You talk like you have a Statistics PhD or something. Unfortunately this isn’t even about Statistics. It’s basic Probability. bart.nikkelen was right when he said that with a 0.48% probability of enhancing to +15 with no failure, on average 1 out of every 209 people trying to do so will succeed. I see nothing wrong with that statement. Just an application of expectation.
I don’t know why you go around bashing every valid statement about probability or statistics, but please do not try to make weird claims about the discipline. You just end up looking stupid to people who actually know what they’re talking about.
I did get a perfect +10 grand cross about 2 weeks ago. I litteraly had an awesome lucky moment. I wasn’t even trying, I just decided to spend all the money I could into getting a good gc, cause i would be able to use it forever anyway, but then i got to +10 and i decided it was worth stopping. Then I just put some gems on it and it was perfect. I know a lot of exploiters are around, but since it’s a metter of luck, it is possible to get to perfect +15 somehow. So, I don’t know exactly how, but IMC must develop some system to stop this bugs, cause legit honest players are already getting hostilized for achieving an awesome item like this, for people think they’re exploiting, and this sucks. Lucky me I don’t ever want to sell my gc. (except maybe when i get a didel).
One guy just post a vídeo where he fails 17 times to get one weapon to +14. That why people don’t believe on “so lucky people”. Especially where is assumed there is exploit to do it.
Someone above calculated that you need ~209 GCs in average for a perfect +15. I’m pretty sure that during TOSs lifespan more than 209 GCs have been created/dropped and upgraded as high as possible. Thus, odds are quite good that a perfect +15 GC exists.
Then these people are idiots. These people have no understanding of how luck or probability work. That’s like saying “I didn’t manage to roll a 6 in 10 tries. Because i know it is possible to cheat while rolling dice and because i did not manage to roll a 6 in 10 tries that means if you manage to roll a 6 in one try i dont believe that you are not cheating”.
Exactly. Glad to see you are capable of repeating the point I made.
Probability is no different from guessing. Guessing has no role in programming. Either it’s possible or it’s not. If you want to know which one, you’d have to ask IMC, but I doubt they would answer that question for you.
Do you stalk me or something? Or am I special enough to be noticed by you.
I’m not sure how you can claim them to be valid if you don’t even know the purpose of these two.
What’s wrong with this, is that you are applying a theoretical approach to something that is purely practical. The actual occurances of successfully upgrading arent chance or guesswork, they are hardcoded into the programming.
My, arent we arrogant. You must consider all your school taught knowledge (that will be obsolete, sooner or later) to be very important indeed.
Yet you dont have any clue what I’m talking about. I guess you don’t understand as well as you would like to think.
I just want you to know that I find your reasoning laughable enough to mock you, but sufficiently inconsistent and nonsensical to make the idea of trying to disentangle it an unjustifiable waste of my personal time. The phrase “herculean task” springs to mind.
If you feel a little tiny bit bad about yourself for a split second, that’s all I wanted.
That requires you to actually transfer a measure of understanding where previously I had none.
I think that task might be too daunting. But I welcome you to try, its always a pleasure to learn from others.
Or to see others are capable of learning, and more importantly understanding.
Besides humor me. I did disentangle and respond to that overly large sentence of yours. Why it’s even longer then mine.
ps: Its no fair if you write it in a way that’s so easy to understand.
Now I cant silently laugh at you for saying ‘‘you make no sense’’ when you dont make any sense either, as I do with everyone else that tries to argue like that with me.
Make less sense, silly!
Rofl, what the ■■■■ are you talking about? The entire basis of the enhancement system runs on probability. “Probability is no different from guessing” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Guessing means you don’t have any data to work with. If you know nothing about how enhancing works in ToS you could guess that it only went as high as +10 and that +10 was nearly impossible. But since we have data on how it actually works, we don’t have ot make that guess, we can calculate the probability of it actually occuring. “Guessing [probability] has no role in programming. Either it’s possible or it’s not,” I mean, are you even thinking about what you’re typing? You’re either really confused on how probability works or you’re really confused on how programming works. The only way probability has no role in programming is if your game uses no forms of randomness whatsoever, which is obviously far from the truth with ToS.
Edit:
Oh okay, so it’s programming you have no grasp of. The way you lay this out that enhancement probability is not actually up to chance but in fact ‘hardcoded into the programming’ makes it seem like your verison of the game is some Korean programmer typing up code like “if (# of weapons enhanced) = 209 then +15 else fail” which is obviously wrong and retarded.
Are you perhaps aware of '‘Paradigms’'
It is notoriously hard to break through an existing, large spread paradigm. The responses to my post are evident of this.
