Vorici stealth nerfed

"

absurdistan88 wrote:

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?

No, players should engage in a bit of common sense and look around to see what other players are seeing to form a collective of data sets before making a claim that GGG is awful and nerfed the fun out of the game.

How many threads do you see about Vorici socket chances on the forum? How many people are agreeing that it feels nerfed? How many times in total have all those people attempted it? It's pretty obvious it was not stealth nerfed based on the limited noise being made about it, just like cemetery wasn't stealth nerfed, and whatever else one or two random people are claiming was stealth nerfed in other threads.

I can never understand statistics and probability and RNG whatever you have.

If you say something has a chance of 10% is it:
1/10
10/100
100/1000
1000/10000 etc

If you do something for 9000 times and then only get the 10% for the last 1000 out of a total of 10000 times, then it's still 10%, no?

Sorry just hoping smarter people can explain to me how it works in games.

"

eosguy wrote:

I can never understand statistics and probability and RNG whatever you have.

If you say something has a chance of 10% is it:
1/10
10/100
100/1000
1000/10000 etc

If you do something for 9000 times and then only get the 10% for the last 1000 out of a total of 10000 times, then it's still 10%, no?

Sorry just hoping smarter people can explain to me how it works in games.

Its even better, you can even never get it and it will still be 10%. You have 10% chance to get it on every, single try but that also means you have 90% chance to not get it.

Thats why sample size of 25 or even 2500 is laughable at best. We could talk with about 25 000 000. That would be good enough. Thats why those "stealth nerf" topics are so stupid. I didnt 6 link anything 3rd league in a row, using like 20k fusing in total does that mean it was stealth nerfed? Hell no. Im just unlucky. Somebody else got it in 1st try, does that mean it got stealth buffed? Also no. We tend to see only the bad outcome and forget every single time we got lucky.

The moment people accepted that a game having no single player, no moddability and no tcp/ip as normal it was over. Customers happily surrendered control of their gaming experience to someone else, out of fear of piracy. Or at least that was the justification given by the industry as far as i've read.

I've seen people here gloat about how d2r supposedly failed. It did not. It was made to have no tcp/ip out of spite - if blizz could not have lasting monetization, their customers should not have lasting enjoyment of their product. As is the case with warcraft 3 reforged's continuous lack of custom campaigns.

This attitude of treating their customers as targets to be exploited and squeezed dry as much as possible is ubiquitous in the business nowadays. Apart from blizz and ggg, creative assembly recently released a special warhammer 3 total war pre release denuvo patch, that, according to content creators, has as much as 50% worse performance.

Games as a service is in no way an excuse for its malicious implementation. Guess what - poe could be opened to its players and ggg could make money by selling each major content patch, charging more for an expansion, instead of praying on people's compulsive disorders and addictive personalities. As for the security argument, if you really think poe's economy is not infested with bots or, worse, real people stuck on below minimum wage and treated as slave bots, i have a bridge to sell you.

meanwhile I get this on my first Vorici this league.

100% of my T4 Vorici attempts have ended with 1 white socket this league.

"

Astasia wrote:

"

absurdistan88 wrote:

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?

No, players should engage in a bit of common sense and look around to see what other players are seeing to form a collective of data sets before making a claim that GGG is awful and nerfed the fun out of the game.

How many threads do you see about Vorici socket chances on the forum? How many people are agreeing that it feels nerfed? How many times in total have all those people attempted it? It's pretty obvious it was not stealth nerfed based on the limited noise being made about it, just like cemetery wasn't stealth nerfed, and whatever else one or two random people are claiming was stealth nerfed in other threads.

Surely you can see the flaw in that. If any thread creation is conditioned upon other similar ones.

Sometimes notions are fresh off the bat and a thread is created to enquire about or speak to a perceived issue. There are no validators in the early process or ongoing ones.