Guild Wars 2

Chuck.8196:

Halbarz.3854:

I am wondering why no dev is replying here. Would like to get an answer on why some players have 2-5 portals in a freaking day and others get nothing at all over a whole week.

Not kittened off that I have to farm or didn’t get a portal but this RNG thing is broken for sure and no dev comes to give info to us. for their own sake they should just reply and get over with it

Because the player base for beta has already been selected. The ones that signed up for the newsletter were thrown into the “qualify” loot table. Then a selection of those is chosen and they mark the account. For that player to receive they just have to farm maguuma waste. They’ll keep getting some until its over. So many will not get one because they weren’t selected from the “qualify” table. this is why some have farmed a couple days and have multiple. And others will farm there until it ends and get nothing. If it was really random that would select from the overall player base, not by signing up for a newsletter.

I too am having doubts.

After farming the entire week from one of these portal stones I decide to log into my wifes old account that hasn’t been played since she got to 80 in the first few months of release.

What happens? Gets one in less than an hour upon entering silverwastes.

So I decide to try my luck with precursors. Something I occasionally been doing since the life of my account. 7 tries into hers I get the Lover. Lolz.

Now I know Anet says that RNG is working as intended but just because its what its intended does not mean in a way thats satisfactory to us or think it should work. I know to many people that recently came into the game and got their portal stone with little time investment and even have multiple ones.

It is beginning to get harder and harder to ignore all the evidence that some how it is slanted. I don’t know how, but its getting harder to say its definitely not slanted.

Zok.4956:

MrRuin.9740:

Zok.4956:

I do not share your pessimistic view.

How is it pessimistic to assume the supposedly random drop system is actually random? Or to know what its primary function is?

I meant your view of how A-Net thinks and why they did or didn’t do/change things.

MrRuin.9740:

Its not pessimistic, it’s realistic.

Thats what every pessimist says.

I think you should look up was pessimism means.
I wasn’t being negative or conveying a negative feeling about RNG, Anet or Anets intentions at all.
Quite the opposite, actually.

Behellagh.1468:

As I said in an earlier post. But let me simplify it hear.

You have 100 players.

There is a 1 in 100 chance of X dropping as loot.

Everyone gets 229 loot drops from the same source.

The distribution of X is:

10 get 0
23 get 1
27 get 2
20 get 3
12 get 4
5 get 5
2 get 6
1 get 7

To the 10 that got 0 and seeing some players got 5-7, it’s only natural to think the fix is in or something is broken but that’s the mathematical distribution. We have 10 unlucky players and 7 lucky ones. Nothing is broken here. The fix isn’t in. It’s just math and the nature of probability.

Except when you factor in what DR does. Here’s an Example:

Without DR:

10 get 0
23 get 1
27 get 2
20 get 3
12 get 4
5 get 5
2 get 6
1 get 7

With DR:

10 get 0
23 get 1 except 20 of those were hit with DR who then get nul
27 get 2 except 15 of those were hit with DR who then get nul
20 get 3 except 17 of those were hit with DR who then get nul
12 get 4 except 7 of those were hit with DR who then get nul
5 get 5 except 1 of those were hit with DR who then get nul
2 get 6
1 get 7

So when you have this kind of distribution in which the system automatically removed the loot even though people have made the appropriate rolls to get the loot, and then it requests what it should do next and get’s back the answer, the loot shouldn’t be available/visible to the user, that’s NOT a standard RNG system. It’s a myth and also bad math (as well as bad programming) to not include this system because this is the type of system that this game uses.

If it were a simple method of mathematics in which nothing would make anything nul and void then you could claim that it’s RNG but you can’t because there is an algorithm in place that was specifically designed to try to stop bots from getting loot (but no one has ever been able to adjust for the playerbase in the entire history of MMO development) that hasn’t stopped a single bot since it was created yet it’s been harming players since it was implemented since day one.

When you get enough of the Nul messages or you happen to be on one of those accounts that gets loot all the time until DR sets in and then you too are hit by the Nul bug, don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we did.

RNG is RNG yes but not in GW2 because GW2 has DR.

Halbarz.3854:

I am wondering why no dev is replying here. Would like to get an answer on why some players have 2-5 portals in a freaking day and others get nothing at all over a whole week.

Not kittened off that I have to farm or didn’t get a portal but this RNG thing is broken for sure and no dev comes to give info to us. for their own sake they should just reply and get over with it

Devs wont, and shouldnt, dignify tinfoil posts. Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs. By no means is it something worth investigating. Now, if you were able to categorically list every single item you’ve dropped, where/from what you got it, and when, since the creation of your account, or for say, the last 3 months, then you’d be able to give Anet enough to consider looking into it. Handful of people doign so with same poor loot results (I mean blues and kitten like that, not exotics worth under a gold)? Then Anet’s more inclined to investigate.

But until people have substantive proof, anet, again, wont dignify tinfoil posts. There’s no reason to. These threads are proof of why. They say “no it’s not broken, we checked.” Tinfoil invades the forums with cries of “SHOW US THE PROOF, YOU LIE, YOU LIE.” It really is no different than people “claiming” there are flagged accounts for “luck” and JS (the game’s lead economist, one of the few people who can actually tell you with ANY certainty) has stated beyond your MF% value (easily seen ingame), your account information means kitten-all. Not your serial number, not your display name, not your login name, not your password, not your first character’s class, age, sex, or level, not the age of your account, not the number of times you’ve logged in, or the number of gems you’ve bought with cash. Nothing. And you still get “MY ACCOUNT IS CURSED TO BE UNLUCKY” posts/threads.

Seriously people. Dont ask for something you clearly arent going to believe in the first place.

phys.7689:

its highly unlikely that if a problem exists with random its universal.
most accounts will likely fall within the average experience.

all tests will show expected results, with a standard deviation, the problem lies when that standard deviation hides an error, it is extremely hard to identify it.

If the problem hides within standard deviation so well it’s unnoticeable, then it has no significant impact. And thus is not a major problem.

For those of us who don’t feel like taking all day chasing links could someone state simply what the bork actually is? Are you saying those who play RNG don’t get enough drops???

Drow.2081:

For those of us who don’t feel like taking all day chasing links could someone state simply what the bork actually is? Are you saying those who play RNG don’t get enough drops???

Hard to say, because every conspiracy theorist has a slightly different theory, but the gist of it is usually that some accounts are supposedly marked as more lucky, while others marked as unlucky. Because reasons. And that poster’s account is among those marked as unlucky because he isn’t getting precursor a day like everyone else.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs.

There might be one exception. If too many people have the feeling that they are not rewarded enough for their efforts and decide to leave, it might be necessary to really adjust the drop chances.

The point is though that only a tiny fraction of this game’s population cares to post here anyways. So this forum is far from representative.

Astralporing.1957:

phys.7689:

its highly unlikely that if a problem exists with random its universal.
most accounts will likely fall within the average experience.

all tests will show expected results, with a standard deviation, the problem lies when that standard deviation hides an error, it is extremely hard to identify it.

If the problem hides within standard deviation so well it’s unnoticeable, then it has no significant impact. And thus is not a major problem.

incorrect.
standard deviation doesnt signify an acceptable flaw, it signifies the point at which your data is unreliable.

its also not really about statistics. Statistics only look at the numbers/ratios. Statistics wont care if a system has a bias, as long as the numbers match up.

IE it will be extremely hard to tell if a system that is simulating a random system is unfairly targeting certain people, because the data will match up. Some people will seem unlucky, an some people will seem lucky.

lets say they run the data, and the find out some one earns 10 times as much good loot, datawise, nothing is wrong, as long as there is an acceptable amount of these people, and they are somewhat evenly balanced with people who earn 10 times less, its all good.

statistically, there is no difference between a system that predeterminedly decides your fate, and one that is truely random, as long as they both distribute the data the same.

However, while statistically they are the same, it is very bad as an engine for a game, because the point of random in a game, is generally for unpredictability, but often it as used as an impartial means of determining things.
Its very bad if its partial, because then it is not unpredictable on an individual level, and not impartial.

regardless at the end of the day, the truth is the type of random they are trying to simulate is bad for these type of games, for which random is supposed to represent a semi fair system.

Chuck.8196:

Halbarz.3854:

I am wondering why no dev is replying here. Would like to get an answer on why some players have 2-5 portals in a freaking day and others get nothing at all over a whole week.

Not kittened off that I have to farm or didn’t get a portal but this RNG thing is broken for sure and no dev comes to give info to us. for their own sake they should just reply and get over with it

Because the player base for beta has already been selected. The ones that signed up for the newsletter were thrown into the “qualify” loot table. Then a selection of those is chosen and they mark the account. For that player to receive they just have to farm maguuma waste. They’ll keep getting some until its over. So many will not get one because they weren’t selected from the “qualify” table. this is why some have farmed a couple days and have multiple. And others will farm there until it ends and get nothing. If it was really random that would select from the overall player base, not by signing up for a newsletter. Some would say “tin-foil hat” but those are skeptics who try to post as much as possible. Nothing is random when your in a controlled group.

Only a small number who have signed up to the newsletter seem to be getting one, so how do you think people qualify??

Chuck.8196:

Because the player base for beta has already been selected. The ones that signed up for the newsletter were thrown into the “qualify” loot table. Then a selection of those is chosen and they mark the account. For that player to receive they just have to farm maguuma waste. They’ll keep getting some until its over. So many will not get one because they weren’t selected from the “qualify” table. this is why some have farmed a couple days and have multiple. And others will farm there until it ends and get nothing. If it was really random that would select from the overall player base, not by signing up for a newsletter. Some would say “tin-foil hat” but those are skeptics who try to post as much as possible. Nothing is random when your in a controlled group.

Well that’s false, for one it’s getting the portal that sends the email and marks the account. Secondly I never signed up for the newsletter until after I had the portal.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Halbarz.3854:

I am wondering why no dev is replying here. Would like to get an answer on why some players have 2-5 portals in a freaking day and others get nothing at all over a whole week.

Not kittened off that I have to farm or didn’t get a portal but this RNG thing is broken for sure and no dev comes to give info to us. for their own sake they should just reply and get over with it

Devs wont, and shouldnt, dignify tinfoil posts. Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs. By no means is it something worth investigating. Now, if you were able to categorically list every single item you’ve dropped, where/from what you got it, and when, since the creation of your account, or for say, the last 3 months, then you’d be able to give Anet enough to consider looking into it. Handful of people doign so with same poor loot results (I mean blues and kitten like that, not exotics worth under a gold)? Then Anet’s more inclined to investigate.

But until people have substantive proof, anet, again, wont dignify tinfoil posts. There’s no reason to. These threads are proof of why. They say “no it’s not broken, we checked.” Tinfoil invades the forums with cries of “SHOW US THE PROOF, YOU LIE, YOU LIE.” It really is no different than people “claiming” there are flagged accounts for “luck” and JS (the game’s lead economist, one of the few people who can actually tell you with ANY certainty) has stated beyond your MF% value (easily seen ingame), your account information means kitten-all. Not your serial number, not your display name, not your login name, not your password, not your first character’s class, age, sex, or level, not the age of your account, not the number of times you’ve logged in, or the number of gems you’ve bought with cash. Nothing. And you still get “MY ACCOUNT IS CURSED TO BE UNLUCKY” posts/threads.

Seriously people. Dont ask for something you clearly arent going to believe in the first place.

And people who continue to post that it’s not real keep leaving out evidence like DR and how other games out there don’t use DR in their loot systems and the fact that we keep seeing a recurrence of missing chests. That doesn’t happen in a normal loot system.

If you look at ALL of the evidence then you begin to see that not only is it not a typical loot system but you’ll also see that similar things were reported in every other game in mmo development history that added their own versions of DR to their loot system.

Remember folks, they posted once before after 9 months of evidence that there wasn’t a problem, and then in fact found a problem no apologies no nothing.

Want it to stop? Well, get them to remove DR. People won’t have anything to post about because they’ll actually be getting their loot instead of skulls. The evidence is absolutely there you just have to believe what you’re seeing.

tigirius.9014:

And people who continue to post that it’s not real keep leaving out evidence like DR and how other games out there don’t use DR in their loot systems and the fact that we keep seeing a recurrence of missing chests. That doesn’t happen in a normal loot system.

If you look at ALL of the evidence then you begin to see that not only is it not a typical loot system but you’ll also see that similar things were reported in every other game in mmo development history that added their own versions of DR to their loot system.

Remember folks, they posted once before after 9 months of evidence that there wasn’t a problem, and then in fact found a problem no apologies no nothing.

Want it to stop? Well, get them to remove DR. People won’t have anything to post about because they’ll actually be getting their loot instead of skulls. The evidence is absolutely there you just have to believe what you’re seeing.

How I avoided missing chests.

When you arrive at fort, either attack then defend then rebuild then escort to the next fort. Or defend then rebuild then escort to the next fort.

Rebuilt 3 times once at one fort, only got a chest the first time.

DR cannot be removed and has overall impact. Its a way to keep economy balanced and prevent inflation, a common issue that leads to the decline of many potential good games.
“Quote:”Diminishing returns (DR) refers to the mechanics used to prevent bots and exploits from disrupting the economy and gaining an unfair advantage over legitimate players.DR is needed for dungeons due to their large rewards and ability to be repeated quickly. Similarly, it is applied to Dynamic Events to limit players from exhaustively farming one area, reduce congestion in one particular map, and to discourage illegal activities such as botting. (…) Dynamic events, in which the completion rewards are reduced for a given character after repeating the same event multiple times.
Affected activities: Loot from enemies, in which foes tend to drop less loot of progressively lower quality, for a character remaining in the same area for long periods of time."

So, in conclussion, intensive farming one area trigger a progressive build of DR . Tehnically, if smth didnt dropped after a set time (3h), the chances for it to drop decrease exponential untill reached dramatic decline limit.
Is the way Anet takes care of our health:D

Halvorn.9831:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs.

There might be one exception. If too many people have the feeling that they are not rewarded enough for their efforts and decide to leave, it might be necessary to really adjust the drop chances.

Ah, but that’s a different problem. Just as a discussion whether pure RNG is a good system, or should it be adjusted with streak breakers, tokens or similar mechanics is a different topic. This one is about rng conspiracies that claim Anet doesn’t treat players equally.

phys.7689:

Astralporing.1957:

phys.7689:

its highly unlikely that if a problem exists with random its universal.
most accounts will likely fall within the average experience.

all tests will show expected results, with a standard deviation, the problem lies when that standard deviation hides an error, it is extremely hard to identify it.

If the problem hides within standard deviation so well it’s unnoticeable, then it has no significant impact. And thus is not a major problem.

incorrect.
standard deviation doesnt signify an acceptable flaw, it signifies the point at which your data is unreliable.

its also not really about statistics. Statistics only look at the numbers/ratios. Statistics wont care if a system has a bias, as long as the numbers match up.

Untrue, statistics can help you notice that bias. And again, if the bias is unnoticeable, then it’s not significant.

MorganLeFay.5816:

DR cannot be removed and has overall impact. Its a way to keep economy balanced and prevent inflation, a common issue that leads to the decline of many potential good games.
“Quote:”Diminishing returns (DR) refers to the mechanics used to prevent bots and exploits from disrupting the economy and gaining an unfair advantage over legitimate players.DR is needed for dungeons due to their large rewards and ability to be repeated quickly. Similarly, it is applied to Dynamic Events to limit players from exhaustively farming one area, reduce congestion in one particular map, and to discourage illegal activities such as botting. (…) Dynamic events, in which the completion rewards are reduced for a given character after repeating the same event multiple times.
Affected activities: Loot from enemies, in which foes tend to drop less loot of progressively lower quality, for a character remaining in the same area for long periods of time."

So, in conclussion, intensive farming one area trigger a progressive build of DR . Tehnically, if smth didnt dropped after a set time (3h), the chances for it to drop decrease exponential untill reached dramatic decline limit.
Is the way Anet takes care of our health:D

You left off the section of the quote about Diminishing Returns which counters your statement that it can’t be removed. It can be removed in 2 ways.
Quote: "The only way to “remove” DR is to move the character to a new area for a period of time, believed to be about 15-20 minutes…. open world DR is character-specific and can be removed by switching between characters."

People have argued forever that the DR removal code is borked. After all, we know the rest of the game isn’t bug free and if there is a problem, that’s a likely culprit.

However, from a conspiracy theory pov, either you trust Arena Net or you don’t. If you trust them, then play the game and quit worrying about RNG. The game is fair if sometimes a little buggy.

If you don’t trust Arena Net what are you doing here??? Do you think ArenaNet is going to say “yup you caught us. Fixing it now. We won’t pull the ball away again, Charlie Brown?” Play a game run by someone you trust.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

You left off the section of the quote about Diminishing Returns which counters your statement that it can’t be removed. It can be removed in 2 ways.
Quote: "The only way to “remove” DR is to move the character to a new area for a period of time, believed to be about 15-20 minutes…. open world DR is character-specific and can be removed by switching between characters."

Open world dr is 100% not removed by switching characters. This is the whole basis of dr from world boss camping.

Astralporing.1957:

Halvorn.9831:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs.

There might be one exception. If too many people have the feeling that they are not rewarded enough for their efforts and decide to leave, it might be necessary to really adjust the drop chances.

Ah, but that’s a different problem. Just as a discussion whether pure RNG is a good system, or should it be adjusted with streak breakers, tokens or similar mechanics is a different topic. This one is about rng conspiracies that claim Anet doesn’t treat players equally.

phys.7689:

Astralporing.1957:

phys.7689:

its highly unlikely that if a problem exists with random its universal.
most accounts will likely fall within the average experience.

all tests will show expected results, with a standard deviation, the problem lies when that standard deviation hides an error, it is extremely hard to identify it.

If the problem hides within standard deviation so well it’s unnoticeable, then it has no significant impact. And thus is not a major problem.

incorrect.
standard deviation doesnt signify an acceptable flaw, it signifies the point at which your data is unreliable.

its also not really about statistics. Statistics only look at the numbers/ratios. Statistics wont care if a system has a bias, as long as the numbers match up.

Untrue, statistics can help you notice that bias. And again, if the bias is unnoticeable, then it’s not significant.

Statistics is merely the aggregation of data. And then taking various slices of that data and comparing it to something.

So statistics will always be limited by two factors
how much/what data you record
Which parts of the data you look at

Statistics also has no context on its own.

For example, statistics may be able to tell you what percent of males age 17-25 have been imprisoned, but it cannot tell you if they were guilty or innocent.

the case people are making is that the system has some accounts that are luckier than others. Statistics will in fact back this up, completely, without question. It actually fits into the expected patterns.

The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier, statistics makes no differentiation between whether the luck is artificial, or truely random. One can look for patterns, but pattern recognition is something humans excel at, so far other tools/mechanics/software are far inferior. So its up to people to find the patterns, and test the system, and come up with ways to gather their data, and slice it, so as to get at the truth.

Satistics cant track whys, hence it cannot track bias.
and when the bias falls within expected distribution, statistics wont tell you jack about it.
and btw, it expected, that with a normal distribution, 32% of accounts will experience drop rates that are unusual. of those 32% half will experience negatively unusual drop rates.

so is 16% of accounts possibly being cursed, not by a true random chance, but by a predetermined program acceptable?
statistically? there is no difference

but i dont think it would be a negligable amount.

I think the idea that the very nature of HOW DR works and is “removed” is pretty much a mystery (for good reason, I believe) is a HUGE part of the problem of the (mistaken) belief that certain players (or accounts or characters) are “unlucky”.

Most players don’t realize that it’s entirely possible for a character to farm an area to trigger the DR code and then log out…..log back in a month later and the DR code is STILL possibly active on that character at the present location….(they may actually need to actively play in another zone to turn off the DR code affecting them).

The fact that the above scenario may be possible could GREATLY effect a players perception of their “luck” within the game. That does not change the fact that they are 100% mistaken when they claim their account is “unlucky”.

…….
The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier,…..

The fact that you asked the question in THIS manner is really the root of the perception issue you seem to have…..You have convinced yourself the above question is valid and many players think you are border line insane when you ask it…..

Brother Grimm.5176:

phys.7689:

…….
The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier,…..

The fact that you asked the question in THIS manner is really the root of the perception issue you seem to have…..You have convinced yourself the above question is valid and many players think you are border line insane when you ask it…..

What? No it’s not at all. The question is perfectly valid even if the answer is simply “chance”.

Your assumption of them is the thing that should be questioned as it’s validity seems motivated.

Brother Grimm.5176:

I think the idea that the very nature of HOW DR works and is “removed” is pretty much a mystery (for good reason, I believe) is a HUGE part of the problem of the (mistaken) belief that certain players (or accounts or characters) are “unlucky”.

Most players don’t realize that it’s entirely possible for a character to farm an area to trigger the DR code and then log out…..log back in a month later and the DR code is STILL possibly active on that character at the present location….(they may actually need to actively play in another zone to turn off the DR code affecting them).

The fact that the above scenario may be possible could GREATLY effect a players perception of their “luck” within the game. That does not change the fact that they are 100% mistaken when they claim their account is “unlucky”.

…….
The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier,…..

The fact that you asked the question in THIS manner is really the root of the perception issue you seem to have…..You have convinced yourself the above question is valid and many players think you are border line insane when you ask it…..

actually it is not a perception issue at all.
you may be misinterpreting what i am saying.

no account is “lucky” no matter what, because all the systems at play here are not based on luck at all. It is completely deterministic.

when i say “lucky” i mean some accounts will experience greater positive drops than others, the only way this would not occur, is if the system was not accurately simulating a random distribution.

now, some people say that some people experience greater positive drops than others, due to random chance, with no bias.
and other people say some people experience greater positive drops than others due to a flawed random generator, which has a bias.

neither situation is challenging the concept that some people experience greater positive drops than others, which i will call “lucky” for shorthand.

If these “lucky” players didnt exist, then this would be a truely bad simulation of random behaviors.

ALSO how DR is applied/functions/disappears is not an issue that can be separated from random. Mostly because the only information players get, is how much stuff they get and the quality of that stuff, whether the problem is DR or rng is a behind the scenes issue, and while it matters for solving the problem, it really doesnt matter at all with the reality of what you get and the quality of what you get.

Short version
it doesnt matter if you have crappy “luck” because your account has bugged/odd DR or because your account is cursed by a bad rng. The result is the same, and the information that anet has given us is the same.

phys.7689:

the case people are making is that the system has some accounts that are luckier than others. Statistics will in fact back this up, completely, without question. It actually fits into the expected patterns.

Statistical analysis of data generated by a ‘lucky’ and an ‘unlucky’ account would have no problem whatsoever distinguishing whether or not the accounts were systematically lucky or unlucky, or if what’s being observed is simply a consequence of a truly random system.

This is actually one of the easiest statistical tests to do (variations of a T-test) and the how’s and why’s of its workings are extremely well understood. Detecting bias is quick and easy, statistically. There are, of course, limits on the informativeness of any particular sample – but any bias can be demonstrated with a sufficiently large sample, and the larger the bias, the smaller the sample needed to identify it.

