Any information on that end is pretty much useless. Information that is horded, rather than shared has no value on any end.
The information has value and seeing that a lot of players in-game as well as on the forums (especially) are seemingly not as "community oriented" as one would think unless it's about bashing Cryptic/staff and or exhibit "take take" vs. give and take the information isn't freely shared. Just look at what happens when someone doesn't follow the "status quo", they are often treated and responded to "harshly" as if the attitude and perception of the status quo cannot be disagreed with or argued against...
When asked to contribute to the "RNG database" over 5 months ago the "community" for the most part did not (which is ok) yet a number of people that didn't/refused to contribute anything demanded that the previously gathered and future information be shared. You see, what tends to happen is players wanting others to provide them with information while they reap the benefits and not contribute in return. Not stating that this is the case every time though it has occurred often enough.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
@blajev again probability is an estimate, it does not dictate RNG, you are comparing a 50% chance (coin flip) to something that is not only around 1% but also calculated alongside other results that have higher chances to occur.
With +5 rings it would be like: +1 - if none of the other results are true +2 - flipping 2 coins and 1 has to land heads up +3 - flipping 3 coins and 2 have to land heads up +4 - flipping 4 coins and 3 have to land heads up +5 - flipping 5 coins and all 5 have to land heads up.
If multiple results hold true in a single instance (run) those that are true are flipped again while the false results are eliminated, this is repeated until only one holds true and the rarity of the ring is chosen. Keep in mind the differences between the weight of one side vs. the other is being ignored.
According what you say chance is only 50% to be or not to be each time hahaha
2 possible results = 50% chance each flip, smh LoL
The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped though just because probability goes up doesn't change the fact that it's a 50% chance each flip.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
@blajev again probability is an estimate, it does not dictate RNG, you are comparing a 50% chance (coin flip) to something that is not only around 1% but also calculated alongside other results that have higher chances to occur.
With +5 rings it would be like: +1 - if none of the other results are true +2 - flipping 2 coins and 1 has to land heads up +3 - flipping 3 coins and 2 have to land heads up +4 - flipping 4 coins and 3 have to land heads up +5 - flipping 5 coins and all 5 have to land heads up.
If multiple results hold true in a single instance (run) those that are true are flipped again while the false results are eliminated, this is repeated until only one holds true and the rarity of the ring is chosen. Keep in mind the differences between the weight of one side vs. the other is being ignored.
According what you say chance is only 50% to be or not to be each time hahaha
2 possible results = 50% chance each flip, smh LoL
The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped though just because probability goes up doesn't change the fact that it's a 50% chance each flip.
Question, doesn't RNG reset every time you " flip a coin " ? So the probability should not go up every time you flip it ? If it resets every time, what you did before means nothing. So you could have done it 1000 times before and the result will still be " a fresh " one, each time. Right ?
My solution : We start sacrificing virgin daughters to the RNG Gods. That will totally work. I ll ask for volunteers in my guild . If we can not find satisfying sacrifice , we can switch to an alternative. Like sacrificing undead virgins.
Trinity reed some math stuff for variation permutation combinations and general probability theory and statistics . I really expect your next statement to be ''The Earth is flat"
@blajev I am not Trinity but i find it too funny... i had to do it . ( sorry ) :P The Earth is flat it is more of a disk... you know..sitting on 4 elephants that are standing on a giant turtle ...that floats through space. horrible sense of humor i know..
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
@blajev again probability is an estimate, it does not dictate RNG, you are comparing a 50% chance (coin flip) to something that is not only around 1% but also calculated alongside other results that have higher chances to occur.
With +5 rings it would be like: +1 - if none of the other results are true +2 - flipping 2 coins and 1 has to land heads up +3 - flipping 3 coins and 2 have to land heads up +4 - flipping 4 coins and 3 have to land heads up +5 - flipping 5 coins and all 5 have to land heads up.
If multiple results hold true in a single instance (run) those that are true are flipped again while the false results are eliminated, this is repeated until only one holds true and the rarity of the ring is chosen. Keep in mind the differences between the weight of one side vs. the other is being ignored.
This is not how loot tables work. A loot table is a ranges table for RNG outcome, or can be looked as non-equal weight die or a wheel of fortune with different size sectors.
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
2 possible results = 50% chance each flip, smh LoL
The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped though just because probability goes up doesn't change the fact that it's a 50% chance each flip.
This is self contradicting sentence.
"The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped" = Goes up. "fact that it's a 50% chance each flip" = Stays the same 50% -> Doesn't go up.
Decide what it is. Or it's also a "loaded question" we wont get an answer from that side.
1
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
@blajev again probability is an estimate, it does not dictate RNG, you are comparing a 50% chance (coin flip) to something that is not only around 1% but also calculated alongside other results that have higher chances to occur.
