Considering those trying to max the achievement need to do 80 matches, it’s understandable that they’re trying to do it in the least amount of time. I’m sure people don’t want 12 minute matches where it’d take 16 hours to complete the achievement.
I’ll have look again in game but I could have swore you can easily access that part. I saw someone there last night and was able to fear them off.
Edit: Oh. You mean where the guy that is currently showing on your team. If you can target him then spam the mad king emotes. I’ll try to keep a look out for it and see if there’s a better way to damage them.
You can get a ton of bags and candy corn this year. I want to say I got about 4 stacks of candy corn in about an hour but I wasn’t really tracking it. I’m pretty sure I can reasonably get all of the items from the vendor this year.
John—-just a single concept is needed to guide the team—-Fair and equitable for all players.
I believe you understand the current method is neither.
How’s everyone having the same chance as each other not fair and equitable?
I’ll just quote the OP, Mr J. Smith!
“Here’s the premise. RNG is evenly distributed on aggregate. On an individual level this means that while almost everyone falls into a reasonable range in the middle, there are outliers on each side of the distribution that are either highly rewarded or not rewarded at all. These individuals become sample cases and spotlights for experiences that maybe shouldn’t exist.
Please remember to read the 1st post carefully and in in it’s entirety.
Please remember to read up on general statistic and probability carefully.
Everyone has the same probability of getting a drop under RNG. There’s no differentiation between accounts/characters other than MF. If an item has a 10% chance to drop then everyone has that same chance to get it. Since they have the same chance, this means person A getting two in a row would also mean person B has the same chance at getting two in a row as well.
As far as your quote of John’s, nowhere did he state RNG was unfair and unequal. He just stated that there are likely to be outliers but everyone has the same probability of being that outlier.
It is enough that there is a recognition that RNG is a problem for some and extremely generous to others. Hopefully they will do something about it.
Moved to whiteknight ignore list.
That’s because a lot people have a misunderstanding about what RNG is and basic statistics involving probability. Everyone has the same chance as each other which means that nobody has an advantage over another as far as drop rates go.
A more meaningful approach than calling it unfair and unequal would be to find a way to reduce players perceptions that RNG is working against them by giving them a sense of progress. Many players would likely be more receptive of RNG if they saw they were making progress rather than trying to win the lottery. This is more of a quality of life issue than one about a flaw.
On the individual player level, DR is alive and well. It kicks in approx 20-30min after killing the same mobs in a localised area. Even your own devs admitted DR exists. It is not the perception issue you alluded to. I am sure many would be happy to document this for you.
As for MF …
Again, on the individual player level, the effects of MF are none to miniscule. MF does not even impact the major source of player loot, namely chests and champ bags.
I never used MF before EoL was introduced. Because I salvage a lot, my account MF is now 193%. The only thing I noticed going from MF 0% to 193% was the proportion of green item drops increased over blue items. That is it.
You definition of " huge difference" is significantly different than mine
First point, you have to remember that JS is talking game wide that there is virtually no DR. If a player farms one location of course they will experience but most players don’t hang around one area long enough for DR to kick in.
Second point, that’s how you play. You chose to specialize in content you think should give you better loot rather than ordinary content where MF kicks in, which is why you don’t see it. I imagine that there are loads more critters killed where MF kicks in on a daily basis than the few associated around boss chests. Spend time doing ordinary DEs or sweep a map rather than riding the boss train every quarter hour, then you’ll see MF in action.
One place where this (DR) becomes apparent is the Mad King’s Labyrinth that is currently running. DR kicks in after about 30-45 minutes for me, but it appears to vary between people quite widely. And it is very notable, as in you get 1/10th or less of the previous drops, and the legendary mobs don’t give their loot bags.
For some of my guild mates the DR hasn’t kicked in after more than 1 hour if at all, but relying on selective reporting from them is useless (the plural of anecdotes is not data).
All it does for me is reaffirm the idea that some accounts are incredibly lucky (even if those people sometimes refuse to see, or even acknowledge it), and that it’s something built into the system, even if it is unintentional.
