EVE Search - Complete invention failure, wtf

All Channels

Science and Industry

Complete invention failure, wtf

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.12.06 18:41:00 - [1] Ok i've been playing with the invention calculator thats available on the forum and also some of the other sites, anyway i ran 10 BPC's for ammo invention, according to every tool i've checked with my skills and its supposed to have a 45% success rate... Now out of those 10 BPC runs it resulted in a ***ping 0 successes, with a 45% success rate shud result in atleast 3 or 4 successes, or for gods sake 1 success... am i missing something?
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.06 18:51:00 - [2] Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 18:56:40 Originally by: Lord Helghast am i missing something? Only some basic statistics knowledge. Your particular case is not completely incredible - with a 45% success chance (i.e. 55% failure chance) and just 10 attempts made, you have roughly 1-in-400 chances of a complete failure streak even under perfectly "normal" conditions. Heck, you would have had a roughly 1-in-3000 chance of a 10/10 success streak too. The EVE RNG at least SEEMS to be quite "streaky", even if it it might be not (it could still be "too streaky", but we don't really have a sure way to tell). _ We are recruiting \| Beginer's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.12.06 18:58:00 - [3] wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.06 19:01:00 - [4] Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 19:11:11 Originally by: Lord Helghast wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row. Actually, more like 99.75% chance to get AT LEAST one success. 0success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.25%(or 1 out of395) 1success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.07%(or 1 out of48) 2success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.63%(or 1 out of13) 3success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is16.65%(or 1 out of6) 4success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.84%(or 1 out of4) 5success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.40%(or 1 out of4) 6success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is15.96%(or 1 out of6) 7success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.46%(or 1 out of13) 8success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.29%(or 1 out of44) 9success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.42%(or 1 out of240) 10success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.03%(or 1 out of2,937) P.S. This is not "EVE math", it's "real-world math". P.P.S. Notice how the total chance to get either 3,4,5 or 6 successes out of 10 tries is almost 80%. Still, roughly 1 in 5 people doing a 10-slot run will get (2 or less) or (7 or more) even under completely normal circumstances. It's not a sham, it's just basic statistics. _ We are recruiting \| Beginer's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper
Devan Reale	Posted - 2009.12.06 21:15:00 - [5] Get the associated skills required for the invention up to at least 4 on each. Your skill level directly affects success.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.06 21:31:00 - [6] Originally by: Devan Reale Get the associated skills required for the invention up to at least 4 on each. Your skill level directly affects success. That doesn't really have much to do with what he asked. _ We are recruiting \| Beginer's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper
Tau Cabalander Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.06 22:29:00 - [7] Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 06/12/2009 22:30:29 I feel compelled to post this yet again. A corpmate just ran 60 torpedo inventions. He got 4 successes. Stuff happens.
Dretzle Omega Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.06 22:53:00 - [8] Shameless cross posting. Random numbers are random. 45% chance is just that, a chance. If you run 10 chances and get 0 successes, someone else could be running 9 or 10 chances and 9 or 10 successes. From my other post: Originally by: Dretzle Omega The funny thing with RNGs is that they can produce a lot of non-random looking results sometimes. Which of the following strings of numbers is more random? 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9 1, 5, 3, 8, 6, 2 The second list LOOKs more random, to the human eye. However, if you had a computer random number generator to generator a list of 6 numbers, taking them at random from 1 - 10, each list is equally as likely, because each list I've already predefined. With RNGs, you can get some odd strings some times. It doesn't help (you) that CCPs approach generally seems to be screw the little guy, we only care about definite numbers as a whole. Good luck on your next 10. Maybe they'll all be success?
Yarinor Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.12.06 23:17:00 - [9] Shameless cross posting. Random numbers are random. 45% chance is just that, a chance. If you run 10 chances and get 0 successes, someone else could be running 9 or 10 chances and 9 or 10 successes. From my other post: Originally by: Dretzle Omega The funny thing with RNGs is that they can produce a lot of non-random looking results sometimes. Which of the following strings of numbers is more random? 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9 1, 5, 3, 8, 6, 2 The second list LOOKs more random, to the human eye. However, if you had a computer random number generator to generator a list of 6 numbers, taking them at random from 1 - 10, each list is equally as likely, because each list I've already predefined. With RNGs, you can get some odd strings some times. It doesn't help (you) that CCPs approach generally seems to be screw the little guy, we only care about definite numbers as a whole. I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use.
Athar Mu Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.12.07 03:47:00 - [10] After doing hundreds if not thousands of inventions mine worked out to be almost spot on the chance (give or take a percent). What you should do is keep track over the time that you are inventing and see if you do average the correct chance or whether you are above or below. I always invent in batches of 10 and it definitely has good and bad streaks. Sometimes I got 10/10 others maybe 2/10...but it averaged out over time! Keep trying and keep noting down your successes and failures.
Rashmika Clavain Gallente Shadows Of The Federation	Posted - 2009.12.07 11:18:00 - [11] Originally by: Lord Helghast am i missing something? Originally by: Akita T Only some basic statistics knowledge. Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator
Jack Sabastian	Posted - 2009.12.07 15:11:00 - [12] Originally by: Yarinor I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use. Not entierly true. There is no way to create a truely random number programticly. But with very little hardware support it is possible to get a random noise generator. (For example a CCD in a can, or a geiger counter ) The random data coming out of those devices then needs to be sanitized to remove biases in the data. But what you end up with is truly random numbers. Hardware random number generators is what is used in gambling machines so all those people writing down the out come of slots to find patterns are SOL.
Beldor	Posted - 2009.12.07 15:27:00 - [13] btw:i am doing invetion 1+ year.But i never get failrow as now(last 3 days) T2 missiles 0/20 success cca 48% chance each T2 medium rigs (with max +ME decr) 1/15 success cca 53% chance each maybe is something wrong with CCP chance calculator after patch(or with me)
Dretzle Omega Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.07 15:57:00 - [14] Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 07/12/2009 15:58:11 Originally by: Yarinor I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use. True. In order to produce a random number the computer needs some seed to start from. What's not random about it is that given the same seed, the RNG will always produce the same string of numbers. However, using real world actual data, it's easy to produce that seed. Take the date down to the nanosecond, or the weather and windspeed on a changing spot on the planet (it looks like a better way is posted a few posts up). Whatever. It ends up being virtually random. But that's actually beside the point. I was posting about RNG, computer random number generators, which actually seem to provide worse streaks then you'll see in real life, sometimes. Originally by: Beldor btw:i am doing invetion 1+ year.But i never get failrow as now(last 3 days) T2 missiles 0/20 success cca 48% chance each T2 medium rigs (with max +ME decr) 1/15 success cca 53% chance each maybe is something wrong with CCP chance calculator after patch(or with me) There's a similar post in the missions forum. IF something is different after the patch, it's more likely that the RNG got reset, or something. Post a petition if you really feel sordid; CCP can at least look at it then and if nothing is wrong, skew your results for the next few attempts. However, it is telling that we always get these kind of posts after a patch, thinking CCP changed something. More likely, the bad (and good) streaks are happening all the time. The patches just give people something to blame them on.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.12.07 16:30:00 - [15] My last row of inventions was 45/100 with 46% chance. The one before the patch was 55/100. You need to do a lot of inventions to get anywhere near reliable results, I'm afraid. --------
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.12.07 18:30:00 - [16] ok im gonna go ahead and run 100 of the bpc's and see the result and come back with my outcome, or shall i say i'll run 90 more and see how it turns out... the fact of the matter is that whatever seed eve is using is assinine for invention, give atleast a little bit of randomness to the RNG, use Unix time down to the nanosecond, or something Though i have read a large # of people saying that after dominion, (and some others after all patches) that the streaking happens ALOT more often, so perhaps their is a bug in the RNG after the patch deployment.
mechtech SRS Industries SRS.	Posted - 2009.12.07 20:40:00 - [17] I'm just going to put this out there... The eve developers are incredibly talented, having put together arguably the most complex game ever made. To imply that they couldn't put together a random number generator (there are thousands of public algorithms for efficient, solid, RNGs out there as well) is a very unbelievable claim to make. The RNG works, and you got unlucky. Just to confirm people's doubts though, it would be nice to have a line in some patch note that states that a dev went over the RNG and found it to work as intended.
FroschForscher Caldari The German Star-Fighters United European Star-Force	Posted - 2009.12.07 21:53:00 - [18] come on. there¦s nothing worng with the rng. its just that only the bad streak people post on the forums post patch
Jacabon Mere Caldari Quantum Horizons Skynet Confederation	Posted - 2009.12.08 01:59:00 - [19] Invention is certainly weird though. I am not sure that its just a simple rng. It always seems to average out in the long run, but i always seem to get an aweful lot of either 90 - 100% batch success rates or 0 - 10% success rates. probably in the order of one every 5 or 6. Which is cetainly way out of the order of probability while still falling under the overal chance. Seems to me to be there to dissuade fly by nighters who just want to test out invention and seems to favour the serious i'm going to get building T2 stuff. When ever i get a 6 out of 6 mackinaw invention batch i promise myself i am going to quit while i'm ahead. ----------------------- Quantum Horizons is recruiting Aussies/players active around DT. Join "QH Public" for a chat and more info.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.12.08 02:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Yarinor RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use. Sure there is, all you need to do is seed it with something from outside the system. Then keep in mind that each 'sample' of the RNG is actually driven by human interaction, which means that you're not relying on the RNG to be random, you're relying on YOU to be random. It's actually pretty much impossible for the RNG in Eve to not be random. You'd have to be the only player online (ever) in order for that to be the case, and even then it's still going to be statistically random. 'streaky' is something that naturally occurs, it's not something unique to an Eve RNG, the same streaks occur outside the world of computing. The result for invention isn't calculated on your client machine, so you can't even begin to imagine how silly it sounds that all of 'your' results in the row are anything other than perfectly random. (Random DOES mean there WILL be streaks, that's the nature of random!!!!). Just think the RNG is producing a random sequence of numbers and between you putting on your two jobs it's also being used for thousands of hit calculations among other things. Since there are tens of thousands of inventors, putting on hundreds of jobs, something with a one in 400 chance probably happens many times per day.