With +5 rings it would be like: +1 - if none of the other results are true +2 - flipping 2 coins and 1 has to land heads up +3 - flipping 3 coins and 2 have to land heads up +4 - flipping 4 coins and 3 have to land heads up +5 - flipping 5 coins and all 5 have to land heads up.
If multiple results hold true in a single instance (run) those that are true are flipped again while the false results are eliminated, this is repeated until only one holds true and the rarity of the ring is chosen. Keep in mind the differences between the weight of one side vs. the other is being ignored.
According what you say chance is only 50% to be or not to be each time hahaha
2 possible results = 50% chance each flip, smh LoL
The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped though just because probability goes up doesn't change the fact that it's a 50% chance each flip.
Question, doesn't RNG reset every time you " flip a coin " ? So the probability should not go up every time you flip it ? If it resets every time, what you did before means nothing. So you could have done it 1000 times before and the result will still be " a fresh " one, each time. Right ?
My solution : We start sacrificing virgin daughters to the RNG Gods. That will totally work. I ll ask for volunteers in my guild . If we can not find satisfying sacrifice , we can switch to an alternative. Like sacrificing undead virgins.
I've bought all the goats from AH, it's historically well known that goats are a good replacement lacking other options.
Trinity reed some math stuff for variation permutation combinations and general probability theory and statistics . I really expect your next statement to be ''The Earth is flat"
@blajev I am not Trinity but i find it too funny... i had to do it . ( sorry ) :P The Earth is flat it is more of a disk... you know..sitting on 4 elephants that are standing on a giant turtle ...that floats through space. horrible sense of humor i know..
@blajev not so bad only need to know how you sit on 4 elephants in same time :P
Any information on that end is pretty much useless. Information that is horded, rather than shared has no value on any end.
The information has value and seeing that a lot of players in-game as well as on the forums (especially) are seemingly not as "community oriented" as one would think unless it's about bashing Cryptic/staff and or exhibit "take take" vs. give and take the information isn't freely shared. Just look at what happens when someone doesn't follow the "status quo", they are often treated and responded to "harshly" as if the attitude and perception of the status quo cannot be disagreed with or argued against...
When asked to contribute to the "RNG database" over 5 months ago the "community" for the most part did not (which is ok) yet a number of people that didn't/refused to contribute anything demanded that the previously gathered and future information be shared. You see, what tends to happen is players wanting others to provide them with information while they reap the benefits and not contribute in return. Not stating that this is the case every time though it has occurred often enough.
1. Then be community oriented and share, you still refuse to prove your alleged multiple ways AD is generated. And bring those up each time. Even though that information that is not available, is akin to not exists.
2. There are many community projects alive and well, and many share information, including RNG databases, loot tables, lockbox chances, general game info, calculators, simulators and what not. If your attempt failed, ask yourself why... What was the effort/gain of it. How complex was it to end users. How progress and feedback (in terms of user contribution) was provided. And what are the conditions at driving community based projects, even at a small scale. And perhaps you will learn something, at why others succeeded where you have failed, or perhaps no one could with the topic. At a glance, I see the "community contribute to my project", but I don't see where is the "I share results with the community". So why would anyone keep contributing ? Transparency....
3. Many provide different views on many topics, and some indeed treated harshly, but that's manly not due their opinion, but for skewing information, throwing blame, refusing to actually bring a bottom line point but just object to everyone else, having the audacity to speak for the developers, avoiding questions that hurt their argument, throwing implied insults at wide groups, and so on and so forth...
People who argue passionately for one side or another, do not wiggle, bring facts, and well structured arguments, we can learn from, gain new insight, and be proven wrong or not, either way at the end it has value, we learn things. On the contrary, the other type do not bring value, only loss of time.
Also the attitude of "devs must be always right, and can't do no wrong" is tiresome. Devs are human, they are not omnipotent, and while they have the best intention to make the game better, long lasting, and of-course profitable (I hope, we wont get the tinfoil hat attitude of milk and throw away for new IP) they don't know it all, not always prioritize correctly or know the players side. They are not the average players, and they shouldn't be, but this is where feedback comes. And feedback is not "devs always do the right thing".
When customer support bans players by script without validating at least a good sample for script validity, then some thinks it's acceptable and we all should buy web-cam to record all our game time to cover their hamster. Others provide pointed feedback, that events like that shouldn't happen! Pushover mentality wont make the game better.
PS ending an argument with "LoL" is arrogant.
Post edited by micky1p00 on
5
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
i recommend also dance naked around fire all night
I can provide music. When are we doing this ? I need to free the time in my not busy schedule . :P
pfff been there, done that.
Mod1, or 2 Naked protest, I don't remember over what:
I need to look, maybe still have the pictures with the PE statue in the background and no second floor garden opposite side of the bank.
ohhh... that is awesome. We only did Moonstone nakkid parties / dance , while Role players demanded we leave their sanctuary . ( i ll post a picture later, i got tons of them at home.. )
@araneax essentially the more times a player runs content they more chances they have at rare drops, if a players stops running they stop their chances of getting rare loot.
