Orb of Chance Community Log

Thank you

I used 6 orbs yesterday 5 on gold rings, 1 on mesh boots

4 magic
1 rare
1 legendary (wake of destruction!)

"

bodhe wrote:

I used 6 orbs yesterday 5 on gold rings, 1 on mesh boots

4 magic
1 rare
1 legendary (wake of destruction!)

Congratulations!

EDIT: After talking, won't be including the data in the log as there were so many other orbs used but not logged; I do look forward to the future log, however! :)

"

Chris wrote:

Character rarity bonuses don't affect Orb of Chance rolls - they can be done on any character.

We withhold certain information like the unique rate because we change it often and don't want players feeling entitled to rolling uniques. If you know the chance of something is 1 in 10, you're going to be very angry after spending 30 Orbs and failing (due to bad luck).

Edit: it's not 1 in 10.

Am I the only one who feels extremely bothered by this [bolded] statement?
So where does the reward come in players' efforts? Is 1 in almost 350 rolls considered a fair value for obtaining a unique? Or am I still not entitled to anything but garbage after spending 350 orbs of chances just because I am unlucky, all the while other players get theirs in their 6th try.


On topic,
Here's my log Monopoly:
Magic: 66
Rare: 18
Uniques: 0
all rolls on gold rings, onyx ammulets and mesh boots

10 more last night on gold rings and amulets.

3 rare
7 magic.

@Astro: just like the other RNG mechanics in the game, it all comes down to luck (or more likely, as is the case of RNG generally, being in the right place at the right time). I think what Chris meant is he doesn't want people having an expected number that people will feel is the magic number for a unique; for example, if he told us the odds were 1/200 (hypothetically) and someone saved up 200 Orbs of Chance but still didn't get a unique, they might feel disgruntled, because 200 was "the number required" for a unique. Some people don't seem to grasp the concept that the chance (1/200 for this example) doesn't get smaller every time you use an orb.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the stats! :)

EDIT: Gonna break 1,000 soon! :D

I was trying to steer the conversation toward the so-carefully concealed "fair" value of unique rolls rather than the problematics of statistics. But alas, we may never hear anything solid from GGG.


PS: I have not given up on my personal research, so stand ready for more numbers :)

"

astroMonkey wrote:

I was trying to steer the conversation toward the so-carefully concealed "fair" value of unique rolls rather than the problematics of statistics. But alas, we may never hear anything solid from GGG.


PS: I have not given up on my personal research, so stand ready for more numbers :)

Eh, it could be worse. I used to be pretty heavy into Pokemon; there were a lot of technicalities for that game most people were never aware of...but at tournament level play, people would spend literal weeks of time breeding their pokemon for the perfect stats (IVs as they were called) for their team. Each IV could be any value from 0-31; this doesn't even account for the differences in natures (1/25), genders (1/2 usually), abilities (1/2 usually), etc. All things accounted for, the probabilities of getting exactly what people were looking for would often be less than a 10th of a percent - I know because I used to breed for peoples' teams. Add on to that the (alleged) value 1/8192 for a Pokemon to be "shiny" (a cosmetic difference that was extremely rare - think Red Gyarados) people would sometimes request, and things got really messy.

Eventually someone (went by the username Mingot, I believe) developed a program which allowed players to plug in specific data from their game and select the desired outcome from a number of 'seeds' the program would generate. People were able to breed perfect nature, gender, ability, IVs, and have it be shiny in under an hour. Because the program didn't directly interact with the players' game cartridges (it gave a set of instructions for the player to follow in order to create the instance in which the desired output would be created by the RNG system) the resulting pokemon would be 100% legitimate - this is what destroyed the game for me. I enjoyed the "random" mechanics, and it was always exciting to get a near perfect breed. RNG Abuse ruined that for me.

Would it be a good idea to add a minimum limit to the number of orbs added at a time? For example, minimum 20 (or more?) Orbs of Chance must be submitted at once in order to be added to the log; this may act as a filter against the people who post uniques here but not the other data as well as outliers such as the one posted by Chris (minimal orbs used, but a unique was obtained).

Would this be biased away from the unique rate or is it entirely appropriate? I need some thoughts here.

The problem is that a lot of people don't post EVERY result they get. And that skews the data one way or another. Asking for minimums of 20 could be fine, but would still show streakiness and outliers.