% for melding materia is broken

[Gramul]

The law of probability.

Do you mean the law of large numbers? Because expected avereage is only really predictable after a very large sample size depending on the factors at play.
14 attempts is not enough to set a worthy expectation, and doing so is a gamblers fallacy. It won't balance out in the (relatively) short term. Even for something 50/50 like a coin flip.

[kidvideo]

OP, back to mathematics class for you.

[Kuwagami]

ITT : people thinking that a sample of 14 (ok, 42) is sufficient to say that a RNG choosing values from pools with more than thousands values available is broken.


Also, people crying that because it says "41%" you'll actually see these 41% with 100 draws (more or less). Just make the test. Play heads or tails. Throw it 14 times and see how you failed to get 7 heads. Throw it 100 times and witness how you failed to get 50 (even 40 is unlikely with such a small sample).

You do have 41%. But you won't see them unless you do 1000+ attempts. Under 50 attempts, you could have 10% or 90% success, when the real probability remains at 41%




If you take a simple example :
let's say that the PRNG only uses 1000 values.
you have 410 success and 590 loss.

the probability to draw only losses is really high at that level for such a small sample like 14 draws

because 41% doesn't mean you're trying from a pool of 100. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the pool is like 10k+ large. Tell me then how unlikely it is to get 14 (even 42) losses in a row ? your value is deeply drowned in the error margin.

[Divinemight]

When you have a 41% chance to meld a materia and somehow fail 14 times in a row, that sucks.

Having this happen 3 different times myself and many fc members as well.......

You probably dont want to gamble. Casino can make money because of this logic of yours.

[Astralos]

However, this isn't a social science. This is statistics pure and simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) As this wiki article's sheer length illustrates it's not a simple as you seem to make it, and 30 is far from a realistic answer in statistics.

It doesn't matter - all empirical sciences use the same statistical models and guidelines, which is part of the reason why mathematics are considered a "universal language." I'm not sure what a wikipedia article's length has to do with anything (except that it's a form of the Argument by Verbosity fallacy).

30 is fine. 200 is better. 10000 is awesome.

[FritoBandito]

I would like each failure to increase the chance of success on the next attempt until ultimately you WILL get it done.

[Mordermi]

You probably dont want to gamble. Casino can make money because of this logic of yours.

Roulette is the best. I like to play it at times, or just watch other people play it. "Oh. It's been red three times in a row now, I better bet on black." It's funny that they even display the history of what has been rolled. They do it to trick people into betting more on certain spaces. "17 has been hit three times out of the last 10. I should bet on 17!" No.. It's still random, and the odds of hitting 17 aren't any higher. Previous rolls don't affect the outcome of this roll.

It's the same thing with the RNG in this game. You could win betting on red 10 times in a row, but the minute you lose 6 times in a row betting on red, you cry about it, or claim that it is rigged.

[Barboron]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...hance+14+times



And the OP said that happened to him 3 times.

Ah, I misread, guess that makes me look stupid. But either way, just because an undesirable situation occurred, doesn't make it broken. If I stub my toe, life must be broken!

[Tiggy]

I'm not sure what a wikipedia article's length has to do with anything (except that it's a form of the Argument by Verbosity fallacy)..

It proves that it's not as simply as just saying "30" as you seem want to do. It's clearly a topic in which there is much discussion, many opinions, and several methods to arrive at a useful number and just stating one number to rule them all is not an adequate answer to the sample size question. It wasn't an argument by verbosity fallacy at all since you missed the intended meaning. Just because I don't feel like breaking down each and every bullet point on that page doesn't mean what it contains was irrelevant.

When dealing with percentages in a range this wide 30 will not be significant enough. It will have nearly zero tolerance for streaks of any kind. That's not a statistic worthy of any significance.

[O-Deka-K]

It doesn't matter - all empirical sciences use the same statistical models and guidelines, which is part of the reason why mathematics are considered a "universal language." I'm not sure what a wikipedia article's length has to do with anything (except that it's a form of the Argument by Verbosity fallacy).

It does matter. Social sciences are about human behavior. Humans do not act in a completely random manner. They are affected by culture, environment, upbringing, etc. The threshold for what is considered an appropriate sample size can be lower. It depends on what you're measuring.

30 is fine. 200 is better. 10000 is awesome.

When talking about purely random numbers, a sample size of 30 is negligible. 200 is tiny. 1000 is still on the small side. 10000 is decent.