@micky1p00 the example was formatted to fit into the "coin spectrum" @blajev is fixated on. Their examples are simply based on 2 possible outcomes and not more which rings are based on. The different "+" versions of a ring have higher/lower drop rates (non-equal) as you have stated.
More flips = more chances No more flips = no more chances
Various amounts of information had been shared in the past and in part due to the negative results of doing so, it's not done that way anymore. The information is now kept within our community for the most part though referenced to when applicable, if some claim it to not exist because it isn't openly shared, fair enough, the information will continue to be utilized as it has been.
The requested contributions from those outside of our community didn't pan out though those from within our control group have proceeded along as they have been so there was no change there. Since there are so many complaints about RNG and we had been compiling RNG data for quite some time anyway the request was made to help provide a foundation for the arguments rather than "I ran X, Y number of times and got nothing".
No matter how some statements are articulated, supported, etc. if the argument is against that of the "majority" in a thread many will fail to see it another way whether it is intentional or unintentional and often enough people read far too much into statements to the point where they begin to imagine and attach things to them that are not there, especially insults. Instead of dealing with the statements made a lot of the time more focus is put on what people personally feel about the statement/they feel is implied, not only that they often take off with their generated implications and build arguments based on them. If a person feels that an insult has been made pretty much all they have to do is ask if that is the case, assuming/claiming an insult is made is often a tactic in response to a lack of a counter argument. Some even try to direct the responses of others, a formidable argument doesn't have to counter arguments coerced to strengthen it.
Just because a person argues against a player suggestion does not mean that they feel the "devs must be always right, and can't do no wrong". Often enough players want things and don't necessarily look beyond the scope of how it affects them or see it as "helping everyone" so it must be a good thing.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Various amounts of information had been shared in the past and in part due to the negative results of doing so, it's not done that way anymore. The information is now kept within our community for the most part though referenced to when applicable, if some claim it to not exist because it isn't openly shared, fair enough, the information will continue to be utilized as it has been.
Then you can't argue for it to be alternative or an option. For any argument sake it's non-existent.
The requested contributions from those outside of our community didn't pan out though those from within our control group have proceeded along as they have been so there was no change there. Since there are so many complaints about RNG and we had been compiling RNG data for quite some time anyway the request was made to help provide a foundation for the arguments rather than "I ran X, Y number of times and got nothing".
You complain that people don't want to share information: "You see, what tends to happen is players wanting others to provide them with information while they reap the benefits and not contribute in return. Not stating that this is the case every time though it has occurred often enough."
While at the same time you are asking people to contribute without any return (you are not sharing the results), and exhibit exactly the selfish behavior when you are explicitly saying that you gathered information in X manner, that's superior, and yet wont share it.
I hope you see the issue here... You complain about give-and-take, and at the same time do exactly that. Unlike you, others, put a lot of time and effort in a lot of readily available information. And even more so, in some cases, except the time and effort it has actual monetary costs of hosting and such. So again, I think a house check is in order, why X fails, while Y succeed.
No matter how some statements are articulated, supported, etc. if the argument is against that of the "majority" in a thread many will fail to see it another way whether it is intentional or unintentional and often enough people read far too much into statements to the point where they begin to imagine and attach things to them that are not there, especially insults.
When people fail to articulate their point in concise manner, or have a point at all, and wiggle around, they can't blame others.
When a person is asked directly if they find the current RNG system adequate? It's a direct question. A concise answer will be:
In manner X, yes... In manner Y, no...
But some try to wiggle out of answering, and then complain they are misunderstood ?... It doesn't work like that.
Instead of dealing with the statements made a lot of the time more focus is put on what people personally feel about the statement/they feel is implied, not only that they often take off with their generated implications and build arguments based on them. If a person feels that an insult has been made pretty much all they have to do is ask if that is the case, assuming/claiming an insult is made is often a tactic in response to a lack of a counter argument. Some even try to direct the responses of others, a formidable argument doesn't have to counter arguments coerced to strengthen it.
1. When a person clearly states that people who choose the easiest way to make AD, are abusing the system, then they made a group accusation. That accusation is an insult to common sense. Trying to wiggle out of that, is an insult to peoples intelligence.
2. For a formidable argument, to exist, one first need to make an argument to begin with. Statements "Players jumping", "Players whining", "Devs are X", "Players are Y" are not formidable arguments, unless provided with some backing. Otherwise it's assumptions, conjectures, and personal expiriance.
And while some are indeed common sense, others are wildly speculative, grouping up population without any proof, and as I've said assumptions and conjectures.
Just because a person argues against a player suggestion does not mean that they feel the "devs must be always right, and can't do no wrong". Often enough players want things and don't necessarily look beyond the scope of how it affects them or see it as "helping everyone" so it must be a good thing.
