6-socket Orb of Fusing Community Log (done)

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

There is no bias simply because people stop. All trials are independent.

The real problem people are having here is that they assume that "links" are independent... they're not. They've simply assigned arbitrary probabilities to the various outcomes. They don't decided links one at a time. It's simply not predictable theoretically. You have to look at the data.

"

HellGauss wrote:

"

There is no bias simply because people stop. All trials are independent.

I agree. But there is a little bias due to the fact that maybe people are not posting results until they get a 6L, ore maybe there are some correlation between the number of trials to get 6L an the fact that player are reading and posting in this thread.

"

The real problem people are having here is that they assume that "links" are independent... they're not. They've simply assigned arbitrary probabilities to the various outcomes. They don't decided links one at a time. It's simply not predictable theoretically. You have to look at the data.

I disagree. I remark again that

1) In this thread we have info only on the three complementary events 6L ; 5L ; <5L. If we suppose that the prob of each of the 5 links are independent and equal to p=1/4, we get

a) P(6L)=1/1024=0.098 %
b) P(6L or 5L)=7/1024=0.684 %

which is in EXCELLENT agreement with final data available for pre 0.11, and i suppose that these prob are unchanged in 0.11 if we set Q=0%.

All we need to do is collect dat for various Q% and answer the question : "It is convenient to spend AS/BSW to increment the chances to get 5/6L?".

I think we should discuss of a new standard to collect data. I propose, for a report something like:

Item: ES-Chest
Tests:
10-1001X
10-1100X
05-0001X
05-0010X
-etc....

The example is for a 5S chest

First two characters is Q%, next five characters are links (On=1, off=0) in the order: Up, right, middle, left, bottom. The X is because a 5S has no bottom link. X are always at the end. ( A report for a Q=8% 3S shield is like 08-01XXX).

If POE community is in agreement, i will start a new thread ONLY to collect data (discussion can be continued here).

HG

"

Did you read my post? If your theory about 1/4 probablility of getting a link for each of the 5 links was true, then we would get 0 links on a 6S item 23,7% of the time, which we definately don't.

"

HellGauss wrote:

"

Did you read my post? If your theory about 1/4 probablility of getting a link for each of the 5 links was true, then we would get 0 links on a 6S item 23,7% of the time, which we definately don't.

Sorry, i was missing that post, you are right about 23.7% = 0.75^5. However to make you're conclusion you need data not available in this thread, which is the main criticism I made to the way data are being collected.

And, nevertheless, the calculated probability of 0.1% and 0.68% for 5L and 6L are right, so there is 'something' true in the theory.

I will start a new thread (only to collect data) once I get some more AS: I have a 4L-6S chest which i want to transform to a 5-6L, but i cannot risk to result in a downgrade (of course i neither have an eternal orb :) ).

"

we KNOW from the devs how the rolling of links works

"

HellGauss wrote:

Regarding 5L, you are counting 5+1, but also 4+2 and 3+3. You have to multiply by 2, not by 5 (the missing link must be either the first or the last). This is one of the reason for which i say that we need also other data.