Thread:ZDee/@comment-1264592-20130501155822/@comment-6042046-20130506174127

"It's better to record all outcome for luck challenges because in statistics the more data the better."

I'm saying that using either one of the Fortunate % or Unfortunate % formulas will tell people the answers to both.

For instance, you're presented with a luck challenge which states "a long shot...but you might win". You spend 3,000 actions and record both F & U results. There are 150 F results and 2,850 U results.

If you use the Fortunate % formula, you find an answer of 5% F. You subtract it from 100% and realize the U % is 95.

If you use the Unfortunate % formula instead, you get an answer of 95% U. Subtract it from 100% and you now know the F % is 5.

That particular luck challenge's description of "a long shot...but you might win" probably means 5% good luck. It's just reverse methodology. You'll discover both F and U %'s from using one formula. There's no need to do both. That's all I meant!

"Also, I don't think articles should have the number of tries next to the rare success chance because when it comes to actual articles I believe that only the information useful to most users should be displayed. If someone wants to examine the underlining calculations they would enter the Rare Success article where, hopefully, such data would be stored (or it'll have a link to the google spreadsheet)."

Yeah, that's better. It'd reduce the likelihood of simultaneous edits here (it's a terrible nuisance to try to Publish a page if someone else edited it while you were working in the Edit screen). We also wouldn't have to bother with updating both the wikia action page and the google document every time we wanted to add test results.