The OP, clearly states that the RNG is broken and buggy, hence mathematically incorrect, and he has more education in the area than all of us plebeians so we shouldn't even comment on his claims. So, no, others may have suggested that the whole RNG system should have a cap or a modifier against streaks, but it was not the op in his initial post.
I haven't seen such arrogant post, I think, ever around here.
1) This thread is about improving the upgrade system. It is not about picking apart a commenter's post for minutiae and trying to put words in his mouth to build a strawman argument and try to declare victory in the long and senseless tradition of the internet.
2) If trying to suppress pointless and predictable noise by giving forewarning that it will be treated as pointless and predictable noise is arrogance, then these forums could use more of it.
0
Options
feanor70118Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,170Arc User
+1 to grumpy cats´ request. ESPECIALLY (but not only) if the RNG is "streaky" and not "true rng" there MUST be an alternative.
There is an alternative, it's a coal ward. Expensive, but working.
No kidding. The point of this thread is that there should be a better solution. You're not even the first person even in this thread to bring up this 'point.'
That is a good point. What would you suggest if you were in charge?
At this point I'm only repeating myself, but a summary might be useful.
1) Just allow us to dump whatever number of preservation wards would equal the odds into the upgrade for a guaranteed success. If the RNG is not in fact already unfair, this will only benefit PWE because people who lack the patience for 33 attempts or are not addicted to gambling will simply buy more preservation wards and never get lucky with the RNG.
2) Alternatively, increase the chance for upgrade to a mythic artifact, R11 or R12 enchantment to 10%. 5% and 3% are too low to be anything but boring, frustrating and tedious.
3) The RNG improving the odds by 1% with each roll or a mercy cap have been suggested here, but I don't really like either idea. The first would be better for loot rolls (i.e. if you want a +5 ring of rising power, you let the campaign window know and every time you decline a relevant chest your odds increase - and while we're at it there should be an option to decline certain lockbox rewards like the Ostorian Relic Pack) but I don't think it would make enough difference for the upgrade RNG. A mercy cap would only limit boredom, frustration and tedium but not alleviate them.
4) Even if you succeed in upgrading to an R12 with 33 attempts, it's still boring, frustrating and tedious to do so. This is supposed to be an entertaining game and those aspects of upgrading detract from our enjoyment of it. Instant gratification, even if it costs, is better.
5) I know PWE doesn't want to hear this, but give us guaranteed RNG success for AD equivalent to the maximum ZAX cost of the relevant number of preservation wards (plus maybe a 10% premium to match AH deductions). This would relieve pressure on the ZAX rate and still allow some profiterring for players with more zen than they need. I.E. 165kAD x1.1 = 182k AD for an R12 upgrade, 100kx1.1= 110k for an R11 upgrade, and so on.
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
The OP, clearly states that the RNG is broken and buggy, hence mathematically incorrect, and he has more education in the area than all of us plebeians so we shouldn't even comment on his claims. So, no, others may have suggested that the whole RNG system should have a cap or a modifier against streaks, but it was not the op in his initial post.
I haven't seen such arrogant post, I think, ever around here.
1) This thread is about improving the upgrade system. It is not about picking apart a commenter's post for minutiae and trying to put words in his mouth to build a strawman argument and try to declare victory in the long and senseless tradition of the internet.
2) If trying to suppress pointless and predictable noise by giving forewarning that it will be treated as pointless and predictable noise is arrogance, then these forums could use more of it.
Sorry, but I don't try to win, build or to do anything to any strawmen. I'm sure there are some strawman abuse prevention laws. I just think that:
1. The first post was patronizing and arrogant, and the same request could be made without the "I have better education", "I don't care", "I'm not impressed". Is it an internet tradition to be rude behind a keyboard ?
2. The post have nothing about improving the upgrade system, only how the RNG is bugged and point #1. In this last post you actually provided ideas.
You can ignore or accept what I'm saying, I don't mean to argue nor win any arguments, but perhaps your own point will be accept better if you have the minimal patience and respect to others. Even in simple things like "At this point I'm only repeating myself". If you don't see a problem with it, I don't know, maybe it's a cultural thing.
In any case, gl hf.
