greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
Using a coin for 50/50 isn't entirely accurate, either. There is a small random chance that the coin will end up on the edge.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
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.
Hey. A RNG Database. That is a wonderful idea. Someone should totally start one of those things. That would be really helpful. Unless it was sabotaged by, for example, posting the information about it on the XBox forum and the Platstation forum, while forgetting to mention it on the PC forum. I guess that information which consists of 2/3 of the data available isn't useless either. Oh, wait.
You can't simultaneously sit there and claim that you have access to information that backs up your argument, and also refuse to share the very same information. You have no obligation to share anything. That is your choice. But, by chosing not to share the information, you lose the ability to reference that information publicly.
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
@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...
It's not easy to illustrate, but since from all I wrote you choose to point this out, I'll explain further. In this case it's like saying a bee is an example of how a plane flies. Sorry, but except that both the loot table and the example have probability in them (in my illustration both the bee an plane fly) they are different enough to that "Which is pretty much exactly what the example illustrates" doesn't work well, or more like at all, and that what I was pointing out.
You can make several coin based examples that are closer to illustrate it, first we need a static number of coins or dies. The RNG is checked once, and not survival mode who left standing. And we want something that we can actually understand the probability from ( the probability of any item in the table is self standing, there could be several tables rolled with some having no reward as an option but for the example we wont go there), lets try some examples:
Lets say we toss 8 coins (the order of heads is not relevant):
0/8 heads = +5 ring ( ~0.8% ) 1/7 heads = +4 ring ( ~6% ) 2/6 heads = +3 ring ( ~22% ) 3/5 heads = +2 ring ( ~43% ) 4 heads = +1 ring ( ~27% )
(You can swap +1 / +2 but I actually liked it this way)
A different example could be - We toss a single coin 6 times:
head head head head head head = +5 1.5% tail head head head head any = +4 3% tail tail head head any any = +3 6% tail head tail any any any = +2 12% else = +1 77.5%
Both examples have single tossing even related to all outcomes, and each outcome is not related to others.
@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.
The above is just to help provide a visual.
In your illustration we have sort of 'co-dependency', what is the chance of getting +5 ring ? it depends if we got also +2,3,4 outcome, then we roll again, and again, and again? So we have a probability that depends on the estimated value of other outcomes or infinite dependency tree. At least that's what I see at a glance. This is definitely not how loot tables work.
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.
I think you misquoted something here, I don't know who is that "to us" you refer to. From more than half the people I know in the game (and I hope you can take my world for it that after 4 years, few major channels, guild leadership and so on, I know quite a few) the RNG expiriance is not positive. Many have lost interest in the game, and eventually on a break or quit.
After the dungeon key change and drop rates were changed a number of items dropped sigificantly in value.
What the dungeon keys have to do with the rings? We are talking about a case where people ran over thousand PoMs and still didn't get the ring they want.
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",
So we should be scared of making a positive change because someone can ask for more change ? Akin to you will never get a rise at your job, because once given you will want more and more regardless of your performance and time in the company. Do you behave like that ?
Or as a manager your stance will be, "Never fix misconduct or flaws" because then people will report more and more and we will have to deal with it ? Never listen to ideas or feedback (and god forbid act on good ideas), because people will then bring more of it to you ?
Interesting philosophy.
We shouldn't ask for campaign patron cost changed, because the original prices were great. And they shouldn't have been changed, because oh noes then there will be a compelling irresistible urge to give more and more.
Arrogance is thinking that the Devs are children that can't read feedback and make decisions so someone should stop all requests saying that everything is good and great. Because they and only they know the greater scope.
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.
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.
Then help me out here. Do you say that in your opinion RNG is good as is? There are enough positive RNG experiences and in the larger scope (As you see it) it's all ok. Did I understand correctly ?
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
@wintersmoke the information has already been referenced to and it is that same information that helped shape the statements made here about RNG from this end. Just as the numerous people that simply present personal experience and or opnions yet their statements are still supported, positively received, etc. (as long as they go along with the thread majority). For the most part whenever someone disagrees and or argues against the thread majority their "credentials" are often sought, hmph.
Neither section contributed so posting it in the PC section as well would have done what exactly, provided 1/3 of data? Same difference.
@micky1p00 again, the example was to show that RNG is more than a "coin flip" especially with multiple versions of an item having a chance to drop. It wasn't a schematic of loot tables.
"To us" is reffering to the same group referenced before.
The sentence right after "After the dungeon key change and drop rates were changed" states what is bound to happen if ring drop rates are increased, quoting statements out of context often enough causes confusion. The "never fix" and "never change" concepts were formed by you (and another here?). In so many words the potential "ripples" of increased drop rates were mentioned, it was not stated that they should not be increased though yet again you have built upon your own assumptions. Best beleive staff look at the potential short term as well as long term effects of changes which is why the "ripples" were mentioned.
Then help me out here. Do you say that in your opinion RNG is good as is? There are enough positive RNG experiences and in the larger scope (As you see it) it's all ok. Did I understand correctly ?
The statements about RNG from this end were made in reference to the group of players from this end, our experiences, what we do, how we handle RNG, etc. For various reasons RNG is not a hardship for us (players from this end), wasn't "speaking" for anyone else, didn't state that it should also apply to everyone else, that the current state of RNG shouldn't be a problem for anyone nor that it shouldn't change. The implications that those things were the case were formed by you the reader, and again, built upon.
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
the information has already been referenced to and it is that same information that helped shape the statements made here about RNG from this end. Just as the numerous people that simply present personal experience and or opnions yet their statements are still supported, positively received, etc. (as long as they go along with the thread majority). For the most part whenever someone disagrees and or argues against the thread majority their "credentials" are often sought, hmph.
Where is that reference? I can't find any link in your posts that lead to the database itself. If I missed I apologize, but please provide it again.
again, the example was to show that RNG is more than a "coin flip" especially with multiple versions of an item having a chance to drop. It wasn't a schematic of loot tables.
You are not being truthful. Here is the opening sentence from your example:
@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.
blajev post was about the drops in the game.
Hence your " something that is not only around 1% but also calculated alongside other results that have higher chances to occur." refer to drop in the game. But it's false. The drop rate is not calculated alongside other results. For each RNG roll, there is one result.
And more so, probability is not an estimate. It's a chance. Maybe there is a terminology issue here, but RNG roll with a given probability will decide an outcome.
"To us" is reffering to the same group referenced before.
Who is that group? again, it's extremely hard to follow. I don't know who you referenced before, you keep saying it, but it's still not clear. Who is "This end" are your referring to yourself ? Or you speak for someone else ? Or you speak for a group of people ?
So please clarify who is "same group" and who is "this end"? Or can you just simply use "I" or "me"... if applicable. Or clarify once, and it will solve that issue. Why it's necessary to be vogue, it's a simple question, why it's such a problem to provide clear answer.
The sentence right after "After the dungeon key change and drop rates were changed" states what is bound to happen if ring drop rates are increased, quoting statements out of context often enough causes confusion. The "never fix" and "never change" concepts were formed by you (and another here?). In so many words the potential "ripples" of increased drop rates were mentioned, it was not stated that they should not be increased though yet again you have built upon your own assumptions. Best beleive staff look at the potential short term as well as long term effects of changes which is why the "ripples" were mentioned.
Again the context is the thread request to change the ring drop rates. You bring up that players will request additional requests. Here is the quote:
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"
Is that just an irrelevant statement ? A statement of facts?
Ok, people will ask for whatever they want. Why is it relevant to the discussion at hand. I've brought multiple examples why there is no relevance. "Fear" from more requests isn't a "show-stopper" for a valid request.
Then help me out here. Do you say that in your opinion RNG is good as is? There are enough positive RNG experiences and in the larger scope (As you see it) it's all ok. Did I understand correctly ?
The statements about RNG from this end were made in reference to the group of players from this end, our experiences, what we do, how we handle RNG, etc. For various reasons RNG is not a hardship for us (players from this end), wasn't "speaking" for anyone else, didn't state that it should also apply to everyone else, that the current state of RNG shouldn't be a problem for anyone nor that it shouldn't change. The implications that those things were the case were formed by you the reader, and again, built upon.
Then can you finally clarify, you post after post, in every thread, and yet there is never a bottom line. I'm sorry if it's on my end, I may be too stupid to understand, so please just in simple words:
Do you, and not your end, or some obscure reference, but you, have an objection to an increase of ring drop rates? Or a solution of PRNG or cap as was suggested.
Post edited by micky1p00 on
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Just as the numerous people that simply present personal experience and or opnions yet their statements are still supported, positively received, etc. (as long as they go along with the thread majority). For the most part whenever someone disagrees and or argues against the thread majority their "credentials" are often sought, hmph.
If you look carefully at my post, I state "IMO" a lot. Or in my expiriance etc.. I put a lot of effort to not assert facts, unless they are indeed proven facts. Nor I bring any credentials as a basis for an argument.
I did brought up my expiriance with people I have met, but it was clearly stated that it is my personal expiriance with people I have met.
0
Options
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
I think what trinity is trying to say is that is what you're trying to do.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
I think what trinity is trying to say is that is what you're trying to do.
Why would asking about RNG , be the same as " Give players an inch and eventually some will come for the ruler. " ?
Clearly people think there is a problem. I have friends who did FBI , MSVA , EDEMO and Hunts so many times my head is spinning. And received nothing in return. For them i would expect inquiries, like this. And at least some sort of a reply.
I can see people here are seriously discussing how to fix that problem. ( not me, i am just trolling around and skipping my day job. And pressing LOL / agree / like buttons. )
The games , we play are generally of the casual game type where you easily understand how to play, and then get the point of the game quickly. You grind for something _____ days and receive _____ for that grind. You do a dungeon and you get __ seals a day . You can refine 36 k AD a day on one character. There is a cap. You kill ___ boss and know you will in end receive _____ prize for killing him, eventually. Since it says so in collections of that zone. This are all rules of the game we currently play. And can be applied in many other ones as well. like WoW for example.
People do not understand how RNG can be applied so differently for some certain things, like RINGS + 5. And are curious, why is it so. How can it be so different and so hard without any possibility or an alternative to get them. Just luck and nothing else.
If you do not understand something and have an option to ask or discuss a certain topic, personally i always was of the opinion it is encouraged to do so. Even if your English is not of the greatest level. It remains to be seen what Cryptic does with the feedback it has received from the players during the past month, or if they do anything at all with it.
2
Options
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
Unless they opened the chest(s) and got *nothing*, they got something. The problem is they didn't get what they wanted. A chest is like a lockbox, open it with hopes, but not with expectations.
There is no "you WILL receive". It is "you CAN receive". There are no guarantees. No maximum number of attempts before you WILL get.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
@micky1p00 there was no link to the database. The response was to wintersmoke stating that without sharing information it cannot be referrenced to publically. The response also included essentially stating personl experience that often goes unchallengedand as long as it matches the majority attitude and stating personal experience that is based on a collection of information being challeneged because it differs from the majority attitude.
By jumping around you are seemingly confusig yourself. "This end" is referring to a group of players and has been stated before in so many words.
The overall context is the rquest to change the RNG of rings/the system to obtain them which shapes the context of the responses. You are essentially still implying that the statements from this end (at least some) are stating that no requests should be made because others will follow even after it was clarified that that is not the case.
To us there are more than enough alternatives and positive RNG experiences for RNG not to be a problem whether it's craftable/buyable items (mysterious merchant, Dragonflight for example), +4 rings, around a quarter of the value of coalescent wards being spent on preservation wards and successfully upgrading, etc.
For the most part we play to have fun (in game/in chat), become stronger and help each other. Our community based play helps alleviate the stressors of the RNG system, if we do a few runs and don't get rare drops/+5's we often joke about it because for a lot of us the benefits of quite a few rare drop/+5's would produce only a moderate increase in viability.
Just in case you overlook some things again: - focus less on RNG - have fun with others - utilize alternative equipment
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
Unless they opened the chest(s) and got *nothing*, they got something. The problem is they didn't get what they wanted. A chest is like a lockbox, open it with hopes, but not with expectations.
There is no "you WILL receive". It is "you CAN receive". There are no guarantees. No maximum number of attempts before you WILL get.
Yes, i will correct myself , they do receive something. A ring + 1, a peridot... a rank 5 ench. A rank 8 ench, an artifact... etc.. And yes that are as well prizes. For your effort.
But shouldn't loot be different then lockboxes ? With lockboxes you can recieve what you wish for, or not, you know what you are going into when opening a lockbox. It is a gamble. Okay. I get that. And as stated in one of the post, it is a fresh start for every attempt you do. Right ?
But isn't gear you grind for a different story ? I mean, i find it kinda unbelievable, that after 4 years of a grind some people never got a single +5 ring. How impossible statistically is that ? Yet it clearly happens. So is that intended , a luck or to say unluck of the draw ? That is what people would like to know. Is that really all there is to it ? Or not. You would say " curiosity killed the cat " . XD I really love that proverb.
Unless they opened the chest(s) and got *nothing*, they got something. The problem is they didn't get what they wanted. A chest is like a lockbox, open it with hopes, but not with expectations.
There is no "you WILL receive". It is "you CAN receive". There are no guarantees. No maximum number of attempts before you WILL get.
Yes, i will correct myself , they do receive something. A ring + 1, a peridot... a rank 5 ench. A rank 8 ench, an artifact... etc.. And yes that are as well prizes. For your effort.
But shouldn't loot be different then lockboxes ? With lockboxes you can recieve what you wish for, or not, you know what you are going into when opening a lockbox. It is a gamble. Okay. I get that. And as stated in one of the post, it is a fresh start for every attempt you do. Right ?
But isn't gear you grind for a different story ? I mean, i find it kinda unbelievable, that after 4 years of a grind some people never got a single +5 ring. How impossible statistically is that ? Yet it clearly happens. So is that intended , a luck or to say unluck of the draw ? That is what people would like to know. Is that really all there is to it ? Or not. You would say " curiosity killed the cat " . XD I really love that proverb.
you can sell/buy any lock box item and there the lottery winners can cash out right?
''How impossible statistically is that ?'' 500 attempts in row to do not get what you need with 0,1% drop chance 60,5% same with 1% drop chance 0.66%. Do you think that 500 attempts 20-30min each and dont get reword(only way to get is this way no trade) is normal and correct way in video game ?
Sweetie, you misunderstood me. All i am saying is, there is a problem with RNG for +5 rings. Obviously something is not adding up in here. And we would like to know what that is. It is all i am saying. Also as i said before. Loot should be different from lockbox. RNG for loot should be different for gear and different for lockboxes. And there should be an alternative way of getting the rings. I liked the idea where someone stated that like 10 + 4 rings could give you a plus 5 ring in a store. My question : ''How impossible statistically is that ?'' was saying : in 4 years , i know people, who did not receive a single + 5 ring, by grind, and they play non stop, without breaks. They in fact grind so much i fear for their real life.
I never said that RNG is bad itself, problem is with loot tables and drop chance , and there is no alternative way
But there chould be , an alternative way . Just like how right now you have Runic gear in store... do you not ? Yet , last mod, you could have only got it by chance, in the chest. Maybe. Yet here it is. This mod. In a store. Bought by normal every day seals.
1
Options
flambridgeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 191Arc User
edited September 2017
I say it another thread. My oppinion to resolve this impasse is "make +5 rings craftable (with +4 rings resource) in Mastercraft profession". Same to all another ultra rare sets.
For get recipes, player need Masterwork and go to zone and buy recipe (in this case "+5 rings recipes = (20k Vaniblood and +1,+2,+3 rings) each, saleable in Sea of Moving Ice"). This simple way will solve all problems.
1
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
@micky1p00 there was no link to the database. The response was to wintersmoke stating that without sharing information it cannot be referrenced to publically. The response also included essentially stating personl experience that often goes unchallengedand as long as it matches the majority attitude and stating personal experience that is based on a collection of information being challeneged because it differs from the majority attitude.
Did I bring alleged database, or alleged ways to make AD as part of my argument ? I did not. Your info is being challenged because it's non-existent. Majority or minority has nothing to do with it.
By jumping around you are seemingly confusig yourself. "This end" is referring to a group of players and has been stated before in so many words.
Then please repeat those words, but in one sentence, because to me it's not clear who you speak for. Just a group of your friends ? Again you evade a simple question and create an obscure reference. Simply answer the question.
To us there are more than enough alternatives and positive RNG experiences for RNG not to be a problem whether it's craftable/buyable items (mysterious merchant, Dragonflight for example), +4 rings, around a quarter of the value of coalescent wards being spent on preservation wards and successfully upgrading, etc.
For the most part we play to have fun (in game/in chat), become stronger and help each other. Our community based play helps alleviate the stressors of the RNG system, if we do a few runs and don't get rare drops/+5's we often joke about it because for a lot of us the benefits of quite a few rare drop/+5's would produce only a moderate increase in viability.
Just in case you overlook some things again: - focus less on RNG - have fun with others - utilize alternative equipment
There is no alternative equipment to legendary dual slotted rings. My fun is to have the best char possible (min-max) can be (for example) Who are you to say that your way of fun is more right? Or stand in the way of me having fun as long as it doesn't impact you negatively.
Then can you finally clarify, you post after post, in every thread, and yet there is never a bottom line. I'm sorry if it's on my end, I may be too stupid to understand, so please just in simple words:
Do you, and not your end, or some obscure reference, but you, have an objection to an increase of ring drop rates? Or a solution of PRNG or cap as was suggested.
Can we have a simple answer? Do you object or not ? And not your end, or your beginning, you Trinity, object this?
I never said that RNG is bad itself, problem is with loot tables and drop chance , and there is no alternative way
But there chould be , an alternative way . Just like how right now you have Runic gear in store... do you not ? Yet , last mod, you could have only got it by chance, in the chest. Maybe. Yet here it is. This mod. In a store. Bought by normal every day seals.
i got my runic gear with FBI grind, yes it take me 2-300 runs till i get all 4 correct parts , i got all primal items also even i dress up my little alt, grind and chasing a item is part of the gaming but it must be realistic in normal time(life long :P) frames
Correct me if i am wrong. Now this is just a question. Since i am trying to understand something. I am seriously asking.
The probability of the drop of loot.
Every time you kill the boss, you have a 3% chance of getting the ring. I think it was said 3 % , right ? If it is less then it is less, my bad . Does not matter, for my question it can be 1 %, 3 %or 5 % ... For the sake of the question lets say it is 3 % .
3 % on the first kill, and 3% on the 100th kill. 3 % on 1000 kill and 3 % on 3000 kill. The past results don't affect the chance of the next result. It is random Correct ?
Then we have the gambler's fallacy. Right ? A belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future.
However, the probability of getting your drop over the course of multiple attempts increases, or at least that is how i understood it.
We're flipping our coin again. Lets call it : TYRANNY OF RNG coin. I like naming stuff. Sue me :P
We know that we have a 50% chance of getting heads on any given toss, and it doesn't matter at all what results we got before.
But I think we can all agree that if we flip a coin 100 times it is very, likely that we will get heads at least one of those times.
The chance on the first toss is 50%, and on the 50th toss it's 50%, and on the 100th toss it's 50% and on 10050 toss it is still 50 %.
But over the course of lets say 100 tosses, the probability of getting heads is way more than 50%. So the more often we kill the boss, the more likely we are to see the loot that we want.
