Vorici stealth nerfed

Vorici has always been this bad.

Yes, a big set of data is necessary to confirm a buff/nerf. The bigger the data set, the better.

But do you really think this guy recorded his numbers last league in anticipation of a stealth nerf this league? No, that’s absurd.

Maybe consider that some of us have played this game for thousands of hours and know what things feel like. We can notice differences like this. Data or not, we still can still put the word out based on our experience. GGG won’t confirm things like this for us, so it really is up to our own observations.

I hope it's not true. GGG's getting rid of sockets and links anyway (PoE2 aka 4.0) so this would be stupid.

Vorici has been bad at 1-3 sockets, but adding in another 3 tiers of potential outcomes with 1 being the most common for each, means that if you're running t3 vorici after the new tier was added, it FEELS worse.

Whether it's a meaningful amount of nerf or not, can't be determined in only 25 runs.

There's probably a statistical equation that tells you how many Voricis you need to run with a 3 socket wep before you can expect to see 3W, based on how Vorici rolls white socket chances.

I'm guessing it's likely just a discrete weighted coinflip x (number of sockets after the first). Which is why you don't get better chances at white sockets on a 3L by going with a tier 4 Vorici.

In that case I'm guessing the sample size needs to be about 100, or quite possibly a lot higher to differentiate 1% from 4% and so forth.

"

DeepAlchemist wrote:

"

Astasia wrote:

Nah looks like it was stealth buffed. I watched a clip of Zizaran getting 5 white sockets on a 6 link first try. I saw it happen once so my perception of the RNG involved must be correct.

You have 1 sample. The thread poster has multiple. Of course some people may still be getting a 5 white sockets, doesn't mean they still didn't nerf it.

Your data sample is actually a lot less reliable than thread poster, since you seem to be relying on 1 instance of it happening. So, if some information would need to be discredited if any, it would be yours, more than the topic poster.

In reality though, your data may still have value, and could be added to the data sample pool.

The point I was making (using heavy sarcasm) is a sample size of 25 is just as trivial as a sample size of 1. When dealing with RNG mechanics like this you need thousands of samples over many players to even begin making any sort of guesstimate.

Every single league there are dozens of threads about people doing something a handful of times or doing something a relatively short amount of time and having bad luck and complaining something has been stealth nerfed. X map was nerfed, Y craft was nerfed, Z drops were nerfed, W mechanic doesn't spawn as much, etc. etc.

"

impulze3 wrote:

Sorry, these mechanics are not designed to be fun, they are designed to make you spend more time.

Welcome to the world of f2p btw.

"

impulze3 wrote:

If you design your mechanics to be as grindy as possible to get players to spend more time, you will not get players to spend more time. People will just get frustrated and quit

getting the player to waste as much time as possible while archiving nothing.

Sadly, this is the reality for a lot of gaming companies and they are trying to cash in on this model while not realizing the long-term effects. I want blame Blizzard/Activision for this but it doesn't even matter at this point.

I think we're unfortunately going to have to witness a couple more years or so of this before we see a paradigm shift.

"

DeepAlchemist wrote:

You have 1 sample. The thread poster has multiple. Of course some people may still be getting a 5 white sockets, doesn't mean they still didn't nerf it.

+1 This.

Arguing for RNG versus a small sample size with a counterexample of a far lesser sample size isn't productive. "Your sample size of 25 isn't meaningful. Look, my sample size of 1 disproves it." That's not helpful.

The original post here isn't that it never happens, only that it is happening more infrequently than in the past.

If there's debate over objectivity, then try to make a point with a significantly vaster sample size (say 1,000), or in some other way.

"

Astasia wrote:

"

DeepAlchemist wrote:

"

Astasia wrote:

Nah looks like it was stealth buffed. I watched a clip of Zizaran getting 5 white sockets on a 6 link first try. I saw it happen once so my perception of the RNG involved must be correct.

You have 1 sample. The thread poster has multiple. Of course some people may still be getting a 5 white sockets, doesn't mean they still didn't nerf it.

Your data sample is actually a lot less reliable than thread poster, since you seem to be relying on 1 instance of it happening. So, if some information would need to be discredited if any, it would be yours, more than the topic poster.

In reality though, your data may still have value, and could be added to the data sample pool.

The point I was making (using heavy sarcasm) is a sample size of 25 is just as trivial as a sample size of 1. When dealing with RNG mechanics like this you need thousands of samples over many players to even begin making any sort of guesstimate.

Every single league there are dozens of threads about people doing something a handful of times or doing something a relatively short amount of time and having bad luck and complaining something has been stealth nerfed. X map was nerfed, Y craft was nerfed, Z drops were nerfed, W mechanic doesn't spawn as much, etc. etc.

So to your point, players should engage in an absurd time consuming effort, in the thousands, unpaid for, to satisfy your sense of "valid" dataset entries, in order to make a point, negating years of experience beforehand?

How about GGG just publish these changes like so many other companies, giving the player an added agency of how they wish to spend their time?

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

Sounds like you've stopped playing for the fun of it, and are complaining that it's not fun anymore.

LOL