Bitty,
I agree to your reasoning insofar as Freddy's data do not prove that randomness is broken. Yet, for the unlucky Freddy whose yield of about 700 craftings was -2.6 out of 10 expected there must be a lucky Freddy or whoever with +2.6 out of ten expected, at least on the long range, if randomness is ok.
I know quite well that people seldom if ever complain if chance turns out to their advantage. Yet, before the merge, I felt that exactly that was the case in crafting. Above a success chance of 77% stated in the crafting window, I very seldom suffered degrades or failure, it happened, but much less often than I had expected. It was a striking experience after the fusion that it seems to be the other way round, now.
My first thought was that the devs simply fixed a bug working to our favor and things might be normal, now. Yet my observations contradict such notion.
Roughly a week after the merge, I detected the Dyron overseer as a dapper source, since then, I am crafting two missions twice, sometimes thrice a day to get a couple of dappers. These craftings allow me an observation of outcomes over more than 80 days.
In particular, I am crafting 5 staves and 5 2h swords in the one mission, and 6 shields in the other. Tthere are also bucklers, but as my buckler crafting level developped from 162 to 196 during that time, this crafting is not good for a systematic observation. I had 212 in staves, 214 in 2h sword, and 216 in shields. Roughly after 4 (3) weeks, my according levels rose above 220. I chose to craft swords at the required level of 200, the rest at 210, resulting in success chances of 88%, then 93% for shields and staves, and 92%, then 98% for swords.
Assuming an average of 2x5 swords and staves and 2x6 shields a day during more than 80 days, we are speaking about more than 1600 successfully built weapons and more than 1000 successfully built shields. Beneath that, there was a considerable number of unusable degrades, and also failures. I estimate the degrades and failures at 15-25% of all craftings, making an overall sample of nearly 3000.
Concerning degrades and failures, my impression was that they far exceeded the expectations. Until the success chance for swords rose to 98% (about 3 weeks ago), I had no single series of 5 without a failure or degrade, even now, one or two, making 6 or 7 craftings necessary, are quite common. Until now, I had no single occurrence of crafting 5 staves or 6 shields (chance first 88%, then 92%) in a flawless series. On the other hand, 5 or 6 unsuccessful craftings in a row well occurred though seldom.
I know that these data, with gliding success chance, with results not correctly written down etc. do not allow a rigorous analysis, and I regret to have no better. But it strengthens the suspicion that something is wrong with random algorithm in crafting.
To me, it looks a bit like a normal distribution where the right side of the graph is cut. I could program such an outcome, it is not hard, and may as well occur unintentionally by some side effect of a bug.
That means that tough luck still happens as everywhere, normal 100% success, too, but the lucky outcomes are missing. That is what I felt when I read Freddy's articles.
I agree that a word of the Devs would be good.
I agree to your reasoning insofar as Freddy's data do not prove that randomness is broken. Yet, for the unlucky Freddy whose yield of about 700 craftings was -2.6 out of 10 expected there must be a lucky Freddy or whoever with +2.6 out of ten expected, at least on the long range, if randomness is ok.
I know quite well that people seldom if ever complain if chance turns out to their advantage. Yet, before the merge, I felt that exactly that was the case in crafting. Above a success chance of 77% stated in the crafting window, I very seldom suffered degrades or failure, it happened, but much less often than I had expected. It was a striking experience after the fusion that it seems to be the other way round, now.
My first thought was that the devs simply fixed a bug working to our favor and things might be normal, now. Yet my observations contradict such notion.
Roughly a week after the merge, I detected the Dyron overseer as a dapper source, since then, I am crafting two missions twice, sometimes thrice a day to get a couple of dappers. These craftings allow me an observation of outcomes over more than 80 days.
In particular, I am crafting 5 staves and 5 2h swords in the one mission, and 6 shields in the other. Tthere are also bucklers, but as my buckler crafting level developped from 162 to 196 during that time, this crafting is not good for a systematic observation. I had 212 in staves, 214 in 2h sword, and 216 in shields. Roughly after 4 (3) weeks, my according levels rose above 220. I chose to craft swords at the required level of 200, the rest at 210, resulting in success chances of 88%, then 93% for shields and staves, and 92%, then 98% for swords.
Assuming an average of 2x5 swords and staves and 2x6 shields a day during more than 80 days, we are speaking about more than 1600 successfully built weapons and more than 1000 successfully built shields. Beneath that, there was a considerable number of unusable degrades, and also failures. I estimate the degrades and failures at 15-25% of all craftings, making an overall sample of nearly 3000.
Concerning degrades and failures, my impression was that they far exceeded the expectations. Until the success chance for swords rose to 98% (about 3 weeks ago), I had no single series of 5 without a failure or degrade, even now, one or two, making 6 or 7 craftings necessary, are quite common. Until now, I had no single occurrence of crafting 5 staves or 6 shields (chance first 88%, then 92%) in a flawless series. On the other hand, 5 or 6 unsuccessful craftings in a row well occurred though seldom.
I know that these data, with gliding success chance, with results not correctly written down etc. do not allow a rigorous analysis, and I regret to have no better. But it strengthens the suspicion that something is wrong with random algorithm in crafting.
To me, it looks a bit like a normal distribution where the right side of the graph is cut. I could program such an outcome, it is not hard, and may as well occur unintentionally by some side effect of a bug.
That means that tough luck still happens as everywhere, normal 100% success, too, but the lucky outcomes are missing. That is what I felt when I read Freddy's articles.
I agree that a word of the Devs would be good.
---
Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral