test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Now that we all have to refine at 3% chances again, it's time to finally let us bypass the RNG

feanor70118feanor70118 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,170 Arc User
Refining at a 3% chance of success was already a form of torture. Dealing with the RNG - even if it were working correctly (which it is not and never has) an average of 33 times to make a single R12 enchantment has always been boring, tedious, frustrating and utterly pointless. All we want to do is dump 33 preservation wards into the enchantment and get a guaranteed success. The occasional relief of getting an early success is in no way a balancing counterpoint to the mind-numbing, infuriating monotony of a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long string of failures. Just let us use the appropriate amount of preservation wards to get guaranteed successes. That, or increase the minimum success change to 10% so the long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long strings of failure won't be quite so soul-deadening.
«1

Comments

  • oldbaldyoneoldbaldyone Member Posts: 1,840 Arc User
    While I agree they should up the percentages (and I very much agree than RNG is streaky, regardless of how much the Maintenance Streamers laughed at the players and the idea of it being broken), they have obviously made the decision that BIS is now going to be extremely expensive (in either AD or time, sometimes both) as compared to what it was before. I don't think making things easier is in their plans. BIS is now truly for the whales (it wasn't quite there before 12b).

    In terms of things I think they would actually consider....they should use the fancy new RP conversion window process...in which it shows you crits and stuff, and just say "Ok, you put 100 P wards in, click Refine once, and it will automatically keep going till you either succeed or run out of wards". This wouldn't be terrible, as you'd only have to see failures 1 time and accept how many wards you lost. This is better than seeing 40-50-60 failures and then 1 success, and deals with the problem of perception that causes this to be a painful process. I saw 86 failure messages on a 3% chance before I got the 1 success. So every single time you refine, you are getting negative responses, and the small amount of joy you get from the positive response isn't even close to making up for it.

    As it stands, I don't think I will even make it to full 13s (that 86 ward loss killed me). The benefit isn't there anymore (it barely was before I guess). This from someone who has been BIS for the last 5-6 MODs.
  • feanor70118feanor70118 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,170 Arc User
    I can't be bothered to upgrade anything until I get all the free wards from the Xmas event. It was too much eyes-rolled-back-in-aching-head boredom just to get to full R12s. But please, let's not talk as if the current torture-by-RNG or anything like it is acceptable. It is not. The main flaw of NWO is that the RNG is the only real endgame opponent, and no one enjoys fighting the RNG. Minimizing its hateful, ubiquitous, obstructive presence in the game should be the developers' main goal.
  • santralafaxsantralafax Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 2,896 Arc User
    I'm maxing my main's companion with R13's and that is about as far as I will go with this. I won't even contemplate the cost of upgrading my WE to R13. And I'm playing a LOT less.
  • armadeonxarmadeonx Member Posts: 4,952 Arc User
    They should increase the chance after every failure.

    E.g. 3% chance on your first pres-ward, 4% on the next, then 5% etc.
    Please Do Not Feed The Trolls

    Xael De Armadeon: DC
    Xane De Armadeon: CW
    Zen De Armadeon: OP
    Zohar De Armadeon: TR
    Chrion De Armadeon: SW
    Gosti Big Belly: GWF
    Barney McRustbucket: GF
    Lt. Thackeray: HR
    Lucius De Armadeon: BD


    Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
  • tom#6998 tom Member Posts: 952 Arc User
    armadeonx said:

    They should increase the chance after every failure.

    E.g. 3% chance on your first pres-ward, 4% on the next, then 5% etc.

    they should do the same for rare dungeon drops (looking at you ultimate enchatment stone !!) so u atleast get 1 every 30 runs or so guranteed
  • callumf#9018 callumf Member Posts: 1,710 Arc User
    armadeonx said:

    They should increase the chance after every failure.

    E.g. 3% chance on your first pres-ward, 4% on the next, then 5% etc.

    +1 this for truth. Same for all upgrades really, so the 10% upgrade rises by 5% per try [or something] so that eventually its hits a guaranteed success.

    And then someone will say "but we have coalescent wards for that" but at 500k per coal ward it isn't feasible and shouldn't be the only option on a 10% upgrade.
  • ilmenirailmenira Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 269 Arc User
    +1
  • namelesshero347namelesshero347 Member Posts: 2,109 Arc User
    I doubt I will be making any R13s before BF or the winter festival. The last time I used pres wards to made two R12s, both took more than 150 wards each. That's over three stacks of pres wards massacred just for two 3% hits. And it took hours because I don't trust the RNG enough to just mash the button until success. I only do coal wards now on 3%.
  • earlgreybeardearlgreybeard Member Posts: 407 Arc User

    So every single time you refine, you are getting negative responses, and the small amount of joy you get from the positive response isn't even close to making up for it.

    It is pretty similar across the board in this game .. profession tasks and dungeon chests will eventually grind you down as well and make you wonder if any of this consistent and quite oppressive pain of failure is worth it.

    i am not going to even start with the lockboxes
    :dizzy:

    End game stuff needs to be torturous experience I guess and once you are there and spent what you have spent to get there.. there is no real need for them to be accommodating is there?


    Guild Leader Den of the Misfits
  • hirogardehirogarde Member Posts: 122 Arc User
    I wonder how difficult it would be to add a stat to the wards that increases chance of success - and it gets used whether successful or not.

    They could then add blue, purple, orange, and teal wards to the list, adding larger % chance of success for each tier.

    I never understood why we were stuck with either 1% (no ward) or 100% (coal) with the wards.
  • adinosiiadinosii Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,294 Arc User
    I have some statistics on the RNG, and the bottom line is basically that the average is right ... yes, you do indeed have to spend an average of around 33 Preservation wards on a 3% chance, for example. However, I question the distribution - I am getting more successes with "under 4" or "over 80" wards than I should be getting. My sample size is not huge, so I cannot say for certain whether there is some weird "streakiness" in the RNG, but if you are making a lot of R12s (for your use or reselling) the average is the only thing that really matters.
    Hoping for improvements...
  • feanor70118feanor70118 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,170 Arc User
    It is not really relevant whether or not the RNG's claims are accurate (and in my experience, they are not, and there are a great many threads about it that have all been derailed by people inexplicably arguing that we should continue to suffer under it). The tedium of having to attempt an upgrade an average of 33 time is still a massive and irritating flaw in the game that should be fixed.
  • plasticbatplasticbat Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 12,184 Arc User
    Although I am usually in the winning side, I really don't like RNG. I don't mind the game needs me to provide 33 p-ward as a requirement of 3% (just consider that another 33 marks) to get rid of RNG even though I don't even think I have once needed 33 p-ward to do 3%. I don't expect my luck can continue forever.
    *** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
  • tripsofthrymrtripsofthrymr Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,624 Community Moderator
    100% chance of success means use a coalescent ward. For better or worse, that's the design.

    It would be nice if the design allowed you to pay the expectation value in preservation wards for a guaranteed success (your suggestion). If they won't make that design change, then here's a usability suggestion:

    Option to automatically keep refining until either a) success, or b) out of preservation wards. Use the most-bound preservation wards first.

    Dealing with the RNG - even if it were working correctly (which it is not and never has) an average of 33 times to make a single R12 enchantment

    I disagree that the RNG isn't balanced in the long run. Several years ago, I recorded a large number of success/failure on many 10% upgrade chances. Using a Student T-Test with the hypothesis "the upgrade chance is 10%," the confidence that my results agree with the hypothesis is > 95%.

    Unscientifically, I believe the RNG is streaky, if fair in the long run. That's a common problem with software (pseudo-)random number generators. Here's a discussion.

    Caritas Guild Founder (Greycloak Alliance)

    Sci-fi author: The Gods We Make, The Gods We Seek, and Ji-min
  • feanor70118feanor70118 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,170 Arc User
    edited November 2017
    WE ALL KNOW WHAT COALESCENT WARDS ARE. THAT IS NOT RELEVANT. Moderator or not, it is not helpful to remind us how things are. The point of this thread is to suggest improvements to a flawed system. If you have one that hasn't already been made, I'd welcome it.
  • tripsofthrymrtripsofthrymr Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,624 Community Moderator

    The point of this thread is to suggest improvements to a flawed system. If you have one that hasn't already been made, I'd welcome it.

    It would be nice if the design allowed you to pay the expectation value in preservation wards for a guaranteed success (your suggestion). If they won't make that design change, then here's a usability suggestion:

    Option to automatically keep refining until either a) success, or b) out of preservation wards. Use the most-bound preservation wards first.

    Caritas Guild Founder (Greycloak Alliance)

    Sci-fi author: The Gods We Make, The Gods We Seek, and Ji-min
  • tripsofthrymrtripsofthrymr Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,624 Community Moderator
    armadeonx said:

    They should increase the chance after every failure.

    E.g. 3% chance on your first pres-ward, 4% on the next, then 5% etc.

    I thought about that at one point, and like the idea in principal. I guess it would complicate trades "WTS Azure R13 7% upgrade" and require improvements to the tooltips (to show upgrade % of concrete enchantments), AH, etc.
    Caritas Guild Founder (Greycloak Alliance)

    Sci-fi author: The Gods We Make, The Gods We Seek, and Ji-min
  • namelesshero347namelesshero347 Member Posts: 2,109 Arc User
    They should just fix the system. People seeing outlier results like 40+ wards on 10% happening so often just smells fishy. If they introduce workarounds like having the option to refine until success, doubt many will use it because they don't trust the underlying system.

    Just about anyone who has done a fair amount of refining has come up with some stupidstitious process to try to work around the terrible system. Whether they work or not, who knows.
  • plasticbatplasticbat Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 12,184 Arc User
    I would say Cryptic should just get rid of the % of success but replace it with an extra number of "marks" to replace "wards".
    i.e. for current 3% chance, replace that as adding 33 "p-ward" marks as the input material for upgrade.
    *** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
  • armadeonxarmadeonx Member Posts: 4,952 Arc User

    armadeonx said:

    They should increase the chance after every failure.

    E.g. 3% chance on your first pres-ward, 4% on the next, then 5% etc.

    I thought about that at one point, and like the idea in principal. I guess it would complicate trades "WTS Azure R13 7% upgrade" and require improvements to the tooltips (to show upgrade % of concrete enchantments), AH, etc.
    I'm cool with the devs doing a bit of work for it :wink: The unavoidable truth is that the randomness really annoys a ton of players and the process is a requirement for all players who want to improve their gear (nearly everyone).

    With it being such a core aspect of the game I think they should take some time and make it more user friendly.
    Please Do Not Feed The Trolls

    Xael De Armadeon: DC
    Xane De Armadeon: CW
    Zen De Armadeon: OP
    Zohar De Armadeon: TR
    Chrion De Armadeon: SW
    Gosti Big Belly: GWF
    Barney McRustbucket: GF
    Lt. Thackeray: HR
    Lucius De Armadeon: BD


    Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
  • c3rb3r3c3rb3r3 Member Posts: 277 Arc User

    I would say Cryptic should just get rid of the % of success but replace it with an extra number of "marks" to replace "wards".
    i.e. for current 3% chance, replace that as adding 33 "p-ward" marks as the input material for upgrade.

    Seing lucky people whine on forums about it would make my day
  • minotaur2857minotaur2857 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,141 Arc User

    100% chance of success means use a coalescent ward. For better or worse, that's the design.

    It would be nice if the design allowed you to pay the expectation value in preservation wards for a guaranteed success (your suggestion). If they won't make that design change, then here's a usability suggestion:

    Option to automatically keep refining until either a) success, or b) out of preservation wards. Use the most-bound preservation wards first.

    Dealing with the RNG - even if it were working correctly (which it is not and never has) an average of 33 times to make a single R12 enchantment

    I disagree that the RNG isn't balanced in the long run. Several years ago, I recorded a large number of success/failure on many 10% upgrade chances. Using a Student T-Test with the hypothesis "the upgrade chance is 10%," the confidence that my results agree with the hypothesis is > 95%.

    Unscientifically, I believe the RNG is streaky, if fair in the long run. That's a common problem with software (pseudo-)random number generators. Here's a discussion.

    (Statistics graduate) yes the t-test is the right way to do it, I did something simpler and less rigorous but indicative

    I tested the RNG by a different method (normal approximation to binomial, 95% of results within 2 standard deviations, 99% within 3, and yes I had enough trials to do this) and over a goodly number of 2xRP weekends NEVER found my results within 2 SDs and rarely within 3, I was consistently taking 20-30% more attempts than I should.

    That said some of the outliers were startling (71 attempts for a 20% this 2xenchs).
  • oldbaldyoneoldbaldyone Member Posts: 1,840 Arc User
    I like the idea of dumping the ward system and just adding additional components..or just more marks. You really are pushing the limits when calling something a free game and the saying if you don't use a pay item, your chance to fail is 97 percent.

    That said...i got a 3% in 4 wards last night. Praise rngesus I guess.
  • plasticbatplasticbat Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 12,184 Arc User
    edited November 2017
    c3rb3r3 said:

    I would say Cryptic should just get rid of the % of success but replace it with an extra number of "marks" to replace "wards".
    i.e. for current 3% chance, replace that as adding 33 "p-ward" marks as the input material for upgrade.

    Seing lucky people whine on forums about it would make my day
    Even though I have been lucky, that does not mean I don't get frustrated for each fail. Yes, (say) success in 10 attempts for 3% is a win. However, I also got frustrated 9 times.

