Guild Wars 2

Fixing forum bug.

Malkavian.4516:

Yeah. There will always be those kind of people who are apparently kittenish enough to kick the people who originally started the instance.

If I may make a suggestion on how issues like this can be avoided even further, it might be to have some form of password protection in an LFG if someone wants to join that specific party kind of like in PvP if you want to go to a specific player’s arena. That way you will less likely encounter those player types. On the other hand it would also hamper your capability to attract enough players to fill up the remaining slots.

How do you inform others of the password?

Tigaseye.2047:

Seera.5916:

You’re still forcing players to do things that they don’t find fun.

And should a system be into place, the experienced players will go back to using external sites to find groups like they did before there was an LFG.

Meaning there is a greatly reduced pool of experienced players in the LFG pool.

The new will still find themselves with a "desperately boring, long, “training” run, where nothing is spontaneous and everything is a chore".

Well, I’m sorry, but if someone finds new players un-fun and an inconvenience, they really shouldn’t be playing an MMO, IMO.

Or should only be playing it with very close friends/guildies and not using LFG.

As I say, I believe I am in a position to say this, as I was a relatively experienced WoW player who happily did dungeons and things like LFR (and Flex) with less experienced players.

I guess I could have refused and made my own groups – but, if anything, I enjoyed the challenge newer players brought, as it forced me to try to play better myself, to overcome any lack of DPS, or whatever.

As I say, it’s not all the grouping system’s fault, in this game – part of the problem is the design of the game itself.

A game like WoW is far more fluid and well designed (sorry, but it really is…), so even though you might need to give very new players a couple of tips, every now and then, it’s never a case of a rigid formula of “Always skip these mobs.”, “Always stack right here and don’t move at all, all fight, except to dodge into the wall.”, rinse and repeat, or anything like that.

If you’re busy playing a game like WoW, unless you’re a DPS/HPS obsessive, you might not even notice that someone else is fairly new (unless they’re really new to online gaming, in general), as they are probably just about getting by and there are normally not set rules about how to play every step of the dungeon.

Similarly, there are no real set rules (anymore) about which specs and talents to use (unless, perhaps, someone has queued as a healer/tank and is actually specced/geared for DPS).

So, unlike this game, chances are no one feels the need to lecture people endlessly, on everything, throughout a dungeon run, anyway.

This is a gorgeous game, it really is, but in terms of natural, intuitive, fluid, interesting gameplay and fun grouping experiences it fails miserably, especially for newer players.

At this point, anything that forces the two groups of players to play together will be doomed to fail.

They’ll either argue in chat over what method to use or what skills or traits to use. The experienced fast and smooth run players complain about how the players are slowing them down. The play how I want players will complain about how the players are trying to force them to play another way.

Eventually most everyone is aware of the external LFG site again and dungeon LFG’s move out of the game. Because they’d rather wait than get paired with players who do not share their philosophy.

Except for new players and true casuals. Because there may be times when players want to run with people who have done the dungeon at least one time and not be completely new to the dungeon. Or want to have silly requirements to just have fun on the run.

Kaleban.9834:

TheRandomGuy.7246:

A quote would be nice. I only could find “not in the near future” written back in 2010.

2013. And picking specifics to pick apart is of course missing the crux of the argument. There is NOTHING off the table in game development if it means a larger playerbase and more income. Hence players stating that ANet would NEVER do something is shortsighted and ignorant. If a solo mode is cost effective, its something that should be done, both for the health/longevity of the game and for player satisfaction and retention.

""So right now we’re not really looking at expansions as an option," lead content designer Mike Zadorojny told me on his visit to London last week.

“It’s something that’s on the table but it’s not something we’re focused on, because what we want to do is – our idea here is that with Living World, we can do what expansions would have done but do it on a more regular basis.”

I pressed him to tell me whether there would be a Guild Wars 2 expansion this year and he shook his head to indicate no. What about next year, I asked?

“If we do this right,” he answered, “we will probably never do an expansion and everything will be going into this Living World strategy.”"

“If we do this right” and “probably never”.

Both statements left expansions on the table.

I’d be open for Story mode dungeons having a solo mode. Explorable dungeons need to stay as purely designed for groups (though steps that require you have to a certain number of players can be changed to not require it). Especially if the Victory or Death PS step still has Destiny’s Edge as key players.

Tigaseye.2047:

Seera.5916:

Tigaseye.2047:

tramwajarz.2369:

mtpelion.4562:

When you use LFG, you get no say in who winds up in your party.

I understand that playing at 2AM means you probably don’t have any friends online to help you, but you gambled and lost.

LFG shouldn’t be gamble.

Yes, that is exactly what it is and should be.

TBH, I think it’s extremely unfortunate that it isn’t just an automatic grouping system, as it means that newer players will tend to be excluded.

Or even just singled out as such, if they only join “everyone welcome” type groups and then tend to get lectured on exactly how to play.

So players who wish to have a relatively quick and smooth run but don’t have a huge number of guild mates or friends on have to put up with someone who doesn’t mind taking the time to smell the roses? And neither of the two are in the wrong, both ways are valid ways to play the game. They just happen to be two opposing ways.

What would solve 75% of the problems is if everyone would respect LFG’s.

Players putting in what they want into the LFG. And players reading the LFG before joining. And then if they find they don’t meet the requirements, graciously leaving the party on their own.

What would solve 24% of the problems is if people who used the LFG realized that since it is PUG runs that get formed on the LFG, that you can’t expect every run to go as expected.

