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.

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.

I understand your position, but I'm not bad in statistics

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?

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...

Just sayin'

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

If I spend a year getting well skilled to invent, grind 2 billion ISK for a freighter BPO, spend 6 months researching it, spend another month for one BP copy of it and toss in 20 or 30 mil for a good decrypter, I bloody well want to have a JF BP when it finishes in the lab.

Having some RNG based system for rockets is one thing, but let's face it, it's a stupid system for high end invention/RE.

Mr Epeen

Why are you researching a BPO that you're using to invent from? And the 2b isn't lost, you can always sell it.

Because I need to build a freighter from it to make the JF that may or may not result from over a year of effort to attempt it. Guess you don't build/ invent, do you?

Mr Epeen

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

To the OP: Check in the wormhole forum online.
See if anyone else is suddenly having issues with T3 reverse engineering.

But if you were 23/60, and you think you have a 73% expected success rate, I would say there is something definitely odd happening. Don't listen to the dullards. A sample size of 60 IS NOT considered trivial. And if you have results for 120, please post them. I would be very interested in seeing them.

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?

To the OP: Check in the wormhole forum online.
See if anyone else is suddenly having issues with T3 reverse engineering.

But if you were 23/60, and you think you have a 73% expected success rate, I would say there is something definitely odd happening. Don't listen to the dullards. A sample size of 60 IS NOT considered trivial. And if you have results for 120, please post them. I would be very interested in seeing them.

That would be unusual. It's (1/n)^x, where `n' is 2 (2 possible outcomes) and x is the number of coin tosses. For 10 in a row, you get 0.5^10 = 0.0009765625, which I believe is 1 in 1024 sets of 10 coin tosses.

So it's been a loong time since I took statistics, so my practical skills are pretty gone, how would you try to figure out how likely the outcome, 23 successes in 60 tries with an 80% chance of success, is?

The law of large numbers says that unusual things happen constantly.

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.

With those parameters it is acatually a very low probability for observing Gëñ23 successes (p=2.23E-12). With 50% chance of success the result would be barely significant (p=.046). You can try it yourself with this binomial calculator.


That is a likely explanation. I am sure OP did not choose a random sequence but instead took one with the most extreme outcome out of quite a few possible other sequences with less extreme outcomes. We need to account for that and for all the other players that don't experience the same. This would increase the probability of this observation dramatically.

OP may have struck some very bad luck but the next batch of 60 is very likely to be better .

If OP observes a similar outcome in the next batch of 60 I will reconsider my position or the parameters were wrong to begin with.

That is an awesome tool.

One in 500 billion chance of that result (or worse) with the the 80% parameter. That seems... let's say odd.

Are we sure that the OP's success chance calculations are right?

Yeah, I am starting to think there is something wrong with the premisses for this calculation. We will know if OP can replicate similar findings in the next 60 trials.

I would like to think that if OP is correct (something changed) we would have many more reprots with similar findings.

The most severe mistake that can be made in these calculations is not including all data. Maybe OP "forgot" to include some jobs that didn't fit the pattern? Also, selecting a sequence might be a problem. If someone runs 1000 of these jobs and want to report the most extreme sequence 60 observations long there are about 940 possible sequences to choose from. If we include a range of sequence length (30-80) it would multiply about 50 times.

Still, so long as it's a sequence of 60 in a row, only one in 500 billion sequences of 60 will have 23 or fewer successes at an 80% chance of success. Even if there's 50,000 such sequences in 1000 actual runs, there's only a one in Ten Million chance that such a sequence exists in the 1000 run data set.

@OP, are you sure you're using the intact relics every time?

I do agree that the probability is still very low. We have to exclude the possibility of using the wrong relics. With 60% chance of success p=0.000569 it is a very likely outcome even if we assume a very low selection bias. With 50k possible datasets p=1. With 1000 datasets p= 1-(1-0.000567)^1000=.43.

However, observing very small probabilities does happen in a game like EVE. If we assume that such event will always be posted on the forums. If we assume that 50k players are producing dataets with 50k possible sequences 10 times a year we would get a probability of OPs observation of of p=1-(1-2.23E-12)^(50000*50000*10)=.10. About once every decade .

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...

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

So we can verdict that Lisa is indeed CURSED! So my offer still holds and i will contact this blessing dude from a other thread to purge her curse, if u sell her to me.

bye Andy


PS: On a serious note, i just finished my batch last night and nothing odd at all. From 30 intact tries i got 5 accl. bay BPC, with a overall success rate of 25 out of 30 tries, so i'm even over the estimated 80%. So we should stop "wondering" about a odd numerical occurrence, if we cant reproduce the actual result.

I'm not involved in Indy. What is this reverse-engineering you speak of ?