0
Options
feanor70118Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,170Arc User
Sorry, but I don't try to win, build or to do anything to any strawmen. I'm sure there are some strawman abuse prevention laws. I just think that:
1. The first post was patronizing and arrogant, and the same request could be made without the "I have better education", "I don't care", "I'm not impressed". Is it an internet tradition to be rude behind a keyboard ?
I'm not sure you understand the definition of 'patronizing.' I intended to be rude in order to forestall the aforementioned predictable, pointless noise. Hurting certain people's feelings was the point. At least now I only have to deal with that instead of endless comments on the same two pointless, distracting topics. In any event you mischaracterized the other commenter's words and then supplied your own substituted meaning. This is cresting a strawman argument. It's a common and pointless behavior on the internet and you obviously intended to do it. You didn't type all that by accident.
2. The post have nothing about improving the upgrade system, only how the RNG is bugged and point #1. In this last post you actually provided ideas.
Actually, it originally did. Either that got erased by me through some weird misclick error or by a moderator, again presumably through some error since there was no reason to erase it. In any event, I'll go re-edit it now, and thanks for pointing that out.
You can ignore or accept what I'm saying, I don't mean to argue nor win any arguments, but perhaps your own point will be accept better if you have the minimal patience and respect to others. Even in simple things like "At this point I'm only repeating myself". If you don't see a problem with it, I don't know, maybe it's a cultural thing.
In any case, gl hf.
I've started many threads before on frustration with the RNG. They all get derailed by the same predictable comments. If you actually wanted something fixed or if you believe in making only useful contributions to a thread you could have troubled yourself to make an on-topic suggestion.
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Sorry, but I don't try to win, build or to do anything to any strawmen. I'm sure there are some strawman abuse prevention laws. I just think that:
1. The first post was patronizing and arrogant, and the same request could be made without the "I have better education", "I don't care", "I'm not impressed". Is it an internet tradition to be rude behind a keyboard ?
I'm not sure you understand the definition of 'patronizing.' I intended to be rude in order to forestall the aforementioned predictable, pointless noise. Hurting certain people's feelings was the point. At least now I only have to deal with that instead of endless comments on the same two pointless, distracting topics. In any event you mischaracterized the other commenter's words and then supplied your own substituted meaning. This is cresting a strawman argument. It's a common and pointless behavior on the internet and you obviously intended to do it. You didn't type all that by accident.
Yes, patronizing is unsuitable, my mistake.
What other commenter? urabask? As he said, I thought he referred to you, and he didn't. Or more correctly I thought he referred to namexepired that referred to you, but nameexpired referd to loboguild. I've obviously did what I've stated that I did, pointed out that your post mentioned broken RNG and not ways to fix it, etc.... And as urabask pointed out, it was not for the correct quote...
And still, what his post has anything to do with what I said about yours? My post still holds... it's true it has nothing to do with him, my mistake, but it is correct for your post. If I saw that the topic of discussion was loboguild post, I wouldn't have wrote at all, as I've already posted a big cat about your "not impressed". My impression was that urabask told nameexpoired that he is obtuse because you offer suggestions to fix stuff and not broken RNG, obviously, as I wrote, it is not correct, as you only offered complaints about broken RNG.
There are no straw people here. But if it makes you happy, you can attribute to me whatever you want..
Ok, here is a good analogy in common English of how the RNG currently works.
Let's say you have a box with 100 papers inside. 80 of the papers are white. 20 of the papers are red. (choose whatever colors don't offend you, whatever). If you draw a white paper, your refining fails. If you draw a red paper, your refining will succeed. You stick your hand in the box and draw a paper. If it's red, great, you got really lucky. If it's white - YOU PUT IT BACK IN THE BOX before drawing again. I think this is the part most people get confused on. If you were keeping that white piece of paper out of the box, your odds would improve greatly every time. However, that is not the case, and it may take you over 100 times in order to get that red piece of paper, because your odds are the same every single time.
So your suggestion is to take the +1 or +2 rings and it'll improve the odds of getting a +5? How so? Aren't the pieces of paper goin to refill the box in the next round?
A little off-topic but RnG also works Chest findings!
0
Options
kreatyveMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 10,545Community Moderator
Ok, here is a good analogy in common English of how the RNG currently works.