You can’t solve all of them as there will always be jerks and trolls.

I, personally, don’t think the LFG system works, at all and whereas it may make life (temporarily) easier for the “pros”, I don’t think your suggestion solves anything for newer players.

As a typical new player, you have two choices: join anything and hope for the best (and probably have a horrible experience and be kicked), or only join “everyone welcome” type groups and stand a very good chance of having a desperately boring, long, “training” run, where nothing is spontaneous and everything is a chore.

Whereas, in a totally random system (where you can’t make any demands/state terms), most players are more prepared to accept what they get.

Yes, there are still some players who are intolerant of “noobs” (i.e. immature idiots), but most people get that it’s a pot luck system, so you get what you get.

This means most groups are a mixture of newer and older players, leading to a more balanced, fun and less formal learning experience for newer players.

I guess I was a relatively experienced(ish) WoW player by the time I left and I normally did PUG runs via the LFD system (rather than making my own groups) and I just accepted that there would be experienced and less experienced players and some runs would be smoother than others.

That is how it should be, IMO.

The more you separate people into “new player” and “pro” groups, the more divided we all become (and stay) and the less likely newer players are to bother to stay playing the game, at all, as it just isn’t fun for them.

I’m only still hanging on by a thread due to WvW…

There are a lot more problems with how fun dungeons, in this game, seem (or don’t seem), to newer players, than just the grouping system, admittedly, but still.

It doesn’t help.

You’re still forcing players to do things that they don’t find fun.

And should a system be into place, the experienced players will go back to using external sites to find groups like they did before there was an LFG.

Meaning there is a greatly reduced pool of experienced players in the LFG pool.

The new will still find themselves with a "desperately boring, long, “training” run, where nothing is spontaneous and everything is a chore".

laokoko.7403:

Seera.5916:

So players who wish to have a relatively quick and smooth run but don’t have a huge number of guild mates or friends on have to put up with someone who doesn’t mind taking the time to smell the roses? And neither of the two are in the wrong, both ways are valid ways to play the game. They just happen to be two opposing ways.

What would solve 75% of the problems is if everyone would respect LFG’s.

Players putting in what they want into the LFG. And players reading the LFG before joining. And then if they find they don’t meet the requirements, graciously leaving the party on their own.

What would solve 24% of the problems is if people who used the LFG realized that since it is PUG runs that get formed on the LFG, that you can’t expect every run to go as expected.

You can’t solve all of them as there will always be jerks and trolls.

It’s human natural. Nothing you can do.

and if you can’t carry bad pug, you are probably not that good yourself. Many of the solo dungeon time are faster than most pug.

Just because someone can carry a bad pug, doesn’t mean that they want to. That it is fun for them to do so.

And isn’t that what games are supposed to be? Fun.

So why should someone be forced to play with those that they do not wish to play with at that moment?

Tigaseye.2047:

tramwajarz.2369:

mtpelion.4562:

When you use LFG, you get no say in who winds up in your party.

I understand that playing at 2AM means you probably don’t have any friends online to help you, but you gambled and lost.

LFG shouldn’t be gamble.

Yes, that is exactly what it is and should be.

TBH, I think it’s extremely unfortunate that it isn’t just an automatic grouping system, as it means that newer players will tend to be excluded.

Or even just singled out as such, if they only join “everyone welcome” type groups and then tend to get lectured on exactly how to play.

So players who wish to have a relatively quick and smooth run but don’t have a huge number of guild mates or friends on have to put up with someone who doesn’t mind taking the time to smell the roses? And neither of the two are in the wrong, both ways are valid ways to play the game. They just happen to be two opposing ways.

What would solve 75% of the problems is if everyone would respect LFG’s.

Players putting in what they want into the LFG. And players reading the LFG before joining. And then if they find they don’t meet the requirements, graciously leaving the party on their own.

What would solve 24% of the problems is if people who used the LFG realized that since it is PUG runs that get formed on the LFG, that you can’t expect every run to go as expected.

You can’t solve all of them as there will always be jerks and trolls.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I have a purchased copy of SigmaPlot. Otherwise I linked the StatTrek binomial probability calculator on this thread somewhere I think. But what you want is a sample size estimator which estimates how many trials you’ll need to see a statistically significant difference between two groups at an expected alpha, power level, and difference between groups. When I ran it earlier it was fewer than 80 trials, which is what convinced me I had enough drops to be confident in my result.

See what I mean by not knowing which program to get? Does that StatTrek one have a sample size estimator? And simple enough that someone who hasn’t had a stats course in almost 10 years can figure out?

And when you ran it earlier, what were your settings? Would the settings be equivalent to 66%, 95%, or 99.99% level of confidence (exact percentages may be slightly off)?

Pity there isn’t a simulator that can access ANet’s RNG system and loot tables to simulate 100+ runs (to account for no ring runs). It would make testing hypotheses so much easier.

Ziantra.8502:

Aidan-its real easy for you to say “Further, outliers signify a working RNG system. If there werent outliers, there’d be something wrong.” when you AREN’T one of those that gets shafted by this system on a daily basis. This system NEEDS a serious revisit-it’s arbitrary and unfair in its present format.

RNG if it’s completely balanced will have a bell shaped curve for the average value of results it gives for every player.

Let’s say an RNG generator generates numbers from 1-100. Where 1 is junk loot and 100 is very valuable loot such as precursors.

The majority of players will get numbers that average at or round 50. Another couple of portions will be at 25 and a portion at 75. These players don’t have a huge issue as they don’t get too shafted and aren’t that lucky.