FroschForscher Caldari The German Star-Fighters United European Star-Force	Posted - 2009.12.08 02:49:00 - [21] play poker and understand up- and downswings. make 100k invention attempts. then come back
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2009.12.08 08:30:00 - [22] Random numbers tend to be, well, random. Whats to say? It is not the game that favors doing large sets over small, it is the very nature of statistics. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Ancallan Petals of Derketo	Posted - 2009.12.08 08:56:00 - [23] Edited by: Ancallan on 08/12/2009 08:57:50 My favourite part about invention is that, in its lifetime, it has never failed to generate threads about failures that inevitably dissolve into discussions about random number generators. Also, one of my favourite posts on some Python forums was about about random number generators. Specifically, the guy was wondering why he was getting different numbers when using the random() function... __________
ingenting 20th Legion Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2009.12.08 10:27:00 - [24] just another post patch invention nerf troll thread, let it die
Gaius Clabbacus	Posted - 2009.12.08 10:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Yarinor Shameless cross posting. Random numbers are random. 45% chance is just that, a chance. If you run 10 chances and get 0 successes, someone else could be running 9 or 10 chances and 9 or 10 successes. From my other post: Originally by: Dretzle Omega The funny thing with RNGs is that they can produce a lot of non-random looking results sometimes. Which of the following strings of numbers is more random? 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9 1, 5, 3, 8, 6, 2 The second list LOOKs more random, to the human eye. However, if you had a computer random number generator to generator a list of 6 numbers, taking them at random from 1 - 10, each list is equally as likely, because each list I've already predefined. With RNGs, you can get some odd strings some times. It doesn't help (you) that CCPs approach generally seems to be screw the little guy, we only care about definite numbers as a whole. I know this is from another thread (but I didn't see that and it was posted here as well). But it's not entirely correct, RNGs aren't truly random, as there's no way to produce a random number by machine, and the more "random" you want them to be, the more processing power it's going to use. OTOH it is fairly easy to make a pseudo-random number generator that provides a uniform distribution. If you reseed it at downtime the parallel nature of EVE should be sufficient to make it impossible to predict. Of course EVE players are ~~retared~~ dedicated enough to try anyways. Maybe the ultimate end-game puzzle for our industrialists?
Hamatitio Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:27:00 - [26] Looking at as purely a 45% chance (even rounded up to 50%) makes it seem less likely. Lets number everything from 1 - 100 out. Reach into a magical bag of goodies and pull out a number, do this 10 times, its not unlikely that out of 10 times, all 10 came up as being above 45. (simulating a 55% failure rate). Thats one way of putting it that won't make someone go "BUT I FLIPPED MY COIN 10 TIMES!!" Originally by: Forest Gump And that's all I got to say 'bout that.
TheBlueMonkey Gallente Ministers Of Destruction. Green Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:54:00 - [27] As everyone says, It's chance based, you were unlucky, 10 attempts isn't enough to call it broken etc etc etc etc. Keep trying untill you get something :) Count yourself lucky you started with ammo and no ships as some do. -- Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
Ehbdfgf Intaki	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:27:00 - [28] Everybody assume that this process is random ! Did CCP ever gives us the real algorithm they use. - no I still do thousand of Invention and reverse engineering and i continue to think they manipulate the result at some point but eh, its a game and i still enjoy it. Ehb
ingenting 20th Legion Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:38:00 - [29] Edited by: ingenting on 08/12/2009 17:38:45 Originally by: Ehbdfgf Intaki Everybody assume that this process is random ! Did CCP ever gives us the real algorithm they use. - no I still do thousand of Invention and reverse engineering and i continue to think they manipulate the result at some point but eh, its a game and i still enjoy it. Ehb ofc its manipulated somehow, it's a man made script, probably written to keep it around a certain overall % of success. edit: besides, no computer calculated "random" number generator is completely random, anyone with basic programming knowledge knows this
mxzf Minmatar Shovel Bros	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:34:00 - [30] Originally by: FroschForscher come on. there¦s nothing worng with the rng. its just that only the bad streak people post on the forums post patch This. People might comment to corpies about that 10/10 set they just got back, but you really don't bother posting it on the forums. However, if someone feels like they were cheated out of some ISK they're going to complain (useless and annoying as it is, it's an understandable first reaction). And the post-patch paranoia adds to this too, I saw a good number of these after Apoc 1.5 too, I seriously doubt they even touched the code of the function that controls the RNG (that kind of code isn't something that needs tweaking often).
