Maintenance for the week of December 15:
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Random Number Generator improvement suggestion.
-
MCMancub✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.1 -
jkemmery✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.0 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.1 -
Rinmaethodain✭✭✭✭✭
✭Randomness is bad thing. It should be avoided at any cost.
Random number generators can be random to the point they will keep spitting out 0 all the time and just because someone named it "random" then every attempt to point out its fault will be shushed with "but its random". It might be still random but its not fair at any time.
Thats why games that rely on RNG introduce systems that will prevent situations like that. Because giving something to RNG can result in a person not getting ever for example an item.
An example of that system would be. Example, nirn:
Lets say nirn drops from nodes with 1% chance. System would check how many nodes a player looted. For every looted node that didnt have a nirn player would be granted a "nirn fragment" it doesnt have to be even an actual item. It can be just variable associated to players character. Now if the droprate is supposed to be 1% then if player collects 100 fragments and not a single piece of nirn, at the 100th time of looting node he will be given a nirn.
If player finds nirn before reaching treshold, he will lose all his "fragments".
This way, 'lucky' people still can loot item after item. But those not favoured by RNG (or in case when RNG is stuck, biased or was possesed by evil spirit) will still have a fair chance to obtain an item they look for.3 -
Soleya✭✭✭✭✭
✭He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in.
What I meant is the longer try to get a rare drop doing something the higher your chance of getting it, until you get it, then your chance reverts back to normal.
For example, your chance to get a fragment from a provisioning writ is higher after doing 100 of them without getting it, than it is the first time, but once you got it, your next writ is back to the normal % chance.
Since gold has no real value in the game once you have maxed out bank, bags and horse. You can just buy all the best stuff. But not sure where the fun is in that. I would like to earn stuff, but if the RNG never gives you the item then it isn't fun trying and a player will just give up.0 -
Soleya✭✭✭✭✭
✭Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
Everyone getting an increased chance of finding something good if they haven't in a long time is still balanced and the same for everyone. Your chances increase the same as mine would. Not sure why that's such an issue.
I didn't ask for this system to be just for me, so no, that's not entitlement.0 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭MaximusDargus wrote: »Randomness is bad thing. It should be avoided at any cost.
Random number generators can be random to the point they will keep spitting out 0 all the time and just because someone named it "random" then every attempt to point out its fault will be shushed with "but its random". It might be still random but its not fair at any time.
Thats why games that rely on RNG introduce systems that will prevent situations like that. Because giving something to RNG can result in a person not getting ever for example an item.
An example of that system would be. Example, nirn:
Lets say nirn drops from nodes with 1% chance. System would check how many nodes a player looted. For every looted node that didnt have a nirn player would be granted a "nirn fragment" it doesnt have to be even an actual item. It can be just variable associated to players character. Now if the droprate is supposed to be 1% then if player collects 100 fragments and not a single piece of nirn, at the 100th time of looting node he will be given a nirn.
If player finds nirn before reaching treshold, he will lose all his "fragments".
This way, 'lucky' people still can loot item after item. But those not favoured by RNG (or in case when RNG is stuck, biased or was possesed by evil spirit) will still have a fair chance to obtain an item they look for.
The issue with this is, what happens when you fail to find Nirn the first 99 times (you have 99 fragments as a result), then you find Nirn by chance the next time? Then it took you exactly 100 tries to find Nirn (fitting in with the 1% chance), but the next attempt you have a 100% chance to get more Nirn, either by chance or by getting a 100th fragment. Compared to someone who walks out there for the first time and only has a 1% chance, this is unfair. You've essentially got a 2/101 chance while someone else only gets a 1/100.
I'm not saying I'm for RNG. I'm actually against it. I don't believe MMOs should have an RNG aspect to it. I believe it should all be associated with effort and amount of time put in. But mixing RNG and effort isn't the solution because it puts players at an uneven playing field. If ZOS has implemented RNG, all we can do is take it for what it is, a crappy opportunity to get gear, materials, or whatever else for everyone.Edited by MCMancub on July 30, 2015 6:57PM0 -
Soleya✭✭✭✭✭
✭MaximusDargus wrote: »Randomness is bad thing. It should be avoided at any cost.
Random number generators can be random to the point they will keep spitting out 0 all the time and just because someone named it "random" then every attempt to point out its fault will be shushed with "but its random". It might be still random but its not fair at any time.
Thats why games that rely on RNG introduce systems that will prevent situations like that. Because giving something to RNG can result in a person not getting ever for example an item.
