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

Roll results from making 50 Blue Pickaxes.

Recommended Posts

Here's a link to my spreadsheet from making 50 blue quality pickaxes. I plan to repeat this experiment after i get to the end of the Runemaking skill tree to see what +50 does to this. already you can see a difference between rolling 5 pips or 6 pips at 5 difficulty. Or Rolling 5 pips at 5 or 8 Difficulty level. That said this is a small data sample. Yes i know there is no +69 ones. I was annoyed at that too. It looks close to a 1% chance to roll that and have amazing durability too.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U_iK4llVBD_lUC0GGpMfTxmzHwIQXA5krmij01jmX7U/edit#gid=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you roll all pips at once or one at a time?

 

*EDIT - saw your note about all rolled at one time, thanks!

Edited by piikaa

Piikaa / Pkaoo

rSHxVEY.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baldking the reason you saw zero +69's is their is a bonus you get for rolling all pips at once versus one at a time. Your numbers are way off as a result.

Experimentation is a risk vs reward system. Surely you noticed you had a better chance at one pip, then you did with 6 at a time? Your item bonus curve goes up with risk. You'll get, on average, better results doing what you did (in theory). You won't get as good of an item, however, versus someone who gambled with all of the pips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't truly tested it yet, but I feel like the more pips I do, the harder it is for a good result. The main reason I do 5 pips at once is for that +50%. It is possible to get a +69 my way it just requires me rolling an amazing twice. But I prefer my way, so the better the rolls the better the grade and durability. I feel other people have a tendency to separate the grade and durability. So they might have a +69 with 205 durability. Or they might roll all 10 pips and average lower results doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It tells you, right in the interface, what the difficulty / chances are at completing it. You can see that increasing pips increases difficulty.

You rolled 50 picks and got zero +69s. I rolled 10 picks and got two. One amazing chance vs two on the same item? You tell me which is more likely (this is a probability question and totally answerable). Hint: Its not what you are doing.

What you are getting is a higher chance at better stats on average (because you are lowering your probability of a total failure ... again one failure vs two back to back.. same probability question).

Your way isn't actually helping you. Probability math would have saved you from 50 failures (no +69 = failure!).

edit: This of course assumes that you want the max/best possible result (which you will once blueprints become a thing!)

Edited by scree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I've gotten 2 +69 my way within 10 tries too, rolling my way. You could be right of course, but so far all my 10 pips rolls have been of worse result than my 5 pips. Same with rolling 6 pips versus 5 pips when rolling for amazing bar. And it wasn't probability math that stopped me from rolling 10 pips at once but some minor experiments showing worse results as i use more pips. I'm also curious as to what all your results were for those 10 picks you rolled. But this weekend I'll test at least 20 axes or hammers myself with 10 pips to see and compare to my data set. Also i wasn't interested in making as many +69 pickaxes as possible but more making as many +30 pickaxes as possible. Those at least farm the higher tier ores at a decent speed. The current durability makes having a +69 pickax laughable. I'd rather have a better average than a few +69. Also more rolls meant more results to record. If you're right, it shouldn't matter if i rolled 5 or 10 pips, so all i really did was double the data gathered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your logic makes good sense, except to solo farm a Rank 7 motherlode a +69 is really the only route 


Don't forget, the one EK that no one will judge you for looting your guilds treasury is Anhrez's Doober Shack. Where you can take those long con gains and 'simplify' them to more easily fit in your inventory. While you are unloading your hard earned winnings, swing by the Bazaar and pick up something to celebrate your genius.

LR0tCJt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no need for rank 7 motherlodes atm. I've been more focused on trying to craft some perfect white and green blacksmithing pieces. Which takes a lot of time and resources to roll the amazing metal sheets and then only get Good or moderate on the final roll. I've started to track some of my results from that. I'm not interested in making the best item with the best resources atm. More interested in finding out the numbers behind things even if they are subject to change in the future. Most of my experiments use blue mats or lower quality as they are relatively easy to get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bald, the point is once the game goes live, you only need to roll one perfect success.... (blueprints baby!)

In that case, it'd be far more efficient to roll the dice all at once, then to attempt to get mediocre successes. I do admit right at launch, with no skills, experimentation isn't likely to yield good results because difficulty will be off the charts. Yet, the lesson learned here is one of a solo-minded player versus a guild crafting approach.

Solo players will be forced to accept substandard results (not maxed) because they'll lack the resources to experiment with and the facilities to mass produce or copy great successes.

 

I did find it interesting that 5 pip amazing + 5 pip amazing = 1x10 amazing. Never tested for that equation. Feels like cheating, but my point about probability kicks in and that's probably why they did it like that.

 

Edited by scree

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...