04/20/2013 11:08 AMPosted by Nameless@INJEKT... I think there are multiple ways to skin this particular cat. I'm having problems following yours, so I will proceed with the way I would put together combinations and see if we come up with similar results. Again, this will take me a short while to lay this stuff out in a spreadsheet so that is easy to understand (for me anyway). But assuming that your calculations are correct, we have to take into account that all you have done so far is to determine the odds of rolling the desired affix, and not yet accounted for the quality of roll. Mandlebarb was actually quite conservative in his estimates of top-half rolls as being desirable -- I'd want to go top 1/4 TBH, because half-way decent rolls on a trifecta may not represent a significant upgrade over a well rolled bifecta (as an example). So when you take into account the roll quality, I think that the scaling factor actually gets worse.

yes, when you take into account roll quality the scaling value does get worse. you are correct sir. BUT, that effect is just going to apply itself as a coeffecient against the scaling values i calculated. i used the values in the spreadsheet that dont account for roll quality so we'd have to apply the same coeffecient to the scaling value i calculated from the spreadsheet as well. this means that both our values are going to increase but stay in the same proportions. it doesn't have any effect on the argument. with your goal of 0.25, both of our scaling values are given coeffecients of 0.25^3/0.25^4=1/0.25=4. i used the case from going from 3 to 4 affixes but you can see by the math that going up by one desirable affix will always add a quality scaling coeffecient equal to 1/0.25=4.

either way, your particular goals calculated, nor the roll quality expectations matter. the point of the original post directed at you was to simply state that the set width of desirable crafts is waaay to wide due to subjectiveness to use anyone's personal goals/expectations as reference/approximation/evidence/whatever. my counter example was meant to prove just that.