[Research] Map increased item quantity (IIQ% ) and its role in map sustainability

"

ZaM wrote:

2) GGGs IIQ formula might be favouring the lower end of the map pool (I agree that these maps are useless but it would be nice to confirm), thus you may be skewing your analysis.

That would be an even bigger fuckup from GGG: to withhold such an important piece of information about how IIQ is supposed to work is a big "fuck you" to its playerbase.

What this research shows is that GGG is likely to have a major bug in their programming of the IIQ in connection to map drops. Rather than relying on the programming yielding the intended results (which can be hard to even verify for GGG if the code is very large), they should do tests in practice and then check whether or not the results match their actual intent.'


GGG: do tests, thx.

probably the "low quantity" should have been 0% quantity instead of <60% .. to better notice the effect .. but i can see one wouldnt like to 'waste ' his maps with 0Quantity

"

ObscureBalrog wrote:

probably the "low quantity" should have been 0% quantity instead of <60% .. to better notice the effect .. but i can see one wouldnt like to 'waste ' his maps with 0Quantity

Here's the problem, I had a much higher number of high IIQ% runs all of which had at least single pack size. In order to match the pack size % (that I knew has a significant influence on map drops) I had to roll my low IIQ% maps.

"

ObscureBalrog wrote:

probably the "low quantity" should have been 0% quantity instead of <60% .. to better notice the effect .. but i can see one wouldnt like to 'waste ' his maps with 0Quantity

By using only rares, you remove any "hidden" effects from having white or blue vs rare. The bug could be at different positions. It could be that all rares get a base bonus quantity that cannot be modified despite the "visuals" stating that it has been modified.

If the data is available, can you conduct a similar analysis on the effect of pack size?

I. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, GGG doesn't want us to figure things out on our own in this case, instead they have clearly stated that map iiq does affect map drops. Your hypothesis is then that there is a bug in effect, I guess?

II. A Waste Pool dropping from a Waste Pool is not necessarily the same probability as a Residence dropping from a Residence, and a Springs dropping from a Plateau is not the same probability as a Cells dropping from a Plateau, yet you are simply adding these together and drawing premature conclusions.

III. Different map types have different base number of monsters in them, your calculation does not seem to control for this in any way.

IV. Your claim that the difference seen in the higher map tier is explained by pack size differences is not supported by any calculations and looks more like a hunch.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate your enthusiasm doing all this but this seems closer to disinformation to me reinforcing the preconceptions of some players than actual evidence for anything.

I always said that since i first time high level mapped anyway.. one thing is that it does not affect map drops much but another thing is that it is easier to sustain maps because of other drops it actually affects. ;)

Thanks for this interesting analysis !

are you sure ~200 maps are enough to conclude things ? i would rather trust an analysis of 4000+ maps than 200, since the variance in map drops seems to be very high

I think the interesting thing here is only taking higher tier maps into account. There does seem to be evidence that you will in fact get more maps of some sort with higher IIQ, but who cares about low tier maps once they are doing higher tiers?

I'd like to see some more clarification on this, and some more data.

.