Then there will be the outliers who fall around 1 and outliers who fall around 100. Most of us greatly envy the group who fall around 100 and pray we aren’t the ones who fall around 1.

Just the nature of statistics.

Some games will have measures to balance the RNG perception. AKA: means to keep the outliers who fall around 1 from feeling like they’ll never get anything. Counters that measure the number of failures and after X failures, they get a heavy boost to their luck at getting a drop near the 100 mark. A token system where after X tries you can get what you wanted if you hadn’t gotten it before.

True RNG is unfair.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

you can’t say that doubles are anymore likely than singles.

You haven’t run a sample size estimator and have provided no numbers here to make that claim.

So wouldn’t experiments to show that doubles are more likely have to be done on the same level?

Yes, if you wanted to test the claim that different levels have different drop rates.

I don’t see how doing different levels that may very well have different drop rates of rings will prove that doubles are more likely.

Ring X may have a higher than average drop rate on Fractal Level A.

You do Fractal Level B first and get Ring X. You then do Fractal Level A and get Ring X. Is it because of the higher drop rate or is it because the RNG isn’t independent of the previous ring drop? And even if it isn’t independent, how do you know that it wasn’t the higher chance that caused it? Because it’s not 100% chance for doubles so there’s obviously something ELSE affecting the results. How do you that without the increased range that bias for Ring X would have been enough to get Ring X again?

Y = RNG

Where Y is the number of the RNG generator and S is the current seed.

X = (Y + X-1)/2

Where X is the number that they compare to the loot table, Y is the previous Y and Y-1 is the previous trial’s result. Rounded down.

Trial 1 – Running Fractal Level B
Y = RNG
Y = 10

X = (10+0)/2
X = 5

Trial 2 – Running Fractal Level A
Y = RNG
Y = 7

X = (9+5)/2
X = 7

Fractal Level B has a range of 1-5 for Ring X.
Fractal Level A has a range of 1-7 for Ring X.

Had you run the second trial on Fractal Level B, you would not have gotten a double. But since you ran on Fractal Level A, you got a double. But without the bias you wouldn’t have gotten Ring X at all.

See how differences in the loot table can affect whether you get a double or not?

You haven’t run enough trials on the SAME loot table to say with high accuracy that the number of doubles is due to a bias rather than a range difference on the loot table.

Enough numbers in my post this time?

No, I see no sample size estimate in there at all.

But in either case I already admitted that different levels could affect drop rate of given rings as one possible explanation for so many doubles.

I could come up with 100 different examples to show the same thing. For brevity’s sake I showed only one as only one was necessary to demonstrate my point.

All your data shows, even if you had more samples with the same distribution of doubles to not doubles is that there is something odd with the system. It doesn’t show what it is.

There could be a bias in the system or it could be due to how the loot tables are set up across the different levels. Or it could be both.

And honestly, if I was designing an experiment or doing a case study to determine if there is a problem and I had a hypothesis of what might be causing it, I would design my experiment or case study to account for any variables possible. But that’s just me. And you seem to think it’s due to bias. But your data doesn’t prove it (it doesn’t disprove it either, I’m not that stupid to say that if it doesn’t prove it it disproves it). You haven’t eliminated all other possible reasons that you’re getting doubles. Nor really established that you just happen to be an outlier.

I would offer up my own results, but I haven’t run that many trials so my data set doesn’t prove or disprove anything.

As for why I’m not running simulations of my own, I’m not a super smart stat person so I wouldn’t know what a good stat simulator would be. And I don’t want to grab one that’s made by someone who just thinks they know stats. If you can give a link to a good one, I’ll be more than happy to start posting more numbers.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

you can’t say that doubles are anymore likely than singles.

You haven’t run a sample size estimator and have provided no numbers here to make that claim.

So wouldn’t experiments to show that doubles are more likely have to be done on the same level?

Yes, if you wanted to test the claim that different levels have different drop rates.

I don’t see how doing different levels that may very well have different drop rates of rings will prove that doubles are more likely.

Ring X may have a higher than average drop rate on Fractal Level A.

You do Fractal Level B first and get Ring X. You then do Fractal Level A and get Ring X. Is it because of the higher drop rate or is it because the RNG isn’t independent of the previous ring drop? And even if it isn’t independent, how do you know that it wasn’t the higher chance that caused it? Because it’s not 100% chance for doubles so there’s obviously something ELSE affecting the results. How do you that without the increased range that bias for Ring X would have been enough to get Ring X again?

Y = RNG

Where Y is the number of the RNG generator and S is the current seed.

X = (Y + X-1)/2

Where X is the number that they compare to the loot table, Y is the previous Y and Y-1 is the previous trial’s result. Rounded down.

Trial 1 – Running Fractal Level B
Y = RNG
Y = 10

X = (10+0)/2
X = 5

Trial 2 – Running Fractal Level A
Y = RNG
Y = 7

X = (9+5)/2
X = 7

Fractal Level B has a range of 1-5 for Ring X.
Fractal Level A has a range of 1-7 for Ring X.

Had you run the second trial on Fractal Level B, you would not have gotten a double. But since you ran on Fractal Level A, you got a double. But without the bias you wouldn’t have gotten Ring X at all.

See how differences in the loot table can affect whether you get a double or not?

You haven’t run enough trials on the SAME loot table to say with high accuracy that the number of doubles is due to a bias rather than a range difference on the loot table.

Enough numbers in my post this time?

McWolfy.5924:

There is a reason why meta builds are meta. There are roles. If you not do your job somebody else must do it instead of you

But if you don’t know why the meta is the meta and just do it because someone else says its the meta, then you aren’t as good of a player as someone who understands the why.

Full zerk builds aren’t for players who have issues staying alive. Just copying the dungeon meta to play dungeons for said players is a bad idea.

Players should research the meta and adjust as necessary to fit their skill level and aim to get better and gradually adjust their gear and build to fit the meta. Or their money situation. They may not have the gold to keep food up 100%. So if a meta build is dependent on 100% food uptime, then the player might have to adjust the build slightly to make up for it.

A good WvW’er would know why the meta is the meta. An average WvW’er would just follow the meta.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Benson.9063:

The math sounds really bad to me. I’ve read through only the first thread.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with my friends after a gambling session. i believe we were palying roulette. Read about the Gambler’s Fallacy and see if that applies and helps you to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

. . .probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 1?2 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1?4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1?8 (one in eight).

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 1?32 (one in thirty-two), a person subject to the gambler’s fallacy might believe that this next flip was less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler’s fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of “first 4 heads, then a tails” are equally likely, each having probability 1?32.

While a run of five heads is only 1?32 = 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

Also there are other things to come into play. there are 26 outcomes but maybe they are not all weighted equally. If you really wanted to test this ask people to open up their banks and show their rings. I have some duplicates but otherwise a great variety. The OP has only gotten 5 rings………. they aren’t even all the same 5. i would also suggest to run more fractals and tell us what your next 5 rings are? next 10 rings are? etc.

I’d suggest reading the rest of the thread. Everyone dismissed the op so I sort of hijacked the thread with an ordered sample size of 84 rings, and multiple people have done the math on those to get odds of about 1 in 1.6 million.

And just because you’ve hit that 1 in 1.6 million chances doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the system.

As to studies that use several hundred trials: phase 3 drug testing. And I would imagine cheap, safe, and quick experiments in non-biology or non-biochemistry labs probably get a large trial size as well.

You said the trials were on the different fractal levels. And you haven’t given the data of what trials yielded no rings.

I would imagine the more uncontrolled variables you have the more trials you have to run to ensure that the uncontrolled, non-studied variables aren’t affecting the results. Levels 21-50 can give infused rings (you said all rings shown are infused, right? If so that’s another variable – non-infused rings). That’s 30 levels. That’s on average 2.8 trials per level. That’s not enough trials to ensure that the differences between their loot tables is not affecting the results. Average per level would be higher if you didn’t do specific levels but you didn’t mention which levels you did.

A few things.

Stage 3 clinical trials are used to show super rare adverse affects that don’t occur in the normal population. They are only permitted AFTER a trial with a few dozen subjects convinces people that the drug is safe.

Again, a sample size of a few dozen or even smaller is enough for an alpha of .05 and power of .8.

All my data purport to show is that if you roll a ring, you’re not equally likely to get any of the 26. For whatever reason.

As to the rest of your post, I still see a bunch of claims being made with no numbers

You asked me what experiments use several hundred trials. I answered. I could have been facetious and said phase 4. The keep an eye on the reported problems when the general population gets their hands on the drugs. But I decided to be serious.

And with the number of trials you’ve done and the varying variables that may affect the results, you can’t say that doubles are anymore likely than singles. We don’t know if the chances of a specific ring change from level to level or not. So wouldn’t experiments to show that doubles are more likely have to be done on the same level?

Tag.3942:

Inculpatus cedo.9234, I’m not disputing the Team’s actions. They did what they did and there’s not turning that back. I’m disputing the A-Net policy since it seems to warped around what they want to do not what they state is qualified to be done in situations such as this. The CS reps and me have ended our conversation, the only reason why they are in the forum is to show the lack of procedure following they are doing.

The CS team follows the procedure that ANet sets out.

Any ANet staff that posts here will just post what I said or what Inculpatus cedo said.

Anything done on an already approved IP address is not a provable unauthorized access. No matter how many FB conversations and posts you have (for all ANet knows you’ve staged those as the ex later felt remorse for her actions and asked you what she could do to make it right, not saying she did, but it’s a possibility and ANet has to account for that possibility).

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Benson.9063:

The math sounds really bad to me. I’ve read through only the first thread.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with my friends after a gambling session. i believe we were palying roulette. Read about the Gambler’s Fallacy and see if that applies and helps you to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

. . .probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 1?2 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1?4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1?8 (one in eight).

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 1?32 (one in thirty-two), a person subject to the gambler’s fallacy might believe that this next flip was less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler’s fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of “first 4 heads, then a tails” are equally likely, each having probability 1?32.

While a run of five heads is only 1?32 = 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

Also there are other things to come into play. there are 26 outcomes but maybe they are not all weighted equally. If you really wanted to test this ask people to open up their banks and show their rings. I have some duplicates but otherwise a great variety. The OP has only gotten 5 rings………. they aren’t even all the same 5. i would also suggest to run more fractals and tell us what your next 5 rings are? next 10 rings are? etc.

I’d suggest reading the rest of the thread. Everyone dismissed the op so I sort of hijacked the thread with an ordered sample size of 84 rings, and multiple people have done the math on those to get odds of about 1 in 1.6 million.

And just because you’ve hit that 1 in 1.6 million chances doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the system.

As to studies that use several hundred trials: phase 3 drug testing. And I would imagine cheap, safe, and quick experiments in non-biology or non-biochemistry labs probably get a large trial size as well.

You said the trials were on the different fractal levels. And you haven’t given the data of what trials yielded no rings.