An example of that system would be. Example, nirn:
Lets say nirn drops from nodes with 1% chance. System would check how many nodes a player looted. For every looted node that didnt have a nirn player would be granted a "nirn fragment" it doesnt have to be even an actual item. It can be just variable associated to players character. Now if the droprate is supposed to be 1% then if player collects 100 fragments and not a single piece of nirn, at the 100th time of looting node he will be given a nirn.
If player finds nirn before reaching treshold, he will lose all his "fragments".
This way, 'lucky' people still can loot item after item. But those not favoured by RNG (or in case when RNG is stuck, biased or was possesed by evil spirit) will still have a fair chance to obtain an item they look for.
The issue with this is, what happens when you fail to find Nirn the first 99 times (you have 99 fragments as a result), then you find Nirn by chance the next time? Then it took you exactly 100 tries to find Nirn (fitting in with the 1% chance), but the next attempt you have a 100% chance to get more Nirn, either by chance or by getting a 100th fragment. Compared to someone who walks out there for the first time and only has a 1% chance, this is unfair.
I'm not saying I'm for RNG. I'm actually against it. I don't believe MMOs should have an RNG aspect to it. I believe it should all be associated with effort and amount of time put in. But mixing RNG and effort isn't the solution because it puts players at an uneven playing field. If ZOS has implemented RNG, all we can do is take it for what it is, a crappy opportunity to get gear, materials, or whatever else for everyone.
If you found a nirn, then your next chance would be 1%. Once you find one it starts back at 1%0 -
jkemmery✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.0 -
OmniDevil✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »What I meant is the longer try to get a rare drop doing something the higher your chance of getting it, until you get it, then your chance reverts back to normal.
For example, your chance to get a fragment from a provisioning writ is higher after doing 100 of them without getting it, than it is the first time, but once you got it, your next writ is back to the normal % chance.
Since gold has no real value in the game once you have maxed out bank, bags and horse. You can just buy all the best stuff. But not sure where the fun is in that. I would like to earn stuff, but if the RNG never gives you the item then it isn't fun trying and a player will just give up.
That's what I thought. In that regard, sure, the Diablo 3 system would work, however. You're still not guaranteed something you want, which was the #1 reason a lot avid D3 players still griped about the system and ultimately stopped playing. Implement that system into ESO, which already has a huge list of obtainable loot and you run into the same situation.
What I don't agree with is the "a player will just give up" aspect. If a player just gives up on a game or task because it's too long, difficult or boring, is it because the loot wasn't there or because they just simply get bored easy?
At any rate, I believe the real solution is to decrease the amount of items in the shared loot table. Do that and you "shouldn't" need the D3 loot system.Rogue's Gallery (EP)(NA)(XB1)
Proud Member and Officer
We’re recruiting for our ESO (Xbox One) Chapter
ESO Application: Apply Here
Homepage: http://www.roguesgalleryguild.com/
TF Guild Page: http://tamrielfoundry.com/groups/rogues-gallery/Character List
"Varyn Wryn" cp427 Nord Templar (Magicka DPS/Healer)
"Maelis Artorius" cp427 Redguard Dragonknight (Stamina DPS)
"Arius the Shade" cp427 Khajiit Nightblade (Stamina DPS)
"Astalor Bloodsworn" Level 7 Altmer Sorcerer (Magicka DPS)0 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.
If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ once in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.Edited by MCMancub on July 30, 2015 7:05PM1 -
Rinmaethodain✭✭✭✭✭
✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »MaximusDargus wrote: »Randomness is bad thing. It should be avoided at any cost.
Random number generators can be random to the point they will keep spitting out 0 all the time and just because someone named it "random" then every attempt to point out its fault will be shushed with "but its random". It might be still random but its not fair at any time.
Thats why games that rely on RNG introduce systems that will prevent situations like that. Because giving something to RNG can result in a person not getting ever for example an item.
An example of that system would be. Example, nirn:
Lets say nirn drops from nodes with 1% chance. System would check how many nodes a player looted. For every looted node that didnt have a nirn player would be granted a "nirn fragment" it doesnt have to be even an actual item. It can be just variable associated to players character. Now if the droprate is supposed to be 1% then if player collects 100 fragments and not a single piece of nirn, at the 100th time of looting node he will be given a nirn.
If player finds nirn before reaching treshold, he will lose all his "fragments".
This way, 'lucky' people still can loot item after item. But those not favoured by RNG (or in case when RNG is stuck, biased or was possesed by evil spirit) will still have a fair chance to obtain an item they look for.
The issue with this is, what happens when you fail to find Nirn the first 99 times (you have 99 fragments as a result), then you find Nirn by chance the next time? Then it took you exactly 100 tries to find Nirn (fitting in with the 1% chance), but the next attempt you have a 100% chance to get more Nirn, either by chance or by getting a 100th fragment. Compared to someone who walks out there for the first time and only has a 1% chance, this is unfair.
I'm not saying I'm for RNG. I'm actually against it. I don't believe MMOs should have an RNG aspect to it. I believe it should all be associated with effort and amount of time put in. But mixing RNG and effort isn't the solution because it puts players at an uneven playing field. If ZOS has implemented RNG, all we can do is take it for what it is, a crappy opportunity to get gear, materials, or whatever else for everyone.
If you found a nirn, then your next chance would be 1%. Once you find one it starts back at 1%
Yes, of course that what i meant.
For every time you dont find nirn you get +1 tick on counter. If it reaches 100 (for 1% droprate) you get an item on next time and your counter is reset back to 0. Also if you find your item just by chance (by the RNG) somewhere before reaching 100 (even at like 25/50/98) you of course keep that found item and counter is also reset back to 0.
Of course if the drop rate of item is designed to be 0.5% then you need to gather 200 ticks. A simple programming algebra will make sure for all conditions to work and prevent any loopholes.0 -
Soleya✭✭✭✭✭
✭If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
You have the same chance to get the fragment on day 1 as another player doing it on day 1. And on day 2 if neither of you got it, you both have the same chance.0 -
jkemmery✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.
If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ once in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
How on earth can you argue that it's "unfair" that someone's chances of receiving a valuable item as a reward for doing a writ are increased if that player has not yet received one? How is that "unfair"? It applies to everyone and thus ensures that valuable items are distributed more evenly. How can that be in any way, "unfair"?
Oh, wait, it's not, you're mistaken, as usual, see my previous post.2 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
You have the same chance to get the fragment on day 1 as another player doing it on day 1. And on day 2 if neither of you got it, you both have the same chance.
But you're comparing 2 players who are doing the same amount of writs. Compare a day 2 player to a day 1 player and see that day 2 gets an advantage. In an RNG system (which ZOS has implemented) players should not be rewarding for playing more than others. You're wanting this system to be something it's not, which is, not RNG. I get that. And I sympathize with it. I would rather have a system that isn't RNG.
But it isn't.
We have RNG. Because we have RNG, it's only fair if everyone is on the same level ground.1 -
UPrime✭✭✭✭What the OP is asking for is a streak breaker code. Which isn't unheard of. There are games that have those in combat accuracy for instance. But I don't know of any games that have it in drops mainly because it would have to track when you'd have last gotten the drops. It would also favor people that farm instead of playing 1 offs since the streak breaker would actually have a chance to trigger.
That being said, just by nature of how probability works, you do have a higher chance of getting a rare if you haven't gotten one in a while. So at a per item chance of getting it doesn't change, but the chance of NOT getting it x number of times in a row decreases as x increases.0 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.
If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ once in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
How on earth can you argue that it's "unfair" that someone's chances of receiving a valuable item as a reward for doing a writ are increased if that player has not yet received one? How is that "unfair"? It applies to everyone and thus ensures that valuable items are distributed more evenly. How can that be in any way, "unfair"?
Oh, wait, it's not, you're mistaken, as usual, see my previous post.
Probability in an RNG system (which is what we have) doesn't increase simply because you repeat a task. You want it to. You want the odds to change the more you do something. That isn't fair to players who do the task less. Your argument is that is if the chance increases the more you do the task, then it's fair because it will be that way for everyone.
But what if I only ever do the writ 1 time? What if I never do the writ enough times to increase my chance. Then you have a better chance at getting the frag from the writ than I do. It's very simple. It's an unfair system because we don't all play the same amount.1 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭What the OP is asking for is a streak breaker code. Which isn't unheard of. There are games that have those in combat accuracy for instance. But I don't know of any games that have it in drops mainly because it would have to track when you'd have last gotten the drops. It would also favor people that farm instead of playing 1 offs since the streak breaker would actually have a chance to trigger.
That being said, just by nature of how probability works, you do have a higher chance of getting a rare if you haven't gotten one in a while. So at a per item chance of getting it doesn't change, but the chance of NOT getting it x number of times in a row decreases as x increases.
Only in a system without replacement, like drawing cards until you get a 2. Every draw increases your chance. This system is not like that. This system is more like drawing to see if you get a 2. Didn't get it? Put it back, shuffle, and try again.Edited by MCMancub on July 30, 2015 7:16PM1 -
jkemmery✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.
