Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The percentages involved are correct, its just that you have a very wide distribution so you need
a large(1000+ at least) sample size for it to start converging on those numbers.

Thats not how probabilities work broseph....

technically your odds werent 10*n=10n blueprints with a rounding error, its 10 packages of 7/10 chance... Find some d10 (or a random number generator) and roll them and count the number of times you get 7 positives on your "3 or higher is good enough" rolls...

Eventually it'll balance out but with random events occuring in clusters (and both dice and computer randomisations not being actually random) you might not see that result for the next couple of hundered rolls...

mmm, cookies

Good God...haven't seen one of these posts in a loooonnnngggg time. Lets see, you have a 0.697 chance of success, which implies a 0.303 chance of failure. The chance of failure (and success) is i.i.d. In fact, the underlying distribution we are looking at is a binomial distribution. And sadly your chances of getting 4 or less successes is 0.0496...or about 1 in 20.

That is if we took say, 2,000 inventors each one installing jobs just like you did, then we'd expect to see about 100 inventors with 4 or less successes.

In other words...you just got unlucky.

You may be exceptionally unlucky then.

I kept records over my first six months and while I had some serious peaks and troughs over all I came out slightly over the expected success rate for that period and everything I've seen the last couple of years supports that.

And you don't have sufficient data to support your assertion.

Look if this were true there would be lots, lots more people here posting. If the probability shown to you is 0.7, but in reality it is working at 0.4 then EVERYONE would see this. I've done thousands of invention jobs and I usually will buy data cores in bulk. I then grind through them via invention and look at the finished products. If I had 200 datacores, and a 50% chance of success I should end up with 1,000 t2 items. I am invariable "close" to that number.

There are hundreds if not thousands of other players out there doing invention. If there was a systematic error in CCP's psuedo random number generator used for invention....we'd hear about it. Why? Because people who do invention would be noticing (using the numbers I provided above) that they were getting approximately 800 items vs. 1,000 and over multiple items (yes, I don't invent just 1 item, I have done up to 4-5 of them at a time...meaning that at the end I should be damn close to 4,000 or 5,000 items).

Doing 10 inventions and getting 4 successes is not a large enough sample to make a determination that there is a problem anyways. As I noted, the probability of getting that result is 5%. Results that happen with a 0.05 probability happen quite often. When explaining spurious correlation to people, I generate 1,000 variables each with 100 observations, I then run a regression on each of those 1,000 variables against a simple linear trend. Invariably about 50 regressions pop up with various goodness of fit statistics that look "good". High R-square, nice t-test, etc. Problem is all the variables are complete and utter bull****. I know, because they were created with a Mersenne-Twister pseudo-random number generator. They mean literally nothing and those correlations are just dumb luck.