Haram Haram	Posted - 2009.12.11 09:58:00 - [31] Originally by: Beldor btw:i am doing invetion 1+ year.But i never get failrow as now(last 3 days) T2 missiles 0/20 success cca 48% chance each T2 medium rigs (with max +ME decr) 1/15 success cca 53% chance each maybe is something wrong with CCP chance calculator after patch(or with me) Ehh, I just did my first invention on a crucifier with a circular logic decrypter(less chance, more runs) with only 1 bpc and was succesfull. I guess its just random, like the lottery. Dont think anything of it just rejoice when you win.
Roos Stormshadow	Posted - 2009.12.11 20:41:00 - [32] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 18:56:40 The EVE RNG at least SEEMS to be quite "streaky", even if it it might be not (it could still be "too streaky", but we don't really have a sure way to tell). Considering the number of players doing things that require random numbers, I highly doubt that you've ever received even two consecutive draws from the server's RNG. Far more consecutive draws than two would be required to evaluate the quality of Eve's RNG.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2009.12.11 20:52:00 - [33] Re: The random number generator. Guys, when you shoot a gun in eve, the result is a random ammount of dmg. Do you REALLY thing they use a different generator for these numbers? Seriously? If thier random number generator was broken you would notice like a gazillion PvE and PvP player scream on the forums. The random number generator is NOT broken. Give it a rest. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Drevia	Posted - 2009.12.12 00:26:00 - [34] Edited by: Drevia on 12/12/2009 00:30:53 I've never taken a statistics course, but even I'm certain that most of the examples given here are wrong. You run job #1, you have a 45% chance of success. You run job #2, you have a 45% chance of success. You run job #3, you have a 45% chance of success. Each incident has a fixed chance. Statistics are not cumulative in a case like this. Just because your first job failed when it had a 45% chance of success doesn't mean that your second run suddenly has a 90% chance of success. It's still just 45%. They could be if you were talking about pulling out lottery numbers from a single pool of balls. Numbered balls 1 through 50, your odds of pulling out 45 the first ball are 1 in 50. Your first pull is 29. Your source of numbers is reduced, so your odds of getting 45 on the next pull is 1 in 49. Unfortunately streaks like this are just part of the game. I've done a batch of 100 invention runs and gotten zero successes out of it. I've done batches of 100 and gotten 70+ out of it.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.12 01:11:00 - [35] Originally by: Drevia I've never taken a statistics course, but even I'm certain that most of the examples given here are wrong. Guess you should have probably at least read the basics first then ? Quote: You run job #1, you have a 45% chance of success. You run job #2, you have a 45% chance of success. You run job #3, you have a 45% chance of success. Each incident has a fixed chance. Statistics are not cumulative in a case like this. Just because your first job failed when it had a 45% chance of success doesn't mean that your second run suddenly has a 90% chance of success. It's still just 45%. So far so good, correct. BUT... Say you make a total of, oh, 10 tries, at precisely 50% chance of success/failure. You know, something as simple as flipping a coin. There are a grand total of 2^10 = 1024 combinations of success/failure that could happen for that 10-trial run, and each and every one of those sequences of 10 tries has EXACTLY the same chance of happening, namely 1/1024. Now, just how many variations have all successes ? Just one out of 1024. The same as the variation with all failures, actually. So the chance of a 10/10 or 0/10 overall result is 1/1024, or 0.09765625% How about 1 success and 9 failures ? There's 10 of those, actually, same as 1 failure and 9 successes. The overall chance of any of those happening is therefore 10/1024, or 0.9765625% And so on and so forth. Now, mind you, the math does get a little more complicated whenever chances are not exactly 50%, but the math does exist, and is easily available to pretty much everybody who has Excel, for instance. In Excel, there's a function there called "binomdist" that does exactly that, it computes the chance of either exactly S successes or at most S successes out of T tries at chance C% of success (depending on the last argument of the function). Or to return to the simple version : if you flip a coin many times and it keeps showing almost always heads (or almost always tails), do you conclude that you're either very lucky (or very unlucky), or do you conclude that there's something wrong with the coin ? Think about it... Quote: Unfortunately streaks like this are just part of the game. I've done a batch of 100 invention runs and gotten zero successes out of it. I've done batches of 100 and gotten 70+ out of it. Without naming the expected success rate, those numbers are not very meaningful. Even if the invention chance would have been barely 20%, to get ZERO successes out of 100 tries, that's 1-in-almost-5-billion chances of it happening. If what you say is true, and your expected chance to invent wouldn't have been much lower, that's actually pretty good proof that the system _IS_ indeed broken. _ We are recruiting \| Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper
illusionary beauty I-Tyranny	Posted - 2009.12.14 07:46:00 - [36] Edited by: illusionary beauty on 14/12/2009 07:52:19 Originally by: Beldor maybe is something wrong with CCP chance calculator after patch(or with me) After the patch my invention success went down. Maybe i just hit a really really bad streak, but in a year i've never seen that poor a run over a couple days time. Originally by: Qual Guys, when you shoot a gun in eve, the result is a random ammount of dmg. Do you REALLY thing they use a different generator for these numbers? Seriously? I heard there was a bug with guns causing the first shot or last shot or something to miss everytime and that they changed it in Dominion.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.12.14 12:18:00 - [37] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/12/2009 12:18:18 Originally by: illusionary beauty After the patch my invention success went down. Maybe i just hit a really really bad streak, but in a year i've never seen that poor a run over a couple days time. confirming the same here. The highest was 5 of 10 post-patch, mostly only 2-4 inventions success. Invention seems got nerfed in Dominion.