It’s been confirmed that no accounts are inherently unlucky. What’s you’re suggesting is the gambler’s fallacy.
There’s is the idea that if you don’t collect loot every second, it slows down DR and the DR for loot is based on when you pick up the loot. In other words, someone picking up loot the second it drops will hit DR quicker than someone who waits 4 minutes to pick it all up. Now this is just based on observations but I doubt any quantitative analysis has been done.
John—-just a single concept is needed to guide the team—-Fair and equitable for all players.
I believe you understand the current method is neither.
How’s everyone having the same chance as each other not fair and equitable?
I’ll just quote the OP, Mr J. Smith!
“Here’s the premise. RNG is evenly distributed on aggregate. On an individual level this means that while almost everyone falls into a reasonable range in the middle, there are outliers on each side of the distribution that are either highly rewarded or not rewarded at all. These individuals become sample cases and spotlights for experiences that maybe shouldn’t exist.
Please remember to read the 1st post carefully and in in it’s entirety.
Please remember to read up on general statistic and probability carefully.
Everyone has the same probability of getting a drop under RNG. There’s no differentiation between accounts/characters other than MF. If an item has a 10% chance to drop then everyone has that same chance to get it. Since they have the same chance, this means person A getting two in a row would also mean person B has the same chance at getting two in a row as well.
As far as your quote of John’s, nowhere did he state RNG was unfair and unequal. He just stated that there are likely to be outliers but everyone has the same probability of being that outlier.
John—-just a single concept is needed to guide the team—-Fair and equitable for all players.
I believe you understand the current method is neither.
How’s everyone having the same chance as each other not fair and equitable?
Because he didnt get the same drops as his buddy.
Except him getting those same drops and his buddy not (and vice versa) have equally the same chance of occurring. With everyone having the same chance to roll a precursor, I can roll two in a row and everyone else has the same chance to do just that as well. It’s more of an issue about perception and jealousy than unfairness and inequality.
The problem people should focus on is a lack of progression rather than one of fairness and equality.
whethe r they had the same possibility doesnt mean they have the same reality. At the end of the day two players with same input get different outputs. Thats his beef.
random is unfair by its nature. If it was fair, it would be predictable, and thus not random
Random is random. Everyone has the same chance as another. That’s fair.
They are trying to get people to buy gems with RL money so they convert it into ingame gold. Didnt thought Anet would get desperated that fast to press the last money out of the customers.
That’s a very pessimistic view on the change. It could be exactly what they stated and the wanted to make it more simpler and understandable.
John—-just a single concept is needed to guide the team—-Fair and equitable for all players.
I believe you understand the current method is neither.
How’s everyone having the same chance as each other not fair and equitable?
Because he didnt get the same drops as his buddy.
Except him getting those same drops and his buddy not (and vice versa) have equally the same chance of occurring. With everyone having the same chance to roll a precursor, I can roll two in a row and everyone else has the same chance to do just that as well. It’s more of an issue about perception and jealousy than unfairness and inequality.
The problem people should focus on is a lack of progression rather than one of fairness and equality.
As long as you do any temporary achievement that Anet releases, you won’t fall behind. You may have noticed that people are starting to slowly catch up to the top AP players.
I thought champ bags were affected by DR. This is the drop of the bags, not what’s inside. I remember a lot of us purposely did not collect bags at the Blixx event and the one by Grenth until like every four minutes as this slowed down DR.
I’m at 185% MF, and drop rates are fine. In the attached picture, all the Ecto you see were salvaged from Rare and Exotics (btw – Ecto salvage rates are fine too). I’ve gotten multiple Precursor drops from monsters and from Zommoros.
Your picture only proves that you play quite a lot and that you’ve probably seen hundrets of thousands of drops, not that RNG has a positive effect on your drops.
Actually, I think what that picture shows is what John essentially said in a post earlier that people sort of look past: Some accounts are “lucky” and some are “unlucky.” That is if the pool is large enough you will inevitably have accounts at either end of the RNG distribution over an extended period of time. No wonder Penguin is such an avid defender of the current rewards system and economy! Its working for him/her thank you very much so leave it alone! lol
MF doesn’t affect salvage.
Mr. Penguin, how many of those rares were from the guaranteed bonus chests on the world champ train, would you say?
Huh? Where in his post did he say MF affected salvage rates? I looked back in that post string and saw salvaging mentioned in Penguin’s post. However, he didn’t state that MF increase ecto salvage rates either. Unless there’s a post outside of that, I’m going to have to say that neither suggested it.
There is a bug in one of the missions of the original Guild Wars that causes the mission to be almost impossible to complete if you try to complete the bonus objective first.
The best you can do about bugs is hope that they get fixed but don’t expect it. They have priorities and it’s things like these that sometimes fall to the bottom.
Don’t expect to get everything within a month aince it requires a lot of time to get max points. Best advice is to start by doing all of the storylines from the campaigns.
Everyone that has high AP got it through completing all daily achievements and living story achievements. None of those required any skill for the most part. Don’t feel bad for not having high AP.
It would be better if the champion bags of champions who come in existence because of scaling up are hold in “reserve”. The game counts them internally but awards them only if
the event succeeds, together with the event rewards (for example in a wiggly box above the mini map). The champions who are “naturally” there, without being triggered by the presence of many players, drop their bags as usual.
You let it fail to spawn champs in the next event assuming you have enough people. Really really easy to make it succeed though. What’s different about this farm is that even if you fail that one event, the chain of events still progresses.
I didn’t see any sub-forum specifically for the forum so this seemed to be the closest to my intent of this post.
I, as well as many other players, likely get a lot of messages in their inbox whenever a thread is deleted, moved, and so on. Currently I see no way to either do a mass delete or to select multiple messages for deletion.
The addition of a way to delete multiple unneeded messages without having to do it one by one would be quite helpful.
If there currently is a way then please share it with me. I currently do not see anything that intuitively suggests that you can.
Magic Find, how I see it, is like a multiplier. It’ll have a more noticeable impact on something the higher the drop rate is. A x3 increase to a drop rate of 20% will be more noticeable than the same increase to a drop rate of 1%.
They’ve publicly responded to the Ogre Wars and Dredge Commissar meta chains so far from what I have seen.
What is exactly broken with the meta chain for the orrian pearl? I remember doing it the night before the update and had no issue getting it to start and complete.
Rather than just say that a particular event is bugged, be more descriptive. How is it bugged? What normally causes it to bug? Just look at the Ogre Wars wiki for examples.
I’ll add more onto this again. When I did the Orrian Pearl event, or maybe it was the one before it, one of the risen was stuck under the map. You see the same happen often in the underwater personal story mission on the same map. What you need to do is use AoE attacks that don’t require you to have a target. This will allow you to hit/target the mob stuck under the map.
I do want to point out that we need to be very careful with any system suggested that relies less on RNG and more on doing some particular number of tasks. My minds jumbled at the moment so i can’t think of a better way to describe it.
RNG slows down the flow of supply as players cannot target a specific set of tasks to obtain a particular item. If players have an option to farm X event Y number of times to get Z item, you’ll have a greater influx of supply for that item which could potentially disrupt the market for it as well as those that rely on it.
This may have been what you meant by “flatten the experience”, but I just wanted to make sure.
there is no real logical reason why a player should not be able to target a specific set of tasks in order to get a specific item. There are many methods of limiting output without random. To be honest random is one of the worst means of limiting output. However, i think the strength of random is, surprise, and the possibility of coming out ahead.
I would not eliminate random, however aside from streak breaking mechanics, i think that specific methods that are slower, with limited output also can work well when properly designed into content.
You may have never played gw1, but they had a zone called domain of anguish, beating each submission had a guaranteed way to get tokens, but also you could get random tokens from enemies in the zone. The random tokens was exciting when you got it, and made it interesting, but the tokens for beating an area made it so worst case scenario by defeating the area, you could achieve something.
Like i said, if players could target specific tasks, they could greatly increase the supply of an item. This could devastate a lot of markets. Having RNG slows down the rate at which they acquire these items.
It would balance them more based on players instead of the rng chance. The items would come into equilibrium to real value since production could be altered to meet demand like irl. Once equilibrium is met, players slow on targeting those items…thus balance.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must have an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
In an economic discussion, everything has an equilibrium between supply and demand, ceteris parabis.
You misunderstood what was being discussed. Of course everything has an equilibrium between supply and demand. That’s undeniable. What I was arguing is that not all items should or have to be at that point. Precursors were intended to be incredibly rare. So of course their supply level will not equal the demand level. This gap was intended.
Perhaps I could have worded it better. Does the following change portray my intent more clearly? The changes are in bold.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must be at an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
Equilibrium is the point at which supply meets demand. The equilibrium point met=price. Equilibrium changes based on both supply and demand, creating a new point of equilibrium. I am still not sure what you are saying. Price is driven down by overproduction while demand remains fixed. Price is also driven down as demand wanes and production remains fixed. Equilibrium is the point where these two factors meet.
This market allows for both of these issues to change based on player whim, so equilibrium points change over time..this is volatility. So I think what you are saying is that volatility does not need to be controlled and fluctuation in price is an example of a healthy market. Yes, you are correct! Sorry for my long windedness.
I was using the term in the same way the poster was using it which was likely confusing to other people. I just didn’t want to get into another debate about the definition of a term so I didn’t correct them. I should’ve stopped using it in the way that they did when discussing it with you, but I didn’t. Sorry about the confusion.
What I was arguing was simply the disparity between the amount of precursors that enter the game versus the amount that people want as a whole. I could have argued elasticities but I didn’t want to get into it. All I was arguing is that more people want precursors than what are created in the game.
I do want to point out that we need to be very careful with any system suggested that relies less on RNG and more on doing some particular number of tasks. My minds jumbled at the moment so i can’t think of a better way to describe it.
RNG slows down the flow of supply as players cannot target a specific set of tasks to obtain a particular item. If players have an option to farm X event Y number of times to get Z item, you’ll have a greater influx of supply for that item which could potentially disrupt the market for it as well as those that rely on it.
This may have been what you meant by “flatten the experience”, but I just wanted to make sure.
there is no real logical reason why a player should not be able to target a specific set of tasks in order to get a specific item. There are many methods of limiting output without random. To be honest random is one of the worst means of limiting output. However, i think the strength of random is, surprise, and the possibility of coming out ahead.
I would not eliminate random, however aside from streak breaking mechanics, i think that specific methods that are slower, with limited output also can work well when properly designed into content.
You may have never played gw1, but they had a zone called domain of anguish, beating each submission had a guaranteed way to get tokens, but also you could get random tokens from enemies in the zone. The random tokens was exciting when you got it, and made it interesting, but the tokens for beating an area made it so worst case scenario by defeating the area, you could achieve something.
Like i said, if players could target specific tasks, they could greatly increase the supply of an item. This could devastate a lot of markets. Having RNG slows down the rate at which they acquire these items.
It would balance them more based on players instead of the rng chance. The items would come into equilibrium to real value since production could be altered to meet demand like irl. Once equilibrium is met, players slow on targeting those items…thus balance.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must have an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
In an economic discussion, everything has an equilibrium between supply and demand, ceteris parabis.
You misunderstood what was being discussed. Of course everything has an equilibrium between supply and demand. That’s undeniable. What I was arguing is that not all items should or have to be at that point. Precursors were intended to be incredibly rare. So of course their supply level will not equal the demand level. This gap was intended.
Perhaps I could have worded it better. Does the following change portray my intent more clearly? The changes are in bold.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must be at an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
Umm. I don’t think you understand how the distribution curve functions.
Yes I do, distribution curve represents how the total results are distrubuted.
The chance of heads is. 50% or 1/2 over a large number of trials. it Will average to 50%. Different people will experience different distributions of heads or tails (this is what the curve shows) but this does not change the overall results, which would represent the supply.
You have a normal distribution curve calculated with data consisting of a number attempts. The data is spread out like the typical bell curve with half the data spread across the various intervals on each side.
What happens when you redo the calculation after you take all of the data points above the previously calculated average and change them to be that average? Do you have the same results?
Ok then……why isn’t it true, give some examples….Saying no without adding anything doesn’t help anything.
Just look at whatever items in the game have low supply but high demand. Look at precursors. Whether something will have a low supply and high demand is not in the player’s control but with Anet. They have their own vision on what they would like for each item. Since precursor drop rates are very low, and they’re highly sought after, it’s pretty safe to assume that they intended for this imbalance between supply and demand.
you can simulate the exact same output from random through other means. in large numbers random is fairly predictable and known.
for example, it is highly likely their is a consistent number for the current random implementation that you can represent like this.
X amount of enemies killed per precursor drop.
which also translates into X amount of player hours per precursor drop.
once you realize this formula, it wouldnt be difficult to create a set of conditions that can simulate the exact same output.
random is a design choice, its not a necessity in terms of predetermining supply.
I think you quoted the wrong post of mine as your post doesn’t have anything to do with what you quoted of mine. I’ll go ahead and answer you anyway.
You’re assuming the determination of the drop rate is based on player action rather than a manually added percentage. I may have read your post wrong. If i did, could you clarify.
Point is, anet can generate the same supply without random, if they choose to do so.
The advantages of random are not really about controlling supply, its mostly the benefits of unpredictability
I brought that up in a previous post. Supply of an item will increase greater under a system with a guaranteed than one on RNG. When players have a guaranteed way, they will flock to that way. Those with a lot of free time will farm that way nonstop flooding the market. With an RNG system, this would not happen.
You are oversimplifying supply. You can design.systems that produce the same behavior.
If precursor from mob drop is .00001 chance you can make precursors drop from killing 100,000 monsters.
If the average player hours in combat is 5000, you can make it take 10,000 runs of a half hour activity
If 200 precursors are generated per day, you can create content that awards to the top 200 scorers (limit pet account per month)
Point is for any randomized supply there exists a direct predictable method to provide the same supply with the same input
First off, something having a 0.0001% does not mean you’ll get it after 100,000 monster kills. If you were to set it exactly at 100,000 monster kills, you’d be cutting off the entire right half of the distribution curve and shifting those that would fall under it to the middle. This produces more supply as now those people acquire the items sooner.
It’s for that very reason that you’d be eliminating the probability of getting an item above the average which is why supply would increase more.
First I’m simplifying for the sake of clarity
Second
No it wouldn’t be cutting the curve because the on average the behavior is accurate. Supply is decided by the total over time which is predictable to a small %.
If the average is truely 1/10 for example, you will get 100,000 out of one million attempts. That 100,000 includes both sides of the curve. To produce the same supply in another system you might make it every tenth attempt.
If you are combining both methods you come up with a different equation.
Point is it just a case of mathematics you can produce the same results over large numbers with. Non random system as a random one. The benefits if random have to do with psychology/game design not output.
Umm. I don’t think you understand how the distribution curve functions.
Ok then……why isn’t it true, give some examples….Saying no without adding anything doesn’t help anything.
Just look at whatever items in the game have low supply but high demand. Look at precursors. Whether something will have a low supply and high demand is not in the player’s control but with Anet. They have their own vision on what they would like for each item. Since precursor drop rates are very low, and they’re highly sought after, it’s pretty safe to assume that they intended for this imbalance between supply and demand.
you can simulate the exact same output from random through other means. in large numbers random is fairly predictable and known.
for example, it is highly likely their is a consistent number for the current random implementation that you can represent like this.
X amount of enemies killed per precursor drop.
which also translates into X amount of player hours per precursor drop.
once you realize this formula, it wouldnt be difficult to create a set of conditions that can simulate the exact same output.
random is a design choice, its not a necessity in terms of predetermining supply.
I think you quoted the wrong post of mine as your post doesn’t have anything to do with what you quoted of mine. I’ll go ahead and answer you anyway.
