Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

If you need assistance with a technical issue, this forum is for you. Specifically for help with Wasteland 2 itself. Spoilers are allowed, but spoiler warning tags are recommended.

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

Arkhaine
Novice
Posts: 29
Joined: October 23rd, 2015, 10:00 pm

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Arkhaine » October 30th, 2015, 1:07 am

vyvexthorne wrote:All I can figure is that these guys don't actually strip weapons.. they smash them with a hammer and hope that something good pops off.
Concurred, or they just bang em against the ground.

Acheron18
Initiate
Posts: 4
Joined: October 5th, 2014, 1:27 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Acheron18 » October 31st, 2015, 12:36 am

I've been experiencing the same thing which I stated in another post. For example it took me 53 attempts to get a 25% mod. The RNG in this game is consistently off and especially when it comes to stripping weapons.

I wish they would just eliminate the luck factor when stripping weapons and make it purely skill based. If your weapon smithing is high enough you can choose which mod to obtain.

Krampf
Initiate
Posts: 18
Joined: October 11th, 2014, 8:54 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Krampf » November 9th, 2015, 10:02 pm

I am running into the same problem. Before the DC, I was getting a mod about 1 out of 3 at the 50% level. Since the DC, I have tried stripping 58 weapons, and have only gotten 1 mod, and a huge pile of weapon fragments. I always liked this skill, but now it seems to be quite broken.

Krampf
Initiate
Posts: 18
Joined: October 11th, 2014, 8:54 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Krampf » November 9th, 2015, 10:05 pm

Acheron18 wrote:I wish they would just eliminate the luck factor when stripping weapons and make it purely skill based. If your weapon smithing is high enough you can choose which mod to obtain.
An excellent idea, or at least let you choose which mod you wanted to try for, with a percentage chance of success.

belsirk
Novice
Posts: 29
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 7:04 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by belsirk » November 12th, 2015, 2:51 pm

Krampf wrote:I am running into the same problem. Before the DC, I was getting a mod about 1 out of 3 at the 50% level. Since the DC, I have tried stripping 58 weapons, and have only gotten 1 mod, and a huge pile of weapon fragments. I always liked this skill, but now it seems to be quite broken.
Another identical story from my part.

Drestlin
Novice
Posts: 35
Joined: April 9th, 2012, 5:48 pm

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Drestlin » November 24th, 2015, 8:23 am

Will this be addressed?
I got to the second part of the game and i basically can't get a mod.
I don't even have deconstructor, it worked better when i had it at low levels.

User avatar
DiceMaster
Initiate
Posts: 7
Joined: October 23rd, 2015, 4:07 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by DiceMaster » November 29th, 2015, 11:57 pm

Stripped about 30 weapons but got only broken parts, no mods.
It really needs to be fixed.

tonurics
Explorer
Posts: 404
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 5:32 pm

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by tonurics » November 30th, 2015, 5:20 pm

The WL2 RNG isn't something I worked on. But I discussed it at length with the programmer who wrote it last year. [Cryptography is a hobby of mine; so I generally jump at any chance to have a conversation about entropy, randomness, stochasticity, number generators, etc.]

The RNG in WL2 is good; in fact, the reason you might feel something is off is because it's "too good". Humans are generally very bad at understanding true randomness (our brains are hardwired to find patterns). As such, for balancing: many games use weak RNGs and lie about the "real" percentages to prevent the players from feeling cheated (no one writes in to complain about positive bias). We didn't do that with WL2, in keeping it "old school" (and as hardcore boardgame geeks): we gave you a RNG that is functionally equivalent to an unbiased slot machine. :ugeek:

Want more information on stochasticity? Check out the A Very Lucky Wind episode of RadioLab (the interesting bit starts at 09:00). ;)

Or read some of these links:
There are different ways to tell the fake and real randomness apart, but the most obvious is to look for runs of straight heads, or straight tails. If one of the lists has a run of five heads or tails in a row, you can be pretty sure that's the real coin. In a list of 30 coin flips you're reasonably likely to get a run of five.
...
As humans, when we come across random clusters we naturally superimpose a pattern. We instinctively project an order on the chaos. It's part of our psychological make-up. For example, when the iPod first came out and people started to use the shuffle feature, which plays songs in a random order, many people complained that it didn't work. They said that too often songs from the same album, or the same artist, came up one after another. Yet that's what randomness does - it creates counter-intuitively dense clusters.

