The named item drop rate in this game is broken (with proof)

[Cowzrul]

Here's the thing, even if the percentage is 33% on elite, which I don't believe for a second, that 33% is shared with all the named items available for that quest. So Myth Drannor for example, there are 2 variants of every weapon equaling 100, there's the 3-5 named items people want, and all the solar/lunar gems which are about 60ish (estimate) This adds up to be approximately 165. Now you have to divide that .33 (33%) by 165 and that's closer to .002 or .2% for an item you want. That's 2 out of 1000, or 1 out of 500 if you want to reduce it to simplest form. And have you ever opened a chest, got a named item you didn't want, reroll and got no named item? Yeah, that happens more than you'd think. How bout once you get a named item it locks you into a named item category so that next reroll guarantees you a named item.

This is a really great point. I'm unwilling to try to determine if the distribution of items that are dropped from each quest are evenly distributed, but there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence that it isn't. It seems like half the people on the forum have had common experiences of getting dozens of unwanted items before getting the desired one from a quest. (Lots of people complaining about having to ransack House of Pain many times for the Family Recruit Sigil, for example)

I personally don't really want them to add more incentives for people to spend money on shards because I think getting "base" named items without mythic or reaper bonuses should be easy. I don't think you should have to ransack a quest more than twice to get everything it offers. That's already 16 runs in short succession of exactly the same content - I don't even want to do that, I'd prefer to run a diverse set of quests.

The rare items are just garbage, I have no interest in that at all and will refuse to spend any money on the game until they reverse that in existing content and stop implementing new ones.

 

[Zarrenn]

I'm unwilling to try to determine if the distribution of items that are dropped from each quest are evenly distributed

According to the devs and the data scrapers everything is weighted equally but

there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence that it isn't

Don't even need anecdotal evidence. You can get real evidence. Pick any 4-item quest and farm till you have 1 of everything. You will have way more of 1 thing than of everything else, and way way more of it than would be expected if it truly were weighted equally. Or maybe there's another reason I walked out of Grim and Barrett with 27 docents, 9 quivers, 6 ivy helixes, and the single laurel helix I went in looking for.

For reference: if everything is indeed weighted equally, you should need on average 9 pulls to get 1 of everything. Even double that at 18 pulls doesn't come close to the 43 sited above.

 

[Kimbere]

Your mileage will vary as this is a casino. But the house always wins.

Nah. The house only wins if you play their rigged game.

 

[Zarrenn]

The house only wins if you play their rigged game.

Hence why I'm not buying MD or Chill.

 

[Kimbere]

The ransack timer is also very frustrating. What, exactly, does it add to the game?

Wrong question. Ask instead, "How, exactly, does this encourage players to spend more money on the game?"

It sets a hard limit per week on the amount of time people can spend farming. It's an anti-grind mechanism.

Incorrect. It is a FOMO creation mechanism.

When you know you can only loot the same chest 8 timers per week and you're afraid of not getting the item you want without having to wait another whole week, what do you do?

The only way to mitigate the FOMO is to spend astral shards to reroll the chests for more than 8 chances per week.

If they removed the ransack limit, players could/would just run a given quest ad nauseum until they get what they're after without feeling nearly as much need to spend shards for rerolls.

 

[Zarrenn]

Wrong question. Ask instead, "How, exactly, does this encourage players to spend more money on the game?"

Ransack was born deliberately as an anti-****-socking mechanic. It exists to stop you from playing the game.

Quite recently however you might have noticed someone on the development team went "Wait! If they stop playing, they stop spending money!" and now we can buy ransack reset potions. This removing the mechanic for the whales and killing the game even faster.

 

[norriskwondo]

I dunno, I think the ransack timer is fine. I just think the drop rate is

Hence why I'm not buying MD or Chill.

I bought them, but not for the gear. I did want the golden age weapons, but now chill has level 34 conept of IOD I'm going for those weapons instead. And I like have more places to play, and the gold seal hirelings are nice to have since I only play solo

 

[norriskwondo]

Quoting the first part of your quote, because, yes.

Second part: what evidence do we have they look at any of this stuff at all ? Even if they said they did something would anyone believe them at this point ?

nope, trust is broken. Which is sad, because I really love playing this game otherwise

 

[Buddha5440]

Taking data samples from different characters is a big part of what makes this a scientific observation. Didn't you learn scientific theory in school? You got to have different groups to show it's not isolated. Or if what you're implying is that it's all the same account is the problem, that's a much bigger issue that the game is targeting certain accounts to **** over.

Well if you base your sample on a few hundred pulls from 1 character and claim that is valid data, you are assuming the RNG is tied to that character and not the chest, so you can't include others in your calculations. If the RNG is tied to the chest, your 2/4/6/8 hundred pulls don't mean squat when there are a few thousand people who might be opening that chest.

 

[AlimonyJFMSU]

Well if you base your sample on a few hundred pulls from 1 character and claim that is valid data, you are assuming the RNG is tied to that character and not the chest, so you can't include others in your calculations. If the RNG is tied to the chest, your 2/4/6/8 hundred pulls don't mean squat when there are a few thousand people who might be opening that chest.

I mean, the drop chance ought to be the same for all people, no?