So.. while i understand this principle. It seems to me , this certainly can not be applied to NW loot ? Or is this just something i am looking at in a wrong way ? This should in a way also be applied to the rings you receive from the chest. BUT i am not considering the fact , how much loot there is that could be a possible drop from the chest. That is also very important cos it is shortening the chances of getting exactly what you want. Correct ?
also, hi @micky1p00 , look at me i am trying to actually be useful :P
Just an idea, so don't go all crazy on me, but how about making everyone a happy camper?
Gear gets updated almost every mod and while being best in slot is desirable, it is not necessary to complete content.
Some people like farming, some people like crafting, some like opening lock boxes for the newest stuff.
Back in the day, the best rings could only be obtained through crafting.
Ok, so here it goes. Best in slot companion gear and rings and mounts come only from lock boxes and can be sold in the auction house if you get doubles. This way people who like boxes can try their luck or you can buy them in the action house if you don't want the risk of going empty handed. These rings come with double offense or defense and a plus 5% bonus to damage or defense in the new zone. This way it can always be updated.
For people who like crafting you can get gear and rings that are currently optimal but only with one offense and one defense slot and a maximum of say 2.5% extra damage or defense against the current mod mobs.
And for people who like to farm you can get maybe up to 5% extra damage or defense rings or equipment but only with one offense or one defense slot.
You can keep the rng but each way of obtaining gear has it's limit. And no one is left out. You can keep gear relevant and up to date as well which mmo's are all about.
Anyway, just a base idea. Obviously it would need fine tuning, but hey I don't work for cryptic, so that's not my job.
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited September 2017
Lets say the chance for a ring is 1%
meaning at some run, I have 1% chance to get a ring. In the next run I'll have the same 1% chance, and no matter how many runs I'll do I always have 1% chance to get the ring at that run. (I'll use a run as synonym to opening a chest or any activity that can yield the result)
This is indeed related to Gamblers fallacy. Because the chance never changes and is memoryless -> it doesn't care what was the previous results / runs or if were any at all.
But this the chance for "getting a ring at each run".
Now we can ask a different question, "What is a chance to get at least one ring in one run":
In this case again 1%
Lets ask, "what is my chance to get at least one ring in two runs":
We are interested in our chance to get at least one ring, so we look at outcomes 2,3,4. In practice it's easier to calculate utcome 1and find the complimentary chance, - meaning that all the outcomes together are 100% (no other possibilities) we can see that that:
So back to our 'good' outcomes we now know that a chance for at least 1 ring in N runs is:
P(n) = 1 - failure^n = 1 - 0.99^n
Visually we get this:
The problem is that while it's going very very close to 100%, there is always a possibility of not getting any rings. And the second problem is that the "ring that you want" chance is not 1%, if it's 1% for legendary ring then, a ring that you want will be 1% / 8 or so.
So we get something like this:
And at this, at 500 runs it's 53% that you wont get a thing. At 1000 runs it's 28% And at 2000 runs it's 8%.
Meaning that for the example above, on 'average' 8% of the population will run 2000 times and will get the middle finger. With a population of 10k people, it's 800 hundred happy people.
This is why varied solution, from trading rings (legendary to legendary at some ratio), to crafting, to seals trade, to PRNG, etc.. are proposed to get from the second graph to the first or more controlled (by devs) system.
2
Options
greywyndMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 7,095Arc User
For all in game there trade seals system or both, can you tell me how the 100 +1-+4 rings in my bag and the 400 i already scraped will help me to get the +5 i need ? Is it ''there no guarantees'' is = you will never get that no matter how hard you work else then you have crazy luck ?
They won't help you. There is no reason why they should help you. You got. You just haven't gotten what you think you should.
I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
@micky1p00 this is a different thread, and yes, you brought what was going on in another thread into this one as part of your argument. The statement to the OP asking if they had tangible numbers other than "I ran X, Y number of times" wasn't referring to the database itself, it was for a simple comparison of number of runs and what rewards granted. The RNG database was referred to by wintersmoke and seemingly that is when you jumped on it. Again when people go along with the majority their statements, often enough to be considerably argued go unchallenged.
+4 rings are also dual slotted. If players want to go for the +5's they very well can though until they get the ones they want they probably have +4's (or lower versions) equiped with those rings being alternative equipment (more available) rather than nothing equiped in the ring slots.
Others also mentioned in this thread in so many words that +4's fair well, are not necessary and chasing +5's can cause self inflicted pain and surprisningly, those statements were not challeneged when made by others, they weren't accused of taking the "moral high ground", etc. though when those statements were made from this end they were. LoL
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
You can't simultaneously sit there and claim that you have access to information that backs up your argument, and also refuse to share the very same information. You have no obligation to share anything. That is your choice. But, by chosing not to share the information, you lose the ability to reference that information publicly.
In this case it's like saying a bee is an example of how a plane flies. Sorry, but except that both the loot table and the example have probability in them (in my illustration both the bee an plane fly) they are different enough to that "Which is pretty much exactly what the example illustrates" doesn't work well, or more like at all, and that what I was pointing out.
