Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Green Community > Green Server Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-28-2025, 02:56 PM
Yinaltin Yinaltin is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Back in my Europa days I'll always remember something similar. There was an established guy who'd been in the guild a long time and an item dropped that he needed. I think it was an epic piece, it was tradeable whatever it was, and him and another guy needed it who'd been in the guild less than a month.

The officers told them to roll, established guy loses roll and starts complaining AFTER the roll. Then there was pressure for new guy to give it to established guy not just from the bitching guy that lost but from the officers as well. New guy was reluctant, I backed him up saying it was fair and square... and yeah the new guy said it wasn't worth it in the end and handed it over.

I think he left the guild a few weeks later. He definitely stopped raiding with us. Sad.
Uh i remember that day. i really felt for that guy.

had something similar needed to do my necro epic and wanted to save all my dkp for that CT drop. europa merged to remedy to lux to darkwind to rampage to tr to ib and everytime the dkp got reset and i never got the CT drop. Still havent completed my epic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-28-2025, 02:59 PM
cd288 cd288 is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 4,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Just hate it when people intentionally conflate probability in this game to justify their bad luck. It sucks that the original complainer failed the shawl combine 6 times, but it sounds like they need to raise their tailoring skill.

Someone telling them on the forums that it's statistically improbable to fail that many times is just factually incorrect. It's an anomaly, for sure, but it's still within acceptable terms of probability.

I'm sorry that you cannot fathom that the chance for failure was still real after 6 tries, but the previous 5 tries do not have any influence on the sixth attempt.

I wish people would stop pushing the gambler's fallacy as probability. It's a huge mistake that lots of people make.

It's obvious that I can't fix stupid, though.
I'm not disagreeing with you that it's not within a realm of probability to fail that many times. Just saying that's not what the gambler's fallacy is really.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-28-2025, 03:15 PM
moozh moozh is offline
Decaying Skeleton


Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Just hate it when people intentionally conflate probability in this game to justify their bad luck. It sucks that the original complainer failed the shawl combine 6 times, but it sounds like they need to raise their tailoring skill.

Someone telling them on the forums that it's statistically improbable to fail that many times is just factually incorrect. It's an anomaly, for sure, but it's still within acceptable terms of probability.

I'm sorry that you cannot fathom that the chance for failure was still real after 6 tries, but the previous 5 tries do not have any influence on the sixth attempt.

I wish people would stop pushing the gambler's fallacy as probability. It's a huge mistake that lots of people make.

It's obvious that I can't fix stupid, though.
Did you look at the link I posted? Or anything I wrote? It is unlikely to fail a 40% success rate combine six times in a row, and it’s easy to calculate -how- unlikely that is. It can still happen though.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-28-2025, 04:26 PM
WarpathEQ WarpathEQ is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Just hate it when people intentionally conflate probability in this game to justify their bad luck. It sucks that the original complainer failed the shawl combine 6 times, but it sounds like they need to raise their tailoring skill.

Someone telling them on the forums that it's statistically improbable to fail that many times is just factually incorrect. It's an anomaly, for sure, but it's still within acceptable terms of probability.

I'm sorry that you cannot fathom that the chance for failure was still real after 6 tries, but the previous 5 tries do not have any influence on the sixth attempt.

I wish people would stop pushing the gambler's fallacy as probability. It's a huge mistake that lots of people make.

It's obvious that I can't fix stupid, though.
This game is an interesting life lesson in the direct competition between statistical probabilities and the law of averages. Technically a prior event doesn't impact the RNG of the current event in a vacuum of probabilities.

However, if the event is performed enough times in succession the law of averages tells you that the past results do in fact influence future outcomes in that past annomolies in one direction will correct over time by compensating in the other direction and returning to the average.

Perhaps the gambler's falicy that the probability folks like to reference is in fact a more indepth phenomenon of how the world actually works from real experience and something that the science of probability doesn't properly weigh when viewed inside of their own vacuum.

There are many examples of how things work in a vacuum not being the true outcome in real life where other competing variables exist. My personal experience has been that upholding a stronger belief in the law of averages over statistical probabilities has yielded positive results versus others that live in the vacuum of probabilities alone when applied to EQ.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-28-2025, 06:31 PM
Saisu Saisu is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
However, if the event is performed enough times in succession the law of averages tells you that the past results do in fact influence future outcomes in that past annomolies in one direction will correct over time by compensating in the other direction and returning to the average.
For a 50/50 coin flip, you're looking at ~100 flips to have a good sample size. So for this person's 40/60 "coin flip" over 6 "flips" it's telling a very unreliable story.

Because this is a typically "one and done" tailoring combine, you're not going to see that leveling out over a large sample size (example: having 6 combine successes in a row). So people's perceptions are skewed.

