"
SaiyanZ wrote:
There is an important thing to note regarding the data collected from others. People mainly tend to share their map drop results when it's not the norm and stands out. i.e. little to no drops with high IIQ or lots of drops with low IIQ. It just takes a few of these outliers to skew the results and make IIQ seem insignificant with regards to map drops.
That's why I want to broaden the research in 2.2 and only include trusted community members. But, with all the negativity I've been receiving and that was partially sparked by Chris I start to doubt my intentions as to ever engage in any sort of PoE community work again. I understand that my research is only scratching the surface here. I'm also aware that there's so much more I could do in the future. But when certain community members as well the GGG lead developer himself keep implying or straight up accuse me of certain wrongdoings I question my motivation to further work for the community.
[2.4] Riff Raff - under 1ex Reave RT DoT Gladiator: http://poeurl.com/C6q
Last edited by Weißenberg#1537 on Feb 17, 2016, 6:07:44 AM
|
Posted byWeißenberg#1537on Feb 17, 2016, 6:06:57 AM
|
"
SaiyanZ wrote:
There is an important thing to note regarding the data collected from others. People mainly tend to share their map drop results when it's not the norm and stands out. i.e. little to no drops with high IIQ or lots of drops with low IIQ. It just takes a few of these outliers to skew the results and make IIQ seem insignificant with regards to map drops.
and another (known whiteknight) guy who just posts something without even trying to understand and/or read what the OP wanted to say.
the fact that even after chris' post the reddit thread still has 90% upvote ratio and that many ppl seem to have contacted GGG with the link shows that many ppl feel the same way and are unhappy with the map system as it is.
i wouldn't say there is a bug ... i actually think ggg is deliberately letting us suffer and keep the variance high and drops low to get us to spend most of our currency. This also means spreading partial misinformation on the relation of quantity and map drops letting us believe that it has a bigger impact than it actually has.
now that there is a website and script that lets you easily track everything we actually can see that the feeling we had is not that far off.
i can see ggg defending their system. because if ppl stop wasting currency on maps it failed!
edit:
is this realy turning into some wort of scientology shit?
as long as you participate as mindless drone you are fine but dare you start asking questions. they will track you down and destroy you.
pls keep up the good work!
Last edited by Ruefl2x#5824 on Feb 17, 2016, 6:15:22 AM
|
Posted byRuefl2x#5824on Feb 17, 2016, 6:07:37 AM
|
"
Ruefl2x wrote:
"
SaiyanZ wrote:
There is an important thing to note regarding the data collected from others. People mainly tend to share their map drop results when it's not the norm and stands out. i.e. little to no drops with high IIQ or lots of drops with low IIQ. It just takes a few of these outliers to skew the results and make IIQ seem insignificant with regards to map drops.
and another (known whiteknight) guy who just posts something without even trying to understand and/or read what the OP wanted to say.
the fact that even after chris' post the reddit thread still has 90% upvote ratio and that many ppl seem to have contacted GGG with the link shows that many ppl feel the same way and are unhappy with the map system as it is.
i wouldn't say there is a bug ... i actually think ggg is deliberately letting us suffer and keep the variance high and drops low to get us to spend most of our currency. This also means spreading partial misinformation on the relation of quantity and map drops letting us believe that it has a bigger impact than it actually has.
now that there is a website and script that lets you easily track everything we actually can see that the feeling we had is not that far off.
i can see ggg defending their system. because if ppl stop wasting currency on maps it failed!
This is a graph provided to me by one of the creators of Path of Maps. What it shows is map returns (all) per IIQ. Since the graph deliberately excluded pack size the results above 90% IIQ can't be taken seriously since there's not enough samples (according to the author). Is this graph lineair? Yes. Will it help you sustain your map pool especially when it comes to higher tiers? Unlikely, since the difference between 40% IIQ (a borderline magic/rare map) and 90% IIQ is visually less than 10%. It also noticeable that maps with 0% IIQ have an only slightly lower drop coefficient than maps with 50% IIQ. But, in the sense of IIQ increasing overall map drops Chris is right, he just forgot to mention that this was not the purpose of this research, which was mid-tier map sustainability.
[2.4] Riff Raff - under 1ex Reave RT DoT Gladiator: http://poeurl.com/C6q
|
Posted byWeißenberg#1537on Feb 17, 2016, 6:22:32 AM
|
"
Ruefl2x wrote:
"
Dos_Fafner wrote:
B) Your test is fundamentally flawed. The inherent map seeds are unknown to the player base but we can infer, based on GGG's cryptic information, that the higher tier maps have a lower chance to drop maps when compared to lower tier maps. If the goal is to strictly analyze the effect of IIQ on map drops a good test would compare only same level maps with different IIQ's. The "best" test would compare only identical maps with different IIQ's. Simply put: different maps, different level maps and different IIQ's is not a solvable equation. Drawing a conclusion on IIQ would require making at least the map level a fixed variable.
i don't think this is true.
ppl were complaining that high tier maps didn't drop enough maps in the range which probably has more to do with more potential maps being able to drop (# of various maps/tiers) the higher you get.
meaning: in a 68 map you have a 50/50 (%) chance of dropping either a 68 or 69. in a 78 map your chances are 1/12 to drop a specific tier.
i THINK what ggg did was to increase the chance of getting maps in your range (or lessen the chance of getting way too low maps. whatever).
Also OP said "sustaining" so i think the range he applied for his test is appropriate.
another thing is: you assumed that the same map always has the same amount of mobs. this is most likely not true. also we dont know if different mobs have different chances of dropping maps (spawn of seawitches for example). you also can't influence the amount of strongboxes and shrines that randomly appear. so OP did the correct thing and used the average which also reflects the "reality of mapping".
also if you can't solve an equation you use data points to approximate the solution/function. another thing the OP did right here.
there is no need to whiteknight map drops. the system is flawed. but it seems to be a good way for ggg to force players to spend all their currency on it.
PS:
a fixed variable is called constant.
My own experience has been that higher maps drop less maps period - not equal lower maps with fewer same level, but less total in general. I am not "whiteknighting" map drops just pointing out some inherent flaws in this "analysis" - Chris's post would seem to indicate that he agrees that something is off about this data set and the conclusions being drawn. I indicated that fixing the map level would be necessary for said research and it is. I am not assuming that identical maps have the same mob quantities, however, a "best" case test would still utilize only identical maps to ensure only the IIQ is effecting the drops. My own view on the matter is that map drops in 100+% IIQ maps are not high enough. GGG, however, stated that they do not want these drops to be rewarding but in fact desire them to be "punishing." Ergo, while I do not like the current drop system, I think that GGG does.
PS:
Wrong. A fixed variable is just that - it is a variable in a problem that you set to a specific value. A constant does not require any assumptions to be made as it is always the same value. The number 2 is a constant. Saying "assume X=2" is fixing a variable. Thank you for playing.
|
Posted byDos_Fafner#3176on Feb 17, 2016, 6:29:59 AM
|
"
Opinionated wrote:
"
Chris wrote:
This thread has been linked to us a lot of times today and we're worried that it might be spreading misinformation.
You said "Not all map drops were being included in the research data", and then conclude that higher IIQ doesn't help much. Can you post your raw sample data that includes all map drops? IIQ is linear on items and maps. Note that the map boss has a chance of an extra map, which can bias the data if you don't take it into account.
Our concern is that people will read the thread and think that IIQ doesn't help (when it significantly does, as your data should show when you look at all the drops) and then receive fewer maps, further increasing the complaints about drop rate.
I sincerely hope I do not sound like an asshole.
If you are worried about misinformation spreading, why don't you release the correct information?
This^
Like please say whether a map has a fixed seed base chance to drop maps, which is then augmented by the mods on the map.
Or if there indeed is a variable seed which we have no control over, which gives a varying base chance to drop maps, which is then augmented by the mods on the map.
Resulting in a 'bad' seed dropping no maps regardless of huge pack size and quantity, and resulting in a 'good' seed raining maps from a shitty un-chiselled blue map.
Casually casual.
|
Posted byTheAnuhart#4741on Feb 17, 2016, 6:33:53 AM
|
"
VallenChaosValiant wrote:
"
Chris wrote:
This thread has been linked to us a lot of times today and we're worried that it might be spreading misinformation.
Why do you care? GGG had NEVER tried to offer correct information, isn't the whole point about us getting the wrong information, being part of GGG policy? Like that famous case of how scour orbs interact with master crafting, which was intentionally kept incorrect and deceived thousands of players for a year because GGG "didn't want to correct misinformation".
I can say outright that you are wrong. We can spread as much misinformation as we want. Your job is to keep silent and ban anyone trying to spread the truth, that is what your boss wants. (Edit: I see that it was Chris himself I was replying to. It seems Chris was being schizophrenic and didn't remember what his views are about how he approved of player misinformation a few months back.)
Disagree? Then release the data officially. Because telling us "you are wrong" when you want us to speculate and guess without any facts, is meaningless. That's what happens when you keep things hidden, we come up with conclusions you don't like. If you don't enjoy being misrepresented then offer us something in return.
This
Sorry Chris, but you just got served
Favourite armour? Hmmm, I forget it's name, but it's that scarlet one that whatsherface wears when she wants to look splendid.
I like Marmite.
|
Posted byTúrinTurambar#4000on Feb 17, 2016, 8:48:55 AM
|
|
my 2 cents:
you use the term "sustain my current map pool" which means you never run out of maps in that tier category by giving you at least 1 map of the same tier per map run.
so, for the average player keeping his map tier and the game being able to spawn you a cartographer box potentially giving you an average of 10 maps of the same tier or higher, you have to run 10 maps without any drop.
for me, it's the strongbox system (which is needed so the players gets some special gratification) which introduces the heavy up and downs in your map tier pool.
---
then you say you excluded lower tier maps from your map drop count. you can do so but then you also have to count every higher tier drop as 2 maps per tier increased as it is worth more.
but then the question remains if that's still valid statistics you did there. especially since the lower tier maps you excluded could potentially return you maps from the same map tier again, even if they are 2 tiers lower.
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
|
Posted byvio#1992on Feb 17, 2016, 9:33:02 AMAlpha Member
|
"
TúrinTurambar wrote:
"
VallenChaosValiant wrote:
I can say outright that you are wrong. We can spread as much misinformation as we want.
This
Sorry Chris, but you just got served
are you both really sure about what you say?
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
|
Posted byvio#1992on Feb 17, 2016, 9:58:01 AMAlpha Member
|
"
vio wrote:
"
TúrinTurambar wrote:
"
VallenChaosValiant wrote:
I can say outright that you are wrong. We can spread as much misinformation as we want.
This
Sorry Chris, but you just got served
are you both really sure about what you say?
are you really sure, to shorten VallenChaosValiant post, to one sentence? And ask TurinTurambar and VallenChaosValiant about this... o.O ?
|
Posted byMajere#1876on Feb 17, 2016, 10:52:21 AM
|
|
GGG changes the drop rates of anything they feel like changing ON THE FLY , these result will be irrelevant the second someone from GGG thinks that you are close to figuring out the casino odds .
It's just like a casino , the house always wins .
Run .... run you fools .
R.I.P 4.B. Last edited by tryhardgg#7333 on Feb 17, 2016, 12:11:18 PM
|
Posted bytryhardgg#7333on Feb 17, 2016, 12:10:55 PM
|
