Guild Wars 2

So I am slowly gearing up to begin grinding for my legendary. Threw about 10 sets of mats in the mystic toilet and received no clovers. I read that theres a 33% chance of getting a clover. Out of at least 10, probably more, I have yet to see a clover.

Is this the norm?

Make sure you use the 1 clover recipe and not the 10 clover one.

I would not say that 0/10 is normal, tho. Make sure it’s also the right recipe. Are you receiving t6 mats in lieu of mystic clovers?

10x recipe…for me, 6 of my 10 attempts were success. Some folks say use the 1x recipe. I only had 172 shards on me at the time, and had a few left over after I got my 77.

This is just my experience, of course.

After I posted this, I got 4 back to back using the 1x recipe. is 10x worth it?

And yes, Ive been getting t6 stuff.

10x is more of a gamble, statistically speaking, because you’re dumping more resources into a single roll of the dice instead of spreading them out across several dice rolls.

Sort of like trying to gamble $10 on a single dice roll vs gambling on ten dice rolls with $1 per roll. You’re gambling on a 1-in-6 chance, better to make sure you walk away with something than to throw it all into the pot in one go and possibly end up bust.

10x recipe 4 success over 7 atempt

When I was working on my legendary, I got 70 clovers from 15 tries with the 10x recipe.

It’s luck, some people will do better than the 33% and others worse.

10x is not more of a gamble, they use the same percentages. It might feel worse on a miss but statistically it is not different.

I plan to try to get all the Mystic Clovers I need in one go.

Going by statistics, that means I’m going to collect:

• 240+ Mystic Coins
• 240+ Globs of Ecto
• 240+ Obsidian Shards
• 47~50 Philosopher’s Stones

Better to go for the big haul. Then if I’m short a few, at least I’ll feel like I’m close; preferable to getting depressed over random streaks of bad luck anyway.

I’m using the 1 clover recipe only and got 12 clovers out of my 25 attempts so far. Must be lucky?

Well, I was thinking… I might be holding off on mystic clovers for a while. Maybe until the scavenger hunt is released or the prices of pre cursors ever drop… I just dont think I will ever afford 400+ gold for a precursor. Not after I need 100g for runestones alone, plus if I ever want to buy some of the mats. Too much. We’ll see.

cesmode.4257:

Well, I was thinking… I might be holding off on mystic clovers for a while. Maybe until the scavenger hunt is released or the prices of pre cursors ever drop… I just dont think I will ever afford 400+ gold for a precursor. Not after I need 100g for runestones alone, plus if I ever want to buy some of the mats. Too much. We’ll see.

What I’m doing is getting everything minus the precursor out of the way.

The 400g+ is silly, I agree. However, like you said, the scavenger hunt should be MUCH less expensive.

Vorch.2985:

What I’m doing is getting everything minus the precursor out of the way.

The 400g+ is silly, I agree. However, like you said, the scavenger hunt should be MUCH less expensive.

Where can I find information on this scavenger hunt? Do you have a link to a blog or a forum post?

Statistically, both the 10x and the 1x recipes have around a 33% chance of forging a clover.

In the LONG run. That doesn’t mean every third forge guarantees you a clover.

But if you were to try to forge 200 globs, that would be 200 1x attempts or 20 10x attempts.

You have a better chance of achieving the ‘average’ return after 200 tries versus 20 tries.

The 10x recipe will more than likely either result in success well above the normal return rate or well below. That is why people say it is more of a gamble.

emikochan.8504:

10x is not more of a gamble, they use the same percentages. It might feel worse on a miss but statistically it is not different.

This is a gross misunderstanding of statistics, one that often throws off people who don’t understand the difference between a theoretical probability and a practical one.

Statistics are arranged such that everything assumes an infinite sample size and a perfect “throw”. That is, if you flip a coin infinite times, you will get heads on 50% of those infinite throws, and the coin is perfectly and fairly weighted. But in the real world (and also game world), your time, samples, and resources are finite, and the “throws” are not always balanced. No coin in the real world, for example, is perfectly crafted with an equal distribution of weight such that they always produce 50% heads, they’re always slightly weighted. And it’s even worse with computer, as they are not even capable of producing truly random numbers (a computer is designed to give an output based on a given input, it cannot create an output from nothing). Instead, it produces “pseudo-random” numbers using a variety of inputs, such as the system clock. It is close but not exact, and is more prone to a variety of problems, such as a failure to produce a proper distribution of all values across a set. Considering that we’re talking about a video game’s ability to produce random numbers, it’s only fair to point out that it’s only pseudo-random to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator#Problems_with_deterministic_generators

Secondly, your math doesn’t take into account the fact that, in random systems, the tendency of a number to match the intended probability grows stronger. I’ll use this calculator to verify my results, you are welcome to check them if you doubt my figures below: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Scenario: A player has 250 of the necessary resources to go clover gambling. So they have the option to spend it all in 25 bursts of 10 each, or in 250 bursts of 1 each. Let’s say we want to get at least 80 clovers from these resources. That’s just a bit less than a 0.33 success rate per item, so surely by your logic, there’s no question that both sets of data should get those 80 clovers because the probability is 33%. However, the true probability of getting what you want will vary based on the number of trials, and an item’s tendency to adhere to its probability isn’t as great when the sample size is smaller. Ergo….

Probability that, in 25 trials (of 10 resources each), we get 8 or more successes: 0.6543
Probability that, in 250 trials (of 1 resource each), we get 80 or more successes: 0.6163

Notice that the probability of obtaining those 80 clovers is higher if you spend those resources one at a time, rather than ten at once. This is because with a smaller sample size (in the form of a lower number of trials), each “miss” has more weight and value behind it than it does when the number of trials is much larger.

So let’s increase our odds and try for 50 clovers instead. This is well below the probability of 33%, so surely both should produce a 99% or higher probability, right?

Probability that, in 25 trials (of 10 resources each), we get 5 or more successes: 0.9504
Probability that, in 250 trials (of 1 resource each), we get 50 or more successes: 0.9999

Nope. Because, again, a single “miss” in a sample of 25 is harder to recover from than a single “miss” in a sample of 250. It’s easy to bounce back when you have more opportunities for success…it’s not as easy when there are fewer of them.

So it’s completely legitimate to say that investing one resource is more likely to produce the desired results than dumping ten of a resource. Greater sample size means a better adherence to the true probability of 33%. I know some people swear by it, and that’s their business. But as a mathematician, I would never recommend to anyone that they waste their resources going for 10 at a time when the odds are actually more against them by doing so.

I had about 40% return on the 10x recipe, so I prob had a run of very good luck.
Even when you fail the 10x, you still get big stack the T6 mats and on occasion 20 lodestones, so I still maintain it is worth it if you can afford the investment of items into it.

Afaik, there is no diff in return of 1x Vs 10x, it is just the gamble Vs result.