If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ once in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
How on earth can you argue that it's "unfair" that someone's chances of receiving a valuable item as a reward for doing a writ are increased if that player has not yet received one? How is that "unfair"? It applies to everyone and thus ensures that valuable items are distributed more evenly. How can that be in any way, "unfair"?
Oh, wait, it's not, you're mistaken, as usual, see my previous post.
Probability in an RNG system (which is what we have) doesn't increase simply because you repeat a task. You want it to. You want the odds to change the more you do something. That isn't fair to players who do the task less. Your argument is that is if the chance increases the more you do the task, then it's fair because it will be that way for everyone.
But what if I only ever do the writ 1 time? What if I never do the writ enough times to increase my chance. Then you have a better chance at getting the frag from the writ than I do. It's very simple. It's an unfair system because we don't all play the same amount.
That is perhaps one of the best examples of poor logic I have ever seen. Wow. Are you even bothering to stop and actually think about what you are writing?0 -
MCMancub✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.
If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ once in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
How on earth can you argue that it's "unfair" that someone's chances of receiving a valuable item as a reward for doing a writ are increased if that player has not yet received one? How is that "unfair"? It applies to everyone and thus ensures that valuable items are distributed more evenly. How can that be in any way, "unfair"?
Oh, wait, it's not, you're mistaken, as usual, see my previous post.
Probability in an RNG system (which is what we have) doesn't increase simply because you repeat a task. You want it to. You want the odds to change the more you do something. That isn't fair to players who do the task less. Your argument is that is if the chance increases the more you do the task, then it's fair because it will be that way for everyone.
But what if I only ever do the writ 1 time? What if I never do the writ enough times to increase my chance. Then you have a better chance at getting the frag from the writ than I do. It's very simple. It's an unfair system because we don't all play the same amount.
That is perhaps one of the best examples of poor logic I have ever seen. Wow. Are you even bothering to stop and actually think about what you are writing?
OK, I don't know how better to explain it to you than going through it all. So here goes (math degree coming in handy).
There are 2 types of probability systems, with or without replacement.
Without replacement systems increase the chance of an event occurring each time you perform the task. Think of it like trying to draw a 2 from a deck of cards. You have a 4/52 chance. If you don't get a 2 the first time, then you have a 4/51 chance on the next card you draw, slightly higher. This is the system you are looking for.
With replacement systems do not increase the probability each time you perform the task. Again, this of it like trying to draw a 2 from a deck of cards. You have a 4/52 chance. If you don't get a 2 the first time, instead of keeping the card, you put it back, reshuffle, and then try to draw a 2 again. Your chance is still 4/52.
RNG stands for random number generator. It's a simply function that calls a linear congruential algorithm to create pseudo-random numbers. If you wanted to find a random number between 1 and 100, and you wanted to get, say 22, every time you run that RNG function you have a 1% chance to get a 22. Your odds of improving never change.
ZOS believes that all players should have an equal chance to get fragments regardless of time spent in game. Therefore they've chosen to use an RNG system.
I really don't know what else to say to convey this super simple concept to you, and you've reverted to insults for several posts now, so I'll be calling this my last post for this thread. I hope this information helps to clear things up as to why we have RNG and not a system without replacement. Everyone plays differently, and ZOS believes we each get the same chance to obtain some items in game (obviously not all as we have gold and alliance points to obtain other things).
EDIT: I never called you out for your bullcrap on this either, but I guess I should.BlueGreenMikey wrote: »For what it's worth, the OP's experience could mean that the RNG is actually not working properly. It doesn't necessarily mean that, but a highly improbable scenario (and it's not isolated) could mean that the RNG is not actually random.
The thing is, no "random number generators" are ever actually random.
Maybe because, mathematically speaking, nothing outside of the quantum field in our universe (arguably not even there) is truly random. Everything can be determined with numbers and processing power.
No, no random number generators are truly random within definable parameters. They are "random enough" to be practical, but never truly random due to various factors that involve the actual mechanics of integrated circuitry.
Exactly. I was being facetious. Though in this case it wouldn't be any sort of hardware doing the randomization. Whatever back-end makes up the server simply uses a built-in random number generator function made from a linear congruential generator algorithm to produce pseudo-random numbers.
The hardware it runs on would still play a part ...
The RNG algorithm is on the software level, not the hardware level. There's nothing about an RNG function in this game that depends on any kind of randomness in the hardware.Edited by MCMancub on July 30, 2015 7:32PM1 -
jkemmery✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »So if I asked 100 players and 50 have gotten a lot of rare items and 50 have not, how is that different?
Or if I asked 100 players and 99 of them got rare items and 1 did not, again, how does that signify no problem? If one player never gets rare drops, there is an issue. The fix is improving their chance of getting something the longer they play.
