Is this bugged? How could this fail twice in a row?!?

[Bolas]

Modified tailoring skill of 311 (297 + 5%). I'm making a combine that is supposedly trivial at 242. Failed twice in a row, salvaged one glossy drake hide each time. Is this combine bugged or am I just horribly (like 1 in 400) unlucky? I have salvage 3, I had gm tailor needle equipped in ammo slot, I have max stats (540 str/dex, 365 int/wis), don't have tailoring mastery aa's.

-Bolas

Grandmaster's Bloodpact Swatch
WT: 1.5 Size: SMALL
Class: NONE
Race: NONE
stackable

Tailoring Components: blood spike, glossy drake hide(3), large spool of adamantite thread
In: ogre sewing kit
Yield: 3
Also Returns: blood spike
On Failure Returns: blood spike
This combine may only be made by Ogres
Trivial at: 242

[GrimwoodCT]

RNG happens.

I recall failing 6 of 15 Artisan Seal final combines in one sitting (trivial at 16, mind you) with a skill of 200+. I am still picking pieces of a wireless mouse out of the wall.

[Wyvernwill]

Technically, both combines have a 5% chance to fail... so yeah, rough luck, but atleast you salvaged the expensive stuff.

[filobeto]

Technically, both combines have a 5% chance to fail... so yeah, rough luck, but atleast you salvaged the expensive stuff.

Salvaged one of the 3 expensive stuffs.

I only do these, one at a time.....and I still fail a fair amount of them at 336 modified with max aa's.

Sometimes I wonder if there is a max success on this combine. Or if I just notice the failure so much since it's an expensive failure (for a pre-combine)....

I'm hoping the latter.

[KyrosKrane]

Technically, both combines have a 5% chance to fail... so yeah, rough luck, but atleast you salvaged the expensive stuff.

Actually, the chance to fail would only be 4% each. It's not common that you'll fail two in a row, but most definitely possible. Blame the RNG, yell and cuss at it a bit, and demand that it make it up to you by giving you a success on a difficult combine. =)

[Grolyn]

Do worry when you managed to fail celestial essence twice in a row (or anything with trival 15 or no fail)

[Kahmon]

Actually, the chance to fail would only be 4% each. It's not common that you'll fail two in a row, but most definitely possible. Blame the RNG, yell and cuss at it a bit, and demand that it make it up to you by giving you a success on a difficult combine. =)

A few months ago Kyros asked me to make some elemental cams for him with my 300 skill tinkbot. At 282 trivial I pass the 95% chance of success, but 1 point in the run I failed 3 in a row. With a 1 in 20 chance to fail the chance to fail 2 in a row = 1 in 400. The chance to fail 3 in a row = 1 in 8000. What happened was certainly a rarity, but it does happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a succes cap on GM bars/swatches as well as the final armors since it has seemed to fail mroe often then it should for me as well. Either that it it just hurts more when it happens

[Qualan]

I still hurt from 2 failures on final AAAA combine in a row at 345 modified skill, without any salvage

[Angelsyn]

A few months ago Kyros asked me to make some elemental cams for him with my 300 skill tinkbot. At 282 trivial I pass the 95% chance of success, but 1 point in the run I failed 3 in a row. With a 1 in 20 chance to fail the chance to fail 2 in a row = 1 in 400. The chance to fail 3 in a row = 1 in 8000. What happened was certainly a rarity, but it does happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a succes cap on GM bars/swatches as well as the final armors since it has seemed to fail mroe often then it should for me as well. Either that it it just hurts more when it happens

Actually, true statisticians know that the chance to fail any number of combines in a row is always the same as the chance to fail one. The results of the previous combine have absolutely no effect on the results of the current combine.

So, the chance to fail once (for you) was 1 in 20. The chance to fail the second time was 1 in 20. The chance to fail the third time was 1 in 20. The odds of you failing 3 in a row are the exact same as the odds of you failing 3 randomly over the course of 10, 20 or 60 combines.

According to "the law of averages", each random result must be looked at individually... otherwise we suffer from a type of "observer effect", where we preceive events to be occuring that are not actually true.

Edit: All that being said, the RNG in Everquest is not a "true" random number generator. By definition, no computer can produce a truely random number. (In fact, according to many purists, nothing that exists is truely random.) While the results may seem random, they are actually based upon a very complex mathematical algorithim.

Thus, "streakiness"... or repeating serieses of very similar results... are actually very likely. The more complex the algorithim, the greater the time between "streaks"... but you can never get rid of them entirely.

[KyrosKrane]

While strictly speaking this is true, it's irrelevant on a practical level. For the purposes of EQ and any other day-to-day application, computers produce numbers that are "sufficiently random"; to the end user (in this case, the player), they're indistinguishable from truly random numbers. They may not be random in the strict mathematical sense, but for all practical purposes, they can be treated as random.

[tnexus]

I still hurt from 2 failures on final AAAA combine in a row at 345 modified skill, without any salvage

I think Qualan wins at losing for this one.

[tuis]

Jinxing myself, but my tinkerer has never failed the final AAAA combine and very few of the subs. What hurt was going so long w/o a skillup with a long no-fail streak...then I skilled up and promptly failed the next 2 combines. Grr.

As for cultural...3 attempts on GM legs...1: fail, 3/3 sheets salvaged, 2: fail, 2/3 sheets salvaged, 3: success. Thank you salvage.

[ColdHeart]

So, the chance to fail once (for you) was 1 in 20. The chance to fail the second time was 1 in 20. The chance to fail the third time was 1 in 20. The odds of you failing 3 in a row are the exact same as the odds of you failing 3 randomly over the course of 10, 20 or 60 combines.

Have to disagree slightly. Failing 3 trivial combines out of 10 is alot more unlikely than failing 3 trivial combines in 60.

Also the chances of "failing 3 combines in a row during 10 combines" is less than "failing 3 combines out of 10".

While each event is independent it doesn't change the chances of a particular order of events happening within a series of events.

[Ngreth Thergn]

Have to disagree slightly. Failing 3 trivial combines out of 10 is alot more unlikely than failing 3 trivial combines in 60.

Also the chances of "failing 3 combines in a row during 10 combines" is less than "failing 3 combines out of 10".

While each event is independent it doesn't change the chances of a particular order of events happening within a series of events.

just as long as we remember.

Failing two times in a row, or failing twice in a run of 10 has NO effect on the next roll.

[Twistagain]

Also the chances of "failing 3 combines in a row during 10 combines" is less than "failing 3 combines out of 10".

While this IS true, it is misleading. Failing a particular 3 in a row has the same chance as failing any other 3 at all. It's just that there are more "not-in-a-row" 3s than than there are "in-a-row" 3s.

In the 3/10 example, there are exactly 8 ways to get 3 in-a-row. There are 112 3s that are not in-a-row. EACH of these occurances has the same chance, individually.

Similarly, very few people would play the lottery with 1-2-3-4-5-6, but you'd be just as (un)likely to win with those numbers as with any others.