I would imagine the more uncontrolled variables you have the more trials you have to run to ensure that the uncontrolled, non-studied variables aren’t affecting the results. Levels 21-50 can give infused rings (you said all rings shown are infused, right? If so that’s another variable – non-infused rings). That’s 30 levels. That’s on average 2.8 trials per level. That’s not enough trials to ensure that the differences between their loot tables is not affecting the results. Average per level would be higher if you didn’t do specific levels but you didn’t mention which levels you did.

And what class you’re good at. Thief may be the fastest at moving around the map, but if you’re not good at it and constantly die to the harder foes, is it really faster than the class you know best and wouldn’t die as often to the same harder foes?

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Yeah, because in the vast majority of science literature they have 100,000 samples.

/sarc

I mean if you want to play ball with stats here, please do. But if you’re just going to make things up, please go make your own thread.

But they run WAY more than 84 trials. Some run several HUNDRED trials. Your exaggeration doesn’t help your case.

The conclusions you draw from the results are based on a number of assumptions and confirmation bias (everyone suffers from confirmation bias to some degree). It’s also skewed due to lack of information on no ring drop runs. Your theory holds more weight if there is a low range of numbers of no ring runs between doubles (like 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4) than if some are small times and others are long (like 2, 6, 12, 5, 7, 0). Without the data for how many no ring runs you have, any conclusion isn’t that solid.

Also, your trials were all done on varying Fractal Levels. Which due to our lack of knowledge of loot tables, adds another variable: some levels may have a higher or lower chance for certain rings. Which we don’t know about. That varying probability for a specific ring affects conclusions that can or can not be drawn.

Do your results warrant further testing with better records of what you got in the ring department? Yes. Do they conclusively show that there is something wrong with the RNG and/or loot table? No.

Tag.3942:

Initially when I sent it in I did not care too much, and in all honesty since their policy is as follows below I thought I had a good chance, but then they did not follow their own rules and then kinda haphazardly declined it with inaccurate statements, again, of their own policy:
Can I recover my lost items or characters after my account was compromised?
Yes, we are able to revert your account to a point prior to the compromise incident as long as it meets the qualifications of the restoration process:
Account restoration is only for an account that was compromised by an unauthorized person. We do not restore accounts impacted by scamming, erroneous gem purchases, accidental deletions, etc.
Shared accounts are ineligible for restoration.
Accounts involved in the use of a third-party program are ineligible for restoration.

for me, at this point, it’s more of a why is there so much inaccurate information being given out by their own GMs (which I spoke to 2 different ones) and no explanation from A-net. I would’ve just most likely dropped it but they instead of giving me a proper reply they give people inaccurate information on their own request forms. If anyone can find the “unknown third party” in the ToS or any other form of the requests guideline I will more than gladly retract my statement. But until then, I’m being declined by imaginary guidelines that do not exist and I do believe that is backwards especially since (as stated many times before) they do not make any attempt to have any other form of anti-deletion command especially with such a backwards team and policy to back the people who run in to incidents such as these.

Can you prove to them without a shadow of a doubt that it was unauthorized access and not you giving her permission or you rage quitting earlier and changing your mind later?

If not, now not only do they to accept players words for account roll backs, they have to do it for “my little brother changed my password when I went home over the weekend and I just moved to a new house” or “my evil little sister was the one breaking the rules in game”, etc, etc. When it reality, it’s a hacker trying to gain access to an account or a player who had broken the rules himself (or herself).

Tag.3942:

A-net should have a system implemented for these situations. You can’t anticipate someone who has never touched your PC to go and delete characters. There are every day interactions that don’t involve video games that take priority. Your statement sidesteps the lack of security provided by A-net. It also sidesteps the actual argument I made with them, they do not have a clear definition of the “authorized/unauthorized” statement. By the definition [unauthorized not having official permission or approval] even if you leave your PC open you are not authorizing anyone to use it unless being told to [Authorize: give official permission for or approval to]. Your statement is saying a stolen car can’t be used against you legally if it was left unlocked.

You can’t prove that you didn’t give her permission. I’m not saying you’re lying or that ANet thinks you’re lying, but ANet has to go based on what they can prove with data. So that there is no way that unscrupulous guys can get access to accounts they do not own.

And they only offer roll backs for hacked accounts. Where someone other than the owner of the account logged in. And they define owner by IP address. Something they can prove with data.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Artemi.1437:

Why can’t we model 2 drops as a “trial” where “successes” means 2 of the same ring, and “failure” means 2 different rings?

Thats what we do, but you are forgetting nearly half the trials you have with this method by only counting to 42.
To ellaborate: The first ring is the start of our first trial. The second ring is the second ring of our first trial but also the first ring of our second trial! The third ring that drops is the second ring to our second trial and the first for our third. And so on.

Because if you get a double ring you don’t dismiss it with the notion: Oh its the second and third ring, those don’t count.

But if you do the counting that way don’t you violate the independence assumption for the trials?

If you do the counting your way, you lose 6 of your doubles that you highlighted in your OP.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Halvorn.9831:

I’d rather program this. It gives a better impression.

int run = 1;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < 84; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}
if (doubles >= 10) {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles: %d”, run, doubles));
}
run++;
} while (true);

Make 84 random number between 0 and 25 and count how many times the current one is the same as during the last draw (a “double”). Output whenever there is more than 9 doubles (together with the run nr to get a feeling for how often it happens) among the 84 random numbers. Repeat this forever.