And yet, claiming that something is "For the greater good" doesn't make it so. But more so, claiming moral high ground, of "everyone is wrong, and I see the broad scope, i see the light" is arrogance. An opinion is an opinion, it's like any other opinion, and like HAMSTER, everyone has one. (and unlike HAMSTER some have more than one). Unless behind that opinion stands a good argument (with actual logic and proof), it's not worth much.
I remember that march. Seeing that make wish I hadn't had to change April's hair.
"We have always been at war with Dread Vault" ~ Little Brother
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited September 2017
To the topic, because the wide distribution of results a person can experience, in terms of variance between set of rolls, for example, one can win the first run the chase reward and the other can still not win after a thousand, it's considered not a good system as is. In terms of games RNG in professional competition this is adjusted by PRNG, where the chance of success is slightly modified by the number of recent failures. And vice versa in some cases. This is less relevant in terms of game play in NW, because NW doesn't use actual chances to proc (except actually a recent change) but used cooldowns instead (which bring other problems).
Some MMOs implement similar idea and others took it to a bigger scale for item upgrades, IIRC, linage, does it with upgrade failures (but they took the idea and convoluted it to make it something else). It has it's advantages, and disadvantages, predominantly it shouldn't allow multiple failures on cheap item and the a forced success on an expensive. In most cases the adjustment is low enough. Or it's valid for a specific chain of attempts (memoryless).
In other cases, and simpler system is to set a high cap, or a trade. In essence, each run you get a seal, after X runs if you didn't get what you wanted, you can buy the chase item for X seals. We actually have that system in demogorgon weapons (twisted set, can drop, or can be bought). It's a shame that a system like this is not wider spread, even with very high cap, it's a cap.
RNG has it's benefits and as a reward system has an addictive component, "Now this will be the run when I get my shiny", but at the same time, outliers with high variance, "didn't get my item after thousand runs" will not be happy, and shouldn't be. And it's not fair to them no matter how to put it. Similar work should yield similar reward, or there will be discontent.
Cap system is great objectively as it's easy to implement, and simply removes the prior issue with pure RNG, unfortunately it also brings "Now need to run 1k runs to grind that? I'll skip" And it's justifiable, when you see in advance the scope of the work. Something that the RNG chance hides in the undisclosed chances. And now the retention from the RNG addictivness is diminished.
IMO, a smartly added PRNG, it makes everyone eventually a winner, and silent behind the scenes. Or/and a cap introduced later, if it's via campaign unlock or half mod later. So people who didn't get the RNGessus blessing can catchup, and people who farm the luck, have their luck. Are the better options.
At the end RNG is all about retention, and there should be a careful line between the retention the addictivness of the RNG reward system provides, and the hate it generates over multiple failures. IMO, NW, doesn't have this balanced, so at the end it reflects in player enjoyment and player retention.
2
Options
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
My Chultan +3 rings has a higher item level than my +5 Ring from ToDG. I have gotten better equipment from doing treasure maps in Chult than I have from, maybe 100 ToDGs. Again, it may be luck, but I am loving Chultan Treasure Maps and also the Chultan armour is pretty good for the relatively easy grind to get it.
+5 Rings are a very nice happy reward moment, like a Coal Ward. If you are pretty much BiS all round then just enjoy the experience of playing, otherwise if it becomes a chore it's time to move on
I don't know if Chultan +5 Hunter ring (from map treasure) is better. I did get one +5 and 4 +4, a bunch of +3 and lower for salvage. I don't open them one by one. I went to an isolated instance and open over 20 boxes in one shot. However, I am still not sure if Hunter ring is better or worse.
For c-ward, I usually went to an isolated instance and open 100 chests. I usually get 4.
Did they increase the drop rate or something?
3% drop rate is what they say it is, and what my experience roughly indicates as well. 4/100 is hardly abnormal.
From what you say i see that PRNG system have the best from both worlds ''i'm a lucky HAMSTER'' and ''i work hard for what i have''.
It is fair to say that we have some sort of catchup ''system'', you can buy relic gear and SK purple rings with seals, from start of Chult we have blue items with not bad stats you can buy for tokens or AD and both you can grind solo, and we have that kind of mechanics all the time. In same time we have enchant companion item upgrade system that give ''old'' dogs to show that they are here from longer and they spent time/$ here to become better.
My usage of catch-up was probably not the best. I didn't mean the general new player vs old, but a more specific case related to RNG, where some people will get the desired gear after a reasonable time and others will be left empty handed and frustrated. In this case I mean a more assured way (Internal counter, PRNG or cap) where those that frustrated can get the reward 'everyone else' have.
In terms of general rewards it does add a counter per chase item or group of items. But there are not that many RNG based chase items at any given time (5 - 10 etc.. wont break the servers).
In terms of for example wards, it's an easy way to prevent outliers like 200 wards for 20% chance. Easy to implement, a counter for current upgrade process, once item swapped, counter reset, with adequate ceiling PRNG modifiers per chance it has no impact on the economy (we are handling outliers = very rare cases), but great impact on moral.