You’re assuming the determination of the drop rate is based on player action rather than a manually added percentage. I may have read your post wrong. If i did, could you clarify.
Point is, anet can generate the same supply without random, if they choose to do so.
The advantages of random are not really about controlling supply, its mostly the benefits of unpredictability
I brought that up in a previous post. Supply of an item will increase greater under a system with a guaranteed than one on RNG. When players have a guaranteed way, they will flock to that way. Those with a lot of free time will farm that way nonstop flooding the market. With an RNG system, this would not happen.
You are oversimplifying supply. You can design.systems that produce the same behavior.
If precursor from mob drop is .00001 chance you can make precursors drop from killing 100,000 monsters.
If the average player hours in combat is 5000, you can make it take 10,000 runs of a half hour activity
If 200 precursors are generated per day, you can create content that awards to the top 200 scorers (limit pet account per month)
Point is for any randomized supply there exists a direct predictable method to provide the same supply with the same input
First off, something having a 0.0001% does not mean you’ll get it after 100,000 monster kills. If you were to set it exactly at 100,000 monster kills, you’d be cutting off the entire right half of the distribution curve and shifting those that would fall under it to the middle. This produces more supply as now those people acquire the items sooner.
It’s for that very reason that you’d be eliminating the probability of getting an item above the average which is why supply would increase more.
…
I’m pretty sure that nobody think there is special code about that.
But we’re a lot to rather think that RNG is bugged in some way, and that’s why, in addition to a “gauss distribution” as described in the previous post, some players are always lucky and some are always unlucky. As the RNG mechanism is all in all quite complex (modified by magic find ; depends on damage done by the player / by his group compared to damage done by other players ; special items with a different table loot ; …), there could be several bugs introduced in the system. Remember that the % of magic find displayed in the hero panel is wrong since months (but the real number is supposed to be correctly applyed), so it wouldn’t be surprising that there are some bugs in the loot mechanism itself.
There are CERTAINLY very vocal players that are convinced of the “secret LUCK stat”.
its not really relevant weather there is a secret luck stat or not. If a random works properly, there will be people who will, will seem lucky, or those who seem unlucky, when compared to the data. This is the normal expectation of the bell curve.
So whether it is a bug or not doesnt matter. The point is these people are bound to exist.
My take on RNG, isn’t that it exist or it’s broken, it’s just that it’s practically everywhere. Neither of those solutions would work anyway, since the game would have to predict what you’re after in the first place, then reward you for failure of what exactly? Do we put a merchant in the game that carries everything a player might want in exchange for a loser token?
This was the first problem I thought of as well. It’s simple to say failure and success, but that’s not an easily definable concept in real life.
The loser token is a simple solution,
You can create a hunter system, whereby drop.rate of certain items of which you select one, have the behavior of increasing chance/streak breaking
You can make it so the mystic forge has methods of altering drops (forge can change weapon types, stat distributions for example)
There are a number of ways to skin a cat. However I think the best way is to design it into the game design of rare items that their is a more predictable alternate method of obtaining them
Ok then……why isn’t it true, give some examples….Saying no without adding anything doesn’t help anything.
Just look at whatever items in the game have low supply but high demand. Look at precursors. Whether something will have a low supply and high demand is not in the player’s control but with Anet. They have their own vision on what they would like for each item. Since precursor drop rates are very low, and they’re highly sought after, it’s pretty safe to assume that they intended for this imbalance between supply and demand.
you can simulate the exact same output from random through other means. in large numbers random is fairly predictable and known.
for example, it is highly likely their is a consistent number for the current random implementation that you can represent like this.
X amount of enemies killed per precursor drop.
which also translates into X amount of player hours per precursor drop.
once you realize this formula, it wouldnt be difficult to create a set of conditions that can simulate the exact same output.
random is a design choice, its not a necessity in terms of predetermining supply.
I think you quoted the wrong post of mine as your post doesn’t have anything to do with what you quoted of mine. I’ll go ahead and answer you anyway.