DailyMail
Gambler's fallacy is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).

Simpson's paradox is a paradox in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. It is sometimes given the impersonal title reversal paradox or amalgamation paradox.

And just for fun:

The Monty Hall problem is a brain teaser, in the form of a probability puzzle, loosely based on the American television game show Let's Make a Deal and named after its original host, Monty Hall. Which even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept it's counterintuitive proof.
This account is dormant. I won't be responding to threads, quotes or private massages.

macksting
Explorer
Posts: 457
Joined: May 24th, 2012, 5:09 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by macksting » November 30th, 2015, 7:51 pm

I guess I'll take your word for it for now, Tonurics, but is there a way we could get a dev to run a series of tests on weapon engineering? I'd trust that data more than "it's all in your head," and also more than my own gut.

tonurics
Explorer
Posts: 404
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 5:32 pm

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by tonurics » November 30th, 2015, 10:52 pm

I'm afraid, we generally ignore posts about the RNG now (even though I like talking about it). ;) It's been covered at length:

2014-09-08 RNG in this game...
2014-09-20 Are the Chance to Hit numbers accurate?
2014-09-21 Weapon jams EVERY SINGLE ROUND
2014-09-24 fix the %s for skills
2014-09-26 For Those Who Think Jamming is Rigged
2014-10-02 Why did inXile implement such an amateurish RNG
2015-02-28 Report of bogus chances shown for actions in Wasteland 2
2015-10-17 Please fix the RNG!!!
[etc. etc.]

Humorously: last year an effort was made to prove the RNG was bad, the source code was decompiled and inspected by the RPG Codex community. You can read their report here: RPGCodex: People Bitching About Jamming
This account is dormant. I won't be responding to threads, quotes or private massages.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 893
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by kilobug » December 1st, 2015, 12:35 am

Hum, I don't think people in this thread complain that the RNG in general is broken (for hit/miss, jamming, critical hits, luck effects, ...) but only that the "stripping weapon" percentages are incorrect (the bug wouldn't be in the RNG itself, but in the code calling/using the RNG result for stripping weapons).

From my own experience it did seem broken (giving broken parts most of the time even with maxed out skill), but I've to admit my sample is low (as I commented earlier, low samples aren't very meaningful).

Maybe I should try to do a test with like 100 of stripping and noting the results, 100 should start being significant data.

macksting
Explorer
Posts: 457
Joined: May 24th, 2012, 5:09 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by macksting » December 1st, 2015, 1:04 am

Indeed. Whereas I trust my experience with the RNG in almost any other regard, weapon stripping is really weird. Jamming and skills haven't really been an issue for me, but not a single one of those threads you listed relates to the matter at hand.

I know it's a lot to ask, but... please? Just to put us at ease on this specific matter?

User avatar
Ryoandr
Novice
Posts: 26
Joined: April 19th, 2012, 12:14 pm

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Ryoandr » December 1st, 2015, 1:49 am

"Weaponstripping skill" should be renamed to "Make a fortune in Arizona skill"

User avatar
Gruftlord
Explorer
Posts: 453
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 2:43 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by Gruftlord » December 1st, 2015, 1:57 am

It may well be that the rng is correct, but using the wrong numbers, like putting a decimal 0.5 where a percentage 50 should be in a formula. It happens, Fallout 4 has the same issue with a sniper head shot perk. Or the formula takes weapon quality into account in the wrong way. The game may well have the best rng algorythm ever, doesn't mean it isn't prone to human error in its application. So please, defend the rng. We believe you. But someone have a look at the implementing lines of code, too while you are at it.
Last edited by Gruftlord on December 1st, 2015, 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DiceMaster
Initiate
Posts: 7
Joined: October 23rd, 2015, 4:07 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by DiceMaster » December 1st, 2015, 4:00 am

I carried out a test.