Maybe it would be easy to count the opening of each chest, and apply a modifier at whatever seems to be fair breakpoints Ideally, a very rare reward from a particular chest I have already received before would
For example: Demogorgon's chest can drop several types of +5 rings I run the trial (ex:100) times, and the drop rate chance for any of those rings doubles I still haven't gotten one after running it another (ex:200) times, so it doubles again After running it 259 times, I finally get a +5 Ring of Vision, and I cry a little before I donate it to my guild coffer My collections page is updated The counter resets, however now the drop rate chance does not increase at the breakpoints for the +5 Ring of Vision, since I already got one Rinse, Repeat Plug in numbers that seem fair for the breakpoints
I like that RNG is basically the same as a dice roll because the game is based on D&D, but no DM would force a player to roll thousands of times for something If for some reason a player got stuck in a loop like that, the DM would change something in the interest of time
If this is basically what is meant by PRNG, then sure... Sounds great Not sure how that would work on, for instance, % chances to upgrade an enchant, though... seems like that would just need a cap A cap in that regard could also be designed to be progressive if you used the cost of one preservation ward (P) and the cost of a coalescent ward (C) and Maximum Attempts Cap (M) Example: 1% chance to upgrade and using preservation wards, M=C/P 50% chance to upgrade and using preservation wards, M=(C/P)/2
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Maybe it would be easy to count the opening of each chest, and apply a modifier at whatever seems to be fair breakpoints Ideally, a very rare reward from a particular chest I have already received before would
For example: Demogorgon's chest can drop several types of +5 rings I run the trial (ex:100) times, and the drop rate chance for any of those rings doubles I still haven't gotten one after running it another (ex:200) times, so it doubles again After running it 259 times, I finally get a +5 Ring of Vision, and I cry a little before I donate it to my guild coffer My collections page is updated The counter resets, however now the drop rate chance does not increase at the breakpoints for the +5 Ring of Vision, since I already got one Rinse, Repeat Plug in numbers that seem fair for the breakpoints
I like that RNG is basically the same as a dice roll because the game is based on D&D, but no DM would force a player to roll thousands of times for something If for some reason a player got stuck in a loop like that, the DM would change something in the interest of time
If this is basically what is meant by PRNG, then sure... Sounds great Not sure how that would work on, for instance, % chances to upgrade an enchant, though... seems like that would just need a cap A cap in that regard could also be designed to be progressive if you used the cost of one preservation ward (P) and the cost of a coalescent ward (C) and Maximum Attempts Cap (M) Example: 1% chance to upgrade and using preservation wards, M=C/P 50% chance to upgrade and using preservation wards, M=(C/P)/2
Yes, in game design world it's the PRNG, while most of the RNG in computers are actually PRNG, in game context many use PRNG as the adjustable variant, it's not the most correct term usage, but looks like it's the wide used one so I've used it too.
And that's what I've described, to make it simple we can, for example, have one counter for all under-dark rings. A counter for SKT rings.. etc..
You can make universal adjustment, per each failure, for example:
new_chance = current_chance + current_chance*0.01
Or:
chance = base_chance * (1.01) ^ fail_counter.
(The 1% is also arbitrary example)
In case of wards, it can be activated only after the Estimated value is passed, for example:
chance = base_chance * (1.01) ^ max((fail_counter - 1/base_chance),0) so for a chance of 3% it will start adjusting only after 33 failures.
@micky1p00 a person does not have to argue/change their argument in/to a manner that befits someone that doesn't approve how it is articulated. Just because you fail to see a point(s) and or dismiss them does not mean there are none. Just like with the example that was given from this end clearly showing the different ring qualitites and hypothetical drop chances (x amount of heads up), also "The above is just to help provide a visual." and you stated:
"This is not how loot tables work. A loot table is a ranges table for RNG outcome, or can be looked as non-equal weight die or a wheel of fortune with different size sectors."
Which is pretty much exactly what the example illustrates though since you either didn't undertsand that it was just to provide a visual and or didn't like the way it was articulated felt the need to reword it. Each of the "+" versions had their own "weight" to them in the example...
As previously mentioned in the past various information was shared and over time when met with the negative attitudes of players it changed. "Various amounts of information had been shared in the past and in part due to the negative results of doing so, it's not done that way anymore.".
To elaborate on the statement as the various information (how to get more AD, qucik progression, etc.) was relayed to a number of others eventually the verified RNG database was brought up and contributions requested from those same players and none did as well as others. A number of them seemingly just wanted the information for whatever reason though as it was expressed to them beforehand for the time being the information would especially not be distributed to those not actively contributing to it, not to mention the amount it would take to even try to formulate the results into something tangible.
Considerable amounts of time and effort have been put into a number of compilations from this end and when the information in the past was shared the resulting negativity gave rise to the concept of keeping things amongst a smaller group of players and or those that show the same/considerble enthusiam.
The question was already responded to "To us there are more than enough alternatives and positive RNG experiences for RNG not to be a problem". Just because it is not yes or no does not negate it's substance.
After the dungeon key change and drop rates were changed a number of items dropped sigificantly in value. Give players an inch and eventually some will come for the ruler. Change the ring drop rates and players won't stop there, they will want this that and the third increased as well, in so many words that;s what was meant by "Often enough players want things and don't necessarily look beyond the scope of how it affects them", it was not "claiming the moral high ground" as you assumed. Just as with the statements you claim to be arrogance, you attached that negativity to the words on the screen. Though to clarify, the arrogance you assume is present doesn't exist.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Comments
When asked to contribute to the "RNG database" over 5 months ago the "community" for the most part did not (which is ok) yet a number of people that didn't/refused to contribute anything demanded that the previously gathered and future information be shared. You see, what tends to happen is players wanting others to provide them with information while they reap the benefits and not contribute in return. Not stating that this is the case every time though it has occurred often enough.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
With +5 rings it would be like:
+1 - if none of the other results are true
+2 - flipping 2 coins and 1 has to land heads up
+3 - flipping 3 coins and 2 have to land heads up
+4 - flipping 4 coins and 3 have to land heads up
+5 - flipping 5 coins and all 5 have to land heads up.
If multiple results hold true in a single instance (run) those that are true are flipped again while the false results are eliminated, this is repeated until only one holds true and the rarity of the ring is chosen. Keep in mind the differences between the weight of one side vs. the other is being ignored.
The above is just to help provide a visual. 2 possible results = 50% chance each flip, smh LoL
The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped though just because probability goes up doesn't change the fact that it's a 50% chance each flip.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
So the probability should not go up every time you flip it ? If it resets every time, what you did before means nothing. So you could have done it 1000 times before and the result will still be " a fresh " one, each time. Right ?
My solution : We start sacrificing virgin daughters to the RNG Gods. That will totally work.
I ll ask for volunteers in my guild .
If we can not find satisfying sacrifice , we can switch to an alternative. Like sacrificing undead virgins.
I am not Trinity but i find it too funny... i had to do it . ( sorry ) :P
The Earth is flatit is more of a disk... you know..sitting on 4 elephants that are standing on a giant turtle ...that floats through space.horrible sense of humor i know..
A loot table is a ranges table for RNG outcome, or can be looked as non-equal weight die or a wheel of fortune with different size sectors.
"The probability of a coin landing heads up goes up the more times it is flipped" = Goes up.
"fact that it's a 50% chance each flip" = Stays the same 50% -> Doesn't go up.
Decide what it is. Or it's also a "loaded question" we wont get an answer from that side.
lol ... + 1 .... how about the priestess companion ? That could be a good sacrifice. I can provide music. When are we doing this ? I need to free the time in my not busy schedule . :P
2. There are many community projects alive and well, and many share information, including RNG databases, loot tables, lockbox chances, general game info, calculators, simulators and what not.
If your attempt failed, ask yourself why... What was the effort/gain of it. How complex was it to end users. How progress and feedback (in terms of user contribution) was provided.
And what are the conditions at driving community based projects, even at a small scale. And perhaps you will learn something, at why others succeeded where you have failed, or perhaps no one could with the topic.
At a glance, I see the "community contribute to my project", but I don't see where is the "I share results with the community". So why would anyone keep contributing ? Transparency....
3. Many provide different views on many topics, and some indeed treated harshly, but that's manly not due their opinion, but for skewing information, throwing blame, refusing to actually bring a bottom line point but just object to everyone else, having the audacity to speak for the developers, avoiding questions that hurt their argument, throwing implied insults at wide groups, and so on and so forth...
People who argue passionately for one side or another, do not wiggle, bring facts, and well structured arguments, we can learn from, gain new insight, and be proven wrong or not, either way at the end it has value, we learn things. On the contrary, the other type do not bring value, only loss of time.
Also the attitude of "devs must be always right, and can't do no wrong" is tiresome. Devs are human, they are not omnipotent, and while they have the best intention to make the game better, long lasting, and of-course profitable (I hope, we wont get the tinfoil hat attitude of milk and throw away for new IP) they don't know it all, not always prioritize correctly or know the players side. They are not the average players, and they shouldn't be, but this is where feedback comes. And feedback is not "devs always do the right thing".
When customer support bans players by script without validating at least a good sample for script validity, then some thinks it's acceptable and we all should buy web-cam to record all our game time to cover their hamster. Others provide pointed feedback, that events like that shouldn't happen! Pushover mentality wont make the game better.
PS ending an argument with "LoL" is arrogant.
Mod2, or 3 Naked protest, I don't remember over what:
I need to look, maybe still have the pictures with the PE statue in the background and no second floor garden opposite side of the bank.
