Thanks SE. . .

[Peregrine]

If it's 5-7% for you, you're doing it wrong.
I'm 3/14 on aeolian +1s with average quality of 110.
HQ rate of garnet rings with average quality of 150 is above 30%, N of 50.
The same result for +1 tools. I can make anyone a +1 tool or weapon on the spot pretty much. Just give me enough for 5 or 6 tries and it's almost guaranteed.

I don't pump str or dex, I just don't baw and moan and think my life is so terrible when I NQ. When you actually record it instead of subjectively estimate it, it's not horrible really.

HQ2 rate would be about 3% for this. If your HQ1 rate is 5%, you're not doing something right.

[longtallsally]

Truth is, no one knows that TRUE % or algorithm SE uses for what has a chance to HQ at what quality.

[Peregrine]

I've got a running log of quality with HQ result for iron nuggets with a N of over 300 now, and there still isn't very much of a definite answer compared to what we already subjectively know (don't expect a N+1 quality, and a N+2 quality is impossible where N is the hundreds digit of the final quality). When I run a statistical analysis on the results, it pretty much confirms what we all know. The HQ rate is dependent on quality, but it is so loose that it's pretty much a crapshoot spam fest. I can tell you what you WON'T get. I can't ever tell you what you will get.

[Shyd]

That is a R50 synth. maybe higher.

[Peregrine]

I love all these 30% numbers and such people give when in reality its more more 5-7% at that quality

it really isnt that big of a chance until you get way higher up and even then its not great

Reality is that chance of +1 caps at about 200 quality, and more quality only raises the odds of +2 or +3. Each of the chances are sigmoidal curves that start their inflections at different qualities and cap at different absolute rates. That's why most of your results at 500+ quality are still NQ.

[longtallsally]

Reality is that chance of +1 caps at about 200 quality, and more quality only raises the odds of +2 or +3. Each of the chances are sigmoidal curves that start their inflections at different qualities and cap at different absolute rates. That's why most of your results at 500+ quality are still NQ.

basically it right here. From my experience, 1-99Q chance for +1, 100-199 chance for +1-2, 200+ quality chance for +1-3 As ive never made a +2 item with anything less than 100, never made a +3 with less than 200, but have made them with the stated values. As to the % chance it increases as you get on your knees and pray as you hit touch-up

[Sigmakan]

If it's 5-7% for you, you're doing it wrong.
I'm 3/14 on aeolian +1s with average quality of 110.
HQ rate of garnet rings with average quality of 150 is above 30%, N of 50.
The same result for +1 tools. I can make anyone a +1 tool or weapon on the spot pretty much. Just give me enough for 5 or 6 tries and it's almost guaranteed.

I don't pump str or dex, I just don't baw and moan and think my life is so terrible when I NQ. When you actually record it instead of subjectively estimate it, it's not horrible really.

HQ2 rate would be about 3% for this. If your HQ1 rate is 5%, you're not doing something right.

Its 5-7% per touch-up. Your HQ rate sounds about right given the fact that you are using touch-ups.

Honestly, I've found that for high rank synths its best to start with HQ materials and then not even worry about bolding during the synth, in an attempt to retain as much durability as possible for more touch-ups.

[Peregrine]

Its 5-7% per touch-up. Your HQ rate sounds about right given the fact that you are using touch-ups.

Honestly, I've found that for high rank synths its best to start with HQ materials and then not even worry about bolding during the synth, in an attempt to retain as much durability as possible for more touch-ups.

I figure if I haven't gotten my result by the third touchup, the odds of it happening by the 6th are slim to none, so I bold R50's as much as I can while retaining about 60 durability for touching. The sigmoidal curves are tightest at 50, 150, and 250inflection points it seems, so 80 is huge compared to 30 for chance of +1, 180 is huge compared to 130 in regard to +2, 280 is huge compared to 230 in regard to +3.

I'm not convinced touchup is a static reroll of the chances, so I don't save as much as i can.

[Sigmakan]

I figure if I haven't gotten my result by the third touchup, the odds of it happening by the 6th are slim to none, so I bold R50's as much as I can while retaining about 60 durability for touching. The sigmoidal curves are tightest at 50, 150, and 250inflection points it seems, so 80 is huge compared to 30 for chance of +1, 180 is huge compared to 130 in regard to +2, 280 is huge compared to 230 in regard to +3.

I'm not convinced touchup is a static reroll of the chances, so I don't save as much as i can.

That's interesting to hear. I've always believed that it is infact a static reroll. Would have to collect a lot of data to prove either way.

[Peregrine]

Yeah it's very tough to say. The math involved to rigorously prove it is also quite complex, because you see more first touchups than 6 touchups, AND you stop touching up if you get certain qualities given certain remainders, AND once you hit a certain result that result locks in. most people who would go about trying to prove it would miss major design flaws.

So players do a lot of things to confound the answer.

For high-quality, the need for 2 more bolds is piddlydink, so yeah get to the end asap, but if it's the difference between 85 quality and 100 dura or 107 quality and 65 dura, I'd go with the latter.