@Stevevdl No one is saying the results are impossible, just so improbable as to indicate that there is something affecting the outcome beyond sheer randomness.
It is possible for you to roll a die 100 times and not get a single 1. It is fairly improbable for that to happen however.
It is exponentially rather less probable that you could roll 100 times and not get a single 1, and then roll 100 more times and not get a single 1.
But that is the point of randomness, their is no guarantee of what you want to happen to happen, in dealing with random numbers anything is possible no matter how improbable. The way you talk, if there was a 1% chance of learning, the roll is pointless because you have already decided you aren't going to get it and if you do something must be wrong because you shouldn't be able to roll 1%
You are also forgetting that when dealing with random numbers all previous rolls are immaterial to what you are going to roll next
I am not forgetting anything. I understand the concept of probability versus possibility. And I don't see any way you can twist what I said into what you paraphrased. smh....
@Stevevdl No one is saying the results are impossible, just so improbable as to indicate that there is something affecting the outcome beyond sheer randomness.
It is possible for you to roll a die 100 times and not get a single 1. It is fairly improbable for that to happen however.
It is exponentially rather less probable that you could roll 100 times and not get a single 1, and then roll 100 more times and not get a single 1.
And the issue I have is that once OP has had a fail, apparently that is improbable in the first place, because it is a 2% fail rate, and then apparently because OP has already failed once, the dice aren't allowed to roll over 98% again, because it is that improbable that it must be a bug in the program.
Also it is the sheer randomness that is affecting the outcome nothing else. Just because you don't get the result you expect because of randomness i.e. expecting to pass all rolls at 98%, because you are not taking into consideration that there is a 2% fail rate for each and every roll you make, it doesn't disappear just because it may of already come up as a fail so it can't roll it again
Point is, there is a 2% fail rate in OP's scenario, every time he rolls, and you don't know the outcome of the roll until it's rolled, therefore there is always a chance that you will fail, small chance, granted, but still a chance, what magical powers do you think there is around for the 2% fail rate to suddenly not count in the roll and all rolls miraculously turn into 100% because the 2% fail is so small as to not count
@Stevevdl - The odds of 3 failures in 14 attempts with a 98% success rate is less than 1% (~0.25% for 3 or more failures in 14 attempts). It's a simple binomial calculation.
Is it possible that @Alonso hit the 1-in-400 chance of 3 or more failures? Yes, of course. But, it's not unreasonable to raise the question of whether there is a problem with the how the spell success rates are handled. If others don't see a similar pattern, then he just got unlucky. But, if others do see a similar pattern, then maybe there is a problem.
Look at @kjeron's trials. They are consistent with a problem in how spell learning is handled for kitted bards.
The first two trials, where the success rate in INTMOD.2DA is set to 100%, cannot be explained by "sheer randomness". The odds of even 1 failure in 50 attempts with a 100% success rate is of course 0.00%.
In the 15% success rate trial, the odds of 0 success in 100 attempts is only ~0.0000087%. Not impossible, but highly improbable (1 in 11.4 million).
In the 30% success rate trial, the odds of 17 success in 100 attempts is only ~0.12% (0.22% chance of 17 or less successes). Not impossible, but again improbable (1 in 838).
Unless you're going to argue that by "sheer randomness" kjeron got two impossible results and two improbable results (one very improbable), I think it's evident that there is an issue.
@AstroBryGuy Thank you for clearing that up, I said at the beginning that if a 100% to learn gave a fail then there was a bug, but did not read kjerons post
Comments
Also it is the sheer randomness that is affecting the outcome nothing else. Just because you don't get the result you expect because of randomness i.e. expecting to pass all rolls at 98%, because you are not taking into consideration that there is a 2% fail rate for each and every roll you make, it doesn't disappear just because it may of already come up as a fail so it can't roll it again
Point is, there is a 2% fail rate in OP's scenario, every time he rolls, and you don't know the outcome of the roll until it's rolled, therefore there is always a chance that you will fail, small chance, granted, but still a chance, what magical powers do you think there is around for the 2% fail rate to suddenly not count in the roll and all rolls miraculously turn into 100% because the 2% fail is so small as to not count
Is it possible that @Alonso hit the 1-in-400 chance of 3 or more failures? Yes, of course. But, it's not unreasonable to raise the question of whether there is a problem with the how the spell success rates are handled. If others don't see a similar pattern, then he just got unlucky. But, if others do see a similar pattern, then maybe there is a problem.
Look at @kjeron's trials. They are consistent with a problem in how spell learning is handled for kitted bards. The first two trials, where the success rate in INTMOD.2DA is set to 100%, cannot be explained by "sheer randomness". The odds of even 1 failure in 50 attempts with a 100% success rate is of course 0.00%.
In the 15% success rate trial, the odds of 0 success in 100 attempts is only ~0.0000087%. Not impossible, but highly improbable (1 in 11.4 million).
In the 30% success rate trial, the odds of 17 success in 100 attempts is only ~0.12% (0.22% chance of 17 or less successes). Not impossible, but again improbable (1 in 838).
Unless you're going to argue that by "sheer randomness" kjeron got two impossible results and two improbable results (one very improbable), I think it's evident that there is an issue.