Wheeeeeeeelp, lesson learned.

[Saverem]

Just failed my second 4k gold garrison mission with 94% success chance (other one failed at 91% success chance). Guess next time I go for 3kg with 100% chance...

It's like they have a hidden bonus fail chance on gold missions or something. 70% success chance for gold missions is really 40%.

[Ssateneth]

rng is rng.

its not hard to buy some ability rerolls to get a better dispersal of ability counters, or to buy trait rerolls to get more treasure hunters with to complement your existing hunters with different ability counter combinations. I have something like 9 treasure hunters, including garona, the warlock you get in tanaan, and the cat with king of the jungle followers. If you dont already at least have garona with treasure hunter, you're doing it wrong

[DarkTZeratul]

6% and 9% are bigger failure rates than you think. It's essentially just the chance to roll a 1 on a d20 or a d10 respectively.

[Mixe]

I have also noticed this, if i really want something from a mission like rare missions / gold.
They fail ALOT more then normal missions, pretty stupid rng.
So basicly if i want something now i never send below 100%.

[klaps_05]

what are the requirements to get the big gold garrison missions? ive only done shipyard once around 3k. i have full garrison upgrades and stuff and 9 THs. do i just need to upgrade them all to 675 to get the big gold missions?

[Deleted]

The chance looks right on ships. On the regular table I'm not sure since there the chance seems like multiplied by every single follower used on the mission, making it lower (e.g. two 90%s make one 81%). But someone told me they did the statistical analysis and that weren't true so I'm not sure, unless they were bs'ing.

[IxilaFA]

I have also noticed this, if i really want something from a mission like rare missions / gold.
They fail ALOT more then normal missions, pretty stupid rng.
So basicly if i want something now i never send below 100%.

Confirmation bias. How many times do you succeed at 90% missions when you don't care about the result?

[Faethor]

If you dont already at least have garona with treasure hunter, you're doing it wrong

Well, apparently I've been doing it wrong for months. I rerolled that bitch over 60 times and not once did I get treasure hunter as on option on her. I gave up after that.
I do have 11 treasure hunters on that same character, though. Enough to do nearly every gold missions at 100%. About the only one I can't do is Green Fel. Can only match one of the 2 slots up with TH's. Sadly, it's all for naught. Even though my main is my most balanced with his followers, I still get less gold missions on him than any other character. This week he was less than HALF of what my other 6 alts made from missions. Most balanced, best set of counters, worst results. Go figure.

[Chromeshellking]

I as well noticed this on my char with blingtron vault max treasure finder traits, 95 percent chance to succeed. Still failed. I think they did put something into those missions to not always be a 100 percent even though being the value/rarity it is I feel that is a bit unfair.

[IxilaFA]

I as well noticed this on my char with blingtron vault max treasure finder traits, 95 percent chance to succeed. Still failed. I think they did put something into those missions to not always be a 100 percent even though being the value/rarity it is I feel that is a bit unfair.

No. They didnt. RNG is RNG.

[Nefarious Tea]

No. They didnt. RNG is RNG.

The Highmaul loot box missions were like that originally. If it wasn't 100% success, they failed. I no longer remember if it was a bug or intentional, but they changed it VERY quickly.

[IxilaFA]

The Highmaul loot box missions were like that originally. If it wasn't 100% success, they failed. I no longer remember if it was a bug or intentional, but they changed it VERY quickly.

Exactly. A bug. I don't think people realize how often something that only happens 10% of the time will actually occur. Theoretically if there are 5 million people playing this game and they all start a 90% mission, then 500k of them will fail it. That's the population of a large city.

[Wilderness]

I have also noticed this, if i really want something from a mission like rare missions / gold.
They fail ALOT more then normal missions, pretty stupid rng.
So basicly if i want something now i never send below 100%.

No, they don't.

[JemiS]

Confirmation bias. How many times do you succeed at 90% missions when you don't care about the result?

This is the correct answer.

A 95% chance is still 5% chance (1 in 20) to fail. And you're a lot more likely to notice and remember the success/failure of a high value mission relative to a low value mission.

Most people don't notice all the low-% missions that are low value that they succeed on, but they do notice the few high % high value missions they fail on. Doesn't mean there's some different coding for them, or the percent chance isn't really the percent chance.

