Can anyone point me in the direction of a formula for working out the success rate of a combine? I noticed that EQ Traders has a calculator but that seems out of date as it only allows 3 digits for the prime stat.

I think thats as accurate as you are going to find. The base stat is only used to determine chance of skillup not success rate.

Here is the relevant part of the EQTC code: PHP: //run the base success formula if ($data['trivial'] < 68) { $success = $skill - $data['trivial'] + 66; } else { $success = ($skill-($data['trivial'] * 0.75)) + 51.5; } // If skill is 0, ignore tradeskill AA // if skill is greater, calculate the fail modifier to success, and increment success by that. if ($data['skill'] > 0) { $fail = 100-$success; $fail = $aa*$fail/100; $success += $fail; } //cap success if ($success < 5) $success = 5; if ($success > 95) $success = 95; //as skill gets greater than trivial, in steps of 40, reduce the chance to fail further. //this could probably be done formulaicly instead of conditionally if ($data['skill'] > $data['trivial']) { if (($data['skill']-$data['trivial']) >= 200) { $success = 100; } else if (($data['skill']-$data['trivial']) >= 160) { $success = 100 - ((100-$success)*(.20)); } else if (($data['skill']-$data['trivial']) >= 120) { $success = 100 - ((100-$success)*(.40)); } else if (($data['skill']-$data['trivial']) >= 80) { $success = 100 - ((100-$success)*(.60)); } else if (($data['skill']-$data['trivial']) >= 40) { $success = 100 - ((100-$success)*(.80)); } }

The above formula doesn't seem to be accurate for all tradeskills. I have done close to if not more than 1000 conflagrant charm/range slot combines, and the success rate is no where close to what that formula shows for pottery. I'd say the success rate with a skill of 367 (modified by trophy), is about 55--60%. I was doing 200-300 combines at a time using Draught of the Craftsman too. I've had better success rates (70-75% or so) doing 200+ combines at a time using a tradeskill such as Research , in which I have a lower level of skill. So, there is something hidden going on behind the scenes dependent on the tradeskill. I would not go by that formula at all.

well. #1, there are recipes in the game with an increased failure rate. Not confirming or denying it with this, but you can't automatically say that formula is wrong #2 Nope It is what is on EQTC. A dev 10 years ago said it was correct (I'm not aware of any changes to the success chance in those 10 years)

The formula listed above indicates that if our raw skill is more than 200 points over trivial that the success rate should be 100%. My baking skill is 304 (unmodified) and was attempting to make Cracked Reruga Meat, which has a trivial of 102. Despite my skill being 202 points over the trivial, I managed to fail one of my attempts. I would not imagine that Cracked Reruga Meat would have its max success rate tweaked downward as it would have to have been set at 99.x% to explain the preponderance of my other successes at it. My suspicion is that the max success rate calculation formula caps the skill at 300 rather than the actual max skill (if over 300). This could have been something put in there to prevent a modified skill of over 300 from affecting the calculation without anticipating that unmodified skills might exceed 300 some day. Is this intentional or is it possibly a bug? As reference, Kyro's thread on EQTraders discussing this back in 2005 is at http://mboards.eqtraders.com/eq/for...-faire-june-2005-write-up-plus-tanker-handout

Correct, the 100% success rate at 200+ over trivial only functions up to 300. Either 301-350 is not properly affecting all aspects of an increased success rate, or perhaps the never fail part has something put in there that only checks if trivial is 100 or less? But you definitely fail 201-250 trivial items at 350 skill. Ngreth said at one point that it should be working for those, but don't think he responded further in that thread when someone mentioned that it definitely doesn't work? Not enough juice to be worth the squeeze in this particular bug/feature I'm sure.