Let's say you have a box with 100 papers inside. 80 of the papers are white. 20 of the papers are red. (choose whatever colors don't offend you, whatever). If you draw a white paper, your refining fails. If you draw a red paper, your refining will succeed. You stick your hand in the box and draw a paper. If it's red, great, you got really lucky. If it's white - YOU PUT IT BACK IN THE BOX before drawing again. I think this is the part most people get confused on. If you were keeping that white piece of paper out of the box, your odds would improve greatly every time. However, that is not the case, and it may take you over 100 times in order to get that red piece of paper, because your odds are the same every single time.
So your suggestion is to take the +1 or +2 rings and it'll improve the odds of getting a +5? How so? Aren't the pieces of paper goin to refill the box in the next round?
A little off-topic but RnG also works Chest findings!
I don't think it takes the paper out of the box, even if you take the ring. Still puts the paper back in the box regardless.
My opinions are my own. I do not work for PWE or Cryptic. - Forum Rules - Protector's Enclave Discord - I play on Xbox Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official. Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
0
Options
thegreatmikeyMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 122Arc User
Comments
2) If trying to suppress pointless and predictable noise by giving forewarning that it will be treated as pointless and predictable noise is arrogance, then these forums could use more of it.
1) Just allow us to dump whatever number of preservation wards would equal the odds into the upgrade for a guaranteed success. If the RNG is not in fact already unfair, this will only benefit PWE because people who lack the patience for 33 attempts or are not addicted to gambling will simply buy more preservation wards and never get lucky with the RNG.
2) Alternatively, increase the chance for upgrade to a mythic artifact, R11 or R12 enchantment to 10%. 5% and 3% are too low to be anything but boring, frustrating and tedious.
3) The RNG improving the odds by 1% with each roll or a mercy cap have been suggested here, but I don't really like either idea. The first would be better for loot rolls (i.e. if you want a +5 ring of rising power, you let the campaign window know and every time you decline a relevant chest your odds increase - and while we're at it there should be an option to decline certain lockbox rewards like the Ostorian Relic Pack) but I don't think it would make enough difference for the upgrade RNG. A mercy cap would only limit boredom, frustration and tedium but not alleviate them.
4) Even if you succeed in upgrading to an R12 with 33 attempts, it's still boring, frustrating and tedious to do so. This is supposed to be an entertaining game and those aspects of upgrading detract from our enjoyment of it. Instant gratification, even if it costs, is better.
5) I know PWE doesn't want to hear this, but give us guaranteed RNG success for AD equivalent to the maximum ZAX cost of the relevant number of preservation wards (plus maybe a 10% premium to match AH deductions). This would relieve pressure on the ZAX rate and still allow some profiterring for players with more zen than they need. I.E. 165kAD x1.1 = 182k AD for an R12 upgrade, 100kx1.1= 110k for an R11 upgrade, and so on.
I just think that:
1. The first post was patronizing and arrogant, and the same request could be made without the "I have better education", "I don't care", "I'm not impressed". Is it an internet tradition to be rude behind a keyboard ?
2. The post have nothing about improving the upgrade system, only how the RNG is bugged and point #1. In this last post you actually provided ideas.
You can ignore or accept what I'm saying, I don't mean to argue nor win any arguments, but perhaps your own point will be accept better if you have the minimal patience and respect to others. Even in simple things like "At this point I'm only repeating myself". If you don't see a problem with it, I don't know, maybe it's a cultural thing.
In any case, gl hf.
What other commenter? urabask? As he said, I thought he referred to you, and he didn't. Or more correctly I thought he referred to namexepired that referred to you, but nameexpired referd to loboguild. I've obviously did what I've stated that I did, pointed out that your post mentioned broken RNG and not ways to fix it, etc.... And as urabask pointed out, it was not for the correct quote...
And still, what his post has anything to do with what I said about yours? My post still holds... it's true it has nothing to do with him, my mistake, but it is correct for your post. If I saw that the topic of discussion was loboguild post, I wouldn't have wrote at all, as I've already posted a big cat about your "not impressed". My impression was that urabask told nameexpoired that he is obtuse because you offer suggestions to fix stuff and not broken RNG, obviously, as I wrote, it is not correct, as you only offered complaints about broken RNG.
There are no straw people here. But if it makes you happy, you can attribute to me whatever you want..
A little off-topic but RnG also works Chest findings!
Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official.
Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!