Its not a new idea either. Diablo 3 implemented a similar feature in Loot 2.0. Increase chance of legendary drop the longer a player hasn't gotten one.... to me seems like a valid way to address the issue of players getting the "brown end of the stick" as you put it. In no way is it suggesting "entitlement", which is what you implied in your post.
To the broader question, it seems anyone attempts to address the issue of fairness, someone always invokes the "entitlement" argument. This is something that I really don't understand. How does someone wanting to make things more fair across the board equate to them seeking "entitlement"?
Not receiving an item isn't game breaking, not does it prevent the game from being unplayable for him. So, why is the word "fair" being tossed around?
Related to his suggestion, I find it very extremely unbelievable that any one person has never received a rare item. Blue, Purple, Yellow or not. The Diablo 3 mechanic works, but doesn't follow what he was originally suggesting. He believes the longer you play (not in one time frame, not for the day, but your overall cumalitive amount), should warrant better drop rates. Why should one's year worth of playtime provide them with a better drop chance over someone who has been playing for 6 months? Maybe that's not what he meant and he meant to protray his suggestion more closely to that of the Diablo 3 RNG system. In that case, that might work, but with the way that works, you have to be actively logged in and playing for it to even kick in. So, with that said, in order for that to consistenly work, Little Johnny and Susie would need to stay home from work/school, ignore the family and friends for an extended amount of time to increase those odds. A No Lifing boost is not something players should be forced into. And, lets face it, Diablo 3 was so bloated with Legendary loot/items that it was next to impossible to never receive at least one Legendary every 30min-1hr (granted may not have been what you wanted, but it was Legendary nonetheless, which is what the system is designed to do).
I didn't envoke the entitlement argument, as you put it. I simply used a word, albeit a poor choice, to convey the tone his suggestion was written in. Though, what other word can you use for a situation where one feels the game should be adjusted to better benefit their gain. I can see this a touchy subject for you. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my objective, however. I did imply that the OP felt he is entitled to something because, no matter how you look at it or put it, what he wants is implying an entitlement view on the real issue, which is RNG sucks and believes more so for him. Do I feel it's "fair" that someone else has obtained something more frequently than he has? No, it's not, however. Personal feelings aside, it's random, no matter how you see it. You want that item(s), keep playing and rolling the dice.
You didn't offend me, but in the last couple of years or so the attitude I see of many people that if someone strives to address an issue they see as being unfair, immediately jump to accusation of "entitlement" is to me baffling. No, life is not fair, but who wouldn't want it to be made as fair as possible? Unless you're the one who benefits from the unfairness. And the way I see it, the truly entitled in our society have attempted to demonize anyone wanting fairness as entitled themselves, and have convinced many of the masses that anytime someone calls for fairness, that person must be be seeking entitlement, thus ensuring the truly entitled their continued positions of entitlement.
An attempt to make things fair should be seen as a positive, not a negative.
But it's not unfair. Everyone has the same chance. You made this thread because you aren't getting something you think you now deserve because you've put in, what you see see as, enough time to obtain this item. That's entitlement.
For one, I'm not the OP. And no, your example is in fact NOT an example of entitlement. Period. Look it up.
Sorry I didn't look to see if you were or not. You spoke like he/she did, so I lumped (sorry!).
en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"
If everyone is on even ground and you feel you are special because you've spent enough time to bypass the same restrictions as everyone else, that's entitlement.
But that wasn't the argument. No one in this thread ever said they should bypass the same restrictions as everyone else. The suggestion made by the OP would apply to everyone, not just him. Therefore, NOTHING suggested in this thread is in any way, shape or form something that could be classified as "entitlement". You are, unfortunately, mistaken in your argument.
One time I posted this on my FB profile "I've come to the conclusion that the world isn't full of stupid people, just full of people who constantly use poor logic."
Your argument is a case in point.
If I fail to get a fragment on day 1 and have a better chance on day 2, that gives me a better chance to get a fragment from doing a writ than someone doing a writ on day 1. That's unequal, or unfair. You've bypassed the default random chance because you believe time should increase the chance to receive a writ. This is opposite to what random is by definition. If I only do the writ once in my entire life, I should have the same chance to get the writ as someone who does the writ every day.
Just because you flip a coin 1000 times doesn't guarantee your next flip to be heads. It's still a 50/50 chance. The system ZOS has set up is strictly a random one. OP, and you, are unhappy with that and are claiming it is unfair. It's entirely fair because it's consistent.
P.S. It's not a poor argument simply because you disagree with what probability is.
