Talk:Quality/Exact formula and numbers?/reply (4)
Alright, I wrote a Python script to do the math, and the result is the attached table.
One problem is that my numbers don't seem to exactly match the ones already on the wiki, and a randomly generated sample of 10,000 also seems to be slightly different... although I can't say if I'm doing that wrong, or this wrong.
Opinions on the colors, content, and accuracy? If you want to see the script, I'll find a way to share it.
| Skill level | Awful | Shoddy | Poor | Normal | Good | Superior | Excellent | Masterwork | Legendary | Avg. Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Incompetent | 65.96% | 23.18% | 8.87% | 1.79% | 0.19% | 0.01% | - | - | - | x0.49 |
| 2 Basic Awareness | 55.46% | 27.68% | 13.12% | 3.28% | 0.43% | 0.03% | - | - | - | x0.53 |
| 3 Basic Familiarity | 44.57% | 30.80% | 18.06% | 5.58% | 0.91% | 0.08% | - | - | - | x0.58 |
| 4 Amateur | 34.04% | 31.92% | 23.18% | 8.87% | 1.79% | 0.19% | 0.01% | - | - | x0.63 |
| 5 Strong Amateur | 24.66% | 30.80% | 27.68% | 13.12% | 3.28% | 0.43% | 0.03% | - | - | x0.68 |
| 6 Practitioner | 16.88% | 27.69% | 30.80% | 18.06% | 5.58% | 0.91% | 0.08% | - | - | x0.74 |
| 7 Skilled Practitioner | 10.87% | 23.18% | 31.92% | 23.18% | 8.87% | 1.79% | 0.19% | 0.01% | - | x0.81 |
| 8 Professional | 6.59% | 18.07% | 30.80% | 27.68% | 13.12% | 3.28% | 0.43% | 0.03% | - | x0.87 |
| 9 Skilled Professional | 3.75% | 13.13% | 27.69% | 30.80% | 18.06% | 5.58% | 0.91% | 0.08% | - | x0.94 |
| 10 Expert | 1.99% | 8.87% | 23.18% | 31.92% | 23.18% | 8.87% | 1.79% | 0.19% | 0.01% | x1.02 |
| 11 Strong Expert | 1.19% | 6.32% | 19.36% | 31.28% | 26.66% | 11.98% | 2.84% | 0.35% | 0.02% | x1.08 |
| 12 Very Strong Expert | 0.68% | 4.32% | 15.53% | 29.46% | 29.46% | 15.53% | 4.32% | 0.63% | 0.05% | x1.14 |
| 13 Master | 0.38% | 2.84% | 11.98% | 26.66% | 31.28% | 19.36% | 6.32% | 1.09% | 0.10% | x1.21 |
| 14 Strong Master | 0.20% | 1.79% | 8.87% | 23.18% | 31.92% | 23.18% | 8.87% | 1.79% | 0.20% | x1.29 |
| 15 Planet-Class Master | 0.12% | 1.20% | 6.78% | 20.13% | 31.51% | 26.00% | 11.32% | 2.60% | 0.33% | x1.36 |
| 16 System-Class Master | 0.07% | 0.79% | 5.05% | 17.05% | 30.32% | 28.44% | 14.07% | 3.67% | 0.54% | x1.43 |
| 17 Revered Master | 0.04% | 0.50% | 3.67% | 14.07% | 28.44% | 30.32% | 17.05% | 5.05% | 0.86% | x1.51 |
| 18 Visionary | 0.02% | 0.31% | 2.60% | 11.32% | 26.00% | 31.51% | 20.13% | 6.78% | 1.32% | x1.61 |
| 19 Legendary | 0.01% | 0.19% | 1.79% | 8.87% | 23.18% | 31.92% | 23.18% | 8.87% | 1.99% | x1.71 |
| 20 Godlike | - | 0.11% | 1.20% | 6.78% | 20.13% | 31.51% | 26.00% | 11.32% | 2.93% | x1.83 |
EDIT: I realized my PDF function was centered around the number I gave it, not beginning at it. I updated the table with figures that seem to almost exactly agree with WA, and I think that this is right.
Future work to be done is checking if, and when, it's optimal to recraft until a given quality is achieved in order to get more buck per material.
Anyway, these figures are depressing: It's almost impossible to make a profit with buy->craft->sell on higher difficulties, unless you've got max crafting skill, high social skill, craft high value/material items, and use materials bought at low or very low price... crazy.
```EDIT2```: Apparently, it's optimal to recraft until the most probable quality, and it gets a minor benefit of x0.02-x0.08. I pushed the table to the wiki page.