Tree of Savior Forum

How to enhance items to +16 with high probability

General Discussion
#126

But it’s exactly that.

What are the rituals about?

1.1) Did you get consecutive fails? So is the generator on a streak of low rolls?
1.1.1) No. But that could happen.
1.1.2) Yes. But that could stop on the next try.

1.2) Did you get a mix of success and fail? Is it likely to continue like that?
1.2.1) No. But that could happen.
1.2.2) Yes. But that could change on the next try.

1.3) Did you get a consecutive high rolls? So is the generator on a streak of high rolls?
1.3.1) No. But that could happen on the next tries.
1.3.2) Yes. But that could stop on the next try.

If you’re going to try a +16 weapon you should know one important thing:
You need the most potential you can save. You need the cases with the lowest probability of happening.

Then to try to get as high as you can with lowest number of fails as you can is hope for the 0.00xxx% case where you got a few consecutive high rolls and you, really, simply hope you found a super rare long streak of high rolls.

If you come to the conclusion you didn’t find the super rare case you can either continue, try to find the super rare case now or try later.

In any case, that’s just a bet when you see the start of what could only happen with a probability of 0.00xxx%. If you really aim to make a +16 IMHO you should stop if you feel generator isn’t on a long streak of high rolls. That’s all there’s is to it.

The same thing applies in the opposite case. If you think you got unlucky enough to find the lowest probability cases where you’d get various fails in a row you can either continue trying or stop.

Just make sure you avoid the Gambler’s Fallacy. Failing too many times doesn’t necessarily means you’ll succeed if you keep trying, you can simply keep failing.

All the rituals, fodder weapons and tricks can be summed with your own words:

The purpose of the “rituals” is basically to give you a hint:
“Are the current results part of the case that would have abysmally low probability of happening?”

A) Yes, then I’ll put my hopes on it and hope it’s a winning lottery ticket.
B) No, then I’ll just stop. I’m not fine with anything over 0.00xxx% chance of happening.

Notes:

  1. They’re not skewing or predicting results - no one told this is possible in the entire thread.
  2. Yes, there are no ways for a person to predict the next result and you shouldn’t be stupid enough to believe that if anyone says.
  3. There are no patterns, the next try can always change simply because it’s random.

You’re simply hoping for the almost impossible case and discarding the entire thing if it already started astray from what you want.

#127

Why are you still defending rituals if the result changes everytime anyway?

#128

Ever heard of these things? Too lazy to explain. The pattern of random can be decided. Even in programming wise, rand()(Just an example, i don’t know what language TOS is coded on.) you can choose what distribution to suit the pattern. Randomness can even be regenerated, LCG can be both used to design randomness and reproducing them.



The point is, until someone can tell what IMC did on their random generator, it might take you some time to actually predict what pattern IMc actually use.

2 Likes
#129

Read my post again then you’ll understand.

#131

Generator streaks which can be anything.

So why try to feel a streak that can be anything?

#132

Because the simple thing as you just said few minutes ago:

#133

So it’s possible that it’s a good streak, or a bad streak, or no streak no matter what kind of outcome the past few attempts produced?

Why bother reading streaks again?

#134

Because the simple thing as you just said few minutes ago:

#135

Right so when will it be possible for you to say that reading streaks and not reading streaks are the same? I’m wondering why you need to advise about reading streaks if anything is possible

#136

It depends, lets assume few cases. Rolls of 10 times 50/50.

Case 1: Uniform Distribution
-Result will always 5Pass 5Fail, and where it resides is truely random.

Case 2: Poisson Distribution
-Result still will intact 5Pass 5Fail but not always, with a small variance depends on how you design it in code.
-Where they will resides purely depends on the lambda(mean) you used in this poisson distribution. With correct lambda(mean) design, it can represent Normal distribution which is the more ideal version of 50/50.

2 Likes
#137

Then where is your evidence that this exist? Your argument is fallacy. Youre basically hoping that it exist even though you dont have evidence at all.

#138

It’s not reading streaks, look at this.

Let’s say we can pick 20 numbers which at least 16 needs to be higher than 50, check this simulation.

Step 0: (S:0/16 - F:0/5)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“I can get +16!”

Step 1: Possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:1/16 - F:0/5)

52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“I can get +16!”

Step 2: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:1/16 - F:1/5)

52 21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“Uh, welp, I still can get +16!”

Step 3: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:1/16 - F:2/5)

52 21 36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“Still possible, still possible.”

Step 4: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:2/16 - F:2/5)

52 21 36 68 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“Yay, progress.”

