Guild Wars 2

They really don’t. I’m running frequent 48’s and then I go do a couple low levels(10) and the loot is practically the same aside from relics, but those things are worthless anyway.

Anet said the loot quality would scale based on level. Well it doesn’t. Liars.

I’m still surprised this issue hasn’t been addressed by ANET. I’ve found the sweet spot is actually in the 20s…I seem to get the best loot for the least effort.
Seems like actually rewarding people based on the level of the fract would be an easy and potentially far reaching fix.
By not doing it, they are only frustrating the people who are actually doing this content.

I’m in the 20s right now, mostly 26 and 28, the 100 fractal per run seems good, I get average fractal weapons, 2 so far, 2 longbow…, but i’d like to get to 30 and 40, they say 48 has a 23% chance of getting a fractal weapon, also I’d get more dailies, thus higher chance of getting weapons and rings and more relic, doesn’t look like a total waste

Even on lvl 79 it’s just blues n greens. Don’t play fractals for the loot, srsly :/

“It’s a true challenge, but as you hit higher and higher scales, the dungeon will get more and more rewarding.”
silly liars.

Bismuth.3165:

I’m in the 20s right now, mostly 26 and 28, the 100 fractal per run seems good, I get average fractal weapons, 2 so far, 2 longbow…, but i’d like to get to 30 and 40, they say 48 has a 23% chance of getting a fractal weapon, also I’d get more dailies, thus higher chance of getting weapons and rings and more relic, doesn’t look like a total waste

I doubt that anyone even with lot of alts needs rings or tokens at 48.

You have so many pristines/tokens to dress a small guild

True that you get more yellows at lower levels but skin rate is better at higher.

Is this a troll thread?

I thought everyone knew that the loot tables don’t scale with level. If Anet says otherwise, they haven’t checked the drops at all. People have been complaining about this in these forums forever.

Celly.5912:

Even on lvl 79 it’s just blues n greens. Don’t play fractals for the loot, srsly :/

Well even if they did make it scale, they would be smart enough to make it drop off to crap after the cap they set.

cranked.3812:

Is this a troll thread?

I thought everyone knew that the loot tables don’t scale with level. If Anet says otherwise, they haven’t checked the drops at all. People have been complaining about this in these forums forever.

Anet does say otherwise. However maybe it’s something along the lines of
0-9 = 1.01% for a rare
10-19 = 1.02% for a rare
20-29 = 1.03% for a rare
etc. etc.

Ethics.4519:

cranked.3812:

Is this a troll thread?

I thought everyone knew that the loot tables don’t scale with level. If Anet says otherwise, they haven’t checked the drops at all. People have been complaining about this in these forums forever.

Anet does say otherwise. However maybe it’s something along the lines of
0-9 = 1.01% for a rare
10-19 = 1.02% for a rare
20-29 = 1.03% for a rare
etc. etc.

Anet accidentally a negative.

Ethics.4519:

cranked.3812:

Is this a troll thread?

I thought everyone knew that the loot tables don’t scale with level. If Anet says otherwise, they haven’t checked the drops at all. People have been complaining about this in these forums forever.

Anet does say otherwise. However maybe it’s something along the lines of
0-9 = 1.01% for a rare
10-19 = 1.02% for a rare
20-29 = 1.03% for a rare
etc. etc.

I know what “they say”, however, the many many people who run higher level fractals would disagree. I’ll take the word of the people who actually run the dungeon and see first hand what the loot is over somebody who obviously doesn’t play test anything they release coughanetcough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

What Ethics is describing is a way for Anet’s statement to be true as well as having it jive with empirical data.

If there’s one thing we can agree on, it’s that fotm is not worth doing past bags, rng skins and accessories.

swiftpaw.6397:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Anet has actually been wrong about things they’ve stated in the past tho, several times. Or how about the ecto salvage rate that was only fixed because of how many threads were pointing at it?

this is why i never understood why people do fotm 18 for the loot vs fotm 10. its the same table

Player Character.9467:

swiftpaw.6397:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Anet has actually been wrong about things they’ve stated in the past tho, several times. Or how about the ecto salvage rate that was only fixed because of how many threads were pointing at it?

True. I stopped caring either way, I don’t listen to A-net because they’re full of kitten too -.-

Ethics.4519:

cranked.3812:

Is this a troll thread?

I thought everyone knew that the loot tables don’t scale with level. If Anet says otherwise, they haven’t checked the drops at all. People have been complaining about this in these forums forever.

Anet does say otherwise. However maybe it’s something along the lines of
0-9 = 1.01% for a rare
10-19 = 1.02% for a rare
20-29 = 1.03% for a rare
etc. etc.

no…

It smore:
0-9 ….4 items in maw chest
10-19 ….5 items in chest
…
48….8 items in maw chest

The issue imho is that only few of them have chances to be rare…..also the rng in this game works in a silly way wo almost everyone get more golds from lower level…

To that addthe RISK to get exotics that are worse than rares as they are (bad stats, bad skins, account bound, no runes/sigils…..).

Broadicea.8294:

What Ethics is describing is a way for Anet’s statement to be true as well as having it jive with empirical data.

I’m glad at least one person in here understands my joke/jab.

Broadicea.8294:

What Ethics is describing is a way for Anet’s statement to be true as well as having it jive with empirical data.

But what he missed is anet accidentally multiplied by -1
0-9 = 0.99% for a rare
10-19 = 0.98% for a rare
20-29 = 0.97% for a rare
in true anet programming and denial fashion.

Player Character.9467:

Broadicea.8294:

What Ethics is describing is a way for Anet’s statement to be true as well as having it jive with empirical data.

But what he missed is anet accidentally multiplied by -1
0-9 = 0.99% for a rare
10-19 = 0.98% for a rare
20-29 = 0.97% for a rare
in true anet programming and denial fashion.

However Anet’s statement would not be true then =). We all know that Anet’s programmers don’t make mistakes like putting a – were it shouldn’t be.

Player Character.9467:

swiftpaw.6397:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Anet has actually been wrong about things they’ve stated in the past tho, several times. Or how about the ecto salvage rate that was only fixed because of how many threads were pointing at it?

It wasn’t how many threads, it was how many players where willing to do LARGE test batches of ecto salvage and post the results showing that there was a problem. The fact that they admitted that there was a problem instead of stealth fixing it says quite a bit.