These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

What happened with Reverse Engineering?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#1 - 2012-06-24 18:12:14 UTC
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
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-06-24 18:13:35 UTC
I'd like to reverse engineer my railguns and then combine the firing mechanism with Quafe Ultra and narcotics in order to wreak merry hell in Jita.

Dodixie > Hek
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#3 - 2012-06-24 18:16:11 UTC
The nature of any chance based mechanic...

You could, though unlikely, try 100 times and fail each time even with a 99% chance of success.
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#4 - 2012-06-24 18:17:54 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
The nature of any chance based mechanic...

You could, though unlikely, try 100 times and fail each time even with a 99% chance of success.


I'm running hundreds of reverse engineering jobs. And I'm not so unlucky. It really seems that the chance was halved by two and chance for a good BPC by 4 or smth.
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-06-24 18:19:33 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
The nature of any chance based mechanic...

You could, though unlikely, try 100 times and fail each time even with a 99% chance of success.


That could only happen if the chance of success was 99% with each try Big smile

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#6 - 2012-06-24 18:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
The nature of any chance based mechanic...

You could, though unlikely, try 100 times and fail each time even with a 99% chance of success.


I'm running hundreds of reverse engineering jobs. And I'm not so unlucky. It really seems that the chance was halved by two and chance for a good BPC by 4 or smth.

You don't under stand.

Lets say that the chance of success for one is 50%.

Out of 1M, you would expect that half would succeed. This however is only one out of millions of outcomes.

You could fail millions of times even with a 50% chance of success. You could also succeed millions of times. This is why chance is bad.

Edit: and "luck" doesn't factor into it. It either happens or it doesn't. Luck is a concept that dulls ones sense of reality.
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#7 - 2012-06-24 20:44:27 UTC
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.
Lexmana
#8 - 2012-06-24 21:00:12 UTC
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
I understand your position, but I'm not bad in statistics

Then you would know that 60 is not a very large sample. Try a (couple of) thousand more and come back with your result.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#9 - 2012-06-24 21:01:30 UTC
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?

"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
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#10 - 2012-06-24 21:14:12 UTC
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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#11 - 2012-06-24 21:16:42 UTC
By the way, how many total BPCs did you get from your 60 runs?

And what's your actual calculated %chance?

"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
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#12 - 2012-06-24 21:25:53 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
By the way, how many total BPCs did you get from your 60 runs?

And what's your actual calculated %chance?

According to the formula:
Reverse_Chance = Base_Chance * (1 + (0.01 * Reverse_Engineering_Skill_Level)) * (1 + (0.1 * (Datacore_1_Skill_Level + Datacore_2_Skill_Level)))
And base chance of the intact relic (40%) and my skills it's 5-5-4 chance must be 79.8%, but my yield was 23 BPCs and only 8 of them are normal to produce.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#13 - 2012-06-24 21:32:06 UTC
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
By the way, how many total BPCs did you get from your 60 runs?

And what's your actual calculated %chance?

According to the formula:
Reverse_Chance = Base_Chance * (1 + (0.01 * Reverse_Engineering_Skill_Level)) * (1 + (0.1 * (Datacore_1_Skill_Level + Datacore_2_Skill_Level)))
And base chance of the intact relic (40%) and my skills it's 5-5-4 chance must be 79.8%, but my yield was 23 BPCs and only 8 of them are normal to produce.


23/60 is easily within the likely outcomes. Same with 8/23 (given that the odds are 1:4 for each BPC).

Since your a statistician, why don't you calculate the liklihood of doing as bad or worse than you did over 60 runs.

"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
Liza Hawkeye
Margin Trading Academy
#14 - 2012-06-24 21:39:42 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
By the way, how many total BPCs did you get from your 60 runs?

And what's your actual calculated %chance?

According to the formula:
Reverse_Chance = Base_Chance * (1 + (0.01 * Reverse_Engineering_Skill_Level)) * (1 + (0.1 * (Datacore_1_Skill_Level + Datacore_2_Skill_Level)))
And base chance of the intact relic (40%) and my skills it's 5-5-4 chance must be 79.8%, but my yield was 23 BPCs and only 8 of them are normal to produce.


23/60 is easily within the likely outcomes. Same with 8/23 (given that the odds are 1:4 for each BPC).

Since your a statistician, why don't you calculate the liklihood of doing as bad or worse than you did over 60 runs.


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...
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#15 - 2012-06-24 21:43:02 UTC
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Liza Hawkeye wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
By the way, how many total BPCs did you get from your 60 runs?

And what's your actual calculated %chance?

According to the formula:
Reverse_Chance = Base_Chance * (1 + (0.01 * Reverse_Engineering_Skill_Level)) * (1 + (0.1 * (Datacore_1_Skill_Level + Datacore_2_Skill_Level)))
And base chance of the intact relic (40%) and my skills it's 5-5-4 chance must be 79.8%, but my yield was 23 BPCs and only 8 of them are normal to produce.


23/60 is easily within the likely outcomes. Same with 8/23 (given that the odds are 1:4 for each BPC).

Since your a statistician, why don't you calculate the liklihood of doing as bad or worse than you did over 60 runs.


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...


8/23 is 34% That's a pretty likely outcome when flipping a coin 23 times.

"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
Andy DelGardo
#16 - 2012-06-24 21:54:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy DelGardo
No clue what this is all about, i don't notice any difference in RE whatsoever. 3 out of 60 tries is pretty crappy, but thats the risk u have to take for playing a high stake game, since the actual combined chance to get a acc. bay is only 20%, sure 5% sucks, but thats still within the limits for such small amount of try's.

Quote:
I'm wondering - will CCP 'repair' tech III reserch/production or it will be left unprofitable/low-profitable thing?

Maybe Liza is cursed? I'm willing to make an offer to buy her from u and will give her a great new home. Send me a msg. if interested.


bye

Andy


PS: Also complaining about loosing money in a risky chance based system is kinda silly :)
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#17 - 2012-06-24 23:55:05 UTC
It's funny how most everyone seems to be defending invention and reverse engineering mechanics even though they are chance based in a game that requires huge skillpoint sink to even be able to attempt them.

Yet when I suggested that the same mechanic be used to make the odd piece of ammo misfire I was jumped all over for suggesting a chance based mechanic in a skill based game.

Just sayin'

Mr Epeen Cool
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#18 - 2012-06-25 00:14:16 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:

Just sayin'

Give me a decent way to inject skill play into R&D?
There are just no tools to do so yet with this mechanic. Other than provide 100% chance of invention at the cost of exponentially higher material cost to incorporate the necessary item sink for average tries.
Yet that would lose some of the fun and jeopardy, currently more is always better, but there is no set goal number to reach. Knowing succinct totals I think would just make it so much more grindy.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#19 - 2012-06-25 00:19:32 UTC
tldr version for you OP, nobody knows. They are just too stubborn to say it and would rather hash up long dreary babbles about RnG and chance.

Devs won't say because chances are they don't know what they did either.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#20 - 2012-06-25 00:30:32 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
It's funny how most everyone seems to be defending invention and reverse engineering mechanics even though they are chance based in a game that requires huge skillpoint sink to even be able to attempt them.

Yet when I suggested that the same mechanic be used to make the odd piece of ammo misfire I was jumped all over for suggesting a chance based mechanic in a skill based game.

Just sayin'

Mr Epeen Cool


I think people like to know how their ships will perform in combat. It could be an interesting idea, though. Linkey?

"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
123Next page