    Lets assume the odd is even out in long run. i.e. 3% is indeed 3% in long run. Say, if you do upgrade 3% 10 times and put them all together is indeed 3% in average, what is the point doing that? Is there some entertainment value I do not see?

    The cost will be the same, 330 p-wards.

    Without RNG, 330 p-wards (as marks).
    With RNG, 330 p-wards + got frustrated 980 times.
    Post edited by plasticbat on
    *** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
  • niadanniadan Member Posts: 1,635 Arc User
    Have pwards increase in success chance after reaching certain thresholds of unsuccessful attempts. We get to be lucky when it pops in two or three uses, and we get greater chances of success if we are streaking in the negative.
  • hirogardehirogarde Member Posts: 122 Arc User
    edited November 2017

    ... what is the point doing that? Is there some entertainment value I do not see?

    The point is: It keeps us in-game and playing, but not completing content.

    If we assume everyone has a limited daily playtime, and we spend an hour of it every day with these menial tasks (like upgrading 3% items or buying mats with GMs) - that's an extra two weeks (a year) they can put off distributing new content because it'll take us that much longer (real time) to complete what they've already distributed. Hopefully that means an extra 2 weeks vetting new content, not just putting it off.

    Another, more visible purpose is that it makes us feel like we "need" to purchase things like Coalescent Wards; either with Zen (RL cash) or AD (RL time again).

    And a third, less tangible result: Realistically, the kind of torture that RNGs cause is short lived compared to the "I WIN" feeling when we finally accomplish the task. That creates a RL attachment to our characters because we put so much time and effort into their creation, which makes it far less likely we'll leave the game.
    Post edited by hirogarde on
  • hotfrostwormhotfrostworm Member Posts: 447 Arc User
    Hello, I am a programmer. Sorry you will just have to take my word for it, as little as that means, in an open forum, where anyone can make that claim.

    ...
    Unscientifically, I believe the RNG is streaky, if fair in the long run. That's a common problem with software (pseudo-)random number generators. Here's a discussion.

    Thank you for pointing this out, I was on the game and one player told another in chat "You need better RNG" ... players don't seem to understand the acronym or the fact that nothing in the universe is random. We have an "uncertainty principle" but nothing we do is random. I did receive a commendation for my pseudo random method of simple "Shell Game" where you guess which shell contains the pea. Without using the classic int(rand(seed)*3+0.5) I use a variable that incremented while the user read through some text. When the player made their choice a modulus of 3 was applied to that variable, given the user was the random element.

    There is nothing wrong with the math of pseudo random and good luck trying to find a pattern. However, it is my opinion, random should be removed from these games and you should be informed what you will get before you go on any quest. I could give examples but that would be addressing other game titles and this forum is about Neverwinter.
  • free2payfree2pay Member Posts: 284 Arc User
    In Path of Exile, the only form of currencies are the materials used for crafting purposes. And players/market decide the exchange rate between the rarer ones against the more common ones - that drop in-game. For example 1ex= 50c etc. Maybe you can ask in trade whether anyone is willing to trade their coals for your wards?
  • feanor70118feanor70118 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,170 Arc User
    Seriously, trading preservation wards for coalescents? Neverwinter's WTT (want to trade) channel is very active, and few of its users are slow enough to do anything as silly as trade a 1000 zen coalescent ward for 33 10-zen preservation wards. I say again, the quality of the RNG isn't even relevant to this discussion. The pointless boredom, frustration and waste of time it inflicts on players are a serious problem. That should be fixed. It can be fixed easily.
  • marv700#9957 marv700 Member Posts: 135 Arc User

    Refining at a 3% chance of success was already a form of torture. Dealing with the RNG - even if it were working correctly (which it is not and never has) an average of 33 times to make a single R12 enchantment has always been boring, tedious, frustrating and utterly pointless. All we want to do is dump 33 preservation wards into the enchantment and get a guaranteed success. The occasional relief of getting an early success is in no way a balancing counterpoint to the mind-numbing, infuriating monotony of a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long string of failures. Just let us use the appropriate amount of preservation wards to get guaranteed successes. That, or increase the minimum success change to 10% so the long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long strings of failure won't be quite so soul-deadening.

    I agree, they might as well make all refinement require fixed resources.

    I will argue that RNG is broken as implemented. Something with a 3% chance will perhaps truly be 3% over 10,000 tries, but to the individual trying to upgrade something and failing 200 times in a row it's a fail.

    Why design a system that will make some players extremely unhappy and the lucky few that succeed in 10 tries very happy. It's just stupid. Keep all your players reasonably happy.
Sign In or Register to comment.