Guild Wars 2

Another good point is that we KNOW uninfused rings are supposed to drop less at higher tiers.

So we KNOW the tiers have differences between infused and uninfused at the very least.

While most of my rings were done in the 40s and 50s, I admitted on the other thread that the earlier ones likely were not.

That’s definitely a factor which could play a role – but if you think about it your odds of getting the same ring in a row twice actually DECREASE because now instead of 34 different rings, you have a pool of 68 to potentially choose from.

Also, all the “doubles” I counted were of the same type – all infused.

Seera.5916:

Essence Snow.3194:

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Like, I understand what everyone is saying. The game rolls a random number, and then the loot tables are weighted. But because the loot tables are weighted, it’s the same as if you had a weighted dice.

No it is not the same. If you have a weighted dice the odds of getting the fixed roll increase. While the odds of getting other numbers decreases.

The loot tables have absolutely no impact on the rolls you receive. if 90 is worth more then 6 that has literally no impact on you rolling a 90 or a 6. So the RNG number is NOT weighted it’s not like a weighted dice. You are more likely to receive a certain item as a reward, however you are not more likely to roll a certain number over any other certain number.

Doesn’t magic find fly right in the face of that though? If it is supposed to increase the likelyhood of a certain rarity, then it’s weighting that rarity.

ANet’s RNG system has an equal chance of rolling a 1 as it does a 100. It is not affected at all by what item that ANet has assigned to those rolls.

The Nevets Crimsonwing is trying to say that if 1-10 gives Ring A that if you roll a 5 your next roll is weighted to give a higher chance of getting a number between 1 and 10. Because she’s getting more doubles than she thinks she should be getting.

What were saying is no, that’s not the case and that there’s not enough data to prove that there is a glitch in the system or not.

We’re not saying she’s lying. Just that she hasn’t proved it.

As I’ve said before, stats doesn’t prove anything, it just gives likelihoods of differences existing.

All I’ve said from the beginning is my data show that it’s very likely there is a difference in drops than would be expected if the rings were assigned simply by rolling a 26-34 sided dice.

That’s it.

I’ve made no claims as to why (different levels assigning rings differently, resets affecting drops, different ring drop rates altogether) I’ve just claimed that there seems to be a difference from what you’d expect if you had equal chances of any of the rings dropping.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Like, I understand what everyone is saying. The game rolls a random number, and then the loot tables are weighted. But because the loot tables are weighted, it’s the same as if you had a weighted dice.

No it is not the same. If you have a weighted dice the odds of getting the fixed roll increase. While the odds of getting other numbers decreases.

The loot tables have absolutely no impact on the rolls you receive. if 90 is worth more then 6 that has literally no impact on you rolling a 90 or a 6. So the RNG number is NOT weighted it’s not like a weighted dice. You are more likely to receive a certain item as a reward, however you are not more likely to roll a certain number over any other certain number.

The OUTCOME is the same. If, on a 5 sided dice, 1 represents whites, 2 represents blues, 3 represents greens, 4 represents yellows, 5 exotics, OBVIOUSLY the lower numbers will be weighted MORE.

The effect of assigning whites and blues MORE NUMBERS is functionally equivalent as giving them ONE NUMBER but WEIGHTING that number MORE.

uhohhotdog.3598:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

uhohhotdog.3598:

RNG doesn’t mean you have an equal chance at every type of ring. Only if that’s how it is set up.

Random means equal chance at each outcome. If there are 4 numbers for a given ring and one number for another, it’s the functional equivalent of a weighted number generator.

Being weighted doesn’t make it not random. It’s like when you go into pvp and you pick a map. 7 people might pick one map but the game randomly picks a spot between 1-10. There’s just a higher chance that the map with 7 picks will match the random number.

It makes the outcome non-random, which is functionally the same as if you would have had a non-random dice in the first place.

Like, I understand what everyone is saying. The game rolls a random number, and then the loot tables are weighted. But because the loot tables are weighted, it’s the same as if you had a weighted dice.

I guess I’d say this:

It’s a loot system that uses a RNG, but it isn’t a RNG loot system.

You might all think that’s pedantic and I’m just trolling, but I don’t really care.

The overall point which I intended to make from the beginning is that there’s a strong chance that if you roll a ring in fractals, the selection of your ring among the 26-34 available either isn’t made independently or is not random.

