What is your hypothesis
You will need one or two hundred enhancers to show anything statistically significant
Based on my data though, each slot is indepdendent of each other.
I know money is of course an object but this is incredibly hard to test without being able to sink a few hundred enhancers. You're going to need to hunt a significant amount under each condition (a set amount) to be able to really say definitively if it matters. When you have more enhancers on, AN enhancer (any enhancer in the set) will break seemingly far more often because each slot can potentially break every shot.
Unfortunately, enhancers cost an arm and a leg.
According to MA enhancers on UL guns should last 1600 shots. Mine don't.
If you are buying them from auction, some people have the reputation of using their enhancers X numbers of times and then selling them on auction. That could affect your experience.
CO
never thought about that, but it does make you think twice before you pick them up from auction
Because I'm procrastinating on real work...
Because I'm procrastinating on real work...
So, one thing you could do determine how significant your data will be depending on the number of enhancers you use up is to run what is called a monte carlo simulation (there might be a easier analytical way to to do this but I know this method and I am not as good with my theory )
Anyways, here we assume chance to break an enhancer per use is simply 1/uses_enh_expected.
We can determine how many total uses we will expect to get out of the number of enhancers using a random number generator, then average over the number of enhancers. If we do this many times, we get a distribution that we can generate a standard deviation from, which tells us, if we ran our tests x times, that ~68% of the time, our number would fall within plus or minus the standard deviation.
Below are plots of my simulations (200 iterations in each)
Expected Break Rate: 1600 uses per enh, number of enhancers = 10, 50, 100
Expected Break Rate: 3200 uses per enh, number of enhancers = 10, 50, 100
As you can see, even with 100 enhancers, your stdev is just under 10% of the expected break rate.
I believe also, you can extrapolate the N you would need to achieve a smaller stdev by taking the sqrt of the ratio of Ns (sqrt(N0/N), and multiplying by the stdev of the N you know. For example, if you want a stdev of 3% of break rate, you would need 3% = 10%*sqrt(100/N), and this would actually require an N of ~1000. N = 200 should give a stdev of ~6-7%.
Edit: I realize the scaling of my histogram bins are really wrong, my apologies. I'll try to fix that when I have time, result is still correct, just the N appear to be artificially smaller at the peaks compared to each other.
Zho
Staph it!
So if we were to run with just 100 enhancers, it should still fall somewhere around what that chart shows for 100 enhancers? Though it would be a real pita to figure out how many uses an enhancer lasts for if you have them filled in for every tier...
though if you lump them all into one total and then multiply each use by # of slots?
Way too much to read but it looks nice. You are making one mistake and all of this is for not. Randomness, the enhancer can break at anytime because it is random. You just can not get valid data for random events. Probabilities but nothing solid.
Also I would if the thought about getting used enhancers is right. Just thinking out loud here but I would think it would take a lot of code and some REAL programming to keep track of the 1000s or 10s of thousands of enhancers rather than the player. For all we know when a player gets a new to him even if it has been used, enhancer it may just reset to the player so it is like new. BTW how would you someone know that one is selling used enhancers ????? If I were I would not tell anyone and it not like you really can see what they look like.
Updated images for more clarity
If the original poster's theory is to be tested, they would have to run one experiment with only Tier 1 enhancers run for at least N=100 (200 to be safe), and determine the average break rate.
They would then have to run the same, but with Tier 1 and Tier 2 enhancers, and run for at least 100-200 enhancers in EACH slot, and determine average break rate, ideally for both slots.
They can then attribute an uncertainty to their averages, which we can say is ~10% for N=100 enhancers. If the break rate averages are significantly different (much larger than the stdev) than you have something interesting, otherwise the results would not show that there is a different break rate for using multiple enhancers.
They can then attribute an uncertainty to their averages, which we can say is ~10% for N=100 enhancers. If the break rate averages are significantly different (much larger than the stdev) than you have something interesting, otherwise the results would not show that there is a different break rate for using multiple enhancers.
Since all slots are checked per use and all slots share the use, it is obvious you have an increased break rate per use.
Otherwise, you would exponentially increase the durability of each individual enhancer by simply filling more slots.
I think that is what the original poster is saying, that more slots filled equals a faster break rate per enhancer, not just more enhancers broken...
I was just thinking, how about this.
10 open slots, fill each slot with one enhancer then test. In theory they should all break around the same time, around 1600 shots. However some will break sooner and others later so, in theory, for everything to level out you should get very close to 16000 shots per 10 enhancers ( 10X16). That could be a very revealing test.
Here's the thing, I have a weapon with 7 open slots and when I hunt a large mob I want all the slots filled and what I don't want is one slot to last 4800 shots and the others to break early so I have to keep replacing them and have one slot that lasts the whole hunt. If you know what I mean, I want all slots filled all the time without having to replace one or two or three slots all the time.
The reason MA don't do this is cos MA know people would TT them at 1599 shots
The solution is to have all slots with at least 100 enhancers each. That's how the pros do it.
I guess I don't understand what you are saying??? What does MA have to do with how many enhancers we put on a weapon. I am sorry but what you are saying makes no sense to. Just a BTW I don't think there is a exact number of shots per enhancer, I know that I have got many more than 1600 on some enhancers and much less than others. MA said you would get 1600 shot on UL guns but not how you would achieve that end. And I still not convinced that the count is by enhancer but more by player as I stated above.