Socket Chances Revealed!

OK

there is different picture on reddit

The most interesting thing about this is that the world didn't implode when this information was released. The game is still fun, and people are going on with their lives enjoying the game. The idea of withholding information like these probabilities is based on a fallacy that the game wouldn't be as fun if hard numbers were available.

All these numbers allow for is players to make informed choices. That's good.

I can find no reason that GGG wants to keep us in the dark about linking chances, or chances related to the Chance or Vaal Orbs. It's not fun. It keeps us from enjoying them, rather than the other way round.

"

Alea a écrit :

"

SunnyRay a écrit :

But once I'm sure that this is true, I will be sure simulation should be taken seriously no matter how exactly GGG excludes "same roll".

it just doesnt apply it on item and does another roll obviously, what else...

I still wait for you to prove this by giving us a link to evidence.
In the mean time, I will try to prove you wrong in the evening

"

TehHammer a écrit :

These numbers are quite accurate (as you'd expect in a simulation this deep). I threw it in a spreadsheet (here) for an easier way to see what's happening. One thing I did was eliminate rolls once an item has 6 sockets, since that's now impossible (it used to be possible and I've actually had this spreadsheet for ages).

Also, Chris posted these numbers in Feb of 2012. Nothing has changed to the base (non-quality) odds.

Thank you very much!

So, we all are reinventing the wheel both here and on Reddit :)

Actually, I still believe simulated 0,004489% might be more accurate than calculated 0,004529%, because calculation assumes that number of sockets distribution before using jeweller orb is based on "tickets" for 1-5 pool and independent from previous roll, which is true for the very first jeweller orb used on an item after drop, but not true for all the rest (subsequent rolls are depentent on preceding). I think, absolutely correct math should use some kind of series or recursive equation.

Not that the difference between two results is significant.

aldorus, isn't the Chris's post TehHammer gave a link to the citation you seek? Or are you looking for exact algorithm of preventing same roll?

"

syrioforel a écrit :

"

Malone a écrit :

it means 300 jewellers in average to get 6S ? weird, I think it was easier than that...

300 on average means most people get it in roughly <= 200.

WTF

"

Alea a écrit :

"

SunnyRay a écrit :

But once I'm sure that this is true, I will be sure simulation should be taken seriously no matter how exactly GGG excludes "same roll".

it just doesnt apply it on item and does another roll obviously, what else...

My "programming logic" suggests a different order of things: removing "tickets" for impossible roll before random draw.

It can also be applied, for example, to rolling 4th affix on an rare item which rolled 3 prefixes: exclude prefixes, then draw from a pool of suffixes only.

The outcome is the same as with your logic, this is why I wrote "no matter how exactly GGG excludes same roll". I didn't think of +-1 socket or anything like that, because I certainly agree that this is against any logic :)

"

Allspark501 a écrit :

Crafting = Gambling

Would it be not much better if the player could just pay a fixed amount of orbs for creating sockets/links on a item?

Yes it would, but...

Well, actually you can do that.
Never use any orbs, save them, and buy the 5/6L items that you want.
Crafting is a gamble, and with the majority of the Poe community being somewhat grumpy NEETs, the "lucky" factor has become a huge part of the game.

That's the hook, getting to the top in 1 click.
You can literally take one chance or fuse orb (value ~0.01 ex)
and turn a totally useless white item into a 6L unique, worth 50-100 ex.

That's the money shot, because you can't do that IRL.
Sure, there are lotteries but chances are a thousand times lower,
and there's no monster bashing included, yay for Poe.

Personally I hate the huge RNG role in this game, partly because I happen to be the most unlucky person on earth, and also because this game is too deep into gear check.
Not that many blue geared lvl 80s around, ever wondered why?
Aaw yiss, mothafuckin' gearcheck.

But more about this in another post coming up soon...

"

morbo a écrit :

I've never felt happiness of achievement when I got a 6S or 5L. Just relief it's finally fucking over...

This.

I agree that a set formula for creating 6-socket/links would destroy the economy (even more so)
but spending everything you've saved up and grinded for just to end up with a 2-socket chest is bullshit.

"

SassyBeard a écrit :

"

morbo a écrit :

I've never felt happiness of achievement when I got a 6S or 5L. Just relief it's finally fucking over...

This.

I agree that a set formula for creating 6-socket/links would destroy the economy (even more so)

Change is not synonymous with destruction. The economy would be changed by having crafting work as actual crafting instead of giving random results. It would not come remotely close to being destroyed.

"

Jennik a écrit :

"

SassyBeard a écrit :

"

morbo a écrit :

I've never felt happiness of achievement when I got a 6S or 5L. Just relief it's finally fucking over...

This.

I agree that a set formula for creating 6-socket/links would destroy the economy (even more so)

Change is not synonymous with destruction. The economy would be changed by having crafting work as actual crafting instead of giving random results. It would not come remotely close to being destroyed.

I feel like it would drastically reduce the value of jewelers, fusings, divines.
It might not, though. I'm no expert. (it would be nice to finally craft a 6-link)