Also, I just want to add that I think the OP has too low of a sample size to really start making any claims, but I think my sample size is large enough that I can have confidence in mine. I could run a power analysis to give you all a sense of the kind of confidence you could have with 42 trials, but I’m pretty sure it’s high enough.

If you flipped a coin 84 times that’s enough times to tell you if the coin is weighted, and because I rolled 84 rings I’m confident in my results.

Fixing non-random forum bug.

Sorin.4310:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Sorin.4310:

There are 26 rings that can come from bonus chest. The chance of getting the same 2 5 times (I’m going to ignore infused):

(2/26)^5 = 0.000002693, or 0.0002693%.

This might make you think something must be bugged, but considering literally millions of daily bonus chests have been opened, statistically, there should be other people in the same boat as you. Are you a statistical outlier? Yeah definitely. Are you bugged? No probably not.

Tons of people receive tons of doubles. I made another thread about this and did the math and I’m pretty positive it’s NOT RNG.

Here’s my thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Fractals-End-Chest-RNG/first#post4694039

Edit:

For reference, you’d need over 10 trillion players before you’d see the RNG that I’ve experienced in fractals.

“Tons of players have tons of doubles”. I’m seeing a few anecdotal cases.

I went over your thread. It just reinforces the fact that there are statistical outliers. You take a calculator and see that it the chance of you having these series of events is extremely small, and make something out of that. You don’t need over a trillion players before you’d see the RNG. It’s not like if something has a 1 and 10^50th, chance of occuring, then 10^50th cases have to occur. It can happen on the very first instance. That is literally what random is.

Other people tried to explain this in the other thread. Your eyes see patterns so you make it out to something. In your screenshot from the other thread there are at least 5 (I didn’t search hard) instances of you getting the same ring connected diagonally. But no one makes an “RNG” claim about rings being connected every 9th or 11th run because 1, that seems silly, and 2, diagonal patterns aren’t as easy to see. Only difference between this and the connected ones are the visual difference.

Your sample size is also way too small. You may keep doing fractals and never see a repeat again for 70 years. Because the events are independent. We simply won’t know.

I see a lot of rage and not a single use of maths.

The point of statistics is give one a sense of whether their data differ statistically from what would be expected under given conditions.

My data, with 42 pairs of rings, give strong evidence to suggest that the events, for whatever reason, are not independent or are not equally likely.

Sure, something with a 1 in 10^50th chance can happen at any time. But, and read this very carefully, it’s a rare event and we can have confidence that it won’t happen repeatedly or commonly.

Substance E.4852:

Has anyone actually gotten enough rings to make any real kind of data set or is this another “this happened twice in a row and thus is the norm” thread?

If you read the thread I linked my data set which had at the time 84 rings or 42 repeated trials.

Of those 42 repeated trials there were 8 pairs, implying that all rings are not treated equally, or, as I personally suspect, there were a number of weird things going on with updates/resets. So that when I did a fractal 50 prior to an update and then updated and then did the 50 again I had a higher chance at getting the same ring again.

Don’t know what’s going on, but the ring outcome doesn’t seem to be random.

Edit:

Here it is again for future peoples:

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/177902/Fractals_Rings.png

Miku.6297:

Wait what? why would I say the dice is not weighted and thus is not random? What in the world are you talking about?

How is that the same thing as what I said… I simply said if you randomly generate a number from 1-100 the odds of getting one number are the same as the odds of getting another number.

One number may be more valuable then the other, but the value of the number has nothing to do with the odds of the number showing up.

I edited it before you responded. I meant IS weighted. Apologies for the typo.

And a loot table system with different VALUES is the equivalent of a weighted number generator system, so it’s not really a random number generator loot system.

Miku.6297:

LOL Are you serious?

The odds of rolling any number 50 and down are EXACTLY the same as rolling 100. How are the odds of rolling any said number weighted?

The weighted factor comes in AFTER to determine the value of the roll.

Would you claim the loot system in GW2 is not a RNG loot system because a precursor is more rare then a masterwork??

Suppose 1-10 give an exotic, 11-30 give a yellow, 31-60 give a green, 61-100 give a blue. Suppose we have a four sided dice which can roll a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4. If it rolls a 4 four times out of ten, a 3 three times out of ten, a 2 two times out of ten, and a 1 one time out of ten, you’d say the dice is weighted and is thus not random. It’s the same thing as you provided above.