You can make several coin based examples that are closer to illustrate it, first we need a static number of coins or dies. The RNG is checked once, and not survival mode who left standing. And we want something that we can actually understand the probability from ( the probability of any item in the table is self standing, there could be several tables rolled with some having no reward as an option but for the example we wont go there), lets try some examples:
Lets say we toss 8 coins (the order of heads is not relevant):
0/8 heads = +5 ring ( ~0.8% )
1/7 heads = +4 ring ( ~6% )
2/6 heads = +3 ring ( ~22% )
3/5 heads = +2 ring ( ~43% )
4 heads = +1 ring ( ~27% )
(You can swap +1 / +2 but I actually liked it this way)
A different example could be - We toss a single coin 6 times:
head head head head head head = +5 1.5%
tail head head head head any = +4 3%
tail tail head head any any = +3 6%
tail head tail any any any = +2 12%
else = +1 77.5%
Both examples have single tossing even related to all outcomes, and each outcome is not related to others.
Lets get back to yours: In your illustration we have sort of 'co-dependency', what is the chance of getting +5 ring ? it depends if we got also +2,3,4 outcome, then we roll again, and again, and again? So we have a probability that depends on the estimated value of other outcomes or infinite dependency tree. At least that's what I see at a glance. This is definitely not how loot tables work.
I think you misquoted something here, I don't know who is that "to us" you refer to. From more than half the people I know in the game (and I hope you can take my world for it that after 4 years, few major channels, guild leadership and so on, I know quite a few) the RNG expiriance is not positive. Many have lost interest in the game, and eventually on a break or quit.
What the dungeon keys have to do with the rings?
We are talking about a case where people ran over thousand PoMs and still didn't get the ring they want. So we should be scared of making a positive change because someone can ask for more change ? Akin to you will never get a rise at your job, because once given you will want more and more regardless of your performance and time in the company.
Do you behave like that ?
Or as a manager your stance will be, "Never fix misconduct or flaws" because then people will report more and more and we will have to deal with it ?
Never listen to ideas or feedback (and god forbid act on good ideas), because people will then bring more of it to you ?
Interesting philosophy.
We shouldn't ask for campaign patron cost changed, because the original prices were great. And they shouldn't have been changed, because oh noes then there will be a compelling irresistible urge to give more and more.
Arrogance is thinking that the Devs are children that can't read feedback and make decisions so someone should stop all requests saying that everything is good and great. Because they and only they know the greater scope.
Here is what I've said: Then help me out here. Do you say that in your opinion RNG is good as is? There are enough positive RNG experiences and in the larger scope (As you see it) it's all ok. Did I understand correctly ?
@wintersmoke the information has already been referenced to and it is that same information that helped shape the statements made here about RNG from this end. Just as the numerous people that simply present personal experience and or opnions yet their statements are still supported, positively received, etc. (as long as they go along with the thread majority). For the most part whenever someone disagrees and or argues against the thread majority their "credentials" are often sought, hmph.
Neither section contributed so posting it in the PC section as well would have done what exactly, provided 1/3 of data? Same difference.
@micky1p00 again, the example was to show that RNG is more than a "coin flip" especially with multiple versions of an item having a chance to drop. It wasn't a schematic of loot tables.
"To us" is reffering to the same group referenced before.
The sentence right after "After the dungeon key change and drop rates were changed" states what is bound to happen if ring drop rates are increased, quoting statements out of context often enough causes confusion. The "never fix" and "never change" concepts were formed by you (and another here?). In so many words the potential "ripples" of increased drop rates were mentioned, it was not stated that they should not be increased though yet again you have built upon your own assumptions. Best beleive staff look at the potential short term as well as long term effects of changes which is why the "ripples" were mentioned. The statements about RNG from this end were made in reference to the group of players from this end, our experiences, what we do, how we handle RNG, etc. For various reasons RNG is not a hardship for us (players from this end), wasn't "speaking" for anyone else, didn't state that it should also apply to everyone else, that the current state of RNG shouldn't be a problem for anyone nor that it shouldn't change. The implications that those things were the case were formed by you the reader, and again, built upon.
“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
Here is the opening sentence from your example: blajev post was about the drops in the game.
Hence your " something that is not only around 1% but also calculated alongside other results that have higher chances to occur." refer to drop in the game.
But it's false. The drop rate is not calculated alongside other results. For each RNG roll, there is one result.
And more so, probability is not an estimate. It's a chance. Maybe there is a terminology issue here, but RNG roll with a given probability will decide an outcome.
Here is another quote: Your model of the loot is not correct.
Who is that group? again, it's extremely hard to follow. I don't know who you referenced before, you keep saying it, but it's still not clear.
Who is "This end" are your referring to yourself ? Or you speak for someone else ? Or you speak for a group of people ?
So please clarify who is "same group" and who is "this end"? Or can you just simply use "I" or "me"... if applicable. Or clarify once, and it will solve that issue. Why it's necessary to be vogue, it's a simple question, why it's such a problem to provide clear answer. Again the context is the thread request to change the ring drop rates. You bring up that players will request additional requests.
