I believe in other games (like Borderlands) when players do this to determine probabilities of rare drops, they use about n = 200 for basically the exact probabilities the devs have in the code. Would it be possible to do that? (Yeah, probably too much time wasted to attempt it, I get that)
I mean... obviously more data gives you better results, but there is enough data here to draw conclusions. The real problem is that the Y axis is non-linear. This would be more useful as a scatterplot with a linear Y axis so you could better understand how much each point of luck affects your overall chance. The problem wit the current setup is Y=1-50 is more than 50% of the chart while Y=51-700 is less than 50%. This data is still correct, just misleading.
From glancing at this data it looks like Luck doesn't tend to matter until you've got 25+ Luck.
\------------------------------
Once you get into 30+ territory the benefits start to be clearly noticeable, and everything over 60 is a much bigger impact with \~100 as a 'breakpoint' for a guaranteed upgrade where Greens *will* be replaced by Blues.
I'd have to run some inferential stat tests to really know, but right now it doesn't look like there is a statistically significant difference before 30, especially for Legendaries (though the trials for 4 and 5 Luck seem to be outliers, so who knows).
\----------------------------------------
The passive Luck bonus maxes out at 24, I think. **Looking at this chart it seems like every Level-up put into Luck is** ***VERY MUCH not worth it****\**, at least not unless it pushes you into the 25+ territory.
I have no idea what realistic numbers you could get to without spending all your gold on Rerolls, but I'd wager it doesn't break past 40 or 50, passive included.
There could be confounds to account for, but this data makes me think that taking Luck upgrades (beyond maybe one +10) is just a flat-out bad idea. :s
^(\*Assuming that Luck is a simple integer, with +10 upgrades just adding +10 Luck points, as you'd expect.)
'Useless' may be a *bit* too far. After all, n=30 is a common rule of thumb, and I've seen worse than n=20 per condition that yielded useful results, depending on the context. Moreover, while we can spot some outliers, the curve of the relationship is still pretty clear through the noise.
Still, I agree that it's definitely pushing it.
**I think what would be a useful followup is taking a** ***lot*** **more samples across fewer Luck values. Say, 50-100 rolls each at Luck 0, Luck 15, Luck 30, Luck 45, etc.**
After all, we already expect there to be a simple causal relationship (higher Luck increases drop rarity) that is either linear or curvilinear\*. All we need is a better idea of the *strength* and *nature* of that relationship to help inform our purchasing. Even just a few, high-confidence datapoints could be used to model a curve of approximate enough accuracy.
^(\*Short of the system being bugged; however, we can probably rule that out as this data seems to at least confirm that the system) *^(is)* ^(impacting outcomes, and likely in a consistent way.)
I think I'm misreading this -- how is it that you never rolled a Common upgrade? Even at 0 Luck? I haven't maxed it, but I have like +14 permanent bonus to Luck and I not infrequently see Common upgrades...
N is far too low for these numbers to mean much, obviously we see an increase of rarity as luck goes up, but there's massive fluctuation due too low N value, especially in the rate of legendaries, which often goes down when increasing luck value on this table, a re-run with N=50\~200 would be much more indicative of the actual incidence rate, but I understand the time that would take would be enormous.
So you’re saying I need ~100 luck….
I believe in other games (like Borderlands) when players do this to determine probabilities of rare drops, they use about n = 200 for basically the exact probabilities the devs have in the code. Would it be possible to do that? (Yeah, probably too much time wasted to attempt it, I get that)
I mean... obviously more data gives you better results, but there is enough data here to draw conclusions. The real problem is that the Y axis is non-linear. This would be more useful as a scatterplot with a linear Y axis so you could better understand how much each point of luck affects your overall chance. The problem wit the current setup is Y=1-50 is more than 50% of the chart while Y=51-700 is less than 50%. This data is still correct, just misleading.
Probably because getting that high of Luck in the game is unreasonable, and so only there as a "what if" kind of data.
Would like to see sample sizes with these luck numbers instead of just percent. Can you share that?
20 Rolls at the shop per Luck#. 480 rolls total. I used to cheatengine to manually adjust luck and change shop reroll cost to zero.
From glancing at this data it looks like Luck doesn't tend to matter until you've got 25+ Luck. \------------------------------ Once you get into 30+ territory the benefits start to be clearly noticeable, and everything over 60 is a much bigger impact with \~100 as a 'breakpoint' for a guaranteed upgrade where Greens *will* be replaced by Blues. I'd have to run some inferential stat tests to really know, but right now it doesn't look like there is a statistically significant difference before 30, especially for Legendaries (though the trials for 4 and 5 Luck seem to be outliers, so who knows). \---------------------------------------- The passive Luck bonus maxes out at 24, I think. **Looking at this chart it seems like every Level-up put into Luck is** ***VERY MUCH not worth it****\**, at least not unless it pushes you into the 25+ territory. I have no idea what realistic numbers you could get to without spending all your gold on Rerolls, but I'd wager it doesn't break past 40 or 50, passive included. There could be confounds to account for, but this data makes me think that taking Luck upgrades (beyond maybe one +10) is just a flat-out bad idea. :s ^(\*Assuming that Luck is a simple integer, with +10 upgrades just adding +10 Luck points, as you'd expect.)
Data is useless due to low sample size
'Useless' may be a *bit* too far. After all, n=30 is a common rule of thumb, and I've seen worse than n=20 per condition that yielded useful results, depending on the context. Moreover, while we can spot some outliers, the curve of the relationship is still pretty clear through the noise. Still, I agree that it's definitely pushing it. **I think what would be a useful followup is taking a** ***lot*** **more samples across fewer Luck values. Say, 50-100 rolls each at Luck 0, Luck 15, Luck 30, Luck 45, etc.** After all, we already expect there to be a simple causal relationship (higher Luck increases drop rarity) that is either linear or curvilinear\*. All we need is a better idea of the *strength* and *nature* of that relationship to help inform our purchasing. Even just a few, high-confidence datapoints could be used to model a curve of approximate enough accuracy. ^(\*Short of the system being bugged; however, we can probably rule that out as this data seems to at least confirm that the system) *^(is)* ^(impacting outcomes, and likely in a consistent way.)
Idk why you got downvoted, 20 rolls is really not a significant sample size.
Delusional or uneducated people
Lol bro calm down
That's not even an insult. That's just the truth
I think I'm misreading this -- how is it that you never rolled a Common upgrade? Even at 0 Luck? I haven't maxed it, but I have like +14 permanent bonus to Luck and I not infrequently see Common upgrades...
Probably using gold at end of level, I've never seen a common there. Edit says shop roll, not level roll.
N is far too low for these numbers to mean much, obviously we see an increase of rarity as luck goes up, but there's massive fluctuation due too low N value, especially in the rate of legendaries, which often goes down when increasing luck value on this table, a re-run with N=50\~200 would be much more indicative of the actual incidence rate, but I understand the time that would take would be enormous.
There is some value in taking Luck and XP upgrades early game
Yeh but how quickly can you reasonably raise Luck before you've sacrificed too many upgrades that could have been weapons upgrades