The Endless Cycle of Failing Overmelding

[Crush3r07]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G42EY...ature=youtu.be

Best case scenario was 11% success rate and 55 consecutive fails. Statistics for the win.

[Astarica]

The chance of that happening is 0.16%, or 1 in 607. That falls under the 'well, it has to happen to someone' range of probability.

[axemtitanium]

An 11% success rate means an 89% chance to fail every time. The likelihood of success doesn't change with each consecutive failure. lern2probability.

[Eightbit]

An 11% success rate means an 89% chance to fail every time. The likelihood of success doesn't change with each consecutive failure. lern2probability.

The chance of him failing on any attempt never changes. The probability of rolling consecutive fail does. You can flip a coin 100 times and still have 50% chance to land on tails but the likelihood you land on tails all 100 times is not 50%, it would be very small. I won't vouch for an exact number though.

Sorry for your bad luck OP, though I would really like to hear someone confirm the number from Astarica

[Crush3r07]

The chance of him failing on any attempt never changes. The probability of rolling consecutive fail does. You can flip a coin 100 times and still have 50% chance to land on tails but the likelihood you land on tails all 100 times is not 50%, it would be very small. I won't vouch for an exact number though.

Sorry for your bad luck OP, though I would really like to hear someone confirm the number from Astarica

This.

Failure = 89/100 Sucess = 11/100
55 Fails = .89^55
Chance of 55 fails in a row = .1465%

[axemtitanium]

The probability of the event "100 tails in a row" is some absurdly small number but the probability of each coin flip stays the same. In the case of melding, it is likely (and perfectly valid) that you will get increasingly indignant after each successive failure but as far as we know, there is no "rubber band" RNG that tries to smooth out the failure rate.

Astarica is correct though. 0.89^55 is 0.00164, not 0.001465. Not sure where you got that number.

[Eightbit]

Astarica is correct though. 0.89^55 is 0.00164, not 0.001465. Not sure where you got that number.

I'd assume number dyslexia. Or he has squeaked in another attempt.

[MaethusXion]

At least you keep the item and just lose the Overmeld Materia & Catalyst. In v1 you lost everything if you botched it.

[axemtitanium]

I'd assume number dyslexia. Or he has squeaked in another attempt.

Looks like you're right. That number is in fact .89^56. Dunno why I didn't think to try that.

[Crimson-Falcon]

At least you keep the item and just lose the Overmeld Materia & Catalyst. In v1 you lost everything if you botched it.

no you lose them both