I've noticed in my entire time doing the children's toys mission that the majority of consoles you get tend to be borderline useless. As shown by OP, the more useless consoles are created more often. I personally find that to be rather annoying, but it's how the game works... I mean after all, there is a reason that mk XII purple consoles are called VERY RARE lol...
He didn't mention "VERY RARE" as even being part of the results. Unless you are implying phaser relay consoles are somehow VERY RARE while geometry detonators are not??? (actual quality aside)
I found these results interesting enough that I decided to dig into the reward structure of console fabrication. Since these were created under Heretic, I truly didn't know what to expect.
Here are my findings:
1) The quality of the reward outcome of the "Fabricate Prototype" assignment is guaranteed to match the quality of the success' display name. In other words, if your results say "Blue Quality" the console you receive cannot be anything other than Blue (Rare) quality, in all circumstances. No rare chance to upgrade to a better type, or anything like that.
2) Every console available from our random drop tables is represented. Despite the above sample showing zero Phaser Relays (e.g.), they are included in the drop table as a possible result.
3) All console rewards are equally weighted. This is the part I was unsure would be true, but it is - every item on the reward tables has an absolutely equal chance of being rewarded.
The only possible explanation I can offer at this point, is that it's just a matter of sample size. There are 42 different Mk XII consoles you can receive from this assignment (16 Eng, 10 Sci, 16 Tac) of each quality (Green, Blue, Purple) resulting in the total number of potential outcomes being 42*3=126. When you run a sample size of 300, with almost half that many possible outcomes, your odds are invariably going to be too small to create an big enough picture of the entirety.
If that's true, the odds of crafting 300 in quantity of least to most valuable almost perfectly by quantity is astronomical. Better run those numbers again.
Furthermore: After growing bored at page 8 of the responses, I found only ONE person replying that even implied ever having had any better luck that OP, and that was with a much smaller sample. Kinda like the guy who wins the lottery twice but only bought 3 tickets. If OP was the counter of that "luck", there would not be 6 pages (that I saw) of confirmations that it's not random.
Last edited by omegashinzon; 03-14-2013 at 09:08 AM.
Neat idea, but maybe the right change is to buff the scaling of science/engineering skills.
- What if 90 skill Particle generators made GW3 hit as hard as a Quantum Torpedo TS3?
- What if a 60 skill difference in (Inertial Dampeners - Graviton generators) made you shrug off tractor beams?
- What if it wasn't so easy to kill crew? What if the difference between 100% crew and 0% crew was 50% as strong as a permanent HE1?
- What if a 60 skill difference in (Stealth - Sensors) meant that you could dance around a science ship with Sensor Scan and still not be spotted?
Are you implying these are facts or as a fantasy scenario?
For 361 tries out of 42 consoles:
The highest dropped console should be at 17-19 times.
The lowest dropped console should be at 1-3 times.
If a console drops 0 times, it is a sign that something was not correct.
If a console drops more than 20 times, it is a sign that something was not correct.
Measures with that, the results from OP look pretty bad. A typical result should look like this:
edit: So I ran 100,000 simulations of "361 out of 42" and not once did a console drop more than 23 times. A console dropping 24 times, or 25 times, ... or even 27 (!!!) times as with OP, is practically impossible. You would need to run millions of simulation to get one simulation where a console drops 27 times.
At first I was on the side of "Everything works correctly, the OP result is just a random outcome", but now i am on the side of "Something is wrong with the data or code"
Your use of correct math to beat hypothetical and incorrect math astonishes and impresses me.
@repetitiveepic: I would be interested in your data have you kept track of all the lows? I would like to get that data then average it and put it into my spreadsheet to get my estimated low-end profits from all consoles. Thx!
Hey there, sorry for the delay in reply.
I missed your in-game mail amid a flurry of exchange stuff, I'll have the data i've got out to you ASAP.
With the fleet support / jem bug mania the console prices have gone down quite a bit, gone quite haywire for the time being, so I haven't concluded a survey since then. Too depressing.
I'll do one in a few days though and pass it along as well.
And I would like to thank Borticus for contributing to this. Expected Value calculations rely on the assumption that the reward table is random, and it is greatly encouraging to have confirmation that it is.
Thanks to the statisticians for their work in this thread.
I have to confess more than a little frustration with console crafting myself. I don't have any extra data to bring to the table, just the anecdote that out of the 30ish times I've run the assignment, I've not made any of the five consoles that I would like to see at any quality level. I know rationally that it's not that unlikely I'd have an all-negative set of results with only 30 tests, but come on--give me a break!
Every game ends up having discussions like these...
A) I've tried X 1000 times and only gotten y result 3 times, it's borked!
B) Dude, your sample is too small. If you do it 100,000 times it'll be good.
A) and B) argue awhile with others chiming in how their anecdotes prove A) or B) is right/wrong/crazy.
C) *I've* done (insert OCD-level insane number of reps) and only gotten y __ times. A) is right, something is borked.
Well, let me toss something out onto the fire.
Lets say a given RNG needs a sample set of at least 100,000 to approach a truly random distribution. The problem is, to see that even distribution, every result of that RNG needs to be in the data set. Which is just fine if you're feeding it one operation and looking at the results of 100,000 consecutive iterations.
Unfortunately, in a game, that RNG is working on hundreds of different data sets at any given time.
I really don't see how you could ever collect enough data to expect truly random results. The game would have to be coded so that each specific function had its own dedicated RNG associated with it to approach any kind of even distribution.