Filled my inventory with 128 revolvers.
http://i.imgur.com/hN73Dj7.jpg

It is 50/50 chance to receive a scope.
http://i.imgur.com/1CnY7WZ.jpg

After stripping all the revolvers I got just 28 scopes.
http://i.imgur.com/RfQzRBn.jpg
Last edited by DiceMaster on December 1st, 2015, 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 893
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by kilobug » December 1st, 2015, 5:03 am

The odd of getting exactly P scope out of N tries, with p=0.5, is (0.5)^N * N! / (P! * (N-P)!), so if you run that Python code :

Code: Select all

import math
def odd_np(n,p): 
    return (0.5)**n * math.factorial(n) / (math.factorial(p) * math.factorial(n-p))
print sum([ odd_np(128, p) for p in range(40) ])
You end up with.. p = 5.8*10^-6 (aka, 0.00058%) of getting less than 40 scopes on 128 tries.

So there definitely is a problem.

SnakePot
Novice
Posts: 33
Joined: October 20th, 2015, 9:26 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by SnakePot » December 1st, 2015, 8:33 am

tonurics wrote: The RNG in WL2 is good; in fact, the reason you might feel something is off is because it's "too good". Humans are generally very bad at understanding true randomness (our brains are hardwired to find patterns). As such, for balancing: many games use weak RNGs and lie about the "real" percentages to prevent the players from feeling cheated (no one writes in to complain about positive bias). We didn't do that with WL2, in keeping it "old school" (and as hardcore boardgame geeks): we gave you a RNG that is functionally equivalent to an unbiased slot machine. :ugeek:
Then nothing stops you from showing us a roll. Such a simple thing but could allow to catch some bugs that would otherwise be ignored because of "Well, there's 0.000000000000001% chance for this to happen, you were just very unlucky" reasoning.

Drakensang games do this and i had no problem with their randomness.
Pillars of Eternity also do this and i haven't seen any complaints concerning randomness.

Gruftlord wrote:It may well be that the rng is correct, but using the wrong numbers, like putting a decimal 0.5 where a percentage 50 should be in a formula. It happens, Fallout 4 has the same issue with a sniper head shot perk. Or the formula takes weapon quality into account in the wrong way. The game may well have the best rng algorythm ever, doesn't mean it isn't prone to human error in its application. So please, defend the rng. We believe you. But someone have a look at the implementing lines of code, too while you are at it.
Of course. There's an RNG and there's how it's used.

In 99.9% cases when user writes "RNG" he doesn't actually mean RNG. People just want to sound smart.

It's sad.
"In other words, just 'cause there is potential to play munchkin mode doesn't mean that you have to. ;) And we always think a game is more fun when there are a few things that are more or less powerful [...]" - sear

User avatar
DiceMaster
Initiate
Posts: 7
Joined: October 23rd, 2015, 4:07 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by DiceMaster » December 1st, 2015, 8:42 am

I repeated the test.
Now it 30 scopes out of 128 revolvers with 50% chance.
Looks like something really wrong here.

SnakePot
Novice
Posts: 33
Joined: October 20th, 2015, 9:26 am

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by SnakePot » December 1st, 2015, 9:06 am

DiceMaster wrote:I carried out a test.

Filled my inventory with 128 revolvers.
http://i.imgur.com/hN73Dj7.jpg

It is 50/50 chance to receive a scope.
http://i.imgur.com/1CnY7WZ.jpg

After stripping all the revolvers I got just 28 scopes.
http://i.imgur.com/RfQzRBn.jpg
And that's even with Disparnumerophobia's lucky numbers!
"In other words, just 'cause there is potential to play munchkin mode doesn't mean that you have to. ;) And we always think a game is more fun when there are a few things that are more or less powerful [...]" - sear

tonurics
Explorer
Posts: 404
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 5:32 pm

Re: Are stripping weapon percentages incorrect?

Post by tonurics » December 1st, 2015, 11:47 am

I created a ticket to have the support team double check what's going on with the displayed numbers. I'll let you know if I hear anything.
SnakePot wrote:Then nothing stops you from showing us a roll. Such a simple thing but could allow to catch some bugs that would otherwise be ignored because of "Well, there's 0.000000000000001% chance for this to happen, you were just very unlucky" reasoning.
I wanted to add this last year (togglable in the settings), but most people thought it would change the flavour of the game too much. :lol:
This account is dormant. I won't be responding to threads, quotes or private massages.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests