Perandus Coffer spawnrate nerfed?
|
Oh... I get it now... you're referring to the specific coffer type. Those are rare. You'll see a much higher variance with rare events.
|
|
|
after farming another 4 hours i stand my point.
For ME the coins-per-hour ratio in solaris is more than halfed than before the latest patch. and this is mostly because the special perandus box named "Perandus Coffer" is spawning like only once per hour. and this is pretty consistent surprisingly. edit: i want to make it pretty CLEAR! this is ONLY solaris farming. i haven't mapped a lot the last days (because of solaris farming) so i can't say ANYTHING about spawnrate in maps or other areas! Last edited by Ruefl2x#5824 on Mar 20, 2016, 8:06:24 AM
|
|
|
This user is right. It has lowered the payment of the last perandus I'm opening chests are paying 2 perandus. before he had come to take 120 perandus ..
removing these amounts should be 24 hours playing to get 1000. please check .. something is not right. |
|
|
I think we need a new sub forum reserved entirely for "is it just me or has *insert rng game mechanic* been nerfed?" Threads.
|
|
|
I demand Path of Exile no longer be free. There needs to be a required 3 week course on basic statistics in order to be allowed to download this game. These "is it just me?" posts push me the wrong way more than it should since people don't know how to read RNG is RNG properly.
"It's all clearer now
And I hear her now And I'm nearer to The Salvation Code" |
|
" I'll agree with people needing to take statistics, so long as the basic steps of the scientific process are branded into both arms. Think about the purpose of statistics - to look at the numerical frequency of various events and see if mathematical laws suggest a correlation. What's one of the first things they teach you in Statistics? Correlation is not causation. Anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, representative sample base, sample size etc are all valid concerns. However, even when you follow all the rules and all the noise in the data is minimized and the outliers thrown out, what you end up with is still correlation. Ye olde "Ice Cream sales increase drowning" case example. Science is concerned with actual cause and effect. The optimal hypothesis is falsifiable and doesn't require statistics (two word proof of that: litmus strip) In many experiments, this isn't possible, so we use statistics the probability of whether our purported causative effect is really doing what we think it is. So, now back to the science part of it. The first step of the scientific process is NOT NOT NOT NOT Ask a question. Teachers that promulgate this tripe should have their arms and legs branded with the scientific process. The first step is to make an observation. From that observation (or using other people's observations you then formulate a question. Without observation, we wouldn't have penicillin. Without observation lots of research time and money is wasted on bad questions. So, back to the OP's part in this. From a scientific standpoint - we have some observations by the OP. Let's take the quantifiable observations first: " Not a lot of data to work with, and if someone tried to plug it in statistically, it would be a non-starter. Given the paucity of information (how many runs (time per run), high and low coins netted on each run before or after, we can't even determine a standard deviation for the original Solaris runs to test whether the post patch runs are significantly different. From a scientific process standpoint, we can still formulate a question, Has the spawn rate of perandus coins been changed? Unfortunately, if we look at the observation data - we realize we don't have a way to falsify this. We don't have access to reverting back to a prior patch and testing it conclusively. We don't have enough data to even say this is a valid question worth spending our research time on. It is more of a qualitative observation at this point. Which is evidenced by the OP's statement: " The OP doesn't have the option of reversing the patch, so in order to proceed, the OP needs more data. Which is exactly what he asks for: " You might call it a meta analysis of anecdotal data, you could call it a waste of time. That doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. We don't have RNG tree rings, but there might be some recorded streams of people farming Perandus coffers before and after the patch with the same character in the same area. With thousands of players playing the game, there could be enough subjective data to draw some passable conclusions as well. (keep in mind many real world studies are done via polling and interviewing). The problem here is that we don't know if a large enough group of players will read this question, whether a large enough group will respond, and since that response is voluntary, then the statistical bias rules come into play. The OP could try to randomly poll players about their perandus coffer experience pre and post patch. Again, without some controls, that data would be statistically sketchy. So what might be a good method to watch for such potential changes? Have some players methodically log a lot of runs. The more players and more consistent the runs are the better. How do you get players do that? By raising the question on whether Perandus coffer frequency has been changed. It has happened with Maps before (people asking and players logging in order to find out), but most players usually don't want to spend the time and effort to do it right. How many samples it would take to determine that depends on how much variation is incorporated into the RNG. The more variation, the more samples needed. Eventually though, if it is true RNG, it will fall into a curve and we can say whether a set of data falls inside that curve. And that is all the OP is really asking. He may not be doing it in the most productive fashion, but he is following the scientific process of observing and formulating a question. Better observations lead to better questions, but all in all, I don't think we should fault people for speaking up and asking some basic questions. They may or may not know enough to realize that we need more and better data to even begin to dig into the question. On the other hand, we have people who never even notice when things change, and/or never bother asking questions about changes. IMO - I would rather have people paying attention and asking questions than people not paying attention and never raising any questions. In the real world, if scientists spend more time observing before asking their questions, our science would be a lot more productive. "Pure Science" may not be glamorous or lead to immediate benefits, but down the road, it provides the insight for practical science to progress. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
|
But my sample size is so big right - I have to be correct.
RNG LADS IS RNG. |
|
|
i found 5 coffers in solaris 1 1h ago
|
|
" A sub forum where people could ask about various PoE RNG factors, and could post their logged data would be interesting. With enough participation (such as we had during the chancing and fusing threads) we could get a rough idea of what various rates *were* (were-since GGG can alter them as needed to balance the game). "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
" ...Are you Sheldon? "It's all clearer now
And I hear her now And I'm nearer to The Salvation Code" |
|
