Tradeskill success not matching wiki formula
 

According to the wiki, doing a combine of something after being the exact 'trivial' skill amount should succeed 66% of the time, but this was definitely not even close to the success rate I had when doing quite a lot of Heady Kiola combines. Other combines seemed to mirror this as well but I don't have as much data on those.

Over the course of probably 100 combines I observed about a 90-95% success rate at 46 skill, not 66%. I suppose I could have 1 in a million luck, but seems more likely that the wiki is just not correct. I never recall having only 66% chance when trivial in retail either.

Anyone know what's going on here?

tradeskills now adjusted to be timeline appropriate and all leveling exorbitantly expensive leaving only those who got in early profitable

I can't speak for the wiki, but I only remember it being 95% success rate once trivial.

95% is the correct figure for trivial combines

If the wiki is wrong, fix it! :)

Not sure where the 66% value is coming from? The equations I got from the wiki predict 95% success when skill >= trivial.

The wiki states:
MIN(SKILL - (.75*trivial) + 51.5, 95) -- this is for things w/ trivial higher than 68.

So, for Skill = 68, trivial = 68,
SKILL-(.75*trivial) + 51.5 = 68 - 51 + 51.5 = 68.5.
MIN(68.5,95) = 68.5 for a skill with a trvial of exactly 68. For skills with higher trivial values, the "trivial" percentage would be higher until it reaches 95.
It would actually take a skill with a trivial value of 174 to have a 95% success rate at the trivial value, according to this formula (x=(95-51.5)/.25 => x=174).

For Heady Kiola, the trivial is 46. Wiki states the formula for skill with trivials less than 68 as:
MIN(Skill - Trivial + 66, 95)

For Skill = 46, trivial = 46,
SKILL-Trivial + 66 would be 0+66 = 66.
MIN(66,95) = 66.

That all being said, I don't believe the given formulas are correct. I get about a 95% success on crafting when above trivial, although I have never analyzed the results systematically.

Roughly same conclusion I was having larper99. The formula was saying I should have 66% chance but I was having significantly higher with a fairly high sample size that should have ruled out random luck.

As for updating the wiki, that would assume I know the correct calculation. I don't. I just know that what's on there presently looks to be wrong.