OnoSendai Caldari Intergalactic Absurdities Unlimited	Posted - 2009.12.17 03:13:00 - [38] I would have to agree. It seems as if everything is using the ship success rates of 20% rather than modules and such at 40%. Petition time. At least they can verify the coding is correct.
CSI Eve Caldari atomic comic	Posted - 2009.12.17 03:55:00 - [39] invention has been buffed actually. because post-patch i have a success rate of 83% where i should have 49.92%. come one whiners, use your brains one time
Zifrian Licentia Ex Vereor	Posted - 2009.12.17 07:51:00 - [40] Man, so many people don't understand simple statistics. There is nothing wrong with invention.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.12.17 15:04:00 - [41] still getting bad invention rates, mostly 4 of 10, hardly over 5. This has been not that poor before the patch. I understand statistics and I think I'm ok saying invention chance went down after hundred inventions hardly coming over 5/10. The mean value of 1/2 means there should be as many under 5 as over 5. So I'm getting hardly over 5 and the most under 5 (3-4). This sucks, invention is broken.
CSI Eve Caldari atomic comic	Posted - 2009.12.17 16:46:00 - [42] stop invention please
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.12.17 17:05:00 - [43] Originally by: CSI Eve stop invention please stop posting please
Joel McBeth Caldari Tactical Trading Partnership	Posted - 2009.12.17 18:19:00 - [44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers P(1, 10, .45) ~= 0.0207 That's a 2% chance of only getting 1 success out of 10 trials. The important thing to take from this is it is not a 0% chance.
Forduc	Posted - 2009.12.17 18:42:00 - [45] You'll also have to remember that if you do more batches of 10 inventions, number of successes from one batch will always be meaningless (in statistical sense). My statistics is little rusty, but I think that you can't get meaningfull(significant) results from just 10 inventions, atleast if success chance is near 50%.
CSI Eve Caldari atomic comic	Posted - 2009.12.18 03:50:00 - [46] invent brains, please
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.12.18 12:07:00 - [47] dudes, dont teach me maths, had enough of them in the university. I'm doing hundreds of inventions a week and I would rather assume a nerf than a really really really fukkin bad luck streak getting only 3-4 inventions out of 10 all the time.
Xious Caldari Phaze-9 Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.12.19 00:51:00 - [48] Curious, why are computer made rng's not 100% random? Not questioning the statement, just wondering why. ---------------------------------
Bia Bri	Posted - 2009.12.19 08:09:00 - [49] Originally by: Xious Curious, why are computer made rng's not 100% random? Not questioning the statement, just wondering why. computers are only capable of following algorithms with predefined initial conditions often called the 'seed.' If you start a pseudo-rng with a particular seed it will always produce the same sequence of 'random' numbers. In practice this is of little consequence. Seeds are often taken by noting the internal clock time (down to the millisecond or finer) of when the computer was turned on or the first request for a pseudo-rng was requested and gives a new seed each time. Any decent algorithm gives a sequence of numbers that is essentially indistinguishable from a 'true' random sequence. (it would requires billions of billions of numbers to be able to detect differences- far more than an average consumer will ever even approach).
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.12.19 10:21:00 - [50] Originally by: Bia Bri Originally by: Xious Curious, why are computer made rng's not 100% random? Not questioning the statement, just wondering why. computers are only capable of following algorithms with predefined initial conditions often called the 'seed.' If you start a pseudo-rng with a particular seed it will always produce the same sequence of 'random' numbers. In practice this is of little consequence. Seeds are often taken by noting the internal clock time (down to the millisecond or finer) of when the computer was turned on or the first request for a pseudo-rng was requested and gives a new seed each time. Any decent algorithm gives a sequence of numbers that is essentially indistinguishable from a 'true' random sequence. (it would requires billions of billions of numbers to be able to detect differences- far more than an average consumer will ever even approach). Not to mention in order to see this not 100% random you have to be the only person getting any numbers generated, in a game like eve where there are hundreds of requests per second to any nodes RNG, the randomness is actually guaranteed by humans. Also because there's a large number of people doing large number of invention runs, you're guaranteed to see 'fairly' rare outcomes very often.
fuer0n	Posted - 2009.12.19 12:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 19:11:11 Originally by: Lord Helghast wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row. Actually, more like 99.75% chance to get AT LEAST one success. 0success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.25%(or 1 out of395) 1success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.07%(or 1 out of48) 2success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.63%(or 1 out of13) 3success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is16.65%(or 1 out of6) 4success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.84%(or 1 out of4) 5success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.40%(or 1 out of4) 6success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is15.96%(or 1 out of6) 7success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.46%(or 1 out of13) 8success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.29%(or 1 out of44) 9success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.42%(or 1 out of240) 10success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.03%(or 1 out of2,937) P.S. This is not "EVE math", it's "real-world math". P.P.S. Notice how the total chance to get either 3,4,5 or 6 successes out of 10 tries is almost 80%. Still, roughly 1 in 5 people doing a 10-slot run will get (2 or less) or (7 or more) even under completely normal circumstances. It's not a sham, it's just basic statistics. by your maths if you play roulete (red or black) and start betting with 1x currency and tripple the bet every time you lose you're on a sure winner. the fact is you have a 50/50 chance at the start of every bet and no ammount of math you calculate from the previous bets makes any difference at all. not factoring in the zero.
Aargh	Posted - 2009.12.19 16:05:00 - [52] Originally by: fuer0n Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 19:11:11 Originally by: Lord Helghast wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row. Actually, more like 99.75% chance to get AT LEAST one success. 0success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.25%(or 1 out of395) 1success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.07%(or 1 out of48) 2success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.63%(or 1 out of13) 3success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is16.65%(or 1 out of6) 4success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.84%(or 1 out of4) 5success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.40%(or 1 out of4) 6success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is15.96%(or 1 out of6) 7success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.46%(or 1 out of13) 8success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.29%(or 1 out of44) 9success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.42%(or 1 out of240) 10success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.03%(or 1 out of2,937) P.S. This is not "EVE math", it's "real-world math". P.P.S. Notice how the total chance to get either 3,4,5 or 6 successes out of 10 tries is almost 80%. Still, roughly 1 in 5 people doing a 10-slot run will get (2 or less) or (7 or more) even under completely normal circumstances. It's not a sham, it's just basic statistics. by your maths if you play roulete (red or black) and start betting with 1x currency and tripple the bet every time you lose you're on a sure winner. the fact is you have a 50/50 chance at the start of every bet and no ammount of math you calculate from the previous bets makes any difference at all. not factoring in the zero. "not factoring in the zero". Or indeed house limits. LOL.
kit amor	Posted - 2009.12.20 02:27:00 - [53] Originally by: FroschForscher come on. there¦s nothing worng with the rng. its just that only the bad streak people post on the forums post patch Ok I'm quite new to this am inventing ship hulls rather than mods. I've maxed my datacore skills and the encryption is at 4. I don't "batch" invention - so far 1 Bpc to try and make a 1- or 3- run t2 bpc of a specific ship type. I DO always use decryptors. So far, from 5 attempts, I've had 4 successes, producing an Ishtar bpc, 3-run Helios, 3-run Ishkur and a Kronos bpc. (The Kronos is the one that failed once.) Maybe it's a streak and I'm about to have lots of failures but so far, touch wood, all is very well. So the patch is fine...
kingjames488	Posted - 2009.12.20 03:22:00 - [54] Originally by: mechtech I'm just going to put this out there... The eve developers are incredibly talented, having put together arguably the most complex game ever made. To imply that they couldn't put together a random number generator (there are thousands of public algorithms for efficient, solid, RNGs out there as well) is a very unbelievable claim to make. The RNG works, and you got unlucky. Just to confirm people's doubts though, it would be nice to have a line in some patch note that states that a dev went over the RNG and found it to work as intended. eve its self actually seems uite simple to me... a large area where people interact as they choose. but thats my opinion... I've just gotten into invention and so far had a decent rate of sucsess. so ive done prolly 10 inventions total and only a couple have failed, tho i know thats not much at all, goes to show how luck can play out when working with small numbers.
Svedge Greywolf	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:32:00 - [55] I'm having invention problems too, getting a success rate of around 25-33% on modules after Dominion, far from 47% which is should be. The success rate was quite stable before Dominion..
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:08:00 - [56] Originally by: Svedge Greywolf I'm having invention problems too, getting a success rate of around 25-33% on modules after Dominion, far from 47% which is should be. The success rate was quite stable before Dominion.. It should be 20% for some people and 70% for others. You're just one of the people that you should be getting lower. Congratulations, you've discovered why some people lose all their money and others get rich when gambling. Any statistical accuracy needs a far larger sample.
Mikelangelo Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.21 20:28:00 - [57] I'm not really surprised that happened to you. It will average out though. I had 4 cruiser inventions fail, and then 1/4 frigages, then 4 battleships at the same time succeed, with no decryptors. Then after that 0/4 on ammo. Totally weird, but it eventually averages out given enough sample size.
