EE Probability on 1st scroll, what do YOU think?

It makes absolutely no sense for there to be a code segment like the one you gave.

There would be a single try_scroll() routine which accepts the scroll's chance of success (in %) and returns pass or fail.
It would have to be in % because there are scrolls (clean slate) with 1% chance of success.
Such a routine (often a macro, actually) typically looks like:

Code:

boolean try_scroll(int success_rate)
{
  return (random_int(100) < success_rate);
}
/* random_int, in typical C style, will return a number between 0 and 99 */

So, no, not too likely they're doing 4/5 or anything of the sort.

I think what you're looking for is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_wh...robability

If you want 99% level of confidence (Z=2.5759, E=0.01) that you've arrived at the true probability, you'll need data for at least 10617 trials.

So go out there and buy 10617 EE and 10617 equips. Record how many passes and fails and you'll ascertain the probability with +-1% maximum error.

Why would I need to prove this within 1% accuracy? I can get 500 EE scrolls if necessary and mass produce 500 of an item to scroll, with say i guess a staff, 700 100% scrolls to use on all of them. If after the first 100, the probability doesn't seem to be near 80%, (say 50% pass/fail) why continue? Double it, say the trial works on 70% in 200 trials, at what point do you stop and say "the rate truly is 80%" ? If 4 out of 5 work, that's truly 80% ... if 400 out of 500 work, that's 80% .. what happens when the probability is different per user? What if I fail 40 out of 50 and you pass 45 out of 50? Which one of us gets to determine the pass/fail rate of the scroll as seen by the community?

People who think a scroll fails because it's glitched make me rage.

Why would I need to prove this within 1% accuracy? I can get 500 EE scrolls if necessary and mass produce 500 of an item to scroll, with say i guess a staff, 700 100% scrolls to use on all of them. If after the first 100, the probability doesn't seem to be near 80%, (say 50% pass/fail) why continue? Double it, say the trial works on 70% in 200 trials, at what point do you stop and say "the rate truly is 80%" ? If 4 out of 5 work, that's truly 80% ... if 400 out of 500 work, that's 80% .. what happens when the probability is different per user? What if I fail 40 out of 50 and you pass 45 out of 50? Which one of us gets to determine the pass/fail rate of the scroll as seen by the community?

The one who did the test for accuracy to within 1%? o_o More data = more information = more accuracy. 500 should be a decent comparison to find the "true" rate, but why not more?

Because I seem to be the only person that remembers the majority of his buddies rage quitting when EE's came out because they were poofing more than 1 item on first use. For fucks sake, ask your buddy list who remembers when EE scrolls came out and the hell people went with through them. Was this seriously Bera only? Because nobody in any other fucking server seems to know what the pineapple I'm talking about. Also, quit reading between the lines, I didn't say I thought they were glitched, i said "Everyone here should already be familiar with the '80% chance to boom with first EE' issue..." this isn't something I made up in my head, this was a goddamn plague in Bera when EE's came out, and people smega'd the number of items they lost because of scrolls booming on first try. I'm not going to waste upwards of 3B to test a theory I had if nobody else can even remember the origin of the controversy in the first place. Fucking pointless.

Why would I need to prove this within 1% accuracy? I can get 500 EE scrolls if necessary and mass produce 500 of an item to scroll, with say i guess a staff, 700 100% scrolls to use on all of them. If after the first 100, the probability doesn't seem to be near 80%, (say 50% pass/fail) why continue? Double it, say the trial works on 70% in 200 trials, at what point do you stop and say "the rate truly is 80%" ? If 4 out of 5 work, that's truly 80% ... if 400 out of 500 work, that's 80% .. what happens when the probability is different per user? What if I fail 40 out of 50 and you pass 45 out of 50? Which one of us gets to determine the pass/fail rate of the scroll as seen by the community?

Because that's the number of trials you need to do to be reasonably sure. You ask at what point do you stop and say "the rate truly is 80%?" That's the point where you stop.

If you did 5 and 4 works and you obtain the probability of 80%, with a 46% maximum error then you can't say for sure can you?

100 trials will get you within 10%. 500 trials will get you within 5%. (with 99% certainty)

I like this insight, this is helpful. So, if I EE'd 500 equips and got within 5% of 400 passing, I could say the trial is a success and proves the 80's are truly 80's? What if i'm off by more than a small margin, would the trial disprove 80's or be the unlucky victim of probability?

I should mention this entire post started because I was going through a list of "weird occurrences" throughout maplestory's history and this "issue" was highly debated between the two of us, then expanded into the guild, and then our buddy list.

People say we, or they, were just unfortunate. Others say it was absolute BS. This discussion proceeding a very similar conversation I overheard when I was at a gas station. The conversation was about the gas itself and whether gas stations were truly delivering the amount of gas you paid for. "When I prepay for gallon, am I really getting a gallon?" They were on gas station number 11 of their test... the answer was no.

I like this insight, this is helpful. So, if I EE'd 500 equips and got within 5% of 400 passing, I could say the trial is a success and proves the 80's are truly 80's? What if i'm off by more than a small margin, would the trial disprove 80's or be the unlucky victim of probability?

If you got 400 passes out of 500 then you can say that you're 99% sure the true probability of passing a first EE is between 75% and 85%.

If you only got 350 passes out of 500 then you can say that you're 99% sure the true probability of passing a first EE is between 65% and 75%.

If you want to be more sure (higher level of certainty), then you have to do more trials. It's a trade off between level of certainty and maximum error.

Why would I need to prove this within 1% accuracy? I can get 500 EE scrolls if necessary and mass produce 500 of an item to scroll, with say i guess a staff, 700 100% scrolls to use on all of them. If after the first 100, the probability doesn't seem to be near 80%, (say 50% pass/fail) why continue? Double it, say the trial works on 70% in 200 trials, at what point do you stop and say "the rate truly is 80%" ? If 4 out of 5 work, that's truly 80% ... if 400 out of 500 work, that's 80% .. what happens when the probability is different per user? What if I fail 40 out of 50 and you pass 45 out of 50? Which one of us gets to determine the pass/fail rate of the scroll as seen by the community?

Unless you can perform infinite trials, there is no "truly 80%" result. The larger the sample size, the closer to the actual probability you get, and with higher confidence.
4 successes out of 5 seems to hint towards 80% success rate, but I'm sure we're familiar with the concept of 10atk WGs (5x 60% successes).
What you don't get is that you're trying to use a finite process (failing 40 out of 50 and/or passing 45 out of 50) to determine an infinite result. The closer you get to "infinity", the better your answer (55 passes out of 100 is better than both the individuals) is.

i said "Everyone here should already be familiar with the '80% chance to boom with first EE' issue..." this isn't something I made up in my head, this was a goddamn plague in Bera when EE's came out, and people smega'd the number of items they lost because of scrolls booming on first try. I'm not going to waste upwards of 3B to test a theory I had if nobody else can even remember the origin of the controversy in the first place. pineappleing pointless.

I have no idea what you're talking about because Equipment Enhancement scroll never failed on first slot for me personally or anyone I know for that matter. But perhaps it's just luck, or maybe I never was there when they failed, maybe they're not the whiny type, or perhaps I'm forever alone, you may say. Well, yeah, I'm glad you got the idea of this kind of stuff.

Last but not least,

Also, the probability isn't necessarily miniscule if the number range is only 1-5, chances are a computerized random number generator will land several times more on the same digit in a series of chance. The question is then "which number will be picked most often?"

[spoiler=I think this is what you're looking for][/spoiler]
It's a pseudorandom number generator, yes, but to prejudice against it in that way is like saying naturalized citizens aren't real citizens and for some reason don't really function like a real citizen should. It's silly and pointless. Enhancement scrolls don't deserve an entirely different RNG for itself. If Maple's RNG has worked before, it will continue to work, until it fails altogether.

Raul if anybody thought the 60's were glitched, there would be a thread about them. This isn't about the 60s, this thread is SPECIFICALLY about 80% "PASS ON FIRST SCROLL" Equipment Enhancements. EE scrolls. Not 30s, not 50s, not 60s, not 70s. EE's, FIRST scroll only.

Also, the probability isn't necessarily miniscule if the number range is only 1-5, chances are a computerized random number generator will land several times more on the same digit in a series of chance. The question is then "which number will be picked most often?"

Do any of you even understand what's going on here? Were any of you even around when EE's first came out?

im not reading this thread any more after seeing this post, because its so full of ignorance and unnecessary implied insults that anything you say after it isnt going to improve my opinion of you in this thread.

all i have to say is that any pseudo rng will behave the same whether you tell it "80/100" or "4/5" and that the whole premise of your bitching is baseless and insulting to my (and everyone elses) intelligence.

please, dont continue this thread.

easy to test. Buy 100 EE's, 100 equips from stores and 100% scrolls (say shou dex or so), cost:
(3m+200k+7*35k) *100 = 344.5m

20% and 80% ar far apart, so there's no need for 10,000 tries.

GO!

Welcome to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation

you just had bad luck like when i failed 7 60% scroll in a row, or when i passed 6 30% scroll in a row.

sucks.

This thread wasn't created so people could tell me to do what I'm already doing. I have plenty of billions to waste on data collection, I'm asking if anyone with mathematical prowess or familiarity with the phrase "a computerized random number generator isn't actually random" has any theories as to why the issue at hand occurs. If you haven't experienced the issue or don't qualify to answer with a theory, stop wasting my time.

A computerized random number generator isn't actually random because nothing is truely random. It is random enough to suit the needs of a computer game.

Since noone else is posting any numbers, I've used 6 regular EEs on 1st slots and 5 worked. (bellocce, morningstar, pinaka (sploded), rsb, top, belt)

The chance of 7 of 9 80%s failing is 0.03% which means it will happen to a lot of people given that Maple's population is in the millions. In particular it's about 1 in 3400, which is less than the population of 160+ on bera alone. And with the risks people took (thinking of a guy who put 5+ stars onto a 140 attack Ski) it's no surprise some came out badly.

The only theory I have for this is that the RNG is seeded with your IGN, and gives good ensemble performance but behaves badly at specifics. That's hard to prove, but fits the facts, and avoids the claim that they screwed up one single scroll somehow.

If you want to test that, it's gonna be expensive, cause you want to run statistically significant numbers on a variety of characters. I would go with 95% confidence (pretty standard) for a +-20% range just due to the alleged large difference in probabilities. That gives Z = 1.9599, E = 0.2, n = Z^2/(4E^2) = 24 tests. Round it to 25 and it'll give you nice easy numbers to work with.

So then the sample program will look like
[table=]IGN|Successes|% success
nameo|20|80%
alex|6|24%
Seven|16|64%
...|...[/table]
If someone does wind up in the range where it's unlikely to be chance (<60% success) then you could expand testing on that character to see if the rate continues through another test set.

You can run this with other scrolls if you want, it shouldn't just apply to EEs. Aiming for scrolls nearest 50% is probably best cause then you can find anomalies either way. Eg. My Paladin has used 250 60% scrolls logged, 167 of them worked = 66.8%. For a Z test of 95%, that says there's a 95% chance they work something other than 60% for me (60.6 ~ 73% is the 95% confidence interval). My Paladin used 132 10%s logged, 18 worked = 13.6%. That's still within the confidence interval of (5.1%~22.1%). As you can see, even a fairly major increase in success rate from 10%s is really not significant.

Nowadays there's also the % scrolling bonus you get from Dilligence to consider, but statistical tests still work.