Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisteso
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.
|
People often say this sort of thing about the wiki, but you don't have to know what's right to say that something's wrong. For instance, I added the following to the Tradeskills page based on this thread:
Quote:
|
NOTE: This formula is suspect, and may not be correct for Project 1999. See [1].
|
Now of course, it'd be even better if someone could delete that and the incorrect formula, and put in a correct one, but my point is that even if all you do is add a "this seems wrong" note, you're still moving the wiki in the right direction.