Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
KrakkenSmacken

Is this the meaning of "Risk"

Recommended Posts

From a different thread in suggestions originally, but I thought I would drop it here for Crafting and Economy Discussion, with a few edits.

 

I think I figured out what "Risk" may be after thinking about how I worded the original post. We know that 100% risk can still produce Amazing success, so it's not failure rate, so what is it?

 

3= 1/8 (12.5%)  12.5% is 1/8th of 100%

 

Currently the usual behavior of adding a pip is to add 12.5% to risk.  If you can add more this number changes, but 12.5% is the base. Without skills or special materials, tends to cap out at 100% at 8 pips.

 

So I think the math may work this way.  

 

if I have a 10% chance of getting an amazing success, that is 1/10 or 0.1.

 

This is also equal to 0.10 / 1 = .10  (I know this is obvious, but keep with me.)

 

If I add  1/8 risk, I add 12.5% risk.  This may get reflected in the formula as 

 

0.10 / 1.125 = 0.08888...

 

When you reach 100% risk the formula ends up being

 

0.10 /2.000 = .05  

 

Apply that to all positive results, and then that would naturally increase the failure/critical failures as you add to 100%. 100% risk would more than double your chances of a failure, as it halves the chances at any specific level of success.

 

Say you have the following chances for all outcomes.

 

 

Name  Percent Running Total

Critical     5.00%    5.00%

Fail          10.00% 15.00%

Success   35.00% 50.00%

Moderate 15.00% 65.00%

Good        15.00% 80.00%

Great        10.00% 90.00%

Amazing   10.00% 100.00%

 

Then we add 8 pips and 100% risk

 

Name Percent Running Total

Critical     26.25%   26.25%

Fail          31.25%   57.50%

Success  17.50%   75.00%

Moderate 7.50%    82.50%

Good        7.50%   90.00%

Great        5.00%   95.00%

Amazing   5.00%   100.00%

 

If that is the way it works, then it's ALWAYS going to be more beneficial to take the maximum risk, as the scale on a 10% chance for Amazing success which leads to a good blue print would look like this.

 

Tries in a row selecting 1 pip each try and getting Amazing success each time.

 

1 =1/10 (10%)

2= 1/100 (1%)

3= 1/1000 (.1%)

4= 1/10000 (.01%)

5= 1/100000 (0.001%)

6= 1/1000000 (0.0001%)

7= 1/10000000 (0.00001%)

8= 1/100000000 (0.000001%)

 

[Note: the above is generous, as it does not count the first risk reduction in odds like the one below does. It was just better to represent it visually this way.]

 

VS one Risk of X pips

 

1 =1/11.25 (8.888...%)

2= 1/12.50 (8%)

3= 1/13.75 (7.2727...%)

4= 1/15.00 (6.666...%)

5= 1/16.25 (6.153%)

6= 1/17.25 (5.714%)

7= 1/18.50 (5.333%)

8= 1/20.00 (5%)

 

If that's the way it works, there literally is no choice.  The best choice is always maximum dots all at once.

 

Discuss

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiplying decimals is tricky, best to convert to fractions. Here is percentage of success based off 12.5℅ failure (1/8). For old gamers that's a saving throw with 1d8.

 

Base - 7/8 success rate for a amazing 1/10 (10℅) of the time.

 

7/8 * 1/10 = .875 * 0.1 = 8.75℅ chance amazing, or12.5℅ failure risk, 90℅ risk not getting amazing.

 

Top pip, 1/8 chance success making anything, 1/10 chance of amazing, or

 

1.25℅ chance of amazing, or 87.5℅ risk of complete failure, 90% risk of not getting amazing.


The%20Crowfall%20Economist%20Official%20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiplying decimals is tricky, best to convert to fractions. Here is percentage of success based off 12.5℅ failure (1/8). For old gamers that's a saving throw with 1d8.

 

Base - 7/8 success rate for a amazing 1/10 (10℅) of the time.

 

7/8 * 1/10 = .875 * 0.1 = 8.75℅ chance amazing, or12.5℅ failure risk, 90℅ risk not getting amazing.

 

Top pip, 1/8 chance success making anything, 1/10 chance of amazing, or

 

1.25℅ chance of amazing, or 87.5℅ risk of complete failure, 90% risk of not getting amazing.

 

Fractions or decimals, the math ends the same. I work in decimals mostly because of my background, and it's easier to see if your full universe of possibilities comes to 100%.

 

I think your missing a large part of the issue though.  100% "Risk" rather frequently produces Amazing Success, so it's not an absolute failure rate as your describing.

 

I wish I had figured this possibility out before the test ended this weekend.  I could have ran hundreds of tests with the mat's I had prior to it shutting down, watching for this very thing.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your missing a large part of the issue though.  100% "Risk" rather frequently produces Amazing Success, so it's not an absolute failure rate as your describing.

 

I wish I had figured this possibility out before the test ended this weekend.  I could have ran hundreds of tests with the mat's I had prior to it shutting down, watching for this very thing.

 

I recorded a session where I crafted 68 weapons, putting all 8 pips in at once every time.

 

Experiment Results:

 

2 Critical Failure

13 Failure

13 Success

12 Moderate

13 Good

9 Great

6 Amazing


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recorded a session where I crafted 68 weapons, putting all 8 pips in at once every time.

 

Experiment Results:

 

2 Critical Failure

13 Failure

13 Success

12 Moderate

13 Good

9 Great

6 Amazing

 

Thanks.  As a percentage.

 

Critical      2    2.94%

Fail         13  19.12%

Success  13  19.12%

Moderate 12 17.65%

Good        13 19.12%

Great        9   13.24%

Amazing    6    8.82%

 

Small sample size, but It looks like a pretty even pattern of 20%, with drop off at Critical and Great/Amazing.

