Is the percentage chance of lighting a fire literal?

[curtmantle]

Is the percentage chance of lighting a fire absolute or do other factors affect the chances? 

I recently started my first interloper run and having found some matches tried to light my first fire and was given a 60% chance. I failed four times and I believe there's only a 2.5% chance of happening - which of course is possible so I sucked it up.

I died pretty quickly on that run and on my second run I found matches and a book so this time I had an 80% chance of success - and failed four times again which has only a 0.16% chance of happening.

While I acknowledge that both these occurrences are possible it is immensely unlikely back-to-back so it made me wonder if the percentage is just a baseline and other factors affect the final chance of lighting a fire and these are hidden from the player?

[ManicManiac]

21 minutes ago, curtmantle said:

I died pretty quickly on that run and on my second run I found matches and a book so this time I had an 80% chance of success - and failed four times again which has only a 0.16% chance of happening.

Just remember it's not cumulative... each attempt has that 20% failure chance you alluded to.
So yes, it is possible to fail many times in a row, just because each time we try lighting that fire... it's a new RNG roll, and sometimes the RNG can be cruel.

[SpanishMoss]

@ManicManiacis right

Previous attempts to start a fire do not affect the chance on the next time, thus a 20% chance to fail is still 20% the next attempt

[conanjaguar]

I just chalk it all up to Murphy’s Law .

[curtmantle]

I know it's not cumulative but my calculations are correct.

If you have a 60% chance of success, you have a 40% chance of failure. If you fail, the chances of you failing a second time in succession are 40% of 40% which is 16%. This is not a cumulative calculation - the second attempt still has a 60% chance but I am calculating the probability of multiple successive independent failures.

To calculate the probability of successive events its the percentage to the power of number of tries. So your chances of lighting two fires in succession is 0.6 (60%) squared or 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 or 36%. The chance of failing to light a fire in two tries would be the complement of success: 0.4 (40%) squared or 0.4 * 0.4 which is 0.16 or 16%. To calculate four successive failures it would be 0.4 to the power 4 which is 0.025 which is 2.5% or 40 to 1 in gambling odds.

Of course this is possible and I am more than happy to accept that I was in those occasions unlucky but my back-to-back bad luck made me wonder if there was an extra mechanic in fire lighting I was not aware of. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by curtmantle

[hozz1235]

15 hours ago, curtmantle said:

I know it's not cumulative but my calculations are correct.

If you have a 60% chance of success, you have a 40% chance of failure. If you fail, the chances of you failing a second time in succession are 40% of 40% which is 16%. This is not a cumulative calculation - the second attempt still has a 60% chance but I am calculating the probability of multiple successive independent failures.

To calculate the probability of successive events its the percentage to the power of number of tries. So your chances of lighting two fires in succession is 0.6 (60%) squared or 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 or 36%. The chance of failing to light a fire in two tries would be the complement of success: 0.4 (40%) squared or 0.4 * 0.4 which is 0.16 or 16%. To calculate four successive failures it would be 0.4 to the power 4 which is 0.025 which is 2.5% or 40 to 1 in gambling odds.

Of course this is possible and I am more than happy to accept that I was in those occasions unlucky but my back-to-back bad luck made me wonder if there was an extra mechanic in fire lighting I was not aware of. 

Right you are.  

https://sciencing.com/calculate-cumulative-probability-5212997.html

[ManicManiac]

@curtmantle

15 hours ago, curtmantle said:

If you have a 60% chance of success, you have a 40% chance of failure. If you fail, the chances of you failing a second time in succession are 40% of 40% which is 16%. This is not a cumulative calculation - the second attempt still has a 60% chance but I am calculating the probability of multiple successive independent failures.

...which is then a calculation of the "cumulative probability"... which misunderstands the idea the base percentage for fire starting is the probability for each individual attempt.  I don't think anyone said your calculations of the cumulative probably that you experienced is wrong.

To better illustrate... let me put it like this:
I'm attempting to start the fire... and I have an 80% base chance to succeed (which means a 20% chance of failure).

Attempt one : 20% of failure
Attempt two: 20% of failure
Attempt three: 20% of failure
Attempt four: 20% of failure
Etcetera... etcetera... etcetera...

Regardless of how small the probability is that we would fail "X" number of times in a row... it's still possible to roll a 20 or less many times (it even possible to roll 20 or less every time - granted that's very very very unlikely, but mathematically is a possibility).

It doesn't matter what the actual cumulative percentage then becomes after 2, 3, or even 7000 attempts, because the probability of each roll maintains its base 20% failure rate.

To put it yet another way... each time we make an attempt we have a 20 percent chance of failure.  Doesn't matter how many times we failed already... it doesn't change the fact that the next time we try... it's still going be a brand new 20% of failure.

I don't mean to over-explain... but I'm just trying to help clarify that it doesn't matter how many attempts are made or what the chances are of failing several times in a row... that is not what the "base chance" variable is referring to. 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by ManicManiac

[hozz1235]

I think this can be summarized by:

• Each time you attempt to light a fire, you have a 40% chance of failure (given the original example)
• If you are interested in the question of, "What is the probability I will fail x times in a row?", that's when cumulative probability comes into play.

[curtmantle]

On 10/3/2023 at 2:33 PM, ManicManiac said:

@curtmantle

Regardless of how small the probability is that we would fail "X" number of times in a row... it's still possible to roll a 20 or less many times (it even possible to roll 20 or less every time - granted that's very very very unlikely, but mathematically is a possibility).

I know - I literally wrote that as the last point in both of my posts.

Here is the second one: 

Quote

Of course this is possible and I am more than happy to accept that I was in those occasions unlucky but my back-to-back bad luck made me wonder if there was an extra mechanic in fire lighting I was not aware of. 

I know how probability works - I write simulation software for a living.

To clarify the cumulative point - what I was describing is cumulative probability but your original response implied that you thought I believed one event impacted the next and you used cumulative to describe that (a cumulative effect) so I responded using the same term. I wasn't describing that, I was describing the odds of failing to light four fires in a row, independently and each with the same chance of success (cumulative probability).

My question was quite simple. I managed to achieve something statistically highly improbable twice in a row and it made me wonder if there are other things hidden from the player that affect the chances of lighting a fire. I now regret asking that question, whether due to misunderstanding or whatever and will just assume the answer is no but I appreciate you all taking the time to reply. All the best and happy surviving.
 

Edited October 4, 2023 by curtmantle

[acada]

I think you all forget the TLD constant in your equations. We all experienced it. It is like: Hmm the player has 80% of success chance. But he is low on health, freezing, thirsty, lets play him little and fail 5 times in a row. But of course I dont know if it is programed like that. It just feels this way.