Basically the lower your attempt / sample size, the less power the "law of averages" will affect you. It's much much more likely to have skewed results with 4 coin flips than with 1,000 coin flips.
__________________
[59 Troubadour] Saisu (Wood Elf)
[40 Paladin] Jharu (Erudite)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-28-2025, 07:21 PM
bcbrown bcbrown is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarpathEQ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
However, if the event is performed enough times in succession the law of averages tells you that the past results do in fact influence future outcomes in that past annomolies in one direction will correct over time by compensating in the other direction and returning to the average.
This is way of phrasing it is absolutely incorrect. That is not how it works. I don't mean to pick on you as everyone in this thread talking about probability is either misinformed, poory educated, or very sloppy in both their phrasing and reading comprehension. What you wrote is a clear example of the gambler's fallacy and it is wrong.

To set a clear foundation, I think we're all talking about calculating the probability of independent events. The success or failure of a tradeskill combine is unrelated to the outcome of past tradeskills combine. Each tradeskill combine of a given item is an independent event with an identical probability of success. Everyone agrees with this, right?

The nuance with calculating probabilities of the outcome of a series of independent events comes with the point in time when you're making the calculation. The probability of flipping a coin 1 time is 50%. The probability of flipping a coin 10 times and having them all come up heads is 0.5^10, or about one in a thousand. I think everyone would agree with this too.

if you've already flipped a coin 9 times and they're all heads, the probability of the next coin flip being heads is still 50%. At this point in time the probability of getting 10 heads in a row is 50%, because nine of the flips are in the past and they're already heads. The gambler's fallacy is to think that because there's less than a 1% chance of getting 10 head flips in a row, the next flip is almost certainly going to be tails. This is not true. It's 50%. (This is disregarding the possibility that the coin is weighted or double-headed, we're assuming it's an actually fair coin).

What you're talking about with laws of averages and reversions to the mean is different from how you're applying it. You said "past anomalies in one direction will correct over time by compensating in the other direction". This is not correct. An accurate way to say it would be "past anomalies in one direction will be have their impact diluted by adding enough additional coin flips."

Image you're going to flip a coin 100 times. You expect you'll get about 50 heads, plus or minus a couple. The first 10 flips are heads. An incorrect understanding of probability is think "of the next 90 flips, its likely there will be more tails than head". That is precisely the gambler's fallacy. A correct understanding would be "the next 90 flips are likely going to be 50% outcomes with about 45 heads, so I expect the total number of heads will be about 55, more or less". The next 90 outcomes will swamp the effect of the first 10 heads. But it's not "compensating in the other direction".

Anyway, I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. You've been very helpful to me on these forums in the past, and what you wrote is broadly right in general, just wrong on the exact mechanism by how it happens.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-28-2025, 09:52 PM
Duik Duik is offline
Planar Protector

Duik's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Near the largest canyon in the world!
Posts: 2,152
Default

Well thank you bcbrown.
I dunno if others were trying to say that and failed or they were wrong.

The bit that helped me the most was after the run of heads that probability is done. The next roll/cast is unaffected but that. The next is 50/50.

If the coins aren't flipped yet, that's when the "the chances of getting 10 heads in a row by multiplying" comes into play.

Wow that is really difficult to articulate. But I get it (what bc was saying). I hope it helped others.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-29-2025, 10:52 AM
cd288 cd288 is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 4,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Well thank you bcbrown.
I dunno if others were trying to say that and failed or they were wrong.

The bit that helped me the most was after the run of heads that probability is done. The next roll/cast is unaffected but that. The next is 50/50.

If the coins aren't flipped yet, that's when the "the chances of getting 10 heads in a row by multiplying" comes into play.

Wow that is really difficult to articulate. But I get it (what bc was saying). I hope it helped others.
This is a good way to put it and bcbrown's example is a really good one.

Before the coins are flipped ten times it's safe to say the probability of 9 or 10 heads is very low, which you can do the math on to calculate. That doesn't mean it won't happen, and if you're in a run of 9 heads in a row the pre-flipping probability calculation has no impact on what the 10th flip will be.

Another way to look at it. If I bet you money that if I flip a coin 10 times it will be heads every time, you'd take that bet. If I've flipped a coin 9 times and it's heads and I bet you that it's going to be heads on the 10th flip, you might not take the bet because that one flip is still 50%.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-29-2025, 11:34 AM
Kich867 Kich867 is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 672
Default

I failed the final trivial combine of the Shawl quest. IIRC it's not like, the worst thing in the world, but I did have to go back and farm a handful of items to remake the pieces to do the combine again.

That being said, I think I two shot the 208 skill one at like 168 skill? Maybe it took three tries, it wasn't that bad.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-05-2025, 03:29 PM
Uglysses Uglysses is offline
Decaying Skeleton


Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1
Default

wanted to do Sparring armor for my monk
80 tailoring
1 hour to farm 6 of those escaped frogloks
failed the trivial combine
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.