Something which seemed extremely unlikely, so…
I contributed to the thread because the claim you made seemed highly unlikely to me but also because it was very easily testable to see if the claim was true or not. With just a couple of hours of testing and posting the results I demonstrated that your claim was not true. You responded saying that you wanted to do your own crafting to see if you got the same results as I did or not. You then prevaricated for five weeks before making this thread.
You’ve made a very pretty spreadsheet, with graphs, and lots of other irrelevant stuff but the part that actually pertained to your original claim is summarised here…
Legendary weapons…
188 of 356 crafts had VIT present
205 of 356 crafts had DEX present
That’s a 0.917:1 ratio of VIT to DEX.
Ancient weapons…
54 of 94 crafts had VIT present
71 of 94 crafts had DEX present
That’s a 0.718:1 ratio of VIT to DEX.
You don’t appear to have combined these, but let’s do that too…
242 of 450 crafts had VIT present
276 of 450 crafts had DEX present
That’s a 0.877:1 ratio of VIT to DEX.
How about if we combine the results of my 180 crafts and your 450 crafts…
351 of 630 crafts had VIT present
380 of 630 crafts had DEX present
That’s a 0.924:1 ratio of VIT to DEX.
I would have commented earlier if you’d actually provided these results in your original thread because it would have shown up in in my notifications. But, anyway, 0.924:1 is a long way from 8:1, wouldn’t you say?
I respond to your threads where you make statistical claims precisely because you tend to base them on how you feel things are, rather than how things actually are.
I understand that maybe you’re upset that your claim was debunked but that’s not a valid reason to make ad hominem attacks on the character of the person that debunked it.