How on earth can you argue that it's "unfair" that someone's chances of receiving a valuable item as a reward for doing a writ are increased if that player has not yet received one? How is that "unfair"? It applies to everyone and thus ensures that valuable items are distributed more evenly. How can that be in any way, "unfair"?
Oh, wait, it's not, you're mistaken, as usual, see my previous post.
Probability in an RNG system (which is what we have) doesn't increase simply because you repeat a task. You want it to. You want the odds to change the more you do something. That isn't fair to players who do the task less. Your argument is that is if the chance increases the more you do the task, then it's fair because it will be that way for everyone.
But what if I only ever do the writ 1 time? What if I never do the writ enough times to increase my chance. Then you have a better chance at getting the frag from the writ than I do. It's very simple. It's an unfair system because we don't all play the same amount.
That is perhaps one of the best examples of poor logic I have ever seen. Wow. Are you even bothering to stop and actually think about what you are writing?
OK, I don't know how better to explain it to you than going through it all. So here goes (math degree coming in handy).
There are 2 types of probability systems, with or without replacement.
Without replacement systems increase the chance of an event occurring each time you perform the task. Think of it like trying to draw a 2 from a deck of cards. You have a 4/52 chance. If you don't get a 2 the first time, then you have a 4/51 chance on the next card you draw, slightly higher. This is the system you are looking for.
With replacement systems do not increase the probability each time you perform the task. Again, this of it like trying to draw a 2 from a deck of cards. You have a 4/52 chance. If you don't get a 2 the first time, instead of keeping the card, you put it back, reshuffle, and then try to draw a 2 again. Your chance is still 4/52.
RNG stands for random number generator. It's a simply function that calls a linear congruential algorithm to create pseudo-random numbers. If you wanted to find a random number between 1 and 100, and you wanted to get, say 22, every time you run that RNG function you have a 1% chance to get a 22. Your odds of improving never change.
ZOS believes that all players should have an equal chance to get fragments regardless of time spent in game. Therefore they've chosen to use an RNG system.
I really don't know what else to say to convey this super simple concept to you, and you've reverted to insults for several posts now, so I'll be calling this my last post for this thread. I hope this information helps to clear things up as to why we have RNG and not a system without replacement. Everyone plays differently, and ZOS believes we each get the same chance to obtain some items in game (obviously not all as we have gold and alliance points to obtain other things).
@MCMancub
I can see you're smart. I never insulted you, just your poorly reasoned argument. So do yourself a favor and actually stop and think about what you are saying, and how it applies to actually distributing valuable items equally. Maybe that's not what you want, maybe you like that it's not equal, but you're arguments don't make sense from the standpoint of saying one is "fair" and the other is not. Seriously. Think about it. Clear your head, come back to this thread tomorrow, and you will see that you're arguments in this case don't stand up to logic.Edited by jkemmery on July 30, 2015 7:36PM1 -
Oreyn_Bearclaw✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I actually think there is a lot to this idea. RNG can be terribly frustrating to say the least. With things like recipe fragments, I honestly dont care. They can be sold among players, and a little random wealth distribution doesnt bother me. For what its worth I have been doing 4 a day since patch and have got 5 (2 sets of duplicates, again not a big deal because I can trade).
With other types of items, helms, master weapons, etc, it absolutely does matter. Take Valkyn Skoria for example. I got my helm on my 16th run. That's pretty "lucky" from what I gather. I know people with well over a hundred runs that dont have one yet. Like it or not, this helm is part of the current meta for any DK trying to get a top spot on a leaderboard. Can you run trials without it? Of Course, but I promise that nearly all the DPS DKs (who make up about half of the top 10 on any leader boards atm) are wearing this piece. I know more than one person with a V14 DK alt that doesnt use it in trials because they can't get that darn helm. For Bind on Pickup items, I frankly love the idea of a small increase in drop rate for every completion. If you run CoA 100 times, you should get a freaking helm.
I have generally done alright by the RNG gods in this game, but my current frustration is with masters weapons. I have 2 (both useless weapons to me with terrible traits) after 50-60 VDSA/DSA runs. There are several builds I would love to run for certain situations, but there is no way to ever ensure I get the right masters weapon to do it. Is it the end of the world? Um, no because its a video game, but I do wish there was a better mechanism than random chance to get some of these BoP items.
Also, logic is not strong with some of the people in this thread. Don't let them bother you too much.
Edited by Oreyn_Bearclaw on July 30, 2015 7:46PM2 -
HungryHobo✭✭✭I saw D3 mentioned... ugh. Can't explain the pain I feel when I remember that game.
That is beside the point! I think it is fine.. Granted, I'm on the other end of the spectrum, I got my first frag on my 5th or 6th try. I have since got 3 more or something.
The "Hard work" you have put in has been a gamble. This is not a guarantee. You are taking 2 chances every 24 hours for a roughly 1/30 chance for a frag. You do have a chance to actually EARN it through the guild stores and compiling gold. There is a linear progression towards an end goal available in this game, namely earn gold to get your item.
My vast hours of playing D2 as a kid led me to crave these designs. You're playing as if there is no choice but to earn the frags on your own, via sheer RNG. The RNG is fine if there is a bypass, guild stores. The RNG is a bonus in this game that allows you to potentially gamble and find 60k instantly (at least in terms of frags, not necessarily in terms of monster shoulders...).
Overall, your hard work should have been going into accumulating enough wealth to buy the frags.. and every one you found on your own reduced the overall monetary goal you needed to attain.
If this game was like D3... where RNG was your one and only option... well.. that would be quite sad, and a compensation system would need to be enforced, at least for me to stay playing this game. But that is not how it works! And it is a roughly 1/30 chance for a frag! Not 1/1billion for an item you want with the right stats/base dmg #s / modifiers ect...0 -
HungryHobo✭✭✭Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »I actually think there is a lot to this idea. RNG can be terribly frustrating to say the least. With things like recipe fragments, I honestly dont care. They can be sold among players, and a little random wealth distribution doesnt bother me. For what its worth I have been doing 4 a day since patch and have got 5 (2 sets of duplicates, again not a big deal because I can trade).
With other types of items, helms, master weapons, etc, it absolutely does matter. Take Valkyn Skoria for example. I got my helm on my 16th run. That's pretty "lucky" from what I gather. I know people with well over a hundred runs that dont have one yet. Like it or not, this helm is part of the current meta for any DK trying to get a top spot on a leaderboard. Can you run trials without it? Of Course, but I promise that nearly all the DPS DKs (who make up about half of the top 10 on any leader boards atm) are wearing this piece. I know more than one person with a V14 DK alt that doesnt use it in trials because they can't get that darn helm. For Bind on Pickup items, I frankly love the idea of a small increase in drop rate for every completion. If you run CoA 100 times, you should get a freaking helm.
I have generally done alright by the RNG gods in this game, but my current frustration is with masters weapons. I have 2 (both useless weapons to me with terrible traits) after 50-60 VDSA/DSA runs. There are several builds I would love to run for certain situations, but there is no way to ever ensure I get the right masters weapon to do it. Is it the end of the world? Um, no because its a video game, but I do wish there was a better mechanism than random chance to get some of these BoP items.
Also, logic is not strong with some of the people in this thread. Don't let them bother you too much.
Agree! A token system or something would be nice for the Bind on Pickup gear. Although not revolutionary, it would be a system that allows people to make gearing goals... not gearing hopes.0 -
Soleya✭✭✭✭✭
✭HungryHobo wrote: »I saw D3 mentioned... ugh. Can't explain the pain I feel when I remember that game.
That is beside the point! I think it is fine.. Granted, I'm on the other end of the spectrum, I got my first frag on my 5th or 6th try. I have since got 3 more or something.
The "Hard work" you have put in has been a gamble. This is not a guarantee. You are taking 2 chances every 24 hours for a roughly 1/30 chance for a frag. You do have a chance to actually EARN it through the guild stores and compiling gold. There is a linear progression towards an end goal available in this game, namely earn gold to get your item.
My vast hours of playing D2 as a kid led me to crave these designs. You're playing as if there is no choice but to earn the frags on your own, via sheer RNG. The RNG is fine if there is a bypass, guild stores. The RNG is a bonus in this game that allows you to potentially gamble and find 60k instantly (at least in terms of frags, not necessarily in terms of monster shoulders...).
Overall, your hard work should have been going into accumulating enough wealth to buy the frags.. and every one you found on your own reduced the overall monetary goal you needed to attain.
If this game was like D3... where RNG was your one and only option... well.. that would be quite sad, and a compensation system would need to be enforced, at least for me to stay playing this game. But that is not how it works! And it is a roughly 1/30 chance for a frag! Not 1/1billion for an item you want with the right stats/base dmg #s / modifiers ect...
I have enough gold to buy them. I was using this as an example of the RNG in general. Especially since it's easy for me to keep track of how many writs I've done vs how many fragments I got. 76 writs to 0 fragments.
Buying an item with gold seems way less rewarding to a player than getting it by doing something in game.
