Why I'm quitting PoE and no longer recommending it to friends

In my humble opinion, pure RnG is RARELY fun. That is why there are so many lower and upper bound limits on RnG.

I don't see a problem with having the gambling system, I think it would be improved if it contained lower and upper bounds to make things more fair (don't claim that RnG is fair, RnG is even for all same events. That does not make it fair in the full sense of the word). For example the bandied ideas from above like incrementel increase in the chance to create better links (rather than current system which is flat chance each consecutive use).

Detailed thought process of the above (do not read if you're not interested):

Monster spawn, item spawn, group number spawn, currency spawn. These all have lower and upper bounds on them.
Monster: limited to Map level (eng game maps and ordinary map/levels).
item spawn: max iLevel is monster level.
Group number (mob size): bigger the higher difficulty.
Currency Spawn (drop rate): reduced before and after player is outside of level range (+-2??).
Currency Spawn (type drop): developer determined limiting probabilities for each type, such that an identify scroll does NOT have the same drop chance as a Chaos Orb.

Effect of upper bound and lower bound from a player perspective include (but are not limited to):
Increased perceived value of items that are more rare
Increased fun (when perceived rare items are acquired)
Increased fun (not walking into lvl 1 area and lvl 30 monsters spawn!!)
Increased ability to form expectations of what will happen (this generally increases fun)
Developer determined economy of items (due to their input in how often certain currency/items spawn)

Do any of the above effects still exist if no bounds existed? No, No, No, No (sortof yes, but IDKWTF is going to happen is not an expectation), No.

As for my statement regarding RnG being Even, but not necessarily Fair:
RnG makes all events of the same type have the same chance of having each outcome that is possible. This is Even.
2 players rolling the dice consutively, where one player gets more rolls than the other, but has no implicit improvement of probability (10 lottery tickets are better than 1, but each lottery ticket is still the same probability of the 1), is not Fair.

"

Dao wrote:

in practice you will notice that what you ask for and what you actually want are two different things, and if you know that playing the lottery 1000 times would guarantee you a win the fun of gambling would be reduced.

It is possible. I can't think of any examples in my past where I used a similar system, though it feels like it must have been done before in gaming.

I think I saw someone above post a formula saying how many fusing you need to guarantee a 6L. I don't think there is a number that GUARANTEE (ie 100% success chance) a 6L.

number of combinations total for 6 socket item = 308
number of non 6 link combinations in a 6 socket = 307

Chance(Success) = 1 - Chance(Fail)
Chance(Success) = 1 - (307/308)^n where n >= 0

This formulae is derived from chance of consecutive failures = chance of failure AND chance of failure AND chance of failure = 307/308 * 307/ 308 * 307/308 etc.

Which can be simplified into (307/308)^n

The following are if you have attmpted and failed all previous fusings on the 6 link item:

Various figures:
100th Fusing = 27.76197 chance success
300th Fusing = 62.30379 chance success
500th Fusing = 80.32886 """"
700th Fusing = 89.73494 """"

Chance of Succuess is bound as < 100%.

but the upper bound to a 6l item is designed to be very big, and most of the suggestions here to make it "more fair" actually reduce this upper bound, which amounts to complaining about drop rates and asking for better drops.

it is designed to be a rare and hard to get item. if only the RNG is what is bothering you, which is what I assume this discussion is about, and not just asking for easier ways to get a 6l, then there were two solutions suggested.

1) collecting 1500 fusing orbs (not using them) and that would guarantee a 6l item with a recipe. the idea to put a guarantee after using an amount of fusing orbs is not good in my opinion, as explained in previous posts.

2) making it so that at level 80 (or 90, needs to be balanced) you have increasingly better chances to roll a 6l. would reward players that play long. i like it less but still a solution

EDIT:
number 2 is actually bad because everybody would just level one character and use it. and businesses would start as in d3, somebody leveling a character and pricing his services for the 6l craft. really bad on second thought

I'm sorry I skipped as soon as I read "fun of gambling".

A: Duuuuuude! I just used a fusing orb.
B: Did you feel that rush?
A: Hell yeah!! Imma go use THREE next.
B: Damn!! We have a badass over here.

There is no current upper bound in fusing a 6L item. So it reverts to the chance to create a link or not, and the permutations of creating enough links for a 6L.

You are correct in stating that I am asking for an upper bound to be placed in the system, one that is below the pure random chance of the fusing orb.

1500 orbs was a developer inquiry. He also stated that he was not saying it would take 1500 orbs to get 6L.

Based on the mathematical analysis above, setting a flat chance that high would be worthless, because only the most unlucky would roll 1500 fusings and still fail.

I agree with your edit, that your second idea would lead to that particular exploit and that the exploit is bad.

"

StillSingle wrote:

There is no current upper bound in fusing a 6L item. So it reverts to the chance to create a link or not, and the permutations of creating enough links for a 6L.

You are correct in stating that I am asking for an upper bound to be placed in the system, one that is below the pure random chance of the fusing orb.

1500 orbs was a developer inquiry. He also stated that he was not saying it would take 1500 orbs to get 6L.

Based on the mathematical analysis above, setting a flat chance that high would be worthless, because only the most unlucky would roll 1500 fusings and still fail.

I agree with your edit, that your second idea would lead to that particular exploit and that the exploit is bad.

a developer inquiry to which i reply with a "good idea!".

this is precisely the point of setting the upper bound this high. if the alternative to gambling is gathering 1500 fusing orbs, then it would not ruin the planned rarity of the item.

a 6l is designed to be a rare thing that you need to work for.

sure, since the probability is a multiplicative thing, potentially it could be infinite. but 1500 should just about cover it with the numbers that were presented

again, the bound should be separate, to make you make the choice yourself. in which case you either collect 1500 orbs and, odds are, actually delay your 6l, or use the given mechanic of gambling. when the choice is given to you then you would not complain about it - problem solved for all who feel that it is unrewarding.

would an alternative be to actually create a lower bound on the number of links created using fusings? We keep talking about reducing the number of fusings to get 6L (which is an upper bound). What if it was a lower bound instead.

For example: a 6 socket item that you use a fusing on would at a minimum contain a 3 link. In that way you have created more value in using fusing, but kept the rarety of the 6L. By creating more value, you have partially solved the problem of people feeling jipped when using fusings (which can give you 6 sockets all unlinked, which I personally hate imo).

I don't know how other people would feel about this, because they may still use 600 fusings and have no 6L. But in the system above, they won't have completely destroyed their 6 Socket item, and therefore allows you to gamble on your current gear (rather than have 2 sets).

Just opinion and ideas.

Could it be that the current balance of the rarity of 6L is too high? It could all change during the balance pass before the game makes it to v1.0. :D

"

StillSingle wrote:

would an alternative be to actually create a lower bound on the number of links created using fusings? We keep talking about reducing the number of fusings to get 6L (which is an upper bound). What if it was a lower bound instead.

For example: a 6 socket item that you use a fusing on would at a minimum contain a 3 link. In that way you have created more value in using fusing, but kept the rarety of the 6L. By creating more value, you have partially solved the problem of people feeling jipped when using fusings (which can give you 6 sockets all unlinked, which I personally hate imo).

I don't know how other people would feel about this, because they may still use 600 fusings and have no 6L. But in the system above, they won't have completely destroyed their 6 Socket item, and therefore allows you to gamble on your current gear (rather than have 2 sets).

Just opinion and ideas.

Could it be that the current balance of the rarity of 6L is too high? It could all change during the balance pass before the game makes it to v1.0. :D

i think this would be even worse. to keep the rarity, you would have to keep the percentages of 6l 5l and 4l as they are, and combine the percentages of 3l 2l 1l and 0l into 3l. so you would use 100 fusing orbs and it would be 3l, 3l, 3l, 3l, 3l, ...., 3l, 3l, hey 4l! 3l, 3l, 3l, 3l, ...

then you would get the sense that a fusing orb actually does absolutely nothing

EDIT:
there are a few guidelines like don't craft items you are wearing and such, so keep them in your inventory until they are ready, but other than that, it is an attitude thing.

people get a 5l, then see it go back down and think this is wrong.

but if your goal is 6l, you should threat 5l the same as 0l because it is not a progress thing it is an all or nothing gamble.

"

StillSingle wrote:

Based on the mathematical analysis above, setting a flat chance that high would be worthless, because only the most unlucky would roll 1500 fusings and still fail.

Probability Reference since 0.9.6f

I dont know where you got your figures from, but as far as I know the most recent figures show that there is only 306 possible combinations when fusing a 6 slot item.

This makes the probability formula which I stated before, which is similar to yours but I didnt say "Success"
(1 - ((305/306)^X)) = '6L Chance'

The whole point of the recipe is not to increase the supply of 6l items on the market or encourage people to farm. It should be the exact opposite to this, having the recipe amount so high is meant to encourage most people to actually attempt to use the orbs.

I am more in favour of a recipe rather than cutting off the upper limit for unlucky people, simply because it goes against the nature of gambling. However I would still be ok with the other solution so long as the amount of orbs required for a guarantee was actually higher than a recipe solution might be.

I think that you should be required to be more decisive, either gamble or take the guaranteed recipe, if you happen to be unlucky consider it one of your greatest life lesson in gambling (a lesson many many people never learn until its too late)