RNG-itis: a cure without (notably) changing probability

"

Courageous wrote:

"

This is all basic theory. I can cite sources if you want to argue about this.

To be candid, I don't particularly care for the way that you interact with me. It is rude. We need not interact further, insofar as you insist on continuing to be condescending.

I think if there's any tone in my words it's frustration, not condescension. You're the one who insisted he was a business person, turning this argument into something totally irrelevant and you're the one who implied that there was something wrong with GGG's random number generation. I've made... or tried to make logical arguments against either claim, not steer things in random directions to justify my points.

You're not the first person to bring up the "problems" with "randomness" in video games. Frankly, the concept irritates me. People play this word game of, "randomness makes games less fun", yet, most competitive games I know of thrive on randomness. When you kick a ball in soccer/football, the ball obeys the laws of physics, but the coefficient of friction is not evenly distributed on the field. There are also many other factors. If everything were streamlined; made predictable and assured by some grand formula, the game would grow stale.

So far, everyone including me has proposed solutions to the proposed problems of "randomness not being fun" but we have failed to justify why we deserve 5/6 linked items, why we deserve to easily get the right color sockets on our gear, why we deserve more uniques and more/better drops. I don't think we can justify that. It's up to GGG to determine what they think is fair because we as players will always want more than that.

"

You're the one who insisted he was a business person, ...

There you go again.

Really dude, you need to chill. You're too deep into wanting to "justify points," and too far away from listening, conversation, and interchanging ideas. For example. Did I say the above? No.

Sometimes when we argue with others, we let our imaginations get away with us, and start arguing against things we have inside our head, instead of having a conversation with another human being. Consider that.

RNG should be part of the game, but to what extent is debatable. At the moment, PoE is like a temple dedicated to RNG, it pushes RNG on you at every step, so I'd say it is in excess.

And it is not about "deserving" 5L etc. items. It is about working hard enough to obtain one. So, now what exactly is hard enough? Whatever the exact quantity, it should be finite, players would be happier to know that at the end of a long and hard grind there is a certain reward. As of now, at the end of the long grind there is a casino with slots machines, where you can risk your hard work with an abysmal chance of winning. This is not how you reward hard working, dedicated players.

Again, RNG should be clearly a big part of PoE, but not bruteforced on everything like it is now, instead it should be cleverly intertwined with guaranteed rewards.

Also, breaking your gear should not happen. I'd propose a rare-ish "Orb of Remembrance" (or something), that when applied on an item, it would remember its parameters, and the item would gain an additional property, something like "Ctrl+Shift+Click to discard all changes made to the original item". Then you'd use your fusings etc., and if things work out badly, you would just get back the original item. You already lost the orbs, no need to be punished for what is not your fault (bad RNG) with an item too.
However, this orb would be but a start.

"

Courageous wrote:

"

You're the one who insisted he was a business person, ...

There you go again.

Really dude, you need to chill. You're too deep into wanting to "justify points," and too far away from listening, conversation, and interchanging ideas. For example. Did I say the above? No.

Sometimes when we argue with others, we let our imaginations get away with us, and start arguing against things we have inside our head, instead of having a conversation with another human being. Consider that.

Sure is ad hominem.

My arguments speak for themselves, whether you like to hear them or not. If you don't want to justify your beliefs, that's fine. I care enough about this game to try and make reasonable statements towards its benefit. If you don't want to take this seriously and just want to complain about RNG, this forum is for that too, but whenever I whine about something I dislike, I try to make it known I'm simply whining. Because nothing good comes from the mixing of rational argument and an emotional response.

Just lower the drop chance of chromatics, a lot.

Now make each chromatic affect only one slot and you choose the color.

Same with fusings, lower drop rate a lot.

Each fusing only pertains to one link (make or break link depending on what player needs/wants)

Last but not least jewelers, lower the drop rate.

Each jeweler can make one slot.

You have now effectively removed RNG from ability layout. You can control the crafting with drop rates.

Also address the formulas from the vendors on those orbs. Make them a lot harder to get. I would rather spend an afternoon farming for one orb than have a mountain of them that I now have to click orb/item 1k times for a "chance".

why cure something that isnt a disease?

RNG is RNG, sometimes i hate it sometives i love it, its gamblin :)

"

Tarmalen wrote:

Just lower the drop chance of chromatics, a lot.

Now make each chromatic affect only one slot and you choose the color.

Same with fusings, lower drop rate a lot.

Each fusing only pertains to one link (make or break link depending on what player needs/wants)

Last but not least jewelers, lower the drop rate.

Each jeweler can make one slot.

You have now effectively removed RNG from ability layout. You can control the crafting with drop rates.

Also address the formulas from the vendors on those orbs. Make them a lot harder to get. I would rather spend an afternoon farming for one orb than have a mountain of them that I now have to click orb/item 1k times for a "chance".

No thanks. I don't want to spend the equivalent of a divine/exalt on a link. That makes it so you can't afford spend a fuse to link anything but end-game gear. At least now its not too costly to get the 4link on a good low item, in the rare cases its worth it.

"

anubite wrote:

2. Sockets are powerful in POE. Each socket you add to a skill gem can potentially increase its power by a factor of 2 or more. But, such power cannot be granted easily to players or the game is ruined; players must EARN their power. Being given it casually destroys the game.

Then it's a good thing that no one is asking their power to be given to them casually.
Infact, it's the random system that allows that power to be given casually to anyone who is lucky.
If you put a guarantee to get 6L at 600 fusing and you are unlucky enough to have to spend that many, have you then not earned it? If you get it on oyur first fusing, did you earn it?

"

anubite wrote:

Er, huh? Why are you telling them how to change RNG when you don't supply a reason to do it in the first place.

Evasion was changed because "randomly getting one shot" is not fun and a negative aspect so strong people did not want to use the defense stat in HC.
But randomness is otherwise, usually fun. There are times where you can get 4 uniques in a day, and times when you get nothing in 2 hours. It is these spurts and dry-spells that spice up a random game like POE.

If you make all RNG in the game deterministic, you just homogenize the experience.

I'd say dropping over 10 exalteds worth of currency on a 6 socket item and not getting a 5-link is quite a reason for change. I don't know about others but after that I am never fusing again, there's just no point: all I do is waste currency with 0 return. Even if I had got a 5-link out of that on my last fusing I'd be so far in the negative that it wouldn't have been worth it. Particularly when we look at default this becomes rather apparent: fusings will become worthless over time because of all the availability of high link items and the impossibility of actually fusing one.

"

Courageous wrote:

Motivation: players who have especially unlucky streaks are turned off and perhaps turned away from the game. Typical response in many communities is to respond by changing probabilities. This response suggests an alternative.

Response:

Summary: do not change probabilties, but instead apply a statistical regulator in order to assure a very high probability of the outcome once N events have occurred.

Example:

Suppose that the chance of dropping a unique is 1:N.

Keep a record on the character for each drop chance that has failed to produce a unique. Once that count has reached N, chance to drop chance to a much higher number.

This method is not entirely disimilar to what was done with evasion, and may be applied in a variety of other circumstances (e.g., fusing).

A saavy reader will note that this method actually increases the probability of the outcome slightly. This can be left is, or the statistical engine could track lifetime drops instead, and only respond when lifetime drops go below a critical threshold.

Really good idea... Forward thinking.