sparafucilsarwb17_ESO wrote: »

Hmm so what are the odds of pulling the exact same item in the exact same trait in the exact same weight from a chest 4 times in a row? (velidreth with training in heavy) Doesn't seem very random to me.

Transairion wrote: »

100% chance at a shoulder/helm and a 12.5% chance of being your desired trait isn't a bad trade, considering it was 50% chance at a drop or lower in the past. And outside shoulders, you can trade almost all of them (either in group or BOE).

SanTii.92 wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

ZOS is all of this intended, in regards to loot distribution of traits?

SanTii.92 wrote: »

Panth141 wrote: »

OP - would it be possible for you to post your actual data, please? Just the traits - I'd be interested in doing some statistics to see what the true figures are - accounting for error.

He is just lying. There is no possible way that with 500 keys he got 80% training and prosperous, not even remotly close.

Very much so possible, and a lot more common than you would imagine. RNG in ESO is not exactly as friendly and generous as you'd imagine. Case and point, look at VMA. People with over 800 runs, and never seen an inferno staff. Though that's a different loot table all in of itself, the fact still remains that the current state that ZOS is using for RNG is garbage.

false again, no one with 800 ma runs have never seen dropped an inferno staff.

code65536 wrote: »

Every PTS, I've spent a large (but still relatively small) amount of keys:

• Update 10
• Update 11
• Update 12

For example, in the Update 10 data, my silver keys yielded 38 shoulders. Perfect distribution would've been 5.4. The lowest from that batch was 2, the highest was 8. That's within the fairly narrow bounds of 5±3, but one is 4x higher than the other.

With the larger sample set of the Update 10 gold keys, perfect would've been 14.3, and the counts were 11 on the low end and 19 on the high end. It's actually a wider numeric spread, but the percentage spread is much less.

In the Update 11 data set, we're looking at 291 shoulders total. Here, the most interesting spread is that of Malubeth coming in with just 15 drops and Kena coming in with 31. Do you really think ZOS would go through the time and trouble to weight the tables (and if you knew how itemization works in ESO, you'll come to realize just how much extra work it would take for them to do that) to favor Kena 2-to-1 over Malubeth?

For the Update 12 data set, even with a large data set of 500 shoulders, there was still a pretty big numeric spread. Prosperous came in last with 56 drops, and Sturdy had the most, with 82. However, Update 12 was also the first update where I automated the logging of my drop-testing, and as a result, I still have the original raw log file of my testing on the Update 12 PTS.

Going through my log and looking at only the first 100 logged items (86 shoulders, 14 motifs), I see:

• Divines: 11 (vs. 78 in the final count)
• Infused: 17 (vs. 63 in the final count)
• Prosperous: 10 (vs. 56 in the final count)
• Reinforced: 13 (vs. 77 in the final conunt)
• Sturdy: 10 (vs. 82 in the final count)
• Training: 16 (vs. 70 in the final count)
• Well-Fitted: 9 (vs. 74 in the final count)

So, if we look at the distribution of the first 86 shoulders vs. the final distribution of 500 shoulders, we see that the front-runner after 86--Infused with 17--ends up 2nd-to-last with 63. Prosperous and Sturdy, which were tied for 2nd-to-last after 86 shoulders come out in first place (Sturdy) and last place (Prosperous) after 500. Folks, that's what randomness is.

If you get two groups of people together, and tell one group to flip a coin 100 times and jot it down, and tell the other group to pretend to flip a coin and jot down what they think a random distribution would be, you could tell which group did the actual coin flips because it's probably the one with long streaks of tails or heads. And the one without streaks and with a nice-and-even distribution is likely the one that was fabricated. People naturally want to avoid patterns when they are told to make up "random" data. That's not randomness.

The moral of the story, folks, is that randomness is not the same as a perfectly-even distribution. There will be streaks and droughts. There will be shapes in the clouds in the skies. And that's true randomness.

Addendum 1: And on the forums, the people most likely to post about their experiences are people who have been burned by the randomness. We hear a lot of "I spent 50 keys and didn't get what I want!", the people who get what they want after the first dozen keys usually don't bother to come here to vent.

Addendum 2: To clarify, RNG can be harsh--if you look at my log data from the Update 12 key openings, even after spending 200 keys on Maj's chest on the PTS, the best Kragh pieces that I got was heavy divines and medium infused--I didn't get a single BiS medium divines item. I'm not saying that RNG can't screw people over--it can and it often does, and that is a legitimate concern that ZOS should address (tokens!). What I am saying is that there is absolutely zero credible evidence of ZOS tipping the scales in favor of any particular set or trait.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

ZOS_RichLambert wrote: »

The drop rates are the same as on PTS and they are all equally weighted. Couple quick charts cause I know everyone loves them.

Undaunted Chest results since OneTamriel went live. (NA PC only for time)



...and seeing as @Deltia and his video was called out, here's exactly his breakdown over his 250 keys in the video.


Yeah RNG wasn't kind on the Divines or Training rolls for him, but he got a lot more impen and infused than normal.

This is where data can be manipulated by misplaced logic.

RNG is based on being applied to a single stream.
You have applied this globally as a single stream instead of individually as a single stream.
Hhhhm how to explain this in simple terms

The RNG is supposed to average out over time and hits.
But the hits/time are inconsistent as players only access a 'slice' of this RNG stream.
So applying RNG to say GLOBAL drop rates...
..is not the same as applying RNG to 'PERSONAL' drop rates.

What you have done is tainted the RNG into multiple streams instead of one.
Some streams (players) have more hits and time segments than others.
This lets some players get consistently more bad luck and some players consistently more good luck..
...but it does not balance out for them because the RNG source is tainted by others use.

@ZOS_RichLambert is right from a global point of view because RNG is being applied globally (hence the balanced GLOBAL distribution).
@Fengrush is right from an individual player point of view as the RNG source is tainted (hence the unbalanced PERSONAL distribution).

I could of course be completely insane and just messing with you
..but that's how I see it.

EDIT: Adding an example to demsonstarte what I am trying to say.
123451234512345 = Mean of 3 Normal
134525321423154 = Mean of 3 jumbled
Stream is sliced into 5 players round robin in order...
152 = Mean of 2.67 ~ Player 1
333 = Mean of 3.00 ~ Player 2
421 = Mean of 2.33 ~ Player 3 (Screwed)
515 = Mean of 3.67 ~ Player 4 (Blessed)
244 = Mean of 3.33 ~ Player 5
2.67 + 3.00 + 2.33 + 3.67 + 3.33 = 3.00 Global Mean
Now throw in the fact some players can have more than 3 number slices and others less.
Now throw in the fact it wont be round robin in reality.

Tendrielle wrote: »

As RNG often quite sucks from a single player's point of view, and a token system is much effort, dear @ZOS_RichLambert, when will come the day that we can alter the traits?
Only with a certain amount of gold, and special materials, of course, that drop in some trial or dungeon.
Can we hope for it?

s7732425ub17_ESO wrote: »

Maybe the RNG is seeded per players, and some players just get really bad RNG seeding.

Dracane wrote: »

I mainly receiced prosperous and training either.
So many people can't be wrong.

Prosperous should be crafter exclusive, like nirnhoned.