Here is the quote: Is that just an irrelevant statement ? A statement of facts?
Ok, people will ask for whatever they want. Why is it relevant to the discussion at hand. I've brought multiple examples why there is no relevance. "Fear" from more requests isn't a "show-stopper" for a valid request. So, you don't have an objection for an increase of drop rate ? Then can you finally clarify, you post after post, in every thread, and yet there is never a bottom line. I'm sorry if it's on my end, I may be too stupid to understand, so please just in simple words:
Do you, and not your end, or some obscure reference, but you, have an objection to an increase of ring drop rates?
Or a solution of PRNG or cap as was suggested.
I did brought up my expiriance with people I have met, but it was clearly stated that it is my personal expiriance with people I have met.
Clearly people think there is a problem. I have friends who did FBI , MSVA , EDEMO and Hunts so many times my head is spinning. And received nothing in return. For them i would expect inquiries, like this.
And at least some sort of a reply.
I can see people here are seriously discussing how to fix that problem.
( not me, i am just trolling around and skipping my day job. And pressing LOL / agree / like buttons. )
The games , we play are generally of the casual game type where you easily understand how to play, and then get the point of the game quickly.
You grind for something _____ days and receive _____ for that grind.
You do a dungeon and you get __ seals a day .
You can refine 36 k AD a day on one character. There is a cap.
You kill ___ boss and know you will in end receive _____ prize for killing him, eventually.
Since it says so in collections of that zone.
This are all rules of the game we currently play. And can be applied in many other ones as well. like WoW for example.
People do not understand how RNG can be applied so differently for some certain things, like RINGS + 5.
And are curious, why is it so. How can it be so different and so hard without any possibility or an alternative to get them.
Just luck and nothing else.
If you do not understand something and have an option to ask or discuss a certain topic, personally i always was of the opinion it is encouraged to do so.
Even if your English is not of the greatest level.
It remains to be seen what Cryptic does with the feedback it has received from the players during the past month, or if they do anything at all with it.
There is no "you WILL receive". It is "you CAN receive". There are no guarantees. No maximum number of attempts before you WILL get.
By jumping around you are seemingly confusig yourself. "This end" is referring to a group of players and has been stated before in so many words.
The overall context is the rquest to change the RNG of rings/the system to obtain them which shapes the context of the responses. You are essentially still implying that the statements from this end (at least some) are stating that no requests should be made because others will follow even after it was clarified that that is not the case. Just in case you overlook some things again:
- focus less on RNG
- have fun with others
- utilize alternative equipment
“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
“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
And yes that are as well prizes. For your effort.
But shouldn't loot be different then lockboxes ?
With lockboxes you can recieve what you wish for, or not, you know what you are going into when opening a lockbox.
It is a gamble. Okay. I get that. And as stated in one of the post, it is a fresh start for every attempt you do. Right ?
But isn't gear you grind for a different story ?
I mean, i find it kinda unbelievable, that after 4 years of a grind some people never got a single +5 ring.
How impossible statistically is that ? Yet it clearly happens. So is that intended , a luck or to say unluck of the draw ?
That is what people would like to know. Is that really all there is to it ? Or not.
You would say " curiosity killed the cat " . XD I really love that proverb.
All i am saying is, there is a problem with RNG for +5 rings. Obviously something is not adding up in here. And we would like to know what that is. It is all i am saying.
Also as i said before. Loot should be different from lockbox. RNG for loot should be different for gear and different for lockboxes. And there should be an alternative way of getting the rings. I liked the idea where someone stated that like 10 + 4 rings could give you a plus 5 ring in a store.
My question : ''How impossible statistically is that ?'' was saying : in 4 years , i know people, who did not receive a single + 5 ring, by grind, and they play non stop, without breaks.
They in fact grind so much i fear for their real life.
Yet , last mod, you could have only got it by chance, in the chest. Maybe.
Yet here it is. This mod. In a store. Bought by normal every day seals.
For get recipes, player need Masterwork and go to zone and buy recipe (in this case "+5 rings recipes = (20k Vaniblood and +1,+2,+3 rings) each, saleable in Sea of Moving Ice").
This simple way will solve all problems.
Again you evade a simple question and create an obscure reference. Simply answer the question. There is no alternative equipment to legendary dual slotted rings. My fun is to have the best char possible (min-max) can be (for example)
Who are you to say that your way of fun is more right? Or stand in the way of me having fun as long as it doesn't impact you negatively.
Just in case you've missed:
Can we have a simple answer? Do you object or not ? And not your end, or your beginning, you Trinity, object this?
Correct me if i am wrong. Now this is just a question. Since i am trying to understand something.
I am seriously asking.
The probability of the drop of loot.
Every time you kill the boss, you have a 3% chance of getting the ring.
I think it was said 3 % , right ? If it is less then it is less, my bad .
Does not matter, for my question it can be 1 %, 3 %or 5 % ...
For the sake of the question lets say it is 3 % .
3 % on the first kill, and 3% on the 100th kill. 3 % on 1000 kill and 3 % on 3000 kill.
The past results don't affect the chance of the next result. It is random Correct ?
Then we have the gambler's fallacy. Right ?
A belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future.
However, the probability of getting your drop over the course of multiple attempts increases, or at least that is how i understood it.
We're flipping our coin again. Lets call it : TYRANNY OF RNG coin. I like naming stuff. Sue me :P
We know that we have a 50% chance of getting heads on any given toss, and it doesn't matter at all what results we got before.
But I think we can all agree that if we flip a coin 100 times it is very, likely that we will get heads at least one of those times.
The chance on the first toss is 50%, and on the 50th toss it's 50%, and on the 100th toss it's 50% and on 10050 toss it is still 50 %.
But over the course of lets say 100 tosses, the probability of getting heads is way more than 50%.
So the more often we kill the boss, the more likely we are to see the loot that we want.
So.. while i understand this principle.
It seems to me , this certainly can not be applied to NW loot ?
Or is this just something i am looking at in a wrong way ?
This should in a way also be applied to the rings you receive from the chest. BUT i am not considering the fact , how much loot there is that could be a possible drop from the chest. That is also very important cos it is shortening the chances of getting exactly what you want. Correct ?
also, hi @micky1p00 , look at me i am trying to actually be useful :P
Gear gets updated almost every mod and while being best in slot is desirable, it is not necessary to complete content.
Some people like farming, some people like crafting, some like opening lock boxes for the newest stuff.
Back in the day, the best rings could only be obtained through crafting.
Ok, so here it goes. Best in slot companion gear and rings and mounts come only from lock boxes and can be sold in the auction house if you get doubles. This way people who like boxes can try their luck or you can buy them in the action house if you don't want the risk of going empty handed. These rings come with double offense or defense and a plus 5% bonus to damage or defense in the new zone. This way it can always be updated.
For people who like crafting you can get gear and rings that are currently optimal but only with one offense and one defense slot and a maximum of say 2.5% extra damage or defense against the current mod mobs.
And for people who like to farm you can get maybe up to 5% extra damage or defense rings or equipment but only with one offense or one defense slot.
You can keep the rng but each way of obtaining gear has it's limit. And no one is left out. You can keep gear relevant and up to date as well which mmo's are all about.
Anyway, just a base idea. Obviously it would need fine tuning, but hey I don't work for cryptic, so that's not my job.
meaning at some run, I have 1% chance to get a ring. In the next run I'll have the same 1% chance, and no matter how many runs I'll do I always have 1% chance to get the ring at that run.
(I'll use a run as synonym to opening a chest or any activity that can yield the result)
This is indeed related to Gamblers fallacy. Because the chance never changes and is memoryless -> it doesn't care what was the previous results / runs or if were any at all.
But this the chance for "getting a ring at each run".
Now we can ask a different question, "What is a chance to get at least one ring in one run":
In this case again 1%
Lets ask, "what is my chance to get at least one ring in two runs":
In two runs we have these possibilities:
1. failure & failure
2. success & failure
3. failure & success
4. success & success
We are interested in our chance to get at least one ring, so we look at outcomes 2,3,4. In practice it's easier to calculate utcome 1and find the complimentary chance, - meaning that all the outcomes together are 100% (no other possibilities) we can see that that:
100% - chance_outcome1 = chance_outcome2 + chance_outcome3 + chance_outcome4
So what is the chance for outcome 1? In two runs, it's
failure * failure = 0.99 * 0.99 = 0.9801 = 98%
In 3 runs it's:
failure * failure * failure = 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 = 0.9703 = 97%
And we can generalize: In N runs, it's
failure ^ n = 0.99^n
So back to our 'good' outcomes we now know that a chance for at least 1 ring in N runs is:
P(n) = 1 - failure^n = 1 - 0.99^n
Visually we get this:
The problem is that while it's going very very close to 100%, there is always a possibility of not getting any rings. And the second problem is that the "ring that you want" chance is not 1%, if it's 1% for legendary ring then, a ring that you want will be 1% / 8 or so.
So we get something like this:
And at this, at 500 runs it's 53% that you wont get a thing.
At 1000 runs it's 28%
And at 2000 runs it's 8%.
Meaning that for the example above, on 'average' 8% of the population will run 2000 times and will get the middle finger. With a population of 10k people, it's 800 hundred happy people.
This is why varied solution, from trading rings (legendary to legendary at some ratio), to crafting, to seals trade, to PRNG, etc.. are proposed to get from the second graph to the first or more controlled (by devs) system.
+4 rings are also dual slotted. If players want to go for the +5's they very well can though until they get the ones they want they probably have +4's (or lower versions) equiped with those rings being alternative equipment (more available) rather than nothing equiped in the ring slots.
Others also mentioned in this thread in so many words that +4's fair well, are not necessary and chasing +5's can cause self inflicted pain and surprisningly, those statements were not challeneged when made by others, they weren't accused of taking the "moral high ground", etc. though when those statements were made from this end they were. LoL
“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