 

If I had to guess 8 pips fully trained looks like 

 

5.00%

20.00%

20.00%

20.00%

20.00%

10.00%

5.00%

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I never get the take bug when I experiment 1 pip at a time.

And if I have enough resources to waste a bunch I can run a bunch of bars and take the best, then try to improve from there.

The extra mediocre stuff gets used on new guys' gear and they're happy to get it.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've experimented with risk/success as well, and I noticed that I don't get any S/MS/GS with 12.5 risk and no S/MS with 25 risk. ~100 crafts of each type. I have some numbers with 50 and 75 as well, but only 36 and 34 crafts. Here we go:

12.5:

CF - 1

F - 4

S - 0

MS - 0

GS - 0

GrS - 33

AS - 14

Total: 52

 

25:

CF - 0

F - 3

S - 0

MS - 0

GS - 21

GrS - 13

AS - 13

Total: 50

 

50:

CF - 0

F - 1

S - 15

MS - 8

GS - 4

GrS - 5

AS - 5

Total: 38

 

75:

CF - 0

F - 1

S - 15

MS - 6

GS - 5

GrS - 2

AS - 5

Total: 34

 

It's on simple materials like metal bars and stitched leather. I also experimented on more complex things like Axe Head or Weapon Shaft, results seem pretty much similar:

12.5:

CF - 1

F - 2

S - 0

MS - 0

GS - 0

GrS - 23

AS - 16

Total: 42

 

25:

CF - 0

F - 3

S - 0

MS - 0

GS - 24

GrS - 17

AS - 11

Total: 55

 

50:

CF - 0

F - 4

S - 0

MS - 12

GS - 17

GrS - 4

AS - 13

Total: 50

Edited by sedside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've experimented with risk/success as well, and I noticed that I don't get any S/MS/GS with 12.5 risk and no S/MS with 25 risk. ~100 crafts of each type. I have some numbers with 50 and 75 as well, but only 36 and 34 crafts. Here we go:

 

Snip.

 

I can't thank you enough for this data. It's a huge help.

 

I honestly did not think of this possibility, that the "risk" would only impact the quality of successes, and not the chance of failure. Working in a system like this it is possible to pick the correct values for each risk tier to produce comparable results for all levels.  

 

Ideally, you would want a maximum chance difference of 5%, but with the added penalty of complexity and time to build, that could probably be higher. Lets put tolerance at 10% for our purposes here. That purpose being to make each step a viable choice, without a significant leaning in ideal outcome based on probability.

 

We also have to consider the following conditions currently exist as well.

 

This part isn't quite correct.  There is a bonus to your results when you perform an experiment at 50% risk, or above.  Using only amazing success as an example, a low risk experiment (currently 1-3 pips) results in an 8.05% increase per point spent.  A high risk experiment (4 or more pips) is an increase of 12.08% per point spent.  So, four experiments of one point each (assuming all amazing results) would increase your item by 32.2%.  A single experiment of four points, with an amazing result, with a risk of 50%, improves your item by 48.32%.  This is a 50% increase to your results.

 

If your goal is to make the best possible item, you can only do so by using at least four points per experiment, with as few experiments as possible.  Either way, I believe KrakkenSmacken is correct, and the only real factor in determining when to pursue those high risk results is how lucky you are, how skilled you are (to mitigate that luck), and how rich you are.

 

This has a HUGE impact, in that there is literally no way to achieve the best results without taking at least 50% risk (4 pips). That takes away all choice from the below 50% mark, which is what we have the best numbers for.

 

So at 50% this is the results from the limited data we have.

 

Critical      0.00%

Fail           5.32%

Success   15.96%

Moderate  21.28%

Good        22.34%

Great        9.57%

Amazing   19.15%

 

We are only interested in the best results possible for blueprints, amazing success, and at 4 pips, we need to do this twice instead of once at 8 pips.

 

From the above 100% example 8 pips

 

Critical      2    2.94%

Fail         13  19.12%

Success  13  19.12%

Moderate 12 17.65%

Good        13 19.12%

Great        9   13.24%

Amazing    6    8.82%

 

So the simple math is are you more or less likely than 8.82% of the time to get two amazing success in a row choosing 4 pips twice.

 

The math with the current sample size is 

 

(19.15/100) * (19.15/100) = 3.66%

 

3.66/8.82=41%

 

The answer is, you are 60% less likely to succeed on two smaller 4 pips 50% risks than a single 8 pip 100% risk. That is much closer that I thought it was, but still has a signifigant bias towards always selecting the highest risk possible.

 

Now this is a incredibly small sample size, but I would say that one or two things need to happen if the system does not change in format.

 

First, the odds of an amazing success at 50% need to go up to be closer to the 8% (if that's what it is) provided by 8 pip single tries.

 

The table for that is as follows. So if for example the actual 8 pip % is 5% (which I suspect is the actual case), and the sample data is skewed, 22-23% would produce the correct balanced results.

4 Pip     8 Pip

30%      9.00%

29%      8.41%

28%      7.84%

27%      7.29%

26%      6.76%

25%      6.25%

24%      5.76%

23%      5.29%

22%      4.84%

21%      4.41%

20%      4.00%

 

Second, the opportunity cost of "complexity" needs to be decided.  If for example 1 complexity is worth 1% more risk, then the above table should be used with a one step lower, so 5% actual 8 pip odds would mean you select 23-24 as your 4 pip odds because you are adding complexity in exchange for a more improved outcome chance.

 

tldr; sample data shows with proper tweaking the current system can be brought into a more even handed progressive system than is currently apparent.  No major re-write needed, just some tweaking on the risk formula and chance tables.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...