[TERA PC & Console] En Masse is closing, but TERA lives on! We will continue to support TERA PC (NA) and TERA Console until service is transferred. Stay tuned for more information.
[TERA Console] The Grotto of Lost Souls update (v85) is now live! Read the patch notes here: https://bit.ly/TERACon_v85

[TERA PC] The 64-bit update (v97) is now live. Check out all the changes delivered on August 11 here: https://bit.ly/tera64_patchnotes
[TERA PC & CONSOLE] Summerfest Part 2: The Beach Bash is on from August 11 until September 1! Participate in event activities to earn tokens redeemable for costumes, consumables, mounts, and more! Details: https://bit.ly/tera_sf20

New Gear Cost.

13»

Comments

  • StitchedSoulStitchedSoul ✭✭✭✭
    @Arwen zyrk? Thos old green cra/p? I did iod myself as priest and its ~10+12 quests an hour. No time? Then tera isnt for you I guess.
  • LYC14LYC14 ✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    biboy24 wrote: »
    so let ask EME or Anyone here. is it Really 60% success rate if you fail 3 out of 4 tries? somethings wrong with Tera's math LOL

    Actually there could be some merit to this statement. However, you forgot that there is an extra 3% chance to succeed every time you fail an enchantment.

    Let me attempt to shed some light on this statement. Disregarding this extra % chance, each enchantment attempt is independent of each other, i.e. each enchantment attempt do not affect the success rate of another such attempt. Hence, you can use the multiplicative rule here to calculate the % chance of only succeeding on the 4th try: 0.40*0.37*0.34*0.69 = 0.0347208 = 3.47% chance:

    0.40 - chance of failing on 1st attempt
    0.37 - chance of failing on 2nd attempt
    0.34 - chance of failing on 3rd attempt
    0.69 - chance of succeeding on the 4th attempt

    By conducting a hypothesis testing at say a significance level of 0.05, and checking for the % chance of only succeeding at the 4th attempt, the % probability is 3.47%, which is lower than the 5% significance level. Hence, there could be a possibility that the success rate of this enchantment attempt is not 60% as stated. (There is also a possibility that you are just very unlucky.)
  • LYC14LYC14 ✭✭✭
    @biboy24

    You should also include the total amount of item exp needed to maximize the enchantment success rate for each tier of equipment.
  • biboy24biboy24 ✭✭
    edited October 2017
    Thanks guys
  • biboy24biboy24 ✭✭
    edited October 2017
    CorviRei wrote: »
    biboy24 wrote: »
    so let ask EME or Anyone here. is it Really 60% success rate if you fail 3 out of 4 tries? somethings wrong with Tera's math LOL

    I don't think you understand math, specifically probabilities..

    (0.60)*(0.63)*(0.66)*(0.69) = 0.1721

    I'm not sure what you just calculated...

    The chance of him failing three times with a base 60% success rate is (0.40)*(0.37)*(0.34) = 0.05 or 5%. So yes, while it's very low likelihood that you will fail 3 out of 3 tries, there is still a 5% chance that you will.

    Failing 4 out of 4 tries: (0.40)*(0.37)*(0.34)*(0.31) = 0.0156 or 1.56%. The complement of this would a 98.44% chance that you will succeed in one of the four tries. However, each try in of itself is an independent event, and you will not enjoy better than 60% base chance (+ however much % failure correction) per attempt.
    Borsuc wrote: »
    Xithan wrote: »
    I don't think you understand math, specifically probabilities..

    (0.60)*(0.63)*(0.66)*(0.69) = 0.1721

    Cassandra is correct. You dont understand math. Each time you hit "enchant" you have a 60% chance to succeed. That 60% chance is reset each time. Its not a cumulative chance.
    "You don't understand math" while both of you are completely wrong about it. Classic.

    FYI, you've calculated the chance to enchant 4 times in a row with 60%, 63%, 66% and 69% probability on each respectively, which makes no sense. To calculate the chance to fail 3 times in a row:

    (1-0.6)*(1-0.63)*(1-0.66)

    Which is 5% and is not as small as you may think. 5% means 1 out of 20 people will experience this. If TERA has 2000 players that means 100 players will experience 3 failures in a row.

    Thank you.
  • LYC14 wrote: »
    biboy24 wrote: »
    so let ask EME or Anyone here. is it Really 60% success rate if you fail 3 out of 4 tries? somethings wrong with Tera's math LOL

    Actually there could be some merit to this statement. However, you forgot that there is an extra 3% chance to succeed every time you fail an enchantment.

    Let me attempt to shed some light on this statement. Disregarding this extra % chance, each enchantment attempt is independent of each other, i.e. each enchantment attempt do not affect the success rate of another such attempt. Hence, you can use the multiplicative rule here to calculate the % chance of only succeeding on the 4th try: 0.40*0.37*0.34*0.69 = 0.0347208 = 3.47% chance:

    0.40 - chance of failing on 1st attempt
    0.37 - chance of failing on 2nd attempt
    0.34 - chance of failing on 3rd attempt
    0.69 - chance of succeeding on the 4th attempt

    By conducting a hypothesis testing at say a significance level of 0.05, and checking for the % chance of only succeeding at the 4th attempt, the % probability is 3.47%, which is lower than the 5% significance level. Hence, there could be a possibility that the success rate of this enchantment attempt is not 60% as stated. (There is also a possibility that you are just very unlucky.)

    What in the...

    your 3.47% is not a p-value, it's the actual likelihood of succeeding on the 4th and only 4th try, so not only is that percentage useless because what you really want to know is the likelihood of an event occurring within 4 tries (not just on the fourth), but it's not even something that you can deem significant or not significant based on your desired alpha cutoff of 0.05. Again, it's not a p-value.

    ???????
  • LYC14LYC14 ✭✭✭
    CorviRei wrote: »
    LYC14 wrote: »
    biboy24 wrote: »
    so let ask EME or Anyone here. is it Really 60% success rate if you fail 3 out of 4 tries? somethings wrong with Tera's math LOL

    Actually there could be some merit to this statement. However, you forgot that there is an extra 3% chance to succeed every time you fail an enchantment.

    Let me attempt to shed some light on this statement. Disregarding this extra % chance, each enchantment attempt is independent of each other, i.e. each enchantment attempt do not affect the success rate of another such attempt. Hence, you can use the multiplicative rule here to calculate the % chance of only succeeding on the 4th try: 0.40*0.37*0.34*0.69 = 0.0347208 = 3.47% chance:

    0.40 - chance of failing on 1st attempt
    0.37 - chance of failing on 2nd attempt
    0.34 - chance of failing on 3rd attempt
    0.69 - chance of succeeding on the 4th attempt

    By conducting a hypothesis testing at say a significance level of 0.05, and checking for the % chance of only succeeding at the 4th attempt, the % probability is 3.47%, which is lower than the 5% significance level. Hence, there could be a possibility that the success rate of this enchantment attempt is not 60% as stated. (There is also a possibility that you are just very unlucky.)

    What in the...

    your 3.47% is not a p-value, it's the actual likelihood of succeeding on the 4th and only 4th try, so not only is that percentage useless because what you really want to know is the likelihood of an event occurring within 4 tries (not just on the fourth), but it's not even something that you can deem significant or not significant based on your desired alpha cutoff of 0.05. Again, it's not a p-value.

    ???????

    1. I agree that I have made a terrible mistake calculating the p-value, while I disagree on how you want to calculate the p-value. p-value should have been the probability of an event and its more extreme cases of occurring, which in this case is the summation of the probabilties of succeeding on the 4th attempt and beyond, up to 15 attempts (since the enchantment chance is 100% at the 15th attempt), and not either the probability of succeeding only on the 4th attempt, nor the probability of succeeding at the 1st to 4th attempt. Hence, I have recalculated the p-value, which gives 0.05032 = 5.032%, which is nearly equal to the alpha-value. Thus, it is debatable but it seems that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the enchantment chance is not 60%.

    2. I disagree with your point of me making up a random alpha-value. If you had conducted a simple Google search or read some textbooks on statistics, you will see that the most common alpha value used is 0.05, because it is a good balance between Type 1 error (when one incorrectly rejects the null hypothesis, in this case, when one concludes that the enchantment chance is not 60%, while in actual fact, it is) and Type 2 error (when one fails to reject the null hypothesis, in this case, when one concludes that the enchantment chance is 60%, while in actual fact, it is not). Hence, I did not conjour up the alpha-value by myself, but yes, other alpha-values like 0.1 and 0.01 have been used also in special circumstances.
  • CornishRex wrote: »
    My priest is stormcry yes but I solo mid tiers (aka teraliths, others aren't worth mentioning) with twistshard gunner and brawler in under 20 sec so I think you're just doing things wrong? Idk how bad ninjas have it but I don't think it's that bad.
    You should always use the equivalent of everful nostrum or w.e the elite version is called.

    Well Ninja isn't that strong imho. I'd like to think I'm a decent Ninja as my DPS is usually 1st or 2nd (never 3rd) in IMS. The problem is that Ninja needs Slaying in order to outdps a warrior who doesn't have slaying. So far the highest Ninja DPS (In all of TERA) I've seen is only 3M/s with Slaying. Gunner and Brawler are much stronger than Ninja and require less buttons pressed when soloing BAMs. Even though I'm not very skilled with Gunner or Brawler I can manage a nice 30-40 secs with +0 Twistshard gear and Bellum accessories on them.

    Stormcry on a priest to solo mid-tier BAMs is a bit overkill and is on a whole new level compared to Twistshard or Frostmetal. I think OP isn't doing that bad considering their gear.
  • LYC14 wrote: »
    CorviRei wrote: »
    LYC14 wrote: »
    biboy24 wrote: »
    so let ask EME or Anyone here. is it Really 60% success rate if you fail 3 out of 4 tries? somethings wrong with Tera's math LOL

    Actually there could be some merit to this statement. However, you forgot that there is an extra 3% chance to succeed every time you fail an enchantment.

    Let me attempt to shed some light on this statement. Disregarding this extra % chance, each enchantment attempt is independent of each other, i.e. each enchantment attempt do not affect the success rate of another such attempt. Hence, you can use the multiplicative rule here to calculate the % chance of only succeeding on the 4th try: 0.40*0.37*0.34*0.69 = 0.0347208 = 3.47% chance:

    0.40 - chance of failing on 1st attempt
    0.37 - chance of failing on 2nd attempt
    0.34 - chance of failing on 3rd attempt
    0.69 - chance of succeeding on the 4th attempt

    By conducting a hypothesis testing at say a significance level of 0.05, and checking for the % chance of only succeeding at the 4th attempt, the % probability is 3.47%, which is lower than the 5% significance level. Hence, there could be a possibility that the success rate of this enchantment attempt is not 60% as stated. (There is also a possibility that you are just very unlucky.)

    What in the...

    your 3.47% is not a p-value, it's the actual likelihood of succeeding on the 4th and only 4th try, so not only is that percentage useless because what you really want to know is the likelihood of an event occurring within 4 tries (not just on the fourth), but it's not even something that you can deem significant or not significant based on your desired alpha cutoff of 0.05. Again, it's not a p-value.

    ???????

    1. I agree that I have made a terrible mistake calculating the p-value, while I disagree on how you want to calculate the p-value. p-value should have been the probability of an event and its more extreme cases of occurring, which in this case is the summation of the probabilties of succeeding on the 4th attempt and beyond, up to 15 attempts (since the enchantment chance is 100% at the 15th attempt), and not either the probability of succeeding only on the 4th attempt, nor the probability of succeeding at the 1st to 4th attempt. Hence, I have recalculated the p-value, which gives 0.05032 = 5.032%, which is nearly equal to the alpha-value. Thus, it is debatable but it seems that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the enchantment chance is not 60%.

    2. I disagree with your point of me making up a random alpha-value. If you had conducted a simple Google search or read some textbooks on statistics, you will see that the most common alpha value used is 0.05, because it is a good balance between Type 1 error (when one incorrectly rejects the null hypothesis, in this case, when one concludes that the enchantment chance is not 60%, while in actual fact, it is) and Type 2 error (when one fails to reject the null hypothesis, in this case, when one concludes that the enchantment chance is 60%, while in actual fact, it is not). Hence, I did not conjour up the alpha-value by myself, but yes, other alpha-values like 0.1 and 0.01 have been used also in special circumstances.

    I never said you made up your alpha. Yes 0.05 is used ubiquitously across many fields and areas of research and statistics, that's fine. What you are misunderstanding is when a p-value is to be used to make conclusions about a hypothesis-based test.

    I flip a coin, the probability of heads is 0.50, which is more than 0.05, so it is significant. Do you see the problem here? Significance is a property of a comparison, and does not describe a standalone event. Using significance to describe this is meaningless: The probability of heads is 0.50, hence it is significant, but so is tails, because it's also 0.50. There is no comparison here. The same can be said about tossing a six-sided die. Each number has a 0.167 chance of showing up, does that mean they're significant? What if it was a 50 sided die? Does that mean they are not significant? You don't use significance to describe these events, it's meaningless.

    Instead if you were comparing two different dice, and maybe one of them was unfair, that's when you can use significance. Over a sufficiently large n, you simulate enough rolls to obtain a distribution of tosses and now are faced with the question if one die is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the other, that's where you use the p-value. This is where you calculate a test statistic (could be z or t or whatever distribution or assumptions you make). The test statistic CORRESPONDS to a p-value based on the distribution, (e.g. z = +/- 1.96 corresponds to a p of 0.05 for a two-tailed test), and then based on whether or not that p-value is more or less than your alpha, you can then accept/reject the null.

    Regardless of if your calculation was correct or incorrect for his probability of success on enchanting a weapon in x number of tries, using significance or hypothesis testing is meaningless. You've already calculated precisely his chance of succeeding. That 3.47% or 5.03% is a discrete measurement of his likelihood of success, you don't need to further qualify that number as significant or not, the answer is already there. The only time you need significance to describe something is if you were going to compare something, like if one weapon had a 30% chance of succeeding while another weapon had a 50% chance. After simulating enchanting both weapons x number of times, is there a significant difference in the number of tries needed to succeed? Only in this situation can you formulate a testable hypothesis.
  • PixelatorPixelator ✭✭✭✭
    CornishRex wrote: »
    CornishRex wrote: »
    My priest is stormcry yes but I solo mid tiers (aka teraliths, others aren't worth mentioning) with twistshard gunner and brawler in under 20 sec so I think you're just doing things wrong? Idk how bad ninjas have it but I don't think it's that bad.
    You should always use the equivalent of everful nostrum or w.e the elite version is called.

    Well Ninja isn't that strong imho. I'd like to think I'm a decent Ninja as my DPS is usually 1st or 2nd (never 3rd) in IMS. The problem is that Ninja needs Slaying in order to outdps a warrior who doesn't have slaying. So far the highest Ninja DPS (In all of TERA) I've seen is only 3M/s with Slaying. Gunner and Brawler are much stronger than Ninja and require less buttons pressed when soloing BAMs. Even though I'm not very skilled with Gunner or Brawler I can manage a nice 30-40 secs with +0 Twistshard gear and Bellum accessories on them.

    Stormcry on a priest to solo mid-tier BAMs is a bit overkill and is on a whole new level compared to Twistshard or Frostmetal. I think OP isn't doing that bad considering their gear.

    Eh, I'm doing pretty much the same when it comes to damage on my twist mystic so I don't think stormcry makes that much of a difference cause it's a healer weapon, not a dps one, I'd have to look at the stats cause I'm pulling things out of my [filtered] rn.
    And I know ninjas are last in the dps list due to the lack of talents but they should still be doing better than a priest.
    Healers deal 300% damage to IoD bams.
  • FoolishTruthsFoolishTruths ✭✭
    edited October 2017
    CornishRex wrote: »
    Eh, I'm doing pretty much the same when it comes to damage on my twist mystic so I don't think stormcry makes that much of a difference cause it's a healer weapon, not a dps one, I'd have to look at the stats cause I'm pulling things out of my [filtered] rn.
    And I know ninjas are last in the dps list due to the lack of talents but they should still be doing better than a priest.
    After getting my twisthard weapon to +5 (everything else is +0) and changing from Energetic II to Keen II etching on wep and glove, I can kill mid-tier BAMs in 20-30 secs with a 1 second record on my Ninja. With Energetic II I manage around 28-40 secs. I'd say it's definitely the etching. My Slayer, brawler, gunner, valk, zerker, reaper, etc all get around this time with Pumped II etchings (Cept zerker kills 3x faster with slaying).
    CornishRex wrote: »
    Yes, I know, they still shouldnt compete with proper dps and they don't. My slayer kills faster, my gunner does, my brawler does. And my priest is stormcry with dps rolls and dps crystals and glyphs while the rest aren't equipped that well. A twist mystic MIGHT outdps a twist ninja but I doubt it. Priest hell no, they're weaker in terms of dps.
    I don't think my Mystic can outdps my ninja but it does come close to the kill time.
  • Pumpedd wrote: »
    Arwen wrote: »
    Being a priest this is the worst nightmare ever. I was lucky enough to find a couple of nice ppl on the past two days to do IoD with me wich made me gain a considerable amount of golden talents which otherwise i wouldn't have done alone, but usually everyone would find an excuse to not party for Iod and i totally undertand why.
    Why would anyone spend double the amount of time to kill bams, when they can just solo fast and move on to do something else? If I were a dps i would do the same probably. Having to kill double the amount of bams is just stupid. And as priest, killing the ones that pay the most it takes hours.
    Whoever thought and planned this patch probably never mained a priest, most probably hates healers (and in a special way the priest) otherwise I can't explain why they didn't came up with some kind of buff for us :/ .

    if you're cute ill run you through IoD everyday

    ROFL
Sign In or Register to comment.