Ensign.2189:

phys.7689:

the case people are making is that the system has some accounts that are luckier than others. Statistics will in fact back this up, completely, without question. It actually fits into the expected patterns.

Statistical analysis of data generated by a ‘lucky’ and an ‘unlucky’ account would have no problem whatsoever distinguishing whether or not the accounts were systematically lucky or unlucky, or if what’s being observed is simply a consequence of a truly random system.

This is actually one of the easiest statistical tests to do (variations of a T-test) and the how’s and why’s of its workings are extremely well understood. Detecting bias is quick and easy, statistically. There are, of course, limits on the informativeness of any particular sample – but any bias can be demonstrated with a sufficiently large sample, and the larger the bias, the smaller the sample needed to identify it.

explain how you would test this, most statistical analysis looking for a bias, would first have to clearly define the groups they were comparing.

i can think of some ways, but im genuinely curious. Information i see on T tests wouldnt work here, because even if predestined lucky accounts exist, the cause of their existence is unknown (making them hard to classify and compare)

the types of analysis i think could uncover this situation, dont seem to be type of analysis John smith has talked about doing. I dont even know if they track and classify the data necessary to test it.

As I asked in the other thread.

Why are some people (Astral, Fleshwound, etc) so opposed to having Anet look into this? What do you personally have to lose if they look into this.

And yes I know they looked into this before, however I’d like them to look into DR as well. And of course the game gets new bugs every patch so it could easy have been working well “before”.

I don’t really expect a response. I think at this point they are here to derail the thread to make it close. Everyone has heard your points over and over. This still doesn’t dimiss the fact that there COULD BE a problem.

Andraus.3874:

As I asked in the other thread.

Why are some people (Astral, Fleshwound, etc) so opposed to having Anet look into this? What do you personally have to lose if they look into this.

And yes I know they looked into this before, however I’d like them to look into DR as well. And of course the game gets new bugs every patch so it could easy have been working well “before”.

I don’t really expect a response. I think at this point they are here to derail the thread to make it close. Everyone has heard your points over and over. This still doesn’t dimiss the fact that there COULD BE a problem.

It is possible there could be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is a problem.

pdavis.8031:

Andraus.3874:

As I asked in the other thread.

Why are some people (Astral, Fleshwound, etc) so opposed to having Anet look into this? What do you personally have to lose if they look into this.

And yes I know they looked into this before, however I’d like them to look into DR as well. And of course the game gets new bugs every patch so it could easy have been working well “before”.

I don’t really expect a response. I think at this point they are here to derail the thread to make it close. Everyone has heard your points over and over. This still doesn’t dimiss the fact that there COULD BE a problem.

It is possible there could be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is a problem.

Sorry I know you haven’t read the other threads. But there is no way to gather evidence to show this isn’t problem. If you want to suggest something go ahead but I’ll easily be able to pick it apart to show you its not possible as there’s too many unknown variables. So the argument goes that those saying there could be a problem have to show evidence. When you can’t show any valid evidence because we don’t know enough to run any tests that would give us valid data.

Azala Yar.7693:

Chuck.8196:

Because the player base for beta has already been selected. The ones that signed up for the newsletter were thrown into the “qualify” loot table. Then a selection of those is chosen and they mark the account. For that player to receive they just have to farm maguuma waste. They’ll keep getting some until its over. So many will not get one because they weren’t selected from the “qualify” table. this is why some have farmed a couple days and have multiple. And others will farm there until it ends and get nothing. If it was really random that would select from the overall player base, not by signing up for a newsletter. Some would say “tin-foil hat” but those are skeptics who try to post as much as possible. Nothing is random when your in a controlled group.

Well that’s false, for one it’s getting the portal that sends the email and marks the account. Secondly I never signed up for the newsletter until after I had the portal.

Really? because, directly from the HEART OF THORNS BETA FAQ , i quote " *Our first beta test is used a very small group of players chosen at random from people who subscribe to our newsletter. Our next test will use this method as well as the “Portal to the Heart of Maguuma,” an in-game item which has a chance to drop from enemies in Dry Top and the Silverwastes. *
So you just admit to getting it without signing up. proof that there system isn’t working properly. Even if what I said IS false which wee don’t know.
@Andraus Misinterpretation only from creators PoV. To everyone else its poor wording. Should be OR then and not “as well as”

Chuck that isn’t what this thread is about. Also you’re mis interpreting what Anet said. They are doing the next beta by both random email and by the portal drops. So if you didn’t get a portal drop there’s still a chance you get in through selection from email.

Andraus.3874:

pdavis.8031:

Andraus.3874:

As I asked in the other thread.

Why are some people (Astral, Fleshwound, etc) so opposed to having Anet look into this? What do you personally have to lose if they look into this.

And yes I know they looked into this before, however I’d like them to look into DR as well. And of course the game gets new bugs every patch so it could easy have been working well “before”.

I don’t really expect a response. I think at this point they are here to derail the thread to make it close. Everyone has heard your points over and over. This still doesn’t dimiss the fact that there COULD BE a problem.

It is possible there could be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is a problem.

Sorry I know you haven’t read the other threads. But there is no way to gather evidence to show this isn’t problem. If you want to suggest something go ahead but I’ll easily be able to pick it apart to show you its not possible as there’s too many unknown variables. So the argument goes that those saying there could be a problem have to show evidence. When you can’t show any valid evidence because we don’t know enough to run any tests that would give us valid data.

If anet ran their analysis, tests and open test events on the RNG system with players and absolutely nothing came up, that’s evidence towards there not being an issue.

Andraus.3874:

pdavis.8031:

Andraus.3874:

As I asked in the other thread.

Why are some people (Astral, Fleshwound, etc) so opposed to having Anet look into this? What do you personally have to lose if they look into this.