We only did Moonstone nakkid parties / dance , while Role players demanded we leave their sanctuary .
( i ll post a picture later, i got tons of them at home.. )
@micky1p00 the example was formatted to fit into the "coin spectrum" @blajev is fixated on. Their examples are simply based on 2 possible outcomes and not more which rings are based on. The different "+" versions of a ring have higher/lower drop rates (non-equal) as you have stated.
More flips = more chances
No more flips = no more chances
Various amounts of information had been shared in the past and in part due to the negative results of doing so, it's not done that way anymore. The information is now kept within our community for the most part though referenced to when applicable, if some claim it to not exist because it isn't openly shared, fair enough, the information will continue to be utilized as it has been.
The requested contributions from those outside of our community didn't pan out though those from within our control group have proceeded along as they have been so there was no change there. Since there are so many complaints about RNG and we had been compiling RNG data for quite some time anyway the request was made to help provide a foundation for the arguments rather than "I ran X, Y number of times and got nothing".
No matter how some statements are articulated, supported, etc. if the argument is against that of the "majority" in a thread many will fail to see it another way whether it is intentional or unintentional and often enough people read far too much into statements to the point where they begin to imagine and attach things to them that are not there, especially insults. Instead of dealing with the statements made a lot of the time more focus is put on what people personally feel about the statement/they feel is implied, not only that they often take off with their generated implications and build arguments based on them. If a person feels that an insult has been made pretty much all they have to do is ask if that is the case, assuming/claiming an insult is made is often a tactic in response to a lack of a counter argument. Some even try to direct the responses of others, a formidable argument doesn't have to counter arguments coerced to strengthen it.
Just because a person argues against a player suggestion does not mean that they feel the "devs must be always right, and can't do no wrong". Often enough players want things and don't necessarily look beyond the scope of how it affects them or see it as "helping everyone" so it must be a good thing.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
"You see, what tends to happen is players wanting others to provide them with information while they reap the benefits and not contribute in return. Not stating that this is the case every time though it has occurred often enough."
While at the same time you are asking people to contribute without any return (you are not sharing the results), and exhibit exactly the selfish behavior when you are explicitly saying that you gathered information in X manner, that's superior, and yet wont share it.
I hope you see the issue here... You complain about give-and-take, and at the same time do exactly that. Unlike you, others, put a lot of time and effort in a lot of readily available information. And even more so, in some cases, except the time and effort it has actual monetary costs of hosting and such. So again, I think a house check is in order, why X fails, while Y succeed. When people fail to articulate their point in concise manner, or have a point at all, and wiggle around, they can't blame others.
When a person is asked directly if they find the current RNG system adequate? It's a direct question. A concise answer will be:
In manner X, yes...
In manner Y, no...
But some try to wiggle out of answering, and then complain they are misunderstood ?... It doesn't work like that.
1. When a person clearly states that people who choose the easiest way to make AD, are abusing the system, then they made a group accusation. That accusation is an insult to common sense. Trying to wiggle out of that, is an insult to peoples intelligence.
2. For a formidable argument, to exist, one first need to make an argument to begin with. Statements "Players jumping", "Players whining", "Devs are X", "Players are Y" are not formidable arguments, unless provided with some backing. Otherwise it's assumptions, conjectures, and personal expiriance.
And while some are indeed common sense, others are wildly speculative, grouping up population without any proof, and as I've said assumptions and conjectures. And yet, claiming that something is "For the greater good" doesn't make it so.
But more so, claiming moral high ground, of "everyone is wrong, and I see the broad scope, i see the light" is arrogance. An opinion is an opinion, it's like any other opinion, and like HAMSTER, everyone has one. (and unlike HAMSTER some have more than one). Unless behind that opinion stands a good argument (with actual logic and proof), it's not worth much.
In terms of games RNG in professional competition this is adjusted by PRNG, where the chance of success is slightly modified by the number of recent failures. And vice versa in some cases. This is less relevant in terms of game play in NW, because NW doesn't use actual chances to proc (except actually a recent change) but used cooldowns instead (which bring other problems).
Some MMOs implement similar idea and others took it to a bigger scale for item upgrades, IIRC, linage, does it with upgrade failures (but they took the idea and convoluted it to make it something else). It has it's advantages, and disadvantages, predominantly it shouldn't allow multiple failures on cheap item and the a forced success on an expensive. In most cases the adjustment is low enough. Or it's valid for a specific chain of attempts (memoryless).
In other cases, and simpler system is to set a high cap, or a trade. In essence, each run you get a seal, after X runs if you didn't get what you wanted, you can buy the chase item for X seals.
We actually have that system in demogorgon weapons (twisted set, can drop, or can be bought). It's a shame that a system like this is not wider spread, even with very high cap, it's a cap.
RNG has it's benefits and as a reward system has an addictive component, "Now this will be the run when I get my shiny", but at the same time, outliers with high variance, "didn't get my item after thousand runs" will not be happy, and shouldn't be. And it's not fair to them no matter how to put it. Similar work should yield similar reward, or there will be discontent.
Cap system is great objectively as it's easy to implement, and simply removes the prior issue with pure RNG, unfortunately it also brings "Now need to run 1k runs to grind that? I'll skip" And it's justifiable, when you see in advance the scope of the work. Something that the RNG chance hides in the undisclosed chances. And now the retention from the RNG addictivness is diminished.
IMO, a smartly added PRNG, it makes everyone eventually a winner, and silent behind the scenes. Or/and a cap introduced later, if it's via campaign unlock or half mod later. So people who didn't get the RNGessus blessing can catchup, and people who farm the luck, have their luck. Are the better options.
At the end RNG is all about retention, and there should be a careful line between the retention the addictivness of the RNG reward system provides, and the hate it generates over multiple failures.
IMO, NW, doesn't have this balanced, so at the end it reflects in player enjoyment and player retention.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
In this case I mean a more assured way (Internal counter, PRNG or cap) where those that frustrated can get the reward 'everyone else' have.
In terms of general rewards it does add a counter per chase item or group of items. But there are not that many RNG based chase items at any given time (5 - 10 etc.. wont break the servers).
In terms of for example wards, it's an easy way to prevent outliers like 200 wards for 20% chance. Easy to implement, a counter for current upgrade process, once item swapped, counter reset, with adequate ceiling PRNG modifiers per chance it has no impact on the economy (we are handling outliers = very rare cases), but great impact on moral.
Ideally, a very rare reward from a particular chest I have already received before would
For example: Demogorgon's chest can drop several types of +5 rings
I run the trial (ex:100) times, and the drop rate chance for any of those rings doubles
I still haven't gotten one after running it another (ex:200) times, so it doubles again
After running it 259 times, I finally get a +5 Ring of Vision, and I cry a little before I donate it to my guild coffer
My collections page is updated
The counter resets, however now the drop rate chance does not increase at the breakpoints for the +5 Ring of Vision, since I already got one
Rinse, Repeat
Plug in numbers that seem fair for the breakpoints
I like that RNG is basically the same as a dice roll because the game is based on D&D, but no DM would force a player to roll thousands of times for something
If for some reason a player got stuck in a loop like that, the DM would change something in the interest of time
If this is basically what is meant by PRNG, then sure... Sounds great
Not sure how that would work on, for instance, % chances to upgrade an enchant, though... seems like that would just need a cap
A cap in that regard could also be designed to be progressive if you used the cost of one preservation ward (P) and the cost of a coalescent ward (C) and Maximum Attempts Cap (M)
Example:
1% chance to upgrade and using preservation wards, M=C/P
50% chance to upgrade and using preservation wards, M=(C/P)/2
And that's what I've described, to make it simple we can, for example, have one counter for all under-dark rings. A counter for SKT rings.. etc..
You can make universal adjustment, per each failure, for example:
new_chance = current_chance + current_chance*0.01
Or:
chance = base_chance * (1.01) ^ fail_counter.
(The 1% is also arbitrary example)
In case of wards, it can be activated only after the Estimated value is passed, for example:
chance = base_chance * (1.01) ^ max((fail_counter - 1/base_chance),0) so for a chance of 3% it will start adjusting only after 33 failures.
"This is not how loot tables work.
A loot table is a ranges table for RNG outcome, or can be looked as non-equal weight die or a wheel of fortune with different size sectors."
Which is pretty much exactly what the example illustrates though since you either didn't undertsand that it was just to provide a visual and or didn't like the way it was articulated felt the need to reword it. Each of the "+" versions had their own "weight" to them in the example...
To elaborate on the statement as the various information (how to get more AD, qucik progression, etc.) was relayed to a number of others eventually the verified RNG database was brought up and contributions requested from those same players and none did as well as others. A number of them seemingly just wanted the information for whatever reason though as it was expressed to them beforehand for the time being the information would especially not be distributed to those not actively contributing to it, not to mention the amount it would take to even try to formulate the results into something tangible.
Considerable amounts of time and effort have been put into a number of compilations from this end and when the information in the past was shared the resulting negativity gave rise to the concept of keeping things amongst a smaller group of players and or those that show the same/considerble enthusiam.
The question was already responded to "To us there are more than enough alternatives and positive RNG experiences for RNG not to be a problem". Just because it is not yes or no does not negate it's substance.
After the dungeon key change and drop rates were changed a number of items dropped sigificantly in value. Give players an inch and eventually some will come for the ruler. Change the ring drop rates and players won't stop there, they will want this that and the third increased as well, in so many words that;s what was meant by "Often enough players want things and don't necessarily look beyond the scope of how it affects them", it was not "claiming the moral high ground" as you assumed. Just as with the statements you claim to be arrogance, you attached that negativity to the words on the screen. Though to clarify, the arrogance you assume is present doesn't exist.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen