Teaser Video for Vorici, Master Assassin

"

Galtrovan wrote:

Really? My opinion didn't say your opinion was incorrect. My opinion disagreed with your opinion. And why do I have to provide an argument to support my opinion when your opinion is not supported by any arguments either? What you wrote is an opinion without any supporting arguments. But if you feel what you wrote is supported by an argument, let me fix what I wrote so we can be on equal footing.

No they shouldn't be ~1.5 times higher than actual odds.

My opinion is well explained in the conversation above. I can repeat for you. If you risk and gamble you should be rewarded by having better odds of linking/socketing. Otherwise there is no sense to risk because you'd loose your time on long run. This is my argument.


Correct rely to express you opinion would be "I think they shouldn't be ~1.5 times higher than actual odds." What you do is negating my opinion by saying "no" to whole my quote above.

just take my money already!

"

Galtrovan wrote:

No they shouldn't be ~1.5 times higher than actual odds.

That's not the case for the 6L ( neither for the 5L ).
And for the 6S , we don't know the exact odd today ( only that an item has 1/300 chance to be 6S when created ).

"

kefirhl wrote:

"

Galtrovan wrote:

Really? My opinion didn't say your opinion was incorrect. My opinion disagreed with your opinion. And why do I have to provide an argument to support my opinion when your opinion is not supported by any arguments either? What you wrote is an opinion without any supporting arguments. But if you feel what you wrote is supported by an argument, let me fix what I wrote so we can be on equal footing.

No they shouldn't be ~1.5 times higher than actual odds.

My opinion is well explained in the conversation above. I can repeat for you. If you risk and gamble you should be rewarded by having better odds of linking/socketing. Otherwise there is no sense to risk because you'd loose your time on long run. This is my argument.


Correct rely to express you opinion would be "I think they shouldn't be ~1.5 times higher than actual odds." What you do is negating my opinion by saying "no" to whole my quote above.

Well, I didn't see your original post. And honestly, even if I read it I wouldn't agree the cost of guaranteeing the outcome should be 1.5 times the odds. If you risk and gamble and win, you are already rewarded. You won't pay anywhere near the current listed guaranteed costs.

Simple example, 4 linking. Guaranteed cost is 5 fuse. The price is outrageous if you risk/gamble and always get the 4 link in 1, 2, 3, 4 fuses. I have done 4 linking enough to know a 4 link is most likely going to happen within the first 3 fuses. Thus, 5 for a guarantee is a high enough cost. Making it 7 or 8 would be ridiculous.

Starting out, I'll probably gamble. Once fuses are not issue. I'll probably just pay the 5. By the time the 3rd or 4th attempt fails I'm already pissed. At 5th, 6th, 7th failure I'm on the verge of OMG this is fffing ridiculous. And very last time I tried to 4-link RNG wasn't smiling on me, it was laughing at me as it took 14 fuses out of my stash. Yes, this was an anomaly, but something I would like to protect myself from. When you have 25 fuses, sure you want to gamble and get the 4 link in 1 to 3. But at the same time, you don't want to get stuck paying 14 either, especially while leveling and your gear changes frequently.

"

Galtrovan wrote:

Simple example, 4 linking. Guaranteed cost is 5 fuse. The price is outrageous if you risk/gamble and always get the 4 link in 1, 2, 3, 4 fuses. I have done 4 linking enough to know a 4 link is most likely going to happen within the first 3 fuses. Thus, 5 for a guarantee is a high enough cost. Making it 7 or 8 would be ridiculous.

So you agree to pay 5 fus for 4L (which is 1.6 times more than your assumed average) but you are saying "I wouldn't agree the cost of guaranteeing the outcome should be 1.5 times the odds"?!? I'm sooooo confused, man! You are confirming my words but then saying you don't agree with them.

im wondering if we can change hideouts. seems it would have to be so, since when we go to standard after two leagues, we would have two hide outs and have to choose one? can we change mid league?

Looks like:

-Cleave is being reworked for twohanded weapons (0:08)
-Spectral Throw is being reworked for onehanded weapons and dual wielding (0:16)
-A new bow skill is added. Seems to be a combination of Split Arrow and Chain. Maybe those two skills get removed and converted into one skill? 0:40

These changes look very interesting, i am definitely looking forward to them!

"

Alternalo wrote:

So nobody noticed that deer at 0:51?
Whats that?

oh shi-------

DEER HYPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"

Alternalo wrote:

So nobody noticed that deer at 0:51?
Whats that?

Looks like an Exile boss pet.

"

kefirhl wrote:

"

Galtrovan wrote:

Simple example, 4 linking. Guaranteed cost is 5 fuse. The price is outrageous if you risk/gamble and always get the 4 link in 1, 2, 3, 4 fuses. I have done 4 linking enough to know a 4 link is most likely going to happen within the first 3 fuses. Thus, 5 for a guarantee is a high enough cost. Making it 7 or 8 would be ridiculous.

So you agree to pay 5 fus for 4L (which is 1.6 times more than your assumed average) but you are saying "I wouldn't agree the cost of guaranteeing the outcome should be 1.5 times the odds"?!? I'm sooooo confused, man! You are confirming my words but then saying you don't agree with them.

You are talking about taking the current fixed costs shown by GGG and multiplying them by 1.5. I say no and provide an example as to why. Not real sure where you came up with 5 is 1.6 times the average to 4 link. I made no such claim and I doubt it's even true. You completely ignored the fact that the last time I created a 4 link it cost me 14 fuse. With this being true, I would have to achieve 87 more 4-links with only 261 fuses. The 88th 4-link cost 14 fuse. 261 + 14 = 275; 275 / 88 = 3.125 average (3.125 * 1.6 = 5). Good luck with that. And if I'm wrong that doesn't help your case. If 5 is already 1.6 times the average cost, there is no reason 5 needs to be multiplied by another 1.5 to further increase the cost.