PSA: Understanding map drop streaks

"

Boem wrote:

Cheers, i take intuitively being aware of this for granted i suppose.

But i guess a lot of people cannot comprehend stuff like this in a grand enough scale to put it aside them and simply "carry on" enjoying themselves.

I simply look at my own progression on a league per league basis. Not once did i not end up chaining top-end maps solo. Does it take effort and time, obviously, it is still a game. Being challenging and requiring some effort is a prerequisite for fulfillment in my opinion.

Peace,

-Boem-

If you don't invest in IIQ, your high tier maps will likely just dry up. If you do invest, the increase isn't as significant as people wish it would be. 1/2 Chance of getting nothing if you don't, 1/3 Chance of getting nothing if you do. You still need a large map pool to sustain your mapping. You need the surplus to carry you through the drought.

People comprehend it perfectly, they just don't like it.

"

Gauhron wrote:

So for people who live in the small sample set (actual players) 36% (or whatever based on your input numbers) are simply going to get gated out of content, but can have a contented glow that other people have 'lucky' drops streaks.

Hope the 36% enjoy their low maps before they quit (and go to HS like Scrotie)!

Excuse me, I need to roll this six-sided die.

Oh look, I got a 5.

I guess now every time I roll a six-sided die, it's always going to be a 5.

"

buhdunkadunk wrote:

I call

Unless GGG is willing to say that yes map drops are always a flat chance to begin with 1/10000 to use your example then all that math is..... well, just random math.

It's much more likely that each map rolls a base chance when put into a map device ( yeah RNG to the max ) and from there the qualityrarity and quantity on the map are multiplied against that random base chance.

For more fun do the same math with a random base chance between 1/10,000 and 1/100,000 or 1/10000 through 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000

I suspect something similar happens as well.

Fuck mathematics.
I just want to stop dropping maps Tier 1 from bosses Tier 10 XD

I suspect they initially did the math as Scrotie described in the first post.

However then it was shown to them that for each map type - shape, population and loot/kill patterns differ. So I suspect that at least there is a correction coefficient used for each map which multiplies the chance to get a map for given map type and tier.

Sustaining high tier maps is so frustrating. I'll have like 5 12+ ready to go then an hour later I'm back to grinding 9s. Having magic/rare/unique non-boss monsters only drop 1 max higher has to be one of my least favorite changes. Prior to this change sustainability was reasonable.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Gauhron wrote:

So for people who live in the small sample set (actual players) 36% (or whatever based on your input numbers) are simply going to get gated out of content, but can have a contented glow that other people have 'lucky' drops streaks.

Hope the 36% enjoy their low maps before they quit (and go to HS like Scrotie)!

Excuse me, I need to roll this six-sided die.

Oh look, I got a 5.

I guess now every time I roll a six-sided die, it's always going to be a 5.

Not a misapprehension of your maths, Scrotie, of which I have the fondest regard. rather that it does not tend to form a system of the (imaginary) world in which all can participate with broadly similar fun. In poker one expects that outcome; is it appropriate to a (somewhat) mass-market game for fun?

D3 is crudely simple and I (in common I assume with many Poe players) found it engaging for only a small time in comparison to the rich systems and complexity we have here.

Please do your maths (which I am at pains to underline that I respect and admire) and consider how much of the poe population, gaming with a small sample set, end up (through no fault of their own and purely down to the numbers), end up rolling 1, 2, or 3 (in you analogy) so much of the time that they simply don't access the 'fun'?

The answer is appreciable, and indeed a core design philosophy, because in lieu of luck/rng we can without any limitation trade our way out of it.

PS Scrotie I do love you, I just disagree your conclusions are ontologically good news.

But guys, I ran one poorly rolled T6 and somehow I'm not swimming in T15 maps yet! Map RNG broken! Stealth nerf!


Idiots are always going to be idiots.

When I see what the OP's laid out, all I can really think is "Yeah, you don't say? This is a good fraction of why breaking into a new tier of maps is incredibly frustrating."

I always groan when someone drops a large mathmatical breakdown that basically amounts to "let me explain how the RNG sucks" as a half handed justification for it sucking. No one would be making this thread explaining why it sucks, if it didn't suck.

Just because the math looks good, doesn't mean the system is good, sample sizes or what ever other justification be damned. As someone else already pointed out, in most cases the answer to bad RNG is less RNG (which even GGG has demonstrated in the past).

"

Actkqk wrote:

Fuck mathematics.
I just want to stop dropping maps Tier 1 from bosses Tier 10 XD

Quoting this just because I feel its relevant.

I am an advocate for a 2:1 map vendor formula, instead of 3:1 as it is currently. This means I think if you have two maps with the same base tileset, you should be able to vendor them for a map of +1 level. That way getting a T6 in a T10 would still not be a success, but it would be much more feasible to stockpile such low maps and convert a bunch of them into an appropriately tiered map. Or if you've ever played Diablo 2, lower maps would feel more like chipped/flawed gems, more like fodder for Teh Cube and less like utter trash. Plus, trading maps away tends to come close to a 2:1 formula anyway, it just involves a lot more work setting up maps in your shop.

So since I'm an advocate of that, you all should assume, quite reasonably, that I'm not fully satisfied with the amount of RNG in mapping at the moment.

I'm not a big fan of deterministic safety nets either, though.