Sample result:

Run Nr: 201, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1195, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1877, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 2336, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 2505, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3225, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3501, Doubles: 14
Run Nr: 3615, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4350, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 4380, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4672, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 6234, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 7821, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 9148, Doubles: 10

Can you see that? In the first 10000 runs I already have an attempt with 14 doubles.
The reason is that 84 is much too small as a sample size. There is still way too much fluctuation in that. If you choose a sample size of 10000, the number of doubles is much closer to 3.8% (1/26).

Thanks for doing this, but using this method of counting I had 15 doubles, which didn’t occur in your 10,000 samples, right?

But are 15 doubles just an outlier or statistically significant? THAT’s the question. And 84 trials is not a high enough sample size to say it is or that it is not with high confidence.

Deedrick.4372:

It would be annoying for us who see them as a waste of gems and don’t have any.

And they just re-equip them anyway at this point. The proposed change does nothing to stop you from seeing them.

I don’t have a problem with them adding a spot for the cosmetic mounts to the hero-panel.

RNG loot = using RNG as a step in determining what you get for completing a mission, finishing a dungeon, or killing an enemy.

There is no RNG system that skips the step of randomly picking a number. The chance at any of the number in the system is the same.

The number is then run through an if, then statement. Such as for an RNG system for determining if you get either Ring A or Ring B or nothing using a range of 50: If number is less than 16, gets Ring A, otherwise if less than 31, gets Ring B, otherwise get nothing. You have the highest chances of getting nothing.

And for Fractal rings, there could very well also be multiple RNG steps. One trial to determine if you get a ring or not. Then another to determine what ring you get.

I highly doubt there is an MMO out there that has equal chance of every item possible from an enemy. I great suspect that anything rare or highly sought after would be designed to have the lowest chances. To keep players playing the game in order to obtain it.

Most players for most drops assume that the loot table is designed to not keep players waiting for an indefinite time before a decent majority of them have the desired object. There will be players who get it after 1 run, there will be players who will never get it despite running it hundreds of times. That’s the nature of RNG and outliers will always exist in RNG systems. Without a HIGH number of trials, it’s hard to say with high confidence that something is off.

Teresa of the Faint Smile.1672:

1st Ticket sent on 21st of February
(105857:[Guild Wars Player Support] Character Name)

New ticket opened on 13th of April
(1436347:Name des Spiel Charakters unbekannt)

no answer, only automated receipt response.
2 months … nothing

Like I posted in your other thread (saying it here just in case you don’t look at your other thread): Close down your second ticket as it slows down your response. It sends you to the back of the queue due to how their ticketing system handles multiple tickets by the same account.

The second ticket will slow things down. Close it down.

Support for GW1 is slow. Waiting times in your range are not uncommon from what I’m seeing.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

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.

Your sample size was done over different fractal level sets. Each one possibly has a different loot table and therefore different chances of rings. You would need to have a large sample size from one fractal level set.

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.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

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.

There’s your problem. You’re assuming each ring has an equal chance. ANet probably knows which stat is the best and may have the best stat at a lower chance.

Without knowing the range of numbers in their RNG generator and what the loot tables are, you can not know for sure what the probability of getting a specific ring is or is not.

Which means you need a ton of data points to generate an approximation of the probability. Because the more trials you do, for a system that’s working as intended, the data will trend toward the theoretical.

Unless you can convince ANet to release the loot tables. And I doubt they will.

And the more time between your first trial and last trial increases the chances of the loot table having been changed which would invalidate your results.

Jinroh.4251:

The Fort Mariner one makes 0 sense cause the whole battle for Lions Arch is over now. Been over for pretty much a year now. I honestly think a lot of them are just bugged. I’ve been to a few that were contested but as stated before none of them were under attack.

It wasn’t destroyed during the battle for Lions Arch.

It was destroyed later when Mordremoth awoke. And like with the rebuilding of Lions Arch, rebuilding waypoints takes a long long time.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

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.

A Random Number Generator only generates a number.

That number is then compared to a chart of items and you get the item that number corresponds to.

If I have 6 rings and the RNG generator generates a number between 1 and 100.

Ring 1 could come up for numbers 1-10, Ring 2 for 11-15 (it’s a powerful ring), Ring 3 for 16-30 (it’s a generic ring), Ring 4 for 31-40, Ring 5 for 41-50, and Ring 6 for 51-60. A roll of 61-100 says to roll on the generic loot table.

So the RNG is fair, you get an equal shot at each number. But ANet hasn’t necessarily made each Ring have the exact same range of numbers to win it. Infused rings may have 5 numbers and unfused may have 10 numbers. They may have beserker stat rings have a lower rang and other stat rings have a higher one. Or they may be identical.

You may have been rolling unique numbers that are just close enough to each other that they are falling in the range of the ring you get a double of.

Frank.1346:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

For an individualized response, you can contact the CS Team. Top/Bottom of Page – Support – Submit a Request

It is unlikely, though not impossible, to get a CS Team/Dev response here regarding your specific inquiry.

Again, good luck.

This is a fairly generalized inquiry that I think could be useful to a lot of people, (Is the word fart ‘inappropriate’?) and I’ve seen the CS team answer plenty of questions about naming in public spaces.

Thank you for your personal thoughts and opinions though.

And several have gone unanswered.

I personally wouldn’t hold my breath and either decide to wait the 7+ days for a response from CS about it or just pick a name that you know does not even in the slightest look like it would violate the naming policy.

I personally would choose the latter, but that’s just me.

BilboBaggins.5620:

lordkrall.7241:

BilboBaggins.5620:

If I receive a mail with free gold I’m taking it, but that’s me.

