Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Theodor Bliesheimer
Integrated Astromechanics Corp. Zeta Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 03:34:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Theodor Bliesheimer on 19/07/2011 03:34:39 Despite browsing through several guides on Reverse Engineering and doing a search on Google I have not been able to find a formula that expresses the probabilities to get back individual items from failed Reverse Engineering attempts. I just keep reading that there is a chance to get some items back, and that you may get back a Wrecked Relic if you fail to reverse engineer an Intact Relic.
Could anyone point me to the formula in question?
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 04:19:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 19/07/2011 04:24:31
You get random junk back, like Hybrid R.A.M. or datacores. Not all of it either.
Consider it all lost everytime you do RE.
Success formula: Reverse Engineering
|
Theodor Bliesheimer
Integrated Astromechanics Corp. Zeta Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 04:56:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tau Cabalander Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 19/07/2011 04:24:31
You get random junk back, like Hybrid R.A.M. or datacores. Not all of it either.
Consider it all lost everytime you do RE.
Success formula: Reverse Engineering
Thanks for your input. I already know the basic success formula you linked. However, there obviously must be a formula behind the "random junk" as well...
|
Theodor Bliesheimer
Integrated Astromechanics Corp. Zeta Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 01:37:00 -
[4]
...unless of course that formula is not based on probabilities but on some kind of random number generator. Anyone have any insight on that?
|
Helpfulvoice
|
Posted - 2011.07.22 02:05:00 -
[5]
I haven't personally looked into this, but it's an interesting question. Might do some work on this for future market development. As for the prices of Research Tech these days, there isn't anything to gain from figuring this out (at least the way I view the market). Your opinion might differ, so pursuing this idea probably wouldn't be a waste of time (unless the conclusion is RNG ;)).
|
Abdiel Kavash
Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.07.22 10:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Theodor Bliesheimer ...unless of course that formula is not based on probabilities but on some kind of random number generator. Anyone have any insight on that?
Uh, what's the difference? ---
|
Taedrin
Gallente Zero Percent Tax Haven
|
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Helpfulvoice I haven't personally looked into this, but it's an interesting question. Might do some work on this for future market development. As for the prices of Research Tech these days, there isn't anything to gain from figuring this out (at least the way I view the market). Your opinion might differ, so pursuing this idea probably wouldn't be a waste of time (unless the conclusion is RNG ;)).
A RNG can only provide an input to an algorithm - it can't be the algorithm itself. It can only change the distribution of a probability. ----------
Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident"
Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |