Probably due to randomness. I have seen SW20% literally this morning. This recipe seems to be in the low-frequency pool, so things like that are not entirely unexpected.And no, I didn't miscount SW20% as 15%. I double-checked all of them. Of course, this could be due to randomness (I already didn't get UUU for 2 months once), but is there any chance that probabilities from SW20% had been moved to SW15% (making it high-frequency) ? Especially, does anyone still get SW20% ?
|0||5 x 1|
|0||10 x 1|
|1||15 x 1||15|
|1||20 x 1||20|
|2||25 x 1||12.5|
|2||33 x 1||16.5|
|4||50 x 1||12.5|
|6||100 x 1||16.67|
Ha, and what do you know? We have just crossed about 3200 datapoints combined, and this looks exactly as I thoughtIf this is indeed accurate, at about 3000 datapoints we should see complete separation of these two pools (e.g. basically no overlap)
So far, they said exactly nothing here:See what they have to say.
So far, they said exactly nothing here:
And had a very insightful response on Beta (/s):
Perhaps you will have better luck. Communication is clearly not a big priority for this game.
I didn't get 'responsive' 'answers' or 'fixes' from that post at all, lol! When I read it, my first thought was 'canned response'.on Beta they have to be more responsive and give answers and fixes.
I think we're getting more info than most forums because our mods/CM are newer and not burnt out on us yet, lol!Plus the US forum is still in a state of flux from all the recent changes in moderators and management
Well, my remark on Beta response was sarcasm, in case it was not clear. While at least they did respond there, so I'll give them that, they gave a non-answer answer. I find that I dislike these even more than no answers. Sort of like when you hear "Your business is very important to us", you just know you won't get anything out of that phone call.That is just because on Beta they have to be more responsive and give answers and fixes.
Ha, and what do you know? We have just crossed about 3200 datapoints combined, and this looks exactly as I thought
Posted more details on the latest status here: https://minmaxgame.com/crafting-recipes-probabilities-analysis/
It's not, we already looked at that, there is no directional correlation between observation frequency and rarity. As an example, 100% coin rain has a rarity of 5 (highest), yet it is one of the most common recipes. It's current probability is at 1.87%, with less than 0.1% chance of it actually being less than 1.38%.If there would be a probability it should be based on "rarity" (those funky blue/yellow/purple borders")
This is actually easy to explain from implementation perspective. With probabilities, you can't just adjust one of them arbitrarily (as they all need to add up to 1). So it is actually much easier to come up with a pooled system, where you simply specify that recipes in pool 1 are, say, 2.5 time more frequent than recipes in pool 2, and all recipes within the same pool have the same probabilities. Then management of such setup is very simple - you just add/remove recipes as needed into the pools, and actual probabilities are automatically adjusted. So if they have something like that, it is indeed much easier just to add another duplicate recipe to the pool to increase its probability. Otherwise, you'd need to make yet another pool (or several), establish relationships between them etc. That's just more work.And even if that would be the case I would still be amazed, because if there is a system in place, then why did they even need to add twice the same recipe to the table to improve the odds? they could just as easily gave it a "different rarity" and change the odds for each rarity.
That would have been a lot cleaner and avoided the need for another script to avoid the same recipe to be aviable at the same time. (the double baseplace firefeniks issue the fixed on beta before it came to live)