You are so ingrained to think in a certain way, that you cant see its the base of your knowledge that is flawed.
Even if I would agree with you on something, because you are now triggered to defend your ‘‘core knowledge’’, you wouldnt accept that.
You are going to have to go all out on programming knowledge if you want to use that as a good argument, I’m afraid.
Question of the topic has nothing to do with chance. Only if it’s possible to reach +15 without potential loss.
And that is hard coded into the programming, yes.
Ofcourse it’s entirely possible they didnt code failsafes or limits. But you’ll have to excuse me if I wont accuse them of being worse then a high-school coder. Even if it is IMC we are talking about.
Probability is guessing. While laziness or a lack of resources invites ‘developers’ to use less controlled coding, it’s not by any means ideal or wanted in coding. Or math.
Why? Because for thing, it lacks accuracy, and without failsafes or limits in place, there’s absolutely no certainty you can gain from using it.
Those failsafes in the code, they are what ensures whether or not (in this case) + 15 without potential loss is possible.
And you know, in coding where you dont want to cause bugs or errors, and math where you dont want to cause construction flaws or catastrophies:
That’s kind of a big deal.
You can’t get an infinite 50% chance successes. Because if you did, it would no longer be 50% chance for success, would it?
Oh? If its just a randomly calculated number, pray tell:
How exactly does it know when to have that chance occur? Why would a chance of 1 in a million occur once in a million if…its randomly decided?
Oh I’m well aware of the (lazy or resource lacking) ways that code use random numbers.
But the question then remains, what is the difference between a 40% chance and an 80% chance if they are both equally random.
And if they arent both equally random, then jolly. Its almost like theres something hardcoded to prevent that from being the case.
That is why I dislike it when people mention probability, chance, or random in MMOs/games.
[Random] is no different from [cannot be calculated]
What matters isnt
[quote]
OMG I LOVE my MATH UH OH OH Probability YEAH UHN CHANCE, OOOHHH][/quote]
What matters is the coding that’s in place in (this) game. What failsafes, IE how many chains of 50% successes are actually possible.
If it even decides that or whether it simply calculates 50% and doesnt discriminate who it calculates that chance for.
In the latter case, since success and failure is randomly distributed, one might wonder how the server side 50% is at all the same as the completely random client side 50%.
You were right I was getting carried away, as so often (if a bit more then most topics). Altho I forgot to say it in my last post, thanks for the reminder.
Noone that can think for themselves gives a damn about that. People want to know if something is possible, and what it would take if yes. Oh you might get a +15 right away. Or maybe in 18 attemps.
That’s pretty vague. But its still a hell of a lot more useful then:
It’s 50% chance to succeed past +9. So whether you succeed from that point onward is 0.5^6 /kappa
Because yeah, that’s some pretty meaningless numbers in practice.
We already knew it was possible, since you know, someone bothered to try it. Altho I dont think that was ever up to debate to begin with.
I just saw your comment. So I need to remind you that my brother fails many time to do that.(than he just sold the fails one before it gos 1 potantial.) And if that not your lucky moment you will end up broke the item for just +6 or +7 repeatedly. My brother didn’t suceed the +15 Perfect GC for just one or two days. He try it for one or two week coz he have me to support him. Please beware to lost your big Million Silvers.
He told me he +13 +14 +15 witout re-login but he can’t remamber he continuous or wait a moment.(coz he siad +14 and +15 couse a lot of money and he may went to sell his items for that.
For my opinion. It’s about timming. If that moment you can do it you will always succeed but if that moment you can’t you will always fail. So if you fail just stop for a moment than comeback later. And if you succeed you can do it again repeatable. At least, it’s what my brother did and succeed the +15 one
It should have nothing to do with timing, unless there are some hidden global timer/cooldowns on such things.
If you are truely concerned about your brother’s honesty, Id suggest you send a ticket to support with your brother’s game name/server/time you took picture etc.
It’s what moon is saying, it’s probability. There is a chance your brother did it legit, and then congrats to him.
Probably and Statistic is a mandatory class for software engineering for a reason. Randoms cannot be accurately calculated but it can still be estimated so that it can be somewhat controlled. That’s why there are so many “named” method of doing different kind of estimation in different condition.
It’s not that devs are lazy or low-on-resource so they decide to use probability model. It’s because they already estimated the result to the point it’s almost 100% accurate when they look at the stat after getting rid of some that they are using it especially if they get rid of the few outliers.
