The RNG deception.

rng doesnt discriminate, a fixed or semi-fixed system does. while non-guarantees can be daunting and disheartening, satisfaction doesnt always mean health. forseen or not, there is always a sacrifice with any system.

"

stayflyazn wrote:

rng doesnt discriminate, a fixed or semi-fixed system does. while non-guarantees can be daunting and disheartening, satisfaction doesnt always mean health. forseen or not, there is always a sacrifice with any system.

RNG does discriminate, if it didn't, everyone would spend the exact same amount of fusings to get certain amount of links.

You don't look at the starting point, you look at the results.

"

Idioticus wrote:

RNG does discriminate, if it didn't, everyone would spend the exact same amount of fusings to get certain amount of links.

You don't look at the starting point, you look at the results.

you dont look at the start or the end, you look at "who". a person can spend one fuse for their first 6 link, but 1000 on their next. if the rng is random enough and ppl had countless amount of fusings and 6 linked 2 items, the graph of the number of fusings used among the population should look like a bell curve. one person can use less than the average for both 6 links, one person can use more, another can be in the middle or at both ends. point is, any person can be at any point with either 6 link. now lets say that it were fixed or semi-fixed. the graph would end up looking like a curve of playtime per player that ends up being positive. now, one would observe that those that play more have an increased likelihood to get a six link. that is discrimination.

I would much prefer to see a crafting system where it's a mix of RNG and "fixed" so to speak. Clearly pure RNG-based progression is simply maddening and really devalues the crafting portion of the ARPG equation to the point that you cause massive inflation on currency rates (in PoE anyway, because currency is also crafting supply).

My suggestion for this particular scenario is to make it so that progression on an item is saved and linear, but that each level of progression is done through pure RNG.

What I mean by that is with linking items, for example, You start wtih say a 5S 2L item. From this point normally if you use a fuse you could stay the same, get more links, or lose the 1 link you currently have. My suggestion would make it so that you will either A) stay the same (a "failed" RNG roll) or B) gain additional links, but you cannot lose links that you already have.

The rates for a 5L and 6L should actually be adjusted to be slightly lower than where they currently are for this scenario, as your progress can't really be lost.

You could either go for a pure linear progression (you must get a 2L, then 3L, then 4L, ect) or you can make a hybrid of the current system of being able to "jump" tiers of sockets/links.

My idea would look something like:

2L = 75% chance per fuse
3L = 25% chance per fuse
4L = 10% chance per fuse
5L = 2% chance per fuse
6L = .01% chance per fuse

Start process
>fuse used
Step1
RNG rolls for 2L = succeed/fail?
Step2
RNG rolls for 3L = succeed/fail?
Step3
RNG rolls for 4L = succeed/fail?
Step4
RNG rolls for 5L = succeed/fail?
Step5
RNG rolls for 6L = succeed/fail?
Step6
>game applies highest tier link that rolled successfully.

If you were to start with say, a 3L, using the above scenario the game would automatically start on step3 and progress from there, the same for 4L and 5L items. I would say sockets & jeweler's should get a similar treatment. These numbers are just kind of pulled out of my ass but I think they actually do represent a fairly reasonable progression.

Pros of this system:

>All crafting supplies hold significant value to all players (not just the ones that can amass 1000s of orbs) as it's still possible to easily blow currency playing the RNG.

>Currency is never truly "wasted" in the sense that if you get a 4L or 5L item as a drop you don't have to NOT craft it simply because you don't have 10 ex worth of currency to blow, you
can always try your luck with RNG to get a 6L/6S.

>It allows player to progress much easier with the content, providing concrete rewards for playing the system and not have to fear that they're going to get completely shafted by the RNG gods making their 5L a 2l at the end.

>It lessens the need to trade to acquire end-game gear. The top items will likely still need to be traded for, plus there's a strong unique market so trading is not going to be in any danger.

Cons of this type of system:

>There will be more 5L/6L items floating around. Even though they would actually take just as much if not more currency to roll on average, without the fear of losing everything there will be more people just making attempts to roll it.

>Trade market for 5L/6L items will be devalued a bit (this isn't necessarily a bad thing)

>rates for all crafting would need to be adjusted so that the market doesn't get overloaded with 5L/6L and 5S/6S items.

"

Cronk wrote:

People do not play lotteries 24/7. People play lotteries for about 30 minutes a week.

Agreed.

The thing is, I could understand the reasoning for extreme odds if the house had something to gain from it (selling orbs). GGG can only lose from the odds, though. It needs a steady player base to sustain a free to play model. Frustrating players and making them feel playing the game isn't worth the time is counterproductive to this end. There will always be those people in games that will trade and scam and RMT their way to the things that aren't accessible to most players, but I don't think catering to the epeen stroking of that segment of the playerbase will make a sustainable model. Not to say I want it at the other end of the spectrum, where everything is easily attainable with a little effort. There's a middle ground that must be found if this ethical MTx thing is going to work.

Otherwise, they should just sell orbs. They've created massive demand.

"

stayflyazn wrote:

"

Idioticus wrote:

RNG does discriminate, if it didn't, everyone would spend the exact same amount of fusings to get certain amount of links.

You don't look at the starting point, you look at the results.

you dont look at the start or the end, you look at "who". a person can spend one fuse for their first 6 link, but 1000 on their next. if the rng is random enough and ppl had countless amount of fusings and 6 linked 2 items, the graph of the number of fusings used among the population should look like a bell curve. one person can use less than the average for both 6 links, one person can use more, another can be in the middle or at both ends. point is, any person can be at any point with either 6 link. now lets say that it were fixed or semi-fixed. the graph would end up looking like a curve of playtime per player that ends up being positive. now, one would observe that those that play more have an increased likelihood to get a six link. that is discrimination.

Because someone with a 10000 fusings to spend surely doesn't have a better chance at getting a 6L than someone with 1.

I guess we should somehow make a limit on how many fusings a player can use in their lifetime, so as not to discriminate those who can't afford fusings.

.

How about letting the iLvl of an item determine the frequency of 6 linking?
This could be balanced through the introduction of gem level hardcaps used in the item.

Casual Player

Hmmm, I need a 6 link. If I can get this "half decent" chest to six it would really let me muck around a bit more, experiment, try new things and hopefully let me progress that bit further through the game. I can live with gems needing to be capped at 15/16 for the sake of getting my build up and running.

Hardcore Player

Unchanged & unaffected.
Hardcores are really only going to chase iLvl 70+ six links anyway, which would be unaffected by gem cap. Noobs are still no threat because all they're linking are hardcore player's vendor rares anyway.

*Not sure how current/future Uniques would work under this scenario however*

Anyway, just a thought. Not a perfect solution or idea by any means.

0.13% per fuse is retarded.. it should be atleast 0.25%
and you might say thats barely a difference...
its actually not.

and now this quality crap.. higher Q more chance.. great ANOTHING thing i have to buy thousands of to 6link fucking fuck fuckidy fuck im mad xD

"

Idioticus wrote:

Because someone with a 10000 fusings to spend surely doesn't have a better chance at getting a 6L than someone with 1.

I guess we should somehow make a limit on how many fusings a player can use in their lifetime, so as not to discriminate those who can't afford fusings.

with a rng, having more fusing gives you more chances, not a better chance. the problem isnt the rng, its the accessibility. if it were raining fusings, ppl wouldnt be complaining as much even if the chances to 6 link were to be slimmer.