The RNG deception.

"

Powertrip wrote:

"

demivion wrote:

"

Idioticus wrote:

Would it really mess things up badly if it were a fixed value,

yes, it would.

/thread


ever heard of Vegas? The gamble is the fun, without it you'd have a boring piece of crap game.

it's cute how much you guys defend the game, but at least throw in some common sense with a counter point every now and again. For flavour.

People go to Vegas to gamble. To chance small amounts of money in the hope of obtaining large amounts. The intention is to gamble

If I say, go to a Japanese sword smith, and comission a Katana, there is not a chance that I get a bayonette, or if the technique uses 100 metal folds, a chance that he uses 80. Crafting is a precise science. There is no gambling involved.

again, stand firm with the defense, but temper it with some sensibility.

Stupid analogy is quite stupid.

If you come to this game and try and fuse something, you know it's a gamble because that is how it was designed to work.

Comparing it to something that is not a gamble is pointlessly stupid.

"

Alternalo wrote:

If you want to max out the number of stats a rare item can have it cost you 2-3 exalts at max, not to mention you have to regal only 1 time if you start from a magic item.

.
.
.


One side you have predictable and garantued succes rates and in the other side you have a full gambling system, this is what bothers ppl.

I'm sure there are 1000s of people who exalted thorns onto their uber item that want to punch you in the face for calling it guaranteed success.

+1

If I'm forced to trade I'd rather just go play D3 instead, where trading isn't such a hassle.
RNG obsession and stupidious grind doesn't give the game longevity, yet they rely on it so much that is actually backfires.

"

Idioticus wrote:

There are many "justifications" for having jeweller's and fusings work in a random fashion.

Would it really mess things up badly if it were a fixed value, 50% of those who attempt to link their stuff are already curbstomping the concept that getting links should be "hard".

Asking for crafting costs to be set to fixed values is a lost cause. We all know GGG is not going to eliminate RNG from crafting.

Here's an alternative solution that GGG might actually accept:

Instead of using a completely unpredictable RNG algorthm, change it to a pseudo-random number generator. With a PRNG, every possible result occurs exactly once in a randomized sequence that wraps around from end to beginning. While the short-term odds of getting a 6L would be no better than before, if you keep pulling the crank you'll eventually hit one of the 6L results in the PRNG sequence.

With a PRNG, each time you start rolling the dice, you choose a random starting point (a "seed") somewhere in the pseudo-random sequence. Each consecutive roll of the dice after that progresses another step in the predetermined pseudo-random sequence. To keep things exciting, GGG could make it so that a new random seed is chosen each time you start a gambling session with an item. That would reward you with better PRNG odds for saving up your orbs for a single marathon session, rather than gambling with a few orbs every once in a while.

@RogueMage: In other words, exactly like finding a specific card in a deck of cards, without shuffling used cards back in.

To which I say: hell no. That's still essentially a guaranteed system. I'm not necessarily against increasing odds with multiple uses, but never to it reaching the extent you are talking about.

"

Qiox wrote:

Stupid analogy is quite stupid.

If you come to this game and try and fuse something, you know it's a gamble because that is how it was designed to work.

Comparing it to something that is not a gamble is pointlessly stupid.

Comparing a system that is called crafting but isn't to actual crafting is stupid. Well, this is the internet, and people like you do exist I suppose.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@RogueMage: In other words, exactly like finding a specific card in a deck of cards, without shuffling used cards back in.

To which I say: hell no. That's still essentially a guaranteed system.

Yes, it is like leafing through a deck of cards that was shuffled once before you start. However, the result is not necessarily as guaranteed as you might assume - it all depends on how many cards are in the deck.

For example, say the chance of a 5L is 1 in 1000. If you simulated this with a thousand-item pseudo-random list that contained a single 5L entry, you'd be guaranteed to find it within 1000 tries. But consider a million-item pseudo-random list that contains 1000 5L entries, all pseudo-randomly scattered throughout the list. While it would take an average of 1000 tries to find the next 5L entry, there's no worst-case guarantee - with an unlucky starting seed, it could easily take two or three thousand tries.

"

Qiox wrote:

"

Idioticus wrote:

Why does something that everyone needs to do be random? How many of you have 0 linked gems?

Everyone does not need to fuse their own 6L. And, can't believe I have to actually tell you this, the alternative to a 6L is not a 0 linked gem!

If you want a 6L but don't want to play the fuse gamble, then buy one.

Simple as that.

"

Idioticus wrote:

"

citress wrote:

because there is fun in the unexpected. if you just got a 6l after a defined amount of fusings, it wouldn't be interesting. plus you don't NEED a 6l.

"

Idioticus wrote:

My point is, WHY does it have to be a gamble. I'm fine with drops, and by extension all mod crafting, being random.

"

Idioticus wrote:

Also, I am only using 6L as an example because the numbers are a bit dramatic. People just don't care if someone had to use 80 fusings to get a 4L.

Read before responding.

Read before responding.

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@RogueMage: In other words, exactly like finding a specific card in a deck of cards, without shuffling used cards back in.

To which I say: hell no. That's still essentially a guaranteed system.

Yes, it is like leafing through a deck of cards that was shuffled once before you start. However, the result is not necessarily as guaranteed as you might assume - it all depends on how many cards are in the deck.

For example, say the chance of a 5L is 1 in 1000. If you simulated this with a thousand-item pseudo-random list that contained a single 5L entry, you'd be guaranteed to find it within 1000 tries. But consider a million-item pseudo-random list that contains 1000 5L entries, all pseudo-randomly scattered throughout the list. While it would take an average of 1000 tries to find the next 5L entry, there's no worst-case guarantee - with an unlucky starting seed, it could easily take two or three thousand tries.

Very nice response. I'd be down with something closer to the second system, but in all honesty, I don't think it should be a high dev priority at all; it would actually take quite a bit of programming to track previous orb usage for almost a billion applicable items. Actually, I'd be a little upset if I found they were working on this; the current system is fine, and there are more important things to do.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Very nice response. I'd be down with something closer to the second system, but in all honesty, I don't think it should be a high dev priority at all; it would actually take quite a bit of programming to track previous orb usage for almost a billion applicable items. Actually, I'd be a little upset if I found they were working on this; the current system is fine, and there are more important things to do.

The current system is not fine.

Can you explain to me how a system where some people get their links done in just a fraction of the orbs other people use is fine?

I implore you to stream your play, take 30 exalted orbs and destroy them, then buy a 4L. In the current system this is possible, and there will eventually (if not already) be someone to whom this will happen or has happened.
Do this, then you can say the current system is fine.