Step 5: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:3/16 - F:2/5)

52 21 36 68 51 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“More progress!”

Step 6: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:3/16 - F:3/5)

52 21 36 68 51 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“Things are starting to get hard.”

Step 7: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:4/16 - F:3/5)

52 21 36 68 51 24 55 X X X X X X X X X X X X X

“Okay, continuing…”

Step 8: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50. (S:5/16 - F:3/5)

52 21 36 68 51 24 55 89 X X X X X X X X X X X X

“Lucky!”

Step 9: Still possible to find 16 numbers higher than 50 but can’t fail anymore. (S:6/16 - F:4/5)

52 21 36 68 51 24 55 89 7 X X X X X X X X X X X

“Welp, I’m done.”

Step 10: Impossible. (S:6/16 - F:5/5)

52 21 36 68 51 24 55 89 7 31 X X X X X X X X X X

“Welp, I’m really done now, I can’t reach my goal.”

Now think if you act more rigidly towards fails. That will mean it will be impossible earlier to reach your goal.

That’s all there is to rituals. Need me to draw now?

–

It’s not impossible to find this Step 5, for example:

Step 5: (S:5/16 - F:0/5)

55 72 81 68 51 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Which seems a little more promising even though everything ahead still falls on the 50/50 rule.

On an abysmally low but not impossible chance everything else will also be higher than 50. It’s really unlikely.

But if you break the condition you need for your goal too early there’s no point continuing if you’re aiming for the case with abysmally low probability.

It’s like trying a “no-hit” run on a bullet hell game. If you already got hit it’s impossible to make a no-hit run. No point on continuing playing till the end credits if you already won’t met the goal criteria.

1 Like
#139

I am just giving examples how you can design randomness based on my knowledge, unless we finds out what IMC used, we can’t really know what is behind these random numbers. But from what i know, i can definitely says enhancing is an Discrete event which having consecutive success is much likely possible. Getting +10 in a row is not 3.125%, as every time you enhance, a new set of random numbers is generated. How do i proof this? Not a solid proof but definitely something. You can tell yourself, comparing on every attempt to enhance to +10 without fail, is it that only 3.125% succeed without fail? No of course. I personally did it twice to +10 without fail already.

The actual success rate cannot be defined until all trial has been done. 50/50 is just a theoretical rate, what it turns out might varies a whole lot. How much it actually varies depends on how you design your randomness.

2 Likes
#140

If someone enhances 100x in a row all success. It is random or a pattern that can be exploited?

#141

I would actually pretty surprised if someone actually got it 100x in a row :joy:
If this is the first attempt in the world, i would say random. If this is the n-th time happened in a long run, i will say it’s pattern. Ignoring the possibility of haxing of course. Exploit, definitely possible. Is it legal? If you assume what IMC designed is absolute, definitely its legal. If you think this is absurd, as i think it is too, then its the design problem. In simulation practice, the random number generated must go through test for independence and autocorrelation to make sure its not biased and acceptable. I’m sure none is actually being applied here.

2 Likes
#142

Ok so the pattern reading is there to help with handling potential limits (and the -1 on fail).

Obviously you have a higher chance of reaching +16 if you’re already at +14 (lucky streak), and you also get a higher chance of screwing up your item the more fails you get and the more potential lost (bad streak). Your weapon won’t actually be getting anywhere on a completely 50% streak (1 potential lost for every success + fail).

Hitting and breaking a different weapon doesn’t help, fps doesn’t help, channel population doesn’t help. Trying again another time on the same weapon doesn’t help. These are the rituals, they shouldn’t work so RNG is not at fault.

Reading a streak to get a feeling of what the next roll will be is the wrong way to look at it then. Reading a streak to know when to stop for good is what helps, trying again another time won’t improve your chances but it will at least help you calm down and re-evaluate whether you want to continue or not.

EDIT: You can explain things without resorting to technical jargon

1 Like
#143

You say that 100x success is pure random but when you said this, it has a pattern. Why are you disregarding the possibility that both can be random as well?

#144

When number of trials goes high, a pattern or behavior of the random generator can be obtained. Problem on if it is under-fitted or over-fitted which may cause inaccuracy. If same thing happened repeatedly over a long time, definitely there is a pattern, but not absolute, on how it works.

Random as in randomly pick a person, pattern as in, every n-th person will be picked.

#146

Anyway i wonder where is the 50% success rate come from? Can someone link me to the source?

#147

That sentence is what con artists used. Theyre hoping people will buy that as the trials go higher it will develop a pattern. Where in fact it was just random being random.