Shipwright Archive

Well put, Barb. All in all, though, this whole argument is moot. Even if Reverse Engineering with certain components, or while doing certain things, or at certain times increases your chances of finding a Firespray fragment, it's still random according to the definition of the word. Until you have a guaranteed 100%, if you do this you'll find a fragment every single time, method of Reverse Engineering, then you have to call it random, because anything short of a 1-in-1 occurance has a random probability of happening.

Can you guys drop it now, and argue about something worthwhile, rather than wasting time and bandwidth arguing over semantics?

---

Celedhros wrote:
Well put, Barb. All in all, though, this whole argument is moot. Even if Reverse Engineering with certain components, or while doing certain things, or at certain times increases your chances of finding a Firespray fragment, it's still random according to the definition of the word. Until you have a guaranteed 100%, if you do this you'll find a fragment every single time, method of Reverse Engineering, then you have to call it random, because anything short of a 1-in-1 occurance has a random probability of happening.

Can you guys drop it now, and argue about something worthwhile, rather than wasting time and bandwidth arguing over semantics?

---

QFE, and agree on the last point totally too. There is one and only one sure way to get more Firespray fragments: RE more loot. Period.

Message Edited by TalonKarrdeTN on 11-10-2004 01:55 PM

---

mkummer wrote:

---

Marzuk147 wrote:

All of your statements are based on coincidental occurances, and you have really no information to back any of it up, and it all sounds like pure garbage.

Here let me help you:

if x < .005 then firespray_schem = yes

Thats about all the devs have to do to code this using a random method. Are you honestly going to tell me, that with the amount of debugging devs have to do, that it is programmed to interact with what you have in your inventory, how much of it is there, how many specific parts you already have ect? I think not. Its highly Illogical.

---

I know that it is not hard to code, but who knows what the devs coded. The random thing is not working very random, it has to do with time or some other variables, know one knows which variables, but I would consider it as proved that if the variables are with you, you get better loot. I have heard this from friends and experienced self. You can have weeks with no loot and then a few hours with clothing attachments and other things, and then again silence. Maybe everyone is wrong, but this happens to a lot of ppl.

---

I agree, but I think it's unlikely to be anything intended by the devs, more likely a bug. I say that based on the frequency that they seem to add bugs to the code while changing things. Bugs in a random number generator are really hard to pin down without a math background.

---

Smerk wrote:
So you folks who are saying "don't bother, it's all random", well, don't bother saying it unless you have facts, 'cause the rest of us want to know. The correct answer to this is scientific method, not trying to force your opinion, which is apparently based on nothing but bad experiences with psychics and TV Sweepstakes.

My point with Einstein is that it's not dumb to look for patterns in chaos, it's just dumb to believe them without validation.

---

You're probably not going to get the evidence you're looking for. There's too many uncontrolled and unmeasurable variables, and nobody has the time to do a statistically signifcant number of experiments on all of the variables that have been mentioned in the initial post as things that increase your probability of finding schematic fragments. You'd have to do Homogenous Kuat vs. Homogenous Non-Kuat vs. Heterogenous mix of Kuat and other components. Inventory full of RE'd items vs. no RE'd items in inventory, while destroying each item as you make it. Previously RE'd schematic fragments in inventory vs. none in inventory vs. fragments in an equipped pack. Reverse Engineering just components of different levels to determine some sort of probability by number of attempts at a certain level and probability per component of a particular level used in RE attempts.

You'd have to do literally 1000s of reverse engineering attempts for each of those variables, producing dozens of schematic fragments to even begin to put together something like an accurate probability curve. It's just not going to happen. You're chasing ghosts.

I can verify, at least, that it is possible to produce a fragment from reverse engineering a non-kuat component. I've done it.

---

Celedhros wrote:

I can verify, at least, that it is possible to produce a fragment from reverse engineering a non-kuat component. I've done it.

---

Woo hoo! I've been one-starred! Proving my point, actually, that someone out there wants to brute force their view of the world on the rest of us, instead of presenting a thoughtful argument. Sounds like Thought Police to me.