[Deleted]

It's a severely flawed argument to assume the game doesn't have bugs, quirks or even legit hidden mechanics. For example it would be perfectly legit game design if the chance of a mission was per-follower, meaning in mathematics, the chance to fail would be based on the result of the multiplication of the chance to succeed of each follower (for instance on a labeled per-follower chance to succeed of 90%, you would not have a final chance to fail of 10% but a much bigger 1-0.9^3 = 27.1%!). I was told someone had done the statistical analysis and didn't find that to be true but I haven't seen the URL yet of that claim.

[Issalice]

I must have awesome luck or something. I’ve only failed twice on missions that are over 80%, and one of those was a gold mission with over a 90%. It’s just RNG based, yeah what happened was shitty but I really doubt there is any difference between gold missions and others.

[Deleted]

By the way, the assumption the the per-follower chance could have been a thing was based both on thoughts of people that understand probability but also on the graphical animation of Blizzard when you complete a mission. They show in succession the followers trying to succeed and you may see one succeeding, the next succeeding, but the final failing. That of course could have been nothing more than a show, but before a statistical analysis proved otherwise (if it did) it would be a perfectly legit assumption that the labelled chance to fail might had been lower than the real final one without requiring any bug.

[IxilaFA]

It's a severely flawed argument to assume the game doesn't have bugs, quirks or even legit hidden mechanics. For example it would be perfectly legit game design if the chance of a mission was per-follower, meaning in mathematics, the chance to fail would be based on the result of the multiplication of the chance to succeed of each follower (for instance on a labeled per-follower chance to succeed of 90%, you would not have a final chance to fail of 10% but a much bigger 1-0.9^3 = 27.1%!). I was told someone had done the statistical analysis and didn't find that to be true but I haven't seen the URL yet of that claim.

Actually for the first month or so of WOD that's how I had assumed it worked, because WoWhead proposed something similar. I'm not sure a statistical analysis was ever done, nor that anyone really cared to. You can easily 100% every mission in the game so why worry about low success rates?

But even if that initial assumption is/was true, it would be true across the board. Meaning that unless Blizzard maliciously put in a higher fail chance despite what the % shows, you would still fail lower success chances more than higher success chances. I just don't believe Blizzard has a reason to put in that sort of mechanic. If they wanted to frustrate you with hard to succeed at missions, they would have just done the ship thing where, unless you have the perfect combination of ships, you can never 100% rare missions.

[woopytywoop]

the more abilities/mobs you have to counter, the more likely it will fail when not 100%, which means a 90% one can be actually 70% eg.

you see it in the completion as there are several rolls, those you have 100% you always get, but the last one which can be 70% can be your failure.
shityard works differently and there the chance% seems right.

No hard evidence for this theory, just my anecdotal experience. I noticed how 90% missions were failing way too much when there were many counters/mobs.

[Saverem]

Confirmation bias. How many times do you succeed at 90% missions when you don't care about the result?

I feel that the % is fine for everything else other than gold (like rare mounts/pets, other resources, armor sets, etc) it's just with gold for me that if it has 80% or lower, it pretty much fails most of the time. Maybe I'm just the world's unluckiest person when it comes to gold missions. I don't think it's confirmation bias because it's not like I need the gold more than anything else, I have about a million gold and an extra 75 (or 4k) from a mission won't really do anything for me. It's just that I noticed it fails more than the others. I'd start writing it down and cataloging it, but I'm way too lazy and don't care enough about it to take initiative.

The key is to use Master Planner (or a website) to get at least one team of three followers with Treasure Hunter but also to match up to the gold missions.

I originally focused on the raid loot missions, which in hindsight was a mistake, but whatever.

Have Master Planner, it's great.

- - - Updated - - -

what are the requirements to get the big gold garrison missions? ive only done shipyard once around 3k. i have full garrison upgrades and stuff and 9 THs. do i just need to upgrade them all to 675 to get the big gold missions?

It's random. Called Bling's Gold or something like that. Think you need a certain amount of followevers over ilvl 600 gear for it to have a chance to activate.

It's 1k gold, but if you put 3 followers with Treasure Hunting trait, it bumps it up to 4kg.