And yes I know they looked into this before, however I’d like them to look into DR as well. And of course the game gets new bugs every patch so it could easy have been working well “before”.

I don’t really expect a response. I think at this point they are here to derail the thread to make it close. Everyone has heard your points over and over. This still doesn’t dimiss the fact that there COULD BE a problem.

It is possible there could be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is a problem.

Sorry I know you haven’t read the other threads. But there is no way to gather evidence to show this isn’t problem. If you want to suggest something go ahead but I’ll easily be able to pick it apart to show you its not possible as there’s too many unknown variables. So the argument goes that those saying there could be a problem have to show evidence. When you can’t show any valid evidence because we don’t know enough to run any tests that would give us valid data.

And what makes you think that I haven’t read the other threads?

Of course there is no way to gather evidence that shows it isn’t a problem.
And there is no way to gather evidence to show that it is.

However, I have no reason to believe that RNG is broken, and in some way favors certain accounts over others. Why do some people get multiple precursors, while others get none? The moon was full on a thursday the month before and the stars are aligned to their astrological sign. Plus they happened to be playing Barry Manilow at a volume setting of 11 when the wind was blowing 4 knots to the east?

I think it really comes down to human nature. It is within our nature to think that some force is acting against us when things don’t go our way. Many use religion to try to explain that. “The devil is attacking me!” or “God doesn’t want me to have it”. “The flying Spaghetti monster is mad at me because I didn’t like a post on facebook” or whatever it may be.
So those of us with lots of play time haven’t yet seen the particular items we want, tend to look for an explaination as to why that isn’t happening. “RNG must be broken.” “I didn’t spend enough money on gems this months” “I have an unlucky account thats been flagged to control the precursor market” etc.

phys.7689:

Astralporing.1957:

Halvorn.9831:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs.

There might be one exception. If too many people have the feeling that they are not rewarded enough for their efforts and decide to leave, it might be necessary to really adjust the drop chances.

Ah, but that’s a different problem. Just as a discussion whether pure RNG is a good system, or should it be adjusted with streak breakers, tokens or similar mechanics is a different topic. This one is about rng conspiracies that claim Anet doesn’t treat players equally.

phys.7689:

Astralporing.1957:

phys.7689:

its highly unlikely that if a problem exists with random its universal.
most accounts will likely fall within the average experience.

all tests will show expected results, with a standard deviation, the problem lies when that standard deviation hides an error, it is extremely hard to identify it.

If the problem hides within standard deviation so well it’s unnoticeable, then it has no significant impact. And thus is not a major problem.

incorrect.
standard deviation doesnt signify an acceptable flaw, it signifies the point at which your data is unreliable.

its also not really about statistics. Statistics only look at the numbers/ratios. Statistics wont care if a system has a bias, as long as the numbers match up.

Untrue, statistics can help you notice that bias. And again, if the bias is unnoticeable, then it’s not significant.

Statistics is merely the aggregation of data. And then taking various slices of that data and comparing it to something.

So statistics will always be limited by two factors
how much/what data you record
Which parts of the data you look at

Statistics also has no context on its own.

For example, statistics may be able to tell you what percent of males age 17-25 have been imprisoned, but it cannot tell you if they were guilty or innocent.

the case people are making is that the system has some accounts that are luckier than others. Statistics will in fact back this up, completely, without question. It actually fits into the expected patterns.

The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier, statistics makes no differentiation between whether the luck is artificial, or truely random. One can look for patterns, but pattern recognition is something humans excel at, so far other tools/mechanics/software are far inferior. So its up to people to find the patterns, and test the system, and come up with ways to gather their data, and slice it, so as to get at the truth.

Satistics cant track whys, hence it cannot track bias.
and when the bias falls within expected distribution, statistics wont tell you jack about it.
and btw, it expected, that with a normal distribution, 32% of accounts will experience drop rates that are unusual. of those 32% half will experience negatively unusual drop rates.

so is 16% of accounts possibly being cursed, not by a true random chance, but by a predetermined program acceptable?
statistically? there is no difference

but i dont think it would be a negligable amount.

Some accounts are “lucky” by pure RNG outlier existence just the same as some accounts are “cursed” by it. Outliers are a statistical existence in any random system. How many times do you people need to be told there is no account flag?

Seriously, if you people arent going to believe Anet about that, stop posting. There’s no point having a discussion with you if you’re already dead set on refusing to believe Anet (and JS specifically) when they say “beyond MF%, your account means nothing to chances at drops.” There is literally no proof Anet can give you that you’ll believe, beyond them confirming it (which is HIGHLY unlikely).

pdavis.8031:

Andraus.3874:

pdavis.8031:

Andraus.3874:

As I asked in the other thread.

Why are some people (Astral, Fleshwound, etc) so opposed to having Anet look into this? What do you personally have to lose if they look into this.

And yes I know they looked into this before, however I’d like them to look into DR as well. And of course the game gets new bugs every patch so it could easy have been working well “before”.

I don’t really expect a response. I think at this point they are here to derail the thread to make it close. Everyone has heard your points over and over. This still doesn’t dimiss the fact that there COULD BE a problem.

It is possible there could be a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is a problem.

Sorry I know you haven’t read the other threads. But there is no way to gather evidence to show this isn’t problem. If you want to suggest something go ahead but I’ll easily be able to pick it apart to show you its not possible as there’s too many unknown variables. So the argument goes that those saying there could be a problem have to show evidence. When you can’t show any valid evidence because we don’t know enough to run any tests that would give us valid data.

And what makes you think that I haven’t read the other threads?

Of course there is no way to gather evidence that shows it isn’t a problem.
And there is no way to gather evidence to show that it is.

However, I have no reason to believe that RNG is broken, and in some way favors certain accounts over others. Why do some people get multiple precursors, while others get none? The moon was full on a thursday the month before and the stars are aligned to their astrological sign. Plus they happened to be playing Barry Manilow at a volume setting of 11 when the wind was blowing 4 knots to the east?