As others said this could be aimed toward bound armor drops in dungeons as well. There is no other way to get them in game other than random luck after completing a dungeon. So no matter how hard you work, no matter how many times you do the dungeon, you could never receive one.0 -
Callous2208✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Um...I came from Archeage. Therefore the rng in this game is completely acceptable and fair in my mind. I still have nightmares about that RNG.0 -
MrGhosty✭✭✭✭✭The problem I have with these systems is we have no way of knowing just how "fair" or "equal" they are. We've seen obvious changes in drop rates of certain items so who's to say ZOS isn't doing something behind the scenes to control the drop rate.
I don't mean this to be a tin foil hat conspiracy aimed just at the OP, but I mean to say that ZOS appears to have weighted drop rates on the idea that everyone does it on all 8 characters. Some people don't have the time to put into getting all 8 characters max leveled ( I mean actual level, not lvl50 crafter) and so this system sucks.
I don't need a cry of "this isn't fair", i'm just pointing out what I feel to be a bad system. It's also worth pointing out, I feel, that fair and equal don't mean the same thing. All players currently have an equal chance to obtain an item based on RNG, but that doesn't make it fair. We will be guaranteed to never see anything better than RNG if people stop asking for it. So for those of you who don't like RNG sound out on a system you think could be amended into the RNG or replace it entirely.
"It is a time of strife and unrest. Armies of revenants and dark spirits manifest in every corner of Tamriel. Winters grow colder and crops fail. Mystics are plagued by nightmares and portents of doom."1 -
mrskinskull✭✭✭✭Slayer9292_ESO wrote: »I wanted to make a suggestion on what I thought would improve the random number generator. For this I want to use the example of Psijic Ambrosia recipe fragments.
I've done the provisioning writs twice per day (2 characters) since the release of the Psijic Ambrosia. I've found 0 fragments. My wife on the other hand has done it with 8 characters almost every day, and found 10 fragments. Granted, she'd done nearly 4 times as many as me, but I still have yet to find a single fragment and she's found 10. If the RNG was balanced, I should have found 2.5 fragments in the same time.
My suggestion is to increase your chance of finding a fragment for each writ you do on a character. So say first time I do a write I have a 1% chance to find it, next time I have a 2% chance, then 3, then 4 etc. Eventually I'll be guaranteed to find one. Once the person gets the fragment, reset the chance back to the beginning and start over.
I would suggest the same for other similar RNG's. Like finding an imperial motif. My wife has played more than I have (she has more time), and she has found 3 imperial motifs, I have found 0. It's not a looting issue either, as I have reached 600,000g in sales for the Black Market Mogul achievement, my wife is at less than 100k. I didn't find my first purple motif until after playing the game for 10 months. Chance to find rare items should increase longer you play until you find one.
Same could go for the dungeon boss helm drops. I've known people who've done the dungeon dozens if not 100's of times and never got a helm, and another player will get a helm the first time.
I tried to suggest the same thing in my local casino.
Didn't go well.0 -
Soleya✭✭✭✭✭
✭mrskinskull wrote: »I tried to suggest the same thing in my local casino.
Didn't go well.
Invalid comparison.
1. Video Game does not equal Casino. Primary objective of a game is for a player to have fun. Primary objective of a casino is to take your money.
2. Games like Blackjack your chances get better as you play if you can count cards. Which is why Casino's don't like you doing that. See the above description about Probability.
3. Slot machines don't use an RNG, they are programmed to pay out after enough has been paid in. So essentially the more you play the closer you get to winning something.Edited by Soleya on July 30, 2015 10:59PM0 -
UPrime✭✭✭✭What the OP is asking for is a streak breaker code. Which isn't unheard of. There are games that have those in combat accuracy for instance. But I don't know of any games that have it in drops mainly because it would have to track when you'd have last gotten the drops. It would also favor people that farm instead of playing 1 offs since the streak breaker would actually have a chance to trigger.
That being said, just by nature of how probability works, you do have a higher chance of getting a rare if you haven't gotten one in a while. So at a per item chance of getting it doesn't change, but the chance of NOT getting it x number of times in a row decreases as x increases.
Only in a system without replacement, like drawing cards until you get a 2. Every draw increases your chance. This system is not like that. This system is more like drawing to see if you get a 2. Didn't get it? Put it back, shuffle, and try again.
You're right in the sense that each drop by itself has same % drop chance. But what I'm talking about is the % chance of breaking a streak. So given something has a 10% chance to drop, you have 1 in 10 chances to get. So that means that on average you'll get the item after 9 times of not getting it. So as the streak of not getting it goes over 10 they're less and less likely to happen.0