Why?

If you do that in real life (at least in my country) you can get some rather nice jail-time for that.

In my country it’s not illegal to give someone free money. I’m not going to buy gold from a rmt, but if anyone wants to give me gold (or cash), I’ll definitely take the charity!

You best make sure that the source looks like it’s a legit source and not RMT. Or make sure you keep all credit card statements in order to prove you didn’t buy gold. Because if it is from an RMT person and the RMT person gets banned, any money they sent to other players will be removed from said players. And if said players accept the money too much, they may find themselves on the receiving end of a ban.

So accepting free money is risky if you aren’t sure of the reason.

Derigar.7810:

So from 5 ring drops, I got only 2 types…

That’s pretty rare if you people are saying it’s “RNG”. From what I’m seeing, it’s not RNG. If my next ring will be either one of those two, then my account might just be glitched?

You really haven’t had enough rings to determine if your account is truly bugged.

You may be an outlier though. And with all RNG systems, outliers will occur (either really good ring drops or really bad ring drops). And again, not enough data points to really say one way or another. It doesn’t prove you are an outlier, but it doesn’t prove you aren’t one either.

Jedi Knight.3708:

You guys sit here and tell me this is all fine I join a non pay group and no one joins up I’ve tried all hrs of the day. I join a paid group and they kick me citing we need somene to pay for this spot. Whatever happened to gaming being a challenge.

And those selling the dungeon have done 99% of the dungeon and are asking for players to pay for the ability to bypass the content. They’re not the groups you’re wanting to join anyway based on your last sentence.

And I’ve joined non-pay groups and had them fill up pretty quickly. So you’ve just been unlucky.

Sizer.5632:

The ironic part is that the second lfg posting in your screenshot states everyone is welcome. Well maybe not ironic, but it shows that people selling groups are not 100% of the lfg postings out there. And ofc, like others said, you can always make your own group and not deal with it (thats how I got dungeon master and my bifrost and didnt have to pay for a single run)

That said im still disappointed that selling runs in lfg is endorsed by the devs in this game. Nothing against the players doing this, since they arent actually breaking any rules, but its one of the bigger flaws in how the game is run imo.

They don’t endorse it. They just figure a few posts in LFG is better than a bunch of map chat posts from people looking to buy and sell runs.

So the LFG stops allowing new groups to be made for a section if someone asks for money in their description? Didn’t think so.

The selling ones only stay up for so long because it takes time to fill them. They don’t fill up as fast as everyone welcome groups or possibly even ones looking for level 80 experienced warriors wearing zerk gear willing to ping their armor.

Make your own groups and your problem is solved.

The people who put the fee in the LFG description have every right to kick you. You aren’t meeting the requirements they posted in the LFG.

I vote no.

The HoM was designed to reward players for time spent playing GW1. Greatly reducing the difficutly of the achievements needed to get HoM points only cheapens the reward.

Firebaall.5127:

Brother Grimm.5176:

While I understand the complaint (and certainly appreciate the OPs financial support of the game), I dare say that changing this for the handful of players that it is inconveniencing is unlikely to happen.

Yes, if they changed it, the next limit would be 128. It has nothing to do with Anet “liking” multiples of powers of 2 but just how item counts for a base 10 system work out in an efficent binary storage system.

I agree that it is unlikely to make concessions for the few, but Anet has a track record of being accommodating to players when possible…. charr salvage kits anyone?

I also didn’t say “Anet” liked binary number systems, I said “computers” liked them. From a technical standpoint it must already be possible since the players with a full 64 slot account were able to get +1 for the beta event. That’s also mentioned previously.

Porterhouse.6304:

Wow – 64 characters!??

And I thought I was an altoholic. Curious, but what do you use all of those for?

Different looks, builds, certain dedicated farming spots. Heck, when the game first started, I made my money by parking alts in the strawberry patch!

They may have stored the beta character data in a different area than regular characters. And just had 64 or 128 or 256 beta players, etc.

Saiyan.1704:

I also want to add that these links in the email (i’ve gotten at least 4 emails!) looks very similar to the Guild Wars 2 site but is completely fake. You can tell by the little lock next to the web address at the top left corner (chrome). If you click on the lock > connections: you can see its verification. If the lock shows it’s open instead of closed, it hasn’t been verified and your information is likely open.

Even then, don’t ever type out these links they send you. They’re completely falsified!

Solution:

Don’t click on them. Or any links from any unsolicited email from anyone.

Go to the site directly by going to the site and logging in as normal. If it’s legit, they’ll be a way to get to whatever it is they need you to do from the site itself.

I don’t think they’ll increase that number. That number is likely due to technical reasons as 64 is an odd number to end at if not for a technical reason.

And the number of players who run into the limit are probably not enough to warrant the extra work to add them.

It’s not a sale. It’s a bulk rate for buying more than one at a time. The bulk rate will not likely expire.

Those pointing out the bug are actually doing possible buyers a favor. If they were going to buy the season for the ability to do the achievements and/or get the luminescent armor set, then being told there is a bug preventing 100% completion is something I would rather know about before I buy it. And others who were not aware of what could be gained by doing the achievements or repeating the living story are now able to be informed buyers.

And I’d rather be an informed buyer than not. But that’s just me.