But here’s the thing. Under your example all items of a given rarity should be treated equally. That’s what most people assume with fractal rings. If you roll a ring you should have a random chance of getting any of the rings, perhaps by using a random number generator with each ring assigned a given value. But that’s not what happens.

Edit: For clarity.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Random means equal chance at each outcome. If there are 4 numbers for a given ring and one number for another, it’s the functional equivalent of a weighted number generator.

Definition of random in English:
adjective
1Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision
1.1 Statistics Governed by or involving equal chances for each item.
2 informal Odd, unusual, or unexpected: I find it impossible to not laugh at such a random guy

Refer to definition 1 of the dictionary link you provided. That is what a RNG loot system does. It does NOT mean all odds are equal.

Keep in mind, the RNG is actually 100% equal… What number you get from x-z is the same, The value of the number may not be, but the chance of getting any number is…

For example: from 1-100,

rolling 1-50 earns you nothing
rolling 51-70 earns you a blue
rolling 70-85 earns you a green
rolling 86-96 earns you a yellow
rolling 97-100 earns you an orange
rolling 101 earns you a precursor (sorry couldn’t resist the odds are just so bad)

The odds of player A rolling a 25 is the SAME as the player rolling 100. The value of a 25 is certainly not the value of 100, but the odds of getting that result are infact 100% identical.

Your own example contradicts the first definition. The odds you propose are weighted, purposely and with deliberation.

uhohhotdog.3598:

RNG doesn’t mean you have an equal chance at every type of ring. Only if that’s how it is set up.

Random means equal chance at each outcome. If there are 4 numbers for a given ring and one number for another, it’s the functional equivalent of a weighted number generator.

Wow that was nice.

We did this path as [Noob] for the first DnT tourney and at that time the record was like 14 minutes.

For record purposes why didn’t you guys hop over the gate to get some rocks ready while waiting for the npc to bring his boulder back over? Is that against the rules? Or would it bug?

Miku.6297:

Sometimes I don’t know why I bother either.

If that’s the case, what system that we have is RNG? What system in computer game is RNG? Would it have been better if I said the it’s still RNG based?

I have thought for a second, I just disagree with what you consider RNG loot.

We’ve come to the source of our disagreement. You hold a wrong definition of random.

Fine. As long as we agree that my data give evidence to support that all rings likely don’t drop as we would expect from an even dice roll, then I no longer have any reason to engage with you.

Miku.6297:

Yep, I did ask you if you had proof buddy, I meant concrete hard evidence that it’s not RNG. You gave your numbers and statistics based on your assumptions. Without A-net disclosing how the rolls for rewards like this are made, it’s all theory.

My last “Bit” did you bother to read it?

I literally said, the odds of getting item A vs getting item B are NOT evenly weighted.

Most of the time in a game like this, RNG means an unpredictable result not it’s 100% even chance.

Sometimes I don’t even know why I bother.

“RNG” stands for RANDOM number generator dude.

You wrote:

“I’d guess the odds are not 100% evenly weighted on getting item a vs getting item b. How ever, even then it’s still RNG”

NO. BY DEFINITION THIS IS WRONG.

If the odds are not 100% evenly weighted on getting item a vs. getting item b, then BY DEFINITION it’s not a RANDOM number generator.

I mean seriously. Think here for a second. That’s why I defined RANDOM above.

Also:

Random means “Governed by or involving equal chances for each item.” If it’s not an even dice, it’s not random.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/random

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I don’t think you understand how statistics works. Statistics never gives absolutes.

I’m aware statistics don’t give absolutes, I’m not the one coming here saying here are my numbers this proves it can’t be rng… That’s you.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I’ve provided numbers that are astronomically improbably. You’ve provided no numbers.

Other people have provided examples that are astronomically improbable. You’ve provided no numbers.

You have provided numbers based on your assumption of how the system works. The same could be said for other numbers that have been provided. If you look at the screen shot I posted I have plenty of duplicates as well. Does that mean it’s not RNG? Nope it doesn’t.

I haven’t provided numbers because as you stated, unless the devs release info on how it works, it’s all hypothetical. Releasing numbers based on variables that may or may not be correct… May or may not be correct.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Go ahead and shout “RNG” like a religious zealot. I can’t convince you otherwise unless the code for how rewards are generated is released.

It never will be, so we’ll just have to disagree.

Yep, I’ll keep preaching and praying to RNGesus, you keep your tin foil hat at the ready!

_—- responding to next post..

Right so if you have a 26 sided die, you’d need 10 trillion rolls to replicate the EXACT duplication of what you have seen. Would you need 10 trillion rolls for multiple players to get multiple copies of the same ring?

I’d guess the odds are not 100% evenly weighted on getting item a vs getting item b. How ever, even then it’s still RNG.

I’ve not used the word proof or prove once. That was you buddy. Control “F” it to see.

I’m trying to show that the most obvious model for how rewards are allocated (dice roll with 26-34 even sides) isn’t how it works. That’s all.

Your last bit is completely wrong. It would take over 10 trillion players to get 8 duplicates out of 42 pairs of rolls, which is what I have received, assuming the dice is supposed to be “fair.”

Tigaseye.2047:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Tigaseye.2047:

RoseofGilead.8907:

Tigaseye.2047:

I didn’t even select he lead role in WoW dungeons, even though I had been playing for years.

So, of course I don’t want to make my own groups in a game I’ve only been playing a few months.

I feel like, when you select a lead role, you should really know everything there is to know about that dungeon and ideally, the game as a whole.

Otherwise, you’re misleading people.

There is no party leader system in GW2. Someone starting a dungeon group does not make them the leader of the group. You’re putting pressure on yourself that no one else would put on you.

If you’re that concerned about it, you could always make a lfg post saying “COF 1, still pretty new to this” or some other thing to let them know you don’t know what you’re doing.

Yeah and you know who you would get joining then?

A bunch of people who would then lecture me/us on which class(es) to use (or not use), how to gear, how to build, how to speedrun…

Just like you do, most of the time, if you join an “everyone welcome” group.

No thank you – I’ll just pass.

You are probably right that I put too much pressure on myself, but I still don’t feel like making my own groups.

It’s just not what I play games for.

So you’re a leech.

Try, “LFG Path X, leeches only.”

Firstly, how can I be a “leech” when I don’t even run that content?

I tried a few times, decided it wasn’t for me and didn’t bother anymore.

Secondly, if we’re supposed to be able to play how we like, despite the game design favouring certain methods, how would it be “leeching” for someone to do that, anyway?

Either the game design is dictating very narrow terms, in which case that is terrible design; or, it isn’t, in which case we are all free to do exactly what we like.

You can’t have it both ways, so which is it?

You won’t make your own LFG because you’re afraid others will give you advice about how to play better.

So the only way you’d play the content is if you could join others and play your inefficient build.

Sounds like the mindset of a leech.

But, granted, you are just refusing to play the content all together, so I take it back.

Apologies.

My claim in a nutshell:

If you have a 26 (or 32 depending on however many rings can possibly drop) sided dice, where all sides have an equal chance of landing, you’d need over 10 trillion players to replicate the duplicate results I’ve seen. Those are REALLY REALLY long odds.

There are a variety of explanations, such as RNG being time dependent instead as noted above, or of the “sides” of the dice NOT having an equal chance of landing, or of the RNG just being bad in general.

My point is that it’s likely the model wherein you have an equal chance of getting ANY ring from the pot isn’t the proper model.

Aenesthesia.1697:

Rng is rng, but we don’t know if it’s fair rng, or unfair.

For example, the probability to get berserker rings could be 0,0001%, while the probability to get again that crappy ring with condition and vitality might be 25%. It would still be rng, only balanced to avoid giving the players what they want (unless they pay for it, which seems to be anet’s policy).

For all we know, there could also be some trolling written into the ring roll algorithm: on mondays, the probability of getting kitten of type A might be higher, on tuesdays, the probability of getting kitten of type B may be higher, and so on. That’s how you expain the repeated drops in the same group.

People think that, it being rng, the probability of getting the 26 rings must be the same, when it can be anything the devs decided it to be.

Yeah, this.

My tests basically claim that IF the odds of getting ANY possible ring are supposed to be equal, the RNG isn’t doing a good job replicating randomness.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I already linked my thread with my data and statistical analysis. What you do is run a probability analysis on the chances of getting 2 of the same rings back to back. Like I said, you’d need over 10 trillion players to find just ONE instance of my repetitions.

sigh I see you are really driven about this for some reason…. Really no point in arguing about the human desire to identify patters etc, I’m simply saying the system is based on RNG, untill a dev says otherwise anything you prove with your “test” is purely hypothetical.

Are you 100% sure your test shows the true statistics and probability of getting a ring, and getting the duplicate ring?

What scale of fractal are you doing?

Honestly with the total number of ascended rings available. Getting duplicates is hardly a surprise to me.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

How many flips of a coin do you need while only getting heads to say with 95% confidence that the coin is loaded?
The answer is 6.
I provided a much larger sample size in my thread if you want to look.

You are aware that that is probability, it’s not an absolute… If someone flips a coin 10 times it may very well come up heads ALL 10 times, and the coin may be 100% legit.

Would you say someone playing Yahtzee that rolls 5 sixes in one roll must be cheating?

I don’t think you understand how statistics works. Statistics never gives absolutes.

I’ve provided numbers that are astronomically improbable. You’ve provided no numbers.

Other people have provided examples that are astronomically improbable. You’ve provided no numbers.

Go ahead and shout “RNG” like a religious zealot. I can’t convince you otherwise unless the code for how rewards are generated is released.

It never will be, so we’ll just have to disagree.

Tigaseye.2047:

RoseofGilead.8907:

Tigaseye.2047:

I didn’t even select he lead role in WoW dungeons, even though I had been playing for years.

So, of course I don’t want to make my own groups in a game I’ve only been playing a few months.

I feel like, when you select a lead role, you should really know everything there is to know about that dungeon and ideally, the game as a whole.

Otherwise, you’re misleading people.

There is no party leader system in GW2. Someone starting a dungeon group does not make them the leader of the group. You’re putting pressure on yourself that no one else would put on you.

If you’re that concerned about it, you could always make a lfg post saying “COF 1, still pretty new to this” or some other thing to let them know you don’t know what you’re doing.

Yeah and you know who you would get joining then?

A bunch of people who would then lecture me/us on which class(es) to use (or not use), how to gear, how to build, how to speedrun…

Just like you do, most of the time, if you join an “everyone welcome” group.

No thank you – I’ll just pass.

You are probably right that I put too much pressure on myself, but I still don’t feel like making my own groups.

It’s just not what I play games for.

So you’re a leech.

Try, “LFG Path X, leeches only.”

Miss Lana.5276:

True random has repeats in itself. The sample size you have here is nowhere near large enough to assume that you only get two different types of rings.

You’re just “unlucky”. The RNGods don’t smile upon you.

How many flips of a coin do you need while only getting heads to say with 95% confidence that the coin is loaded?

The answer is 6.

I provided a much larger sample size in my thread if you want to look.

Miku.6297:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Miku.6297:

^^; RNG is RNG I keep saving them thinking something good will come of it!

RNG is RNG but the reward generator for fractals is NOT RNG and doesn’t even come close to approximating it.

Do you have proof that it’s not? Besides data generated by others that you look for a pattern in? Prety sure the devs have said it was RNG, as with all RNG systems patterns sometimes seem to appear, and there are always those that defy or break the odds.

It’s possible that there is a flaw in the RNG algorithm causing a hitch, but I highly doubt some dev is sitting there chuckling as he gives you the same ring xD

I already linked my thread with my data and statistical analysis. What you do is run a probability analysis on the chances of getting 2 of the same rings back to back. Like I said, you’d need over 10 trillion players to find just ONE instance of my repetitions.

Miku.6297:

^^; RNG is RNG I keep saving them thinking something good will come of it!

RNG is RNG but the reward generator for fractals is NOT RNG and doesn’t even come close to approximating it.

Sorin.4310:

There are 26 rings that can come from bonus chest. The chance of getting the same 2 5 times (I’m going to ignore infused):

(2/26)^5 = 0.000002693, or 0.0002693%.

This might make you think something must be bugged, but considering literally millions of daily bonus chests have been opened, statistically, there should be other people in the same boat as you. Are you a statistical outlier? Yeah definitely. Are you bugged? No probably not.

Tons of people receive tons of doubles. I made another thread about this and did the math and I’m pretty positive it’s NOT RNG.

Here’s my thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Fractals-End-Chest-RNG/first#post4694039

Edit:

For reference, you’d need over 10 trillion players before you’d see the RNG that I’ve experienced in fractals.

Derigar.7810:

Is this true? I only get the ones in said attached file.
I’m hoping to get a Berserker ring sometime soon, but it seems like prestine relics will be the way to buy it.

Pretty sure their RNG is complete crap because many times you’ll get doubles of the same ring even though the chances of that happening are really low statistically.

Mada.5319:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Mada.5319:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Dat require 7 gold stormbow. Man what a collector’s item.