You’re assuming the determination of the drop rate is based on player action rather than a manually added percentage. I may have read your post wrong. If i did, could you clarify.
Point is, anet can generate the same supply without random, if they choose to do so.
The advantages of random are not really about controlling supply, its mostly the benefits of unpredictability
I brought that up in a previous post. Supply of an item will increase greater under a system with a guaranteed than one on RNG. When players have a guaranteed way, they will flock to that way. Those with a lot of free time will farm that way nonstop flooding the market. With an RNG system, this would not happen.
Ok then……why isn’t it true, give some examples….Saying no without adding anything doesn’t help anything.
Just look at whatever items in the game have low supply but high demand. Look at precursors. Whether something will have a low supply and high demand is not in the player’s control but with Anet. They have their own vision on what they would like for each item. Since precursor drop rates are very low, and they’re highly sought after, it’s pretty safe to assume that they intended for this imbalance between supply and demand.
you can simulate the exact same output from random through other means. in large numbers random is fairly predictable and known.
for example, it is highly likely their is a consistent number for the current random implementation that you can represent like this.
X amount of enemies killed per precursor drop.
which also translates into X amount of player hours per precursor drop.
once you realize this formula, it wouldnt be difficult to create a set of conditions that can simulate the exact same output.
random is a design choice, its not a necessity in terms of predetermining supply.
I think you quoted the wrong post of mine as your post doesn’t have anything to do with what you quoted of mine. I’ll go ahead and answer you anyway.
You’re assuming the determination of the drop rate is based on player action rather than a manually added percentage. I may have read your post wrong. If i did, could you clarify.
Might I add that a simple comment from John (or any Dev) that states emphatically that there is NO secret LUCK factor tied to any player / account / character anywhere in the code (or ever has been), might help to squash some of the crazyiness I envision showing up in this thread. Just a suggestion.
He quashed that emphatically in the other thread this span off from
Doesn’t mean that everyone who posts in this thread have read the other. Best to post it here too although most likely won’t read it once this thread has gotten long enough.
This seems to be a recurring issue. You can still commune with it successfully as I’ve done it many times and without stealth. It just plays more into RNG.
Ok then……why isn’t it true, give some examples….Saying no without adding anything doesn’t help anything.
Just look at whatever items in the game have low supply but high demand. Look at precursors. Whether something will have a low supply and high demand is not in the player’s control but with Anet. They have their own vision on what they would like for each item. Since precursor drop rates are very low, and they’re highly sought after, it’s pretty safe to assume that they intended for this imbalance between supply and demand.
I do want to point out that we need to be very careful with any system suggested that relies less on RNG and more on doing some particular number of tasks. My minds jumbled at the moment so i can’t think of a better way to describe it.
RNG slows down the flow of supply as players cannot target a specific set of tasks to obtain a particular item. If players have an option to farm X event Y number of times to get Z item, you’ll have a greater influx of supply for that item which could potentially disrupt the market for it as well as those that rely on it.
This may have been what you meant by “flatten the experience”, but I just wanted to make sure.
there is no real logical reason why a player should not be able to target a specific set of tasks in order to get a specific item. There are many methods of limiting output without random. To be honest random is one of the worst means of limiting output. However, i think the strength of random is, surprise, and the possibility of coming out ahead.
I would not eliminate random, however aside from streak breaking mechanics, i think that specific methods that are slower, with limited output also can work well when properly designed into content.
You may have never played gw1, but they had a zone called domain of anguish, beating each submission had a guaranteed way to get tokens, but also you could get random tokens from enemies in the zone. The random tokens was exciting when you got it, and made it interesting, but the tokens for beating an area made it so worst case scenario by defeating the area, you could achieve something.
Like i said, if players could target specific tasks, they could greatly increase the supply of an item. This could devastate a lot of markets. Having RNG slows down the rate at which they acquire these items.
It would balance them more based on players instead of the rng chance. The items would come into equilibrium to real value since production could be altered to meet demand like irl. Once equilibrium is met, players slow on targeting those items…thus balance.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must have an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