Sticking to only (rate)^(tries) does show the lack of knowledge to get a more accurate result so I’m gonna agree with Sly on this one that you really can’t talk about probability and actual coding design when you’re still throwing around randomly theory lousy gamers make when they are unlucky so the devs can read the rants and laugh together saying “It’s all RNG. I didn’t even code any of this in.”
It’s rather depressing to see people go “I disagree so your years of education are worthless and it means you can’t see the bigger picture like I did cause everything you know is flawed.”
Yes, that’s repeating what I’ve already said before myself.
I believe I also mentioned that it’s unknown what IMC does serverside to control it. And without knowing that, you can’t realistically know what is possible unless you have seen it happen, or have access to the source code.
As someone with presumed coding and math authority, you should know full well that Time is also a resource. Just like Tech (limitations) being a major factor.
If neither was ever an issue, then everything would be hand coded, because that’s more accurate. The accuracy of coding, as you should also be well aware of, is paramount in coding.
Unless you just don’t give a damn about the result, it’s important that the 40% chance appears as a 40% chance as much as possible.
Ah, near 100% accurate. Have you even ever looked at chances in modern MMOs? Because they arent anywhere near 100% accurate.
The more accurate chances are calculated, the less attempts you would need to do to reach the point where 50% in theory equals 50% in practice.
I’m sure 1 million upgrade attempts would indeed have 500k fails, and 500k successes. But if at 10k upgrade attemps its divided into 4k fails, and 6k successes…
Then no, the 50% chance is not very accurate.
You are welcome to provide more accurate math, I was not the one to start using math to begin with. The math I used was also enough to prove my point. Why use more advanced math? To show off my e-peen? It’s been years since I cared enough to show off math.
I think I stopped caring when I realised it isnt nearly as exciting for the people you are trying to show off to.
Tell me, why would I provide examples of the control methods IMC uses? I’ve already made it a point that I dont know what they are doing. Neither do you.
It is, I agree.
Read my posts to see I’ve never presumed knowledge of anyones education (or lack there of), nor there was there a mention of any education anyone has.
Then re-read this quote. If you suddenly feel embaressed, then my friend, you’ve won the argument. Because you’ve proven you are capable of changing your mind and acccepting others truth.
That’s not something I can claim about myself in this discussion.
ps: If it was up to me University level education would be given as early as middle/high school. There’s simply too much useful basic (scientific) knowledge people miss out on with current educational systems.
But thats offtopic.
There’s some truth to that. But it doesnt really matter tho. Players cant decide or figure out if someone got something like a +15 GC legit or exploited.
The reason why people are suspicious is mostly because its known there are a good number of exploiters. Otherwise they probably wouldnt care.
I find it funny I have to be embarassed to win the argument. I’m actually quite annoyed by the constant mention “Hard-coded” variables in a probability-related functions for the sake of accuracy because constantly assuming the smelly taboos of coding designs are present will only be done by people who have no idea what really is going on.
To this day, I still have a source code that used to be a top grossing mobile game in Japan (and is still in a good spot according to App Annie)
It has this “Magical Control Variable” as you mentioned thanks to Japan gambling and gacha law.
And it’s right in the source code, not the server code. The server only give the random number result that will have the client choose the reward unless the source code demands it to return with a forced number for a forced reward.
Older Korean games actually used to have this for their gacha stuffs too in the source code. They were all discovered and abused until they were revamped and patched out to be guaranteed probability.
An example would be Grand Chase before Season 3. If you never played it before, the source code used to track fail gacha as well and if you fail enough times, the next one will be a gauranteed rare set piece before it resets the fail count.
They had Gacha of various levels with different cost. Gacha-20 costs 1 ticket while Gacha-80 costs 4 tickets. With a set containing like 10 pieces, people that mined the code and discovered this magical controller begins opening Gacha 20 until they fail enough before they open Gacha 80 to guarantee a set piece. This was patched out in S3 when they redid the whole gacha page.
If this magical refine control methods do exist, it will likely be in the client because if it’s in the server, the extra stuffs will make the work more taxing and hurt the overall performances of the server for minimal trade off. With all the mining, this would have been found ages ago and also abused.
Yes it is a stack of 51% but it’s not that simple, we are talking about chance attempts here that is dependent from the previous result and the only acceptable scenario is a “no fail” attempt.
.51 x .51 x .51 x .51 x .51 = 0.017% or 1/(2 ^ 6) for simplicity(rounded).
In this case, they are dependent from the previous attempts because we are talking about “no fail” here so no room for errors. If the first one failed then the rest will fail since we are talking about the chance of hitting +15 w/o failures.
The chance of hitting a no fail is entirely lower than attempting to hit +15 w/ any x number of fails. They aren’t comparable.