 

[norriskwondo]

Well if you base your sample on a few hundred pulls from 1 character and claim that is valid data, you are assuming the RNG is tied to that character and not the chest, so you can't include others in your calculations. If the RNG is tied to the chest, your 2/4/6/8 hundred pulls don't mean squat when there are a few thousand people who might be opening that chest.

Either way you do it, it shows that the system is broken. Either the chest is broken, or the game is intentionally ******* over specific characters/classes/races/accounts. But with their lie of a drop rate percentage of 33%, when you calculate all the items sharing that 33% it's actually .2% for the item you want. That's not even a 1/4% chance you'll get the item you're wanting. Their system is intentionally rigged against players, and yes, I also believe their targeting and extra **** over for certain classes/races/characters/accounts.

 

[Lacci]

Well if you base your sample on a few hundred pulls from 1 character and claim that is valid data, you are assuming the RNG is tied to that character and not the chest, so you can't include others in your calculations. If the RNG is tied to the chest, your 2/4/6/8 hundred pulls don't mean squat when there are a few thousand people who might be opening that chest.

It´s actually the other way around. If we assume that RNG ist just tied to the chest and nothing else, it doesn´t matter if 1 character does the pulling or 1000.
Of course, 50 pulls means nothing, but 1000 should already show decent statistics. Doesn´t matter if one character does 1000 pulls or 100 characters do 10 pulls.
Unless of course, there is some secret hidden per character/account "luck" stat (which I personally don´t believe in). But in that case, any data/statistics is useless anyway.

 

[J1NG]

It´s actually the other way around. If we assume that RNG ist just tied to the chest and nothing else, it doesn´t matter if 1 character does the pulling or 1000.
Of course, 50 pulls means nothing, but 1000 should already show decent statistics. Doesn´t matter if one character does 1000 pulls or 100 characters do 10 pulls.
Unless of course, there is some secret hidden per character/account "luck" stat (which I personally don´t believe in). But in that case, any data/statistics is useless anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't believe other than myself, anyone else has remotely come close to performing a single chest with current modern quest drop rates and got close to 1k drops yet. Usually it's spread out over a wide range of quests, or over particular difficulties only. And my results suggest there's nothing wrong, so... *shrugs*

J1NG

 

[Buddha5440]

I mean, the drop chance ought to be the same for all people, no?

Yes but the valuable sample size changes when it's done 100 times and when it's done 2000 times

 

[Bobbryan2]

Well if you base your sample on a few hundred pulls from 1 character and claim that is valid data, you are assuming the RNG is tied to that character and not the chest, so you can't include others in your calculations. If the RNG is tied to the chest, your 2/4/6/8 hundred pulls don't mean squat when there are a few thousand people who might be opening that chest.

Again... the information would be usable and useful in any case.

 

[Bobbryan2]

Yes but the valuable sample size changes when it's done 100 times and when it's done 2000 times

Yeah, but there's a pretty quick point of diminishing returns.

 

[Bobbryan2]

Unfortunately, I don't believe other than myself, anyone else has remotely come close to performing a single chest with current modern quest drop rates and got close to 1k drops yet. Usually it's spread out over a wide range of quests, or over particular difficulties only. And my results suggest there's nothing wrong, so... *shrugs*

J1NG

I would say that people's frustration points more to the other effects in that case: diluting the tables through the loot tables. I'm seeing this already in analysis of Chill, as people that want to complain about the drop rates disregard the augments in their analysis.

I agree with them. The augments shouldn't count. But according to the loot tables, they do, and ergo they're getting a much lower drop rate than they think they are getting.

This was a big part of the loot preview, and they were absolutely unwilling to listen to reason.

So... we're in that place where the drop rate is 33%, and it's also much MUCH less than that number implies.

 

[MrBill]

Either way you do it, it shows that the system is broken. Either the chest is broken, or the game is intentionally ******* over specific characters/classes/races/accounts. But with their lie of a drop rate percentage of 33%, when you calculate all the items sharing that 33% it's actually .2% for the item you want. That's not even a 1/4% chance you'll get the item you're wanting. Their system is intentionally rigged against players, and yes, I also believe their targeting and extra **** over for certain classes/races/characters/accounts.

I agree with you but I have only my experience with my group and the "Lucky" Paladin as data. I still believe that there was a "bonus" for people that bought the ultimate packages for the expansions, but again I only have our Paladin as data, as he was the only one out of 5 that did that.

 

[Notta]

Each instance in an experiment has it's own data set. If player A flips a coin and gets heads, they have a less than 50% chance to get heads on the next flip. Player B still has a 50% chance to get heads.

Incorrect unless the game is rigged. Each flip is a 50% chance. That being said, if you flip 10 heads in a row, one should at least suspect the game is not truely random; I would bet on heads being the 11th flip.

 

[Buddha5440]

Incorrect unless the game is rigged. Each flip is a 50% chance. That being said, if you flip 10 heads in a row, one should at least suspect the game is not truely random; I would bet on heads being the 11th flip.

If you account for the other 1000+ flips being done by other players your logic falls apart. Sample size with a global size of 10 is much different than with a global size of 1000+. "A" getting heads twice in a row is less than 50%.