", without understanding what that means statistically.

Then again, I tried to explain math to someone on the internet so who's really the bigger idiot?

Listen, I understand the difference between a coin flip and a computers rand function, and you can calculate Bayesian probability curves to your hearts content. It still doesn't handwave away that each individual invention attempt is an independant trial, and only after all events are set can you place it on your Bayesian curve and go "Oh, that was neat, a .252% probability for that one."

Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data, you don't have data untill all events are resolved. Yes you can run analysis on all previous invention runs, and get your Bayesian probability curve statistics, Bayesian STATISTICS will "predict" a certain amount of succesful invention runs within 1 or 2 standard deviations, just like Bayesian STATISTICS will "predict" the amount of heads or tails for a given number of coin flips within 1 or 2 standard deviations. Going, "I ran X, amount of invention runs, I should have Y succesful runs +- 1 SD." is a prime example of the gamblers fallacy. You can't know the outcome, but with Bayesian statistics you have [a pretty good guess, and that is all it is, a pretty good guess.

EDIT: Casino owners would love to have you Bayesian guys come over and try your hand at roulette.

So what you are saying is, that you and Steve here can, with 100% accuracy, predict the outcome of each individual invention job based solely on the previous pattern of invention job successes/failures?

If so, then have you reported this bug/exploit to CCP?

If not, then you are deluding yourselves with apophenia.