TheBlackLeech.9360:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

TheBlackLeech.9360:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Doesn’t it take 72 hours to get the first vault, guild stash, up and available? If you start the guild upgrades going as soon as the guild is made then your restrictions should end and the guild stash should be available at the same time. If the guild is only 48 hours old, unless you spent a lot of gold buying influence to speed it up, then you can’t access it anyway, as it’s not there to access.

bought a lot of influence

…and yeah to those who ask… its not that big of a deal… but I mean what is the purpose of preventing the guild leader from using his own guild bank?

What if the guild leader is a gold seller? This is exactly what these restrictions are about, keeping gold sellers from making guild vaults quickly as and using it to move gold around.

If only one person, ie the guild leader has access to the bank, how would he be moving anything around to anywhere but his own account?

He invites the buyer to the guild and gives them withdrawal permissions.

Andred.1087:

All this talk of “principle” is hogwash. I used to feel similarly about sub fees… when I was in high school… $15/mo (for instance) is negligible if you have any kind of income.

I have an income and $15/month isn’t negligible.

I work a little over minimum wage (only because I’ve been with the company a few years). I work part time (because retail is part time) and my hours per week is never set in stone.

But I have bills to pay as well as necessities. And those eat into my income. So I only have a small amount of money free for entertainment and gifts and splurges each month.

$15/month isn’t negligible to me. I have to sit and think if it’s worth it to me.

And no game is worth $15/month, especially in addition to an initial purchase price. I jump from game to game too much. The sub fee would make me feel obligated to play each month when GW2 may not be the game for the month. But I also would not know when I would jump to it or from it so I couldn’t really plan my buying a sub around it.

And your creation of the second ticket slowed your response down due to how their system handles multiple tickets by the same person.

The system determines spot in queue by the most recently put in ticket. So you kicked yourself to the end of the line when you made your second ticket.

So it’s hard to say that 33 days is entirely ANet’s fault.

Sizer.5632:

Id be all for it. Once youre more than like, 16 years old, you realize that $15 a month for something you can easily play for 20+ hours a week is nothing compared to other things you can spend your money on.

But since like, half the playerbase is 16 (or acts like they are), it wouldnt work, so i dont think it will ever happen.

And I’m older than 16 and I barely break even between what I earn and what I have to spend.

I have to carefully weigh how much I will get out of what I’m spending. For games, I expect to get 1 hour of enjoyment for each $1 spent. But I hop from game to game. I don’t know at the beginning of the month which game I’ll be wanting to play that month. It may not be GW2. I don’t want to feel obligated to play the game for 15 hours each and every month. Because I won’t enjoy those 15 hours. They’ll be 15 hours that I wish I was spending in another game most likely.

Not everyone who works has the luxury of making a lot more than they have to spend.

If GW2 went sub, I’d leave.

And I wouldn’t log in until they went back to no sub fee.

I don’t like feeling forced to play and I would feel forced to play if there was a subscription fee.

Not from an EU server to a NA server

However, you could transfer to an open NA server. If WvW isn’t something you’re interested in, I’d go that route.

If WvW is something you’d want to do with your friends, I’d just keep waiting to see if a spot opened up. Unless you’re willing to delete all of your characters (transfers are free if you delete all your characters).

No, there is not a way to force your way onto that home world.

You will have to wait for it to say it’s not full.

However, if you are not wanting to do WvW with your friends, the home world you are currently on will not prevent you from playing with your friends. The megaserver gets rid of a lot of map instances. And you can always guest to Dark Haven to increase your priority of getting onto maps with Dark Haven players.

ownX.8352:

Kyronami.1048:

Rin.2147:

Hi
Ticket: 1406230 – 04/02/2015

My alternate account was hacked, I received a reply for me to go through some security steps and reply back. I have replied back and yet to hear a reply from the GM that was working on my issue.

Please respond whenever possible. Thank you.

from what I can tell EVERYONE who sent that kinda ticket is on that step lol Ive read like 5 people who did the steps then boom nothing for over a week.

This is the 4th day since my ticket for me, first reply was so fast and then nothing, and I did them within 2 hours of the first email. Its very upsetting because ive had the whole week off for my birthday and wanted to play and cant really play, so gg

YEAH!!! Exactly… Was replying to me under an hour then as soon as i tell um i’m done with the steps, days go by no reply…

If the steps were all sent to you in one email, it could very well be an automated message sent to anyone who chooses account hacked as their problem. To speed the process up.

As there is no point in returning access to your account if your email is unsecured or you have a keylogger on your computer. Your account is just very likely to get compromised again if your computer and accounts aren’t secured.

Azala Yar.7693:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Vech.7396:

I know its a topic that keeps coming up, but there is no reason double daily fractal should be coded anymore. I don’t mind doing a fractal for my daily, but for Kitten sake we don’t need to be required to do both a fractal and level based fractal for a daily
(Especially a high level one) cut specific levels fractal and just leave the daily fractal please.

Because you have other dailies you can complete. You arent forced to do dailies, and you certainly arent forced to do fractals which you may or may not even be properly geared for.

It’s a non-issue for the majority, so it aint being changed. If you dont like it, just search custom arenas for open arenas advertising slackerpvp to finish your daily. Others do.

You get 10 achievement points for the completion daily, so why wouldn’t you want to do them ?

If you don’t do fractals and you get two on the same day then you can only complete 2 dailies as you won’t get the completion one either.

So yeah ANet, it really does need altering, the daily fractal should be grouped with the other fractal options so only one fractal may end up as a daily.

There are WvW and PvP dailies you can do as well.

And Daily AP has a cap. So missing a few days due to double Fractals when you can’t be bothered to do the WvW or PvP ones either is not the end of the world either. Because you’ll eventually hit the cap.