I like your numbers, but there is a caveat. If the failure rate of gate is 2%, then the probability of failing a specific 2 gates in a row in the future (e.g. the next 2) is the 0.04% However, if we ask what's the probability of failing 2 gates in a row, the answer is 2% because it doesn't matter when the first failure occurs. After that first failure, the probability of failing the next gate is still 2%, assuming the samples are independent.
Statically speaking, failing to gate twice in a row was more than likely to probably happen to someone eventually. You’re equally as less likely to never witness it yourself but there is always a a chance you’re just cursed with really bad luck, as well.
While you are technically correct, practically speaking, it's meaningless. If you gate and it works, you don't gate again. You made it. You're there. You only cast the second gate if the first one failed. So, the odds of gate failing twice in a row is (practically speaking) 0.04%. Now, that's assuming the base failure rate is 2%. I think that's the part some people aren't buying. I don't use gate often enough to have a solid opinion, but it wouldn't surprise me if the failure rate was higher than that.
If it's a direct copy of the spell, why is the refresh so much longer? It takes less time to MEM the spell and cast it than to use the AA. The AA has a MUCH higher fail rate <and> a s4it delay to recast. I just never bother with the AA hotkey even anymore. I assume it's goinf to fail at least once, so it's faster to just mem the spell. AA "convenience" What a crap mechanic and crap excuse not to fix it. Level 120 and cannot cast a level 5 spell successfully. what drivel.
The Alteration skill of your PC was maybe to low. 2% or 2.77% are not set percentages I think and might be just the values for PCs above lvl 85. 2% vs 2.77% does have the same ratio (0.72) like level 86.6 vs level 120. So at lower PC levels it should be more likely to fail gate even with maxed Alteration.
I agree that it is 2% per event. 0.04% is the mathematical sum for two following up events. I do not see a caveat in that. It is more about the point of view.
I agree that it's about perspective and that the probability of consecutive gate failures is 0.04%. The point I was trying to make is that about 2% of gate failures will be followed by another failure. I think this more closely represents the scenario of a person getting 2 failures in a row because they're likely only considering consecutive gate casts where the first one fails and not where the first one succeeds. The above also goes along with what Tantanka said that you only cast a second gate when the first one fails. Time separation of gate casts doesn't change the probabilities. However, needing to cast a second gate when the first fails makes it easier to focus on the failures and forget about the successes.