I think it really comes down to human nature. It is within our nature to think that some force is acting against us when things don’t go our way. Many use religion to try to explain that. “The devil is attacking me!” or “God doesn’t want me to have it”. “The flying Spaghetti monster is mad at me because I didn’t like a post on facebook” or whatever it may be.
So those of us with lots of play time haven’t yet seen the particular items we want, tend to look for an explaination as to why that isn’t happening. “RNG must be broken.” “I didn’t spend enough money on gems this months” “I have an unlucky account thats been flagged to control the precursor market” etc.

Thank you for your opinion. You said you haven’t seen any evidence so I was explaining why you haven’t seen any. So facepalm. Why did you refer to seeing evidence of the problem when you knew we couldn’t provide that lol. Anyway again thank you for you’re opinion on this matter. Again it could still be a problem. You also have no evidence that it isn’t. And discussing psychology really isn’t the point of this thread. If you’d like I can do the same thing in PM but I feel that it is kind of low (especially because it has been used over and over, we already know). I think we can move past the psychology argument which basically says everyone not opposed to this possible RNG issue is ignorant. I’m not ignorant. This could still be a problem no matter what anyone says here.

@ Aidan. Check out the bug forum we get new bugs all the time. What Anet said in the past about the system working correctly may or may not be true today. Also you’re quote from Anet doesn’t say anything about DR which we know affects drops.

Andraus.3874:

Thank you for your opinion. You said you haven’t seen any evidence so I was explaining why you haven’t seen any. So facepalm. Why did you refer to seeing evidence of the problem when you knew we couldn’t provide that lol. Anyway again thank you for you’re opinion on this matter. Again it could still be a problem. You also have no evidence that it isn’t. And discussing psychology really isn’t the point of this thread. If you’d like I can do the same thing in PM but I feel that it is kind of low (especially because it has been used over and over, we already know). I think we can move past the psychology argument which basically says everyone not opposed to this possible RNG issue is ignorant. I’m not ignorant. This could still be a problem no matter what anyone says here.

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words. In any case, the psycology of the matter I feel is very relevant to the conversation. If there is a perception that RNG is broken due to not getting certain type of ultra rare loot, especially after many many many hours of play, then that itself is a psycological matter.
And discussing that option doesn’t imply that anyone who thinks that RNG is an issue is ignorant at all.

Actually the whole RNG argument, on boths sides, can be reduced to a psychological argument. One group sees it as broken, the other group does not. Both are operating on different levels of perception. Some have numbers and charts and graphs to help make their points, and the other side does the same.

Andraus.3874:

Chuck that isn’t what this thread is about. Also you’re mis interpreting what Anet said. They are doing the next beta by both random email and by the portal drops. So if you didn’t get a portal drop there’s still a chance you get in through selection from email.

or you are misinterpreting and it means " If you aren’t selected from the mailing list you still have a chance to by looting a portal. The whole point of newsletter was to select a player base for the BETA’s. By making it available to everyone completely nulls there reasoning for newsletter.So RNG conundrum again.

Well after countless hours of farming and getting nothing of value I got:

2 ascended chests
Beta portal
3 exotics

in a 4 minute span… yay for “rng”

Aidan Savage.2078:

Some accounts are “lucky” by pure RNG outlier existence just the same as some accounts are “cursed” by it. Outliers are a statistical existence in any random system. How many times do you people need to be told there is no account flag?

Seriously, if you people arent going to believe Anet about that, stop posting. There’s no point having a discussion with you if you’re already dead set on refusing to believe Anet (and JS specifically) when they say “beyond MF%, your account means nothing to chances at drops.” There is literally no proof Anet can give you that you’ll believe, beyond them confirming it (which is HIGHLY unlikely).

It doesnt have to be an account flag that causes unintended results.

what anet says is what they believe to be the case, not necesarily what is the case. I remember some big issues they swore wasnt the case until months of player complaints caused them to examine the issue.

that said, i am not saying that it is definite that the outliers are not a result of random distribution.
but im not going to claim definitively that it is impossible that for whatever reasons, some accounts end up exhibiting patterns of being unlucky. It may not even be directly related to the rng, but that does not mean the result is not the same.

for example, people complaining of no loot from mobs back in the day, they figured out that they had higher thresholds of dps for getting items, than getting exp.
inspite of the fact that they said any one who was getting exp was definately eligible for loot.

point is, sorry history shows, mistakes happen, what they intend is not always the reality. To start off your assumption with arena net knows, and would never, is a flawed assumption.

They dont know everything. Pieces of code they didnt even know still existed effect the game.

Chuck.8196:

Andraus.3874:

Chuck that isn’t what this thread is about. Also you’re mis interpreting what Anet said. They are doing the next beta by both random email and by the portal drops. So if you didn’t get a portal drop there’s still a chance you get in through selection from email.

or you are misinterpreting and it means " If you aren’t selected from the mailing list you still have a chance to by looting a portal. The whole point of newsletter was to select a player base for the BETA’s. By making it available to everyone completely nulls there reasoning for newsletter.So RNG conundrum again.

But then why invite everyone to try for a portal if only those on the list could get one?

The mailing list got the first round of players into the stress test, the portals was the means to expand the number participation. Again under the rational that RNG is fair to all.

Behellagh.1468:

Chuck.8196:

Andraus.3874:

Chuck that isn’t what this thread is about. Also you’re mis interpreting what Anet said. They are doing the next beta by both random email and by the portal drops. So if you didn’t get a portal drop there’s still a chance you get in through selection from email.

or you are misinterpreting and it means " If you aren’t selected from the mailing list you still have a chance to by looting a portal. The whole point of newsletter was to select a player base for the BETA’s. By making it available to everyone completely nulls there reasoning for newsletter.So RNG conundrum again.

But then why invite everyone to try for a portal if only those on the list could get one?

The mailing list got the first round of players into the stress test, the portals was the means to expand the number participation. Again under the rational that RNG is fair to all.

which is an interesting fallacy, that many developers/game designers seem to have.

just because everyone has similar chances of success, doesnt mean they will have similar realities.
In fact normal distribution of random dictates it will be completely unfair, we just dont know where we will end up on the spectrum.

And I’ve made that point. On the micro scale everyone has the same chance but binomial distribution shows how skewed it gets over time. The 2 sigma range may narrow relative to overall number of rewards but the tails will still be there.

Again it’s a perception problem dealing with probability. While each trial is fair we know that cumulatively players will see very different results over time. It’s recognizing and acknowledging that, which from the sticky JS started seems to.

Astralporing.1957:

pdavis.8031:

Good point, but about the seed numbers. We know thats its not tied to character or account number or anything but…(puts on tinfoil hat) what if it’s tied to the activation code?

Theoretically it is possible that every single account has a separate seed (instead of a single rng process that supplies all random activity in the game), but that’s extremely unlikely, as it would be a really dumb programming. Especially since in this case it would require a separate seed not only for each account, but also for each type of activity (so that loot drop rolls will not be in the same queue as attack and damage rolls, for example).

Basically, someone would need to intentionally program the rng system in a really inefficient and unintuitive way.

I have worked in the software creation industry (commercial stuff) since 1994. Contrary to what you may think, sloppiness, laziness and sheer stupidity are quite, quite common. Over the years, I have run into an astounding amount of sheer lack of knowledge from people who were supposed to be the experts.

Do you know what version control is? And how often it’s ignored or made pointless by people just copying and pasting old code, without checking if it’s the latest version?

And then you’ve got the real bugs, like an extra space that’s snuck into the underbelly of the code due to a machine copy error (invalidating an entire set of instructions by its presence). And the math errors. But then, considering that the engineers sometimes live on 5 hours of sleep a night in the months before the product goes gold, maybe you should expect those.

Either way… it happens. And it is really a lot more common than you’d think.

Behellagh.1468:

Chuck.8196:

Andraus.3874:

Chuck that isn’t what this thread is about. Also you’re mis interpreting what Anet said. They are doing the next beta by both random email and by the portal drops. So if you didn’t get a portal drop there’s still a chance you get in through selection from email.

or you are misinterpreting and it means " If you aren’t selected from the mailing list you still have a chance to by looting a portal. The whole point of newsletter was to select a player base for the BETA’s. By making it available to everyone completely nulls there reasoning for newsletter.So RNG conundrum again.

But then why invite everyone to try for a portal if only those on the list could get one?

The mailing list got the first round of players into the stress test, the portals was the means to expand the number participation. Again under the rational that RNG is fair to all.

Fairness or to keep people playing. If you were TOLD it was only going to those who signed up and you didn’t sign up would you still farm for it? No. You’d be doing something more your taste instead of grinding dead maps. So as players obtain theirs map population would diminish until it was dead again. Gotta keep people playing to continue game production. What % of those who signed up got into the stress test? Most likely a small % leaving a plenty large source to pull from.

Essence Snow.3194:

Brother Grimm.5176:

phys.7689:

…….
The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier,…..

The fact that you asked the question in THIS manner is really the root of the perception issue you seem to have…..You have convinced yourself the above question is valid and many players think you are border line insane when you ask it…..

What? No it’s not at all. The question is perfectly valid even if the answer is simply “chance”.

Your assumption of them is the thing that should be questioned as it’s validity seems motivated.

What I meant was that asking the question, “Why are certain accounts luckier….?”, both validates the idea of “lucky” and “unlucky” accounts and legitimizes the overall claim of such by simply asking the question. The question, “Why are certain accounts seemingly luckier…..?” is (IMO) a valid question to answer, but maybe I’m just nit-picking semantic. Carry on.

I didn’t participate at all, I thought it was a fools errand. I only have X amount of time to play so I’m going to play what I want.

Players in the guild I rep did and several got portals.

Players are irrationally driven to do things they wouldn’t normally do, and then call it grind. What was the reward here? A chance to play on a closed beta server? It’s not like you are going to get an advantage when the expansion drops. You may even be tired of the content already.

Brother Grimm.5176:

Essence Snow.3194:

Brother Grimm.5176:

phys.7689:

…….
The question is WHY are certain accounts luckier,…..

The fact that you asked the question in THIS manner is really the root of the perception issue you seem to have…..You have convinced yourself the above question is valid and many players think you are border line insane when you ask it…..

What? No it’s not at all. The question is perfectly valid even if the answer is simply “chance”.

Your assumption of them is the thing that should be questioned as it’s validity seems motivated.

What I meant was that asking the question, “Why are certain accounts luckier….?”, both validates the idea of “lucky” and “unlucky” accounts and legitimizes the overall claim of such by simply asking the question. The question, “Why are certain accounts seemingly luckier…..?” is (IMO) a valid question to answer, but maybe I’m just nit-picking semantic. Carry on.

Especially since the answer is “No account is luckier than others. On the other hand, some players can be”.

Essence Snow.3194:

Behellagh.1468:

And as I stated in my last post, people are horrible at understanding probabilities. With a low enough chance you can get a significant percentage getting nothing while a relative few get a boatload given enough trys. That’s the nature of randomness. There isn’t a discernible pattern. There will always be “unlucky” and very “lucky”.

Everything else in these threads aside…Why is that a good thing to have in a game? (accounts that remain on the low end of the curve)

To quote a very famous line: You can’t handle the truth.

tonny.7580:

well day 7 no luck will seeing people with portals soo i know my rng is bad still as always and it not joke

Day 7 here of no portal, can’t play in SW because I lag out after 1 minute. Guess that makes me unlucky too.

At least mine is perfectly verifiable. ;D