Req7 gold bows never existed.

On topic: I want the GW1 skill system and pvp.

You’re wrong. They existed before NF. From GW Wiki:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Requirement#Req_7_Max_Inscribable

Also,

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Req7Shield.jpg

Did I say req7 weapons didn’t exist? I said req7 bows didn’t exist. Trust me, I’m one the guys that researched this stuff. Every weapon except bows (and spear/scythe) could drop as req7 pre NF.

Well I finally got back access to my GW1 account and you’re right. It was req. 8.

Cheezy.2039:

By the way, Deathly, you should work on making your timers accurate. It starts late in this run and I noticed it in your AC p1 as well.

No reason to deny the record though

Edit: I looked it up myself and I got 3:03.02 as new time. If someone of the Approvers could look this up as well, that would be greatly appreciated.
Edit2: I also get 4:03.06 for AC p1 opposed to 4:02. Can someone please double-check?

Not an approver, but I can confirm the timer does start late.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Cbomb.4310:

We do know we’re eventually getting the Abaddon fractal at some point. When we voted for Thermanova they promised that regardless of which we voted for we’d eventually get both.

I recall them saying exactly the opposite: that they would definitely not create the fractal that lost.

^This is true.

Its Josh.2860:

Can’t wait until a less than 3 minute time is made.

Yeah, I don’t know where in that video they could’ve saved 2 seconds. It was nearly perfect.

I like the competition here.

dlonie.6547:

Hmm, another usecase that the party-leader system would fix…

Not sure if you guys saw, but tucked into the frog post was a sentence or two about fractal masteries saying they’ll bring better rewards and make you more powerful.

Over under on the new rewards being access to the fractal weapon box if you level up fractal masteries?

They removed many starter zone experiences to appease the Chinese censors. Remember folks, communism is evil.

Purple Miku.7032:

Good point. In all seriousness though I agree with you about different types of mobs on each, would be pretty neat. I think before anything they should fix that bull kitten bugged floor burning though.

Nobody ever believes me about the bugged floor. I’ve had people tell me it just naturally happens even when you’re moving.

I think it happens more if you jump off the side of the cliff and run through the lava to get to the arena.

Purple Miku.7032:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

That was fun to watch

I always thought this was the best fight in the game. The only way I think it could be better is have different enemies which spawn during each of the three phases to keep things interesting. Like the little lava wurms can spawn during the first phase, then maybe some of those fire bat thingies for another phase, and perhaps some destroyer spiders for the final phase, and make them random so each phase brings something different.

But yeah, well done, was an enjoyable watch!

What about Elite Risen Illusionists? :>

Yeah yeah, I’m sure you’d like a room full of lupis/risen knights/illusionists to solo, but I was trying to keep things thematically consistent!

Sanderinoa.8065:

Hey guys

A lucky fractal roll yesterday allowed me to get a video done despite my schedule

As some soloers have done their favorite encounters in first person, I thought Id do the same for my buddy the grawl shaman.

here it is, on lvl ten: https://youtu.be/ySr568mtNhI

1st person in this fight I think looks amazing, but is a total pain to deal with xD so it’s more of a fun solo rather than something Ill redo as a personal challenge on higher levels.

Hope you enjoy!

That was fun to watch

I always thought this was the best fight in the game. The only way I think it could be better is have different enemies which spawn during each of the three phases to keep things interesting. Like the little lava wurms can spawn during the first phase, then maybe some of those fire bat thingies for another phase, and perhaps some destroyer spiders for the final phase, and make them random so each phase brings something different.

But yeah, well done, was an enjoyable watch!

Seems like the longest part of the run is the clown car. I wonder if there’s a better or faster way to down it.

laokoko.7403:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

laokoko.7403:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Don’t care if it’s 1,000 relics for a skin, at least then you’d be guaranteed a reward at the end of the tunnel if RNG hasn’t blessed you along the way.

Obviously dont’ care if it’s 1,000 relics. Most people run 2 fractal a day could finish it in 2 month. And people’ll keep complaining fractal drop is bad.

Sorry, I meant pristine relics.

I’ll have a good laugh if Anet make it 1000 pristine relics. I was thinking more like 100 daily 50 fractal. Sounds more reasonable.

So after 100 days you’ll get a skin of your choosing if you run fractal 50 every day.

Don’t really care about the number, just about the principle.

laokoko.7403:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Don’t care if it’s 1,000 relics for a skin, at least then you’d be guaranteed a reward at the end of the tunnel if RNG hasn’t blessed you along the way.

Obviously dont’ care if it’s 1,000 relics. Most people run 2 fractal a day could finish it in 2 month. And people’ll keep complaining fractal drop is bad.

Sorry, I meant pristine relics.

Jerus.4350:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Sarahfull.4930:

Its already clear that mostly everyone ( not me ) hates the RNG that fractals has and thus wishes the rewards to not be as rare and more on a reward tree system.

Sarah I understand where you’re coming from, but it is possible to simultaneously add guaranteed rewards without making the skins any less rare and prestigious.

Exactly, Personally it took me 3 years and countless hours farming some things back in EQ, since then I’ve always hated RNG. Now I was also lucky with some drops, getting them on my first kill while others spent the same time I did camping those other 3 year long hunts. I just like the idea of being able to slowly progress towards something over having to pray to RNGesus for luck.

Yeah. Make the journey as long and tedious as you want. Make it so on average you’ll get all the skins before you have enough relics to buy them. But make the end goal guaranteed.

Don’t care if it’s 1,000 relics for a skin, at least then you’d be guaranteed a reward at the end of the tunnel if RNG hasn’t blessed you along the way.

Sarahfull.4930:

Its already clear that mostly everyone ( not me ) hates the RNG that fractals has and thus wishes the rewards to not be as rare and more on a reward tree system.

Sarah I understand where you’re coming from, but it is possible to simultaneously add guaranteed rewards without making the skins any less rare and prestigious.

Jerus.4350:

Not sure, that’s what I was thinking. If I have the motivation I’m gonna test tonight but we’ll see what wins out, the whiskey or my curiosity

:) let us know. I’d help you test but the game is currently deleted from my computer due to lack of time.

Like I said earlier, I know you can get at least 18s with SR and 1 Elixir S.

Edit:

Ninjad! Thanks Oddgo!

So I’ll bet you could manage 36 s with a thief

Nice

Jerus.4350:

Arantheal.7396:

I’ve done the experiment with a friendly thief in Heart of the mist right now:
multiple turret-blasts + smoke-screen + thief shortbow never stacked stealth beyond 14sec stealth.
So the hardcap is 15sec, immediately ticking down after receiving it. Every further blasts simply resets the stealth duration back to 15sec (assuming that you still had 12 or more seconds left)

effectively that means, 3 engis with toss Elixir S will reach the hardcap and every further insta-toss is a waste.

edit: “kitten ” does not receive a kitten^^
edit 2: actually it doesm except in the word assuming. meh.

This is not a valid test. What you hit was the 5 stack cap. What is being asked is if you use stealths that are greater than 3s each could you exceed the time. If you have 5 5s stealths instead of 5 3s stealths would it allow 25s stealth? That’s the question.

Does SR count as 1 stack? If so, couldn’t you get 12s from SR plus 4x 6 from engi for a total of 36s?

Shaogin.2679:

just get 5 engis together in a circle and everyone toss elixir s at the same time and note the amount of stealth received. I’m interested in knowing the results.

So you volunteer to do the experiment? Let us know how it goes

That was really fun to watch. There were a few times where you broke out of his bubble and I didn’t know how. Didn’t seem like you had stability or anything. Any tips?

Purple Miku.7032:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Can you do this on an engineer so I can learn from you?

Just watch Tom’s vid. It’s not gonna be much different on engi other than way slower

So how do you get rid of the wolves?

Can you do this on an engineer so I can learn from you?

Obtena.7952:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Honestly if you want armor diversity (IDK why you would), get rid of dodging, get rid of all forms of passive defense, make mobs have more clear-cut agro rules.

Getting rid of those things doesn’t diversity builds … it just shifts the meta to something else more healing/armor/HP focused.

Getting rid of those things is probably the first step to building a trinity, which by definition has 3 “types.”

At the end of the day this is the sort of thing these people want. It’s silly, but that’s the end result of what they’re requesting.

Nate.8146:

No need for wikis. Just tried it in-game and toss elixir S was bumped from 5s to 6s with potent elixirs. So assuming no actual duration cap on stealth (I think the most I’ve ever seen was 14 sec), then yeah, 5 stacks at 6s would be a nice 30s stealth.

I can confirm with a thief’s SR and Elixir S you can get at least 18 seconds, I think 19. Not sure what the cap is but I’d imagine there is one.