Joel McBeth Caldari Tactical Trading Partnership	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:15:00 - [58] Originally by: fuer0n Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 19:11:11 Originally by: Lord Helghast wow so basically your lucky as hell to even get 1 success but if u do u might get a few in a row. Actually, more like 99.75% chance to get AT LEAST one success. 0success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.25%(or 1 out of395) 1success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.07%(or 1 out of48) 2success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.63%(or 1 out of13) 3success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is16.65%(or 1 out of6) 4success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.84%(or 1 out of4) 5success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is23.40%(or 1 out of4) 6success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is15.96%(or 1 out of6) 7success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is7.46%(or 1 out of13) 8success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is2.29%(or 1 out of44) 9success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.42%(or 1 out of240) 10success out of 10trieswith 45%success chance is0.03%(or 1 out of2,937) P.S. This is not "EVE math", it's "real-world math". P.P.S. Notice how the total chance to get either 3,4,5 or 6 successes out of 10 tries is almost 80%. Still, roughly 1 in 5 people doing a 10-slot run will get (2 or less) or (7 or more) even under completely normal circumstances. It's not a sham, it's just basic statistics. by your maths if you play roulete (red or black) and start betting with 1x currency and tripple the bet every time you lose you're on a sure winner. the fact is you have a 50/50 chance at the start of every bet and no ammount of math you calculate from the previous bets makes any difference at all. not factoring in the zero. His math is correct and considers that each invention is an independent trial. Your strategy doesn't work because you don't have an infinite amount of money. Look up the bionomial distribution and the law of large numbers, as i've posted above.
Luaren Avidius	Posted - 2009.12.22 01:29:00 - [59] The main thing that needs to be said with stuff that involves chance of success and chance of failure is that you need an increasingly large number of samples to get close to what you 'should' be getting. The general rule with stuff like this is that the observed chance of success will approach the statistical chance of success as the number of events grows. That means that with 10 tries at something, your actual chance of success will be all over the place. With 100 its going to start to settle down a bit, but still wont be quite where it 'should' be. With 1,000 tries it 'should' be almost there, and as you pass 10,000 tries, 100,000 tries, and 1,000,000 tries, your actual chance should get closer and closer to the statistical chance. As for random number generators...eve seems to have a pretty decent one, as no one has found a way to exploit or be exploited by lucky streaks. Other games have their own random number generators, which may or may not be so good. The original diablos random number generator was based, I think, on what time the users clock read when the game started. This was exploitable, as people could find out which seeds caused certain items to appear in the game that would be generated, and they could thus make sure that they used one of those seeds when starting a game. As for the OP's run of 10 straight failures with a 45% chance...well, you reverse-won a lottery with those numbers. That is, the random number generator handed you an extremely rare complete failure. Lucky you!
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 01:35:00 - [60] Originally by: fuer0n by your maths if you play roulete (red or black) and start betting with 1x currency and tripple the bet every time you lose you're on a sure winner. the fact is you have a 50/50 chance at the start of every bet and no ammount of math you calculate from the previous bets makes any difference at all. not factoring in the zero. The zeroes and the table limits exist for the precise purpose of foiling that strategy, which could otherwise work if you had a sufficiently large purse. _ We are recruiting \| Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper
Clementina Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.12.22 03:55:00 - [61] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: fuer0n by your maths if you play roulete (red or black) and start betting with 1x currency and tripple the bet every time you lose you're on a sure winner. the fact is you have a 50/50 chance at the start of every bet and no ammount of math you calculate from the previous bets makes any difference at all. not factoring in the zero. The zeroes and the table limits exist for the precise purpose of foiling that strategy, which could otherwise work if you had a sufficiently large purse. Actually it's the house limits that exist to foil that kind of strategy. The zero exists in order to provide a house advantage. (The house pays 2/1 if you bet red or black, but your odds of getting those colors are actually slightly less than 0.5, because of the 0 (and double 0 in some places))
Opal Jones Caldari Eclipse Phase	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:22:00 - [62] I ran 10 BS invention jobs and got 6 successes back, if invention is broken now I like it
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2009.12.22 14:05:00 - [63] UPDATE: 50 runs, 24 success, looks like you have to use much larger samples and it works out in the end.
