Good work TS at least you got something out of it at the end.
Everyone else should lay off the guy, he had the decency to post his findings on the board. If you find them helpful great, if not don't castrate him for it.
As for myself I have a simple rule for melds. If I don't hit a double on the first four attempts I stop for the day. My superstition is that if I'm having bad luck I'm going to cut my losses and stop. Unlike most compulsive melders who just grind that shit out piling up the losses, I keep things sensible. If things are going my way I'll get the meld within 4 attempts, if not I'll try another day. To quote a trailer park denizen, "It's the F*cking way she goes."
Mass melding statictics. {You can have this}
Printable View
-
10-21-2012, 02:55 AMDarkillumina
-
10-21-2012, 07:12 AMAryden
An easier and cheaper way to do this would be to vastly increase sample size and use lower level materia.
-
10-21-2012, 09:37 AMAlmalexia
OP's findings are neither massive nor statistically significant. While many of us can sympathize with him, he shouldn't paint this as anything but another RNG sob story.
-
10-21-2012, 10:59 AMIssacharOr he could have simply been sharing his findings. But I wouldnt expect you to understand that notion, what with that condescending tone of yours that I'm fairly certain is unwarranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almalexia
-
10-21-2012, 11:08 AMAzmar
I had 105 perfect tier I HP materia. Made 30 R27 +1 toadskin belts. I sat down in one sitting and melded them all. Double meld 31% chance, triple meld 11% chance, quad meld 5.5% chance. In the end I got 13 doubles, which after I was only able to make one triple meld out of 105 perfect tier I materia.
I have another 500 perfect materia set up and HQ mats rdy for when servers go down. -
10-21-2012, 03:33 PMWarlock
Melding is a mean bitch lol i have lost hope on it
-
10-21-2012, 03:50 PMRaldoDefend the guy all you like, but did you read his post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Issachar
His data is nice to see, but he was clearly trying to make some sort of definitive conclusion, and that's why he was getting lambasted. He did more than just share his findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vantol
-
10-21-2012, 06:09 PMKestiel
Sorry if this has already been said, or to be a party-pooper but none of the OP's findings are even approaching statistical significance. If you're okay with a 95% confidence level, and your margin of error is tolerable at 5% (bare minimum really, usually <3% is used with 99% confidence level) you're looking at a minimum of 384 trials required.
However if we go with 99% CL and 3% Margin of Error we're looking at 1,843 trials to get a significant sample size. Fifty is a miniscule fraction of the latter, and roughly only 13% of the former required trials. So as it was said before by somebody else; definitely not statistically relevant and the values shown (27% reported by the game compared to his rate of 18%) are well within the tolerance levels for the small amount of trials done.
For anybody interested, for his sample size and desired outlook his margin of error for a 95% Confidence Level is 13.9%. If we were to adhere to a more stringent 99% it would be, 18.2%. Though I pity the person who tries for statistical relevant data by themselves on any worthwhile melds. -
10-22-2012, 12:25 AMMolly_Millions
Now to mess up all the negative statistics; I went 3/5 for a triple melded Cobalt Celata +1 with 44 MND. My 2 attempts after that for a quad blew the hell up of course. I also went 1/1 on my triple melded cobalt gauntlets with 41 STR.
-
10-22-2012, 12:27 AMMolly_MillionsThis. 50 attempts means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You'll need 1000+ attempts to prove anything without a doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestiel