% for melding materia is broken

[Natashio]

RNG is RNG

Just quoting this cause there's nothing to add to this tread..^^

[Hyperia]

Heh, it's discussions like this that make me dread the day when it's time for me to start over melding my 3 star gear. Great discussion everybody!

[Natashio]

Just do it. Either you get them in the slots, great. You don't get them in, great also. No big deal.

[kidvideo]

Atma. I blame Atma.

[Kazumac]

The OP should feel lucky! With a 41% chance of success on each attempt, the probability that a series of 14 independent attempts would all be failures is quite small! OP I deem you luckiest person in this thread!

[Chokee]

ff14's rng isn't like dota's pseudo rng, where the chance increases the more you fail. doesn't matter how many times you didn't succeed, you'd still have the same chance everytime.

[Giantbane]

Heh, it's discussions like this that make me dread the day when it's time for me to start over melding my 3 star gear. Great discussion everybody!

Mine sucked hard and I'm glad it's done with

so bring a fat wallet and a lucky rabbit's foot!

[Astralos]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm starting to get a little tired and frustrated trying to re-iterate the point that seems to be repeatedly flying over your head, so I'm just going to be blunt. You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last time: 30 is a perfectly valid starting point to determine statistical significance. But as that number increases, so does the certainty in which you can declare statistical significance - so whenever possible, try to use as large a sample size as possible.

Here are a few actual sources (i.e., not wiki articles) for you to learn more about sample sizes & statistical power:
1) Student (1908a), “The Probable Error of a Mean,” Biometrika, 6, 1–25.
(1908b), “Probable Error of a Correlation Coefficient,” Biometrika, 6, 302–310.

2) http://www.stat.ufl.edu/~aa/articles...n_binomial.pdf

Also, the vast majority of that wiki article you linked was TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion, because it talks about so many facets of probability and sampling. Thus, it was a proof by verbosity.

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.

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.

If you two have any actual evidence (preferably academic in nature) that 30 is now considered "insignificant" or "negligible", rather than just relying on proof by assertion, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

[Aegis]

snip

Let me make it easier for you to understand. If you flip a coin 30 times, the odds of you obtaining an even split of results 15 heads, 15 tails is miniscule. But you are saying that you can start to infer significance from results you get from a mere 30 flips, that you could say well, I've had 18 heads and 12 tails, this is evidence that heads are more likely than tails. That you would be expecting, by 30 for the results to be starting to conform to the odds. This conformity simply isn't going to start to appear until the late double digits at the earliest for the vast majority of samples.

And I don't know where you got your statistics training, but if I'd taken a sample size of 30 to my tutor for any of my experiments and started to infer any kind of pattern from the results at all I would've been laughed out of his study and referred back to my undergrad statistics lecturers.

Edit: Thinking about it, your mention of the 'social sciences' would lead me to guess you do mostly qualitative research? Well I got news for ya bud, that isn't science. There's a reason you get a BA not a BSc.

[Eye_Gore]

The realists laws of probability:

1, You get what you get.
2, Don't like what you got, see law number one