Pesky LaRue Minmatar Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels	Posted - 2009.12.23 06:22:00 - [64] from 403 projects in the last year (that's 7549 individual inventions), i had a success rate of 39.7% which is about right given the variety of BPO's I invented. I saw a couple of absolute failures (I usually do things in batches of 20, i had a few where i got 0 successes) and one time got 18/20 successes in a row, but overall it's always been pretty consistent. haven't really noticed a change since the patch. I got 14/20, 12/20 and 9/20 earlier today, seems perfectly random to me. \|+ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +\|
Victor Papa	Posted - 2009.12.27 15:19:00 - [65] Originally by: fuer0n Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 19:11:11 by your maths if you play roulete (red or black) and start betting with 1x currency and tripple the bet every time you lose you're on a sure winner. the fact is you have a 50/50 chance at the start of every bet and no ammount of math you calculate from the previous bets makes any difference at all. not factoring in the zero. Most tables will have a limit which usually equates to doubling down 4 times. Cheap tables usually min at $5 and max at $100 on the side. So 5, 10, 20, 40, 80... So when you get to plopping down $80, you have risked $155 to win $5. If you lose again, which is more probable, you have just lost that $155. Doubling down is a long term strategy for collossal failure. There's a 1 in 25 chance you'll lose doubling down to $80. So 24 wins $5 = $120. 1 in 25 chance of losing = -$155. $120 - 155 = -$35. (Assumes table with 0,00)
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.12.29 09:50:00 - [66] Originally by: Pesky LaRue from 403 projects in the last year (that's 7549 individual inventions), i had a success rate of 39.7% which is about right given the variety of BPO's I invented. I saw a couple of absolute failures (I usually do things in batches of 20, i had a few where i got 0 successes) and one time got 18/20 successes in a row, but overall it's always been pretty consistent. haven't really noticed a change since the patch. I got 14/20, 12/20 and 9/20 earlier today, seems perfectly random to me. This mirrors my results post patch too. If its broken I'm not seeing it and if it is broken my guess is we *ALL* would be seeing it. I doubt invention is broken for just specific characters and not others. That is what people posting these threads would have us believe. "Oh sure, its not broken for you, but it is form me!!"
B1FF	Posted - 2009.12.29 14:25:00 - [67] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2009 18:56:40 Originally by: Lord Helghast am i missing something? Only some basic statistics knowledge. Your particular case is not completely incredible - with a 45% success chance (i.e. 55% failure chance) and just 10 attempts made, you have roughly 1-in-400 chances of a complete failure streak even under perfectly "normal" conditions. Heck, you would have had a roughly 1-in-3000 chance of a 10/10 success streak too. The EVE RNG at least SEEMS to be quite "streaky", even if it it might be not (it could still be "too streaky", but we don't really have a sure way to tell). No idea if anyone is looking at this any more. On the subject of streaks: Even if the EvE RNG is streaky would it even matter. When you unload your ten jobs those ten numbers are not pulled sequencially. Say there are 25K people on the server. A low/mid number based on current usage. How many operations does the RNG perform during the time between unloading jobs. Every single NPC, player, and drone firing a gun is going to use numbers from the RNG. There are many other operations that will use the RNG, missions, exploration sites spawning, etc. RNG is going to be per sub server so maybe if you're in a quiet backwater at off time they might but if there's _any_ combat on your sub server they won't be. What's to say your invention results can even be considered a streak?
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.12.30 07:13:00 - [68] Originally by: Ehbdfgf Intaki Everybody assume that this process is random ! Did CCP ever gives us the real algorithm they use. - no I still do thousand of Invention and reverse engineering and i continue to think they manipulate the result at some point but eh, its a game and i still enjoy it. Ehb The algorithm they use is Invention_Chance = Base_Chance * (1 + (0.01 * Encryption_Skill_Level)) * (1 + ((Datacore_1_Skill_Level + Datacore_2_Skill_Level) * (0.1 / (5 - Meta_Level)))) * Decryptor_Modifier The base chances were given out in old database dumps. They don't need to give out an algorithm for random numbers because they don't need to write one. It's built into any modern programming language, there's nothing special about Eve in that respect. Quote: ofc its manipulated somehow, it's a man made script, probably written to keep it around a certain overall % of success. You do not need to 'do' anything to keep it in a certain % of overall success, you just need it to have a set success rate and then a large sample size. You are imagining them writing code they do NOT need to write for this effect to exist, it exists naturally. Manipulating it directly would get you laughed out of any peer group in this area. There's no chance that CCP are this stupid. Players on the other hand.....
Sgt Blade Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2010.01.02 00:33:00 - [69] Edited by: Sgt Blade on 02/01/2010 00:33:26 For people who say they have done 100 invention runs and don't get the right % then all I can say is hat you have not done enough. You need to do thousands of runs because 100 attempts is not enough. A quick experiment would be to generate 100 numbers between 1 and 100. You would think that you would have a 10% chance of one random number of between 1 and 100 to be 10 or less so if you generate 100 numbers you would think to get at least 10 of these numbers to be 10 or less give or take a few. My first attempt, I get 3 numbers which were 10 or less Second attempt, I get 9 numbers which were 10 or less Third attempt, I get 9 numbers which were 10 or less Fourth attempt, I get 6 numbers which were 10 or less Final attempt, I get 2 numbers which were 10 or less As you can see, even with 5 tries of 100 numbers, I only managed to get 29 out of 500 numbers to be 10 or less. Hypnotic Pelvic Thrusting Level 5

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.