Curse

drago34 · Jul 10, 2007, 06:59 AM // 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Your so called 'leeway' is nonsense and please don't tell me I don't want to do the math, I did them more often then you could even count, always have. Besides, it doesn't take more math then what you learn in primary school to calculate that 1/4 = 25%.

You are making numbers up, 25% is not the 24%-28% you pulled out of the air. By posting these numbers it appeared you did some real testing, which you haven't done. So, that is why you're a fraud, because you make up numbers. It doesn't help you to talk down to me while you are in error.

OP just got owned...

manitoba1073 · Jul 10, 2007, 07:31 AM // 07:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Your so called 'leeway' is nonsense and please don't tell me I don't want to do the math, I did them more often then you could even count, always have. Besides, it doesn't take more math then what you learn in primary school to calculate that 1/4 = 25%.

You are making numbers up, 25% is not the 24%-28% you pulled out of the air. By posting these numbers it appeared you did some real testing, which you haven't done. So, that is why you're a fraud, because you make up numbers. It doesn't help you to talk down to me while you are in error.

First off you were the one that started. I replied the same manner in which you yourself posted if you are that upset about it, its you're own fault. Now my leeways is not nonsense first of all. The was giving because simple fact is that there could be certain conditions that may cause the base score to vary, which is where those leeways come from, and any mathmatician always put such things in there figures thats why u see in everywhere thats theres - or + . So your calling me a fraud is out the window. Now as you say you had already done the math then you should have seen that they were within the core number. Since I've shown I was right you attempted to lash out and call me a liar and now a fraud, because I was right and called you on it. So apparenly you need to retake primary schooling to relearn things.

Xapti · Jul 10, 2007, 07:36 AM // 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsMassacre

Re the reduced drops via nuking;

Ever kill a bunch of mobs at once in a full party? Notice how the loot is for a bunch of different people? Notice how 5 mobs who all die at once never drop 5 things all for the same player?

If this is true, then there must be some random bias within the loot code to discourage multiple drops going to one person within a short time. Not PREVENT, discourage. Let's call it the "spread bias" cuz it biases the drops to spread among multiple party members if they happen all at once.

If spread bias is true, and loot scaling is true, then a solo farmer will get less drops killing mobs all at once than one at a time.

It's a good theory (kinda, lol), but where in the world did you come up with the idea that there's code that actively discourages/prevents the same person from getting the same drop twice (or more) in a row? The drops are RANDOM... when its' randomized, consecutive drops for one person is rare... you don't need discouraging. And of course random number between 1 and 1 is 1. Also, even if there was some code like that, why would it just be implemented so that the same person coudltn' Get a drop in a short period of time? wouldn't it make the most sense to ensure they don't get x drops in a row, no matter what the time frame was?

cellardweller · Jul 10, 2007, 07:47 AM // 07:47

Here's some bedtime reading for you manitoba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, hopefully after reading it you'll understand why people are laughing at your claims.

arcanemacabre · Jul 10, 2007, 07:58 AM // 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

mathmatician

LoL

Anyway, the point is you do not know what the percentages are because Anet has not, and will not release them. Because of that fact alone means your numbers are entirely made up. They have to be - because you don't have enough information.

Follow this with me:

1 person in an 8-person party is getting 1/8 or 12.5% of the drops.
1 person solo in that same zone, thanks to loot scaling, should be the same 12.5%.
However, Gaile has informed us the droprate for a solo person is higher than that same person in an 8-person party.
Here is the discrepancy - we have no idea how much higher. She did say "may now earn about twice as much gold".
First of all, this was from Gaile, not someone who worked on the code for loot scale, and not on their main site.
Second of all, her wording was "may" and "about", not "exactly".
This leaves much up to the imagination, is far from definite, and no figures can be ascertained from it with any certainty - period.

Her exact words: "The loot scaling for gold and common loot is not linear with the number of players in the party, and it includes an element of randomness, so while the difference is not easy to quantify, it is by no means a factor of eight."

Now, by pulling "specific" figures out of that, you are essentially pulling them out of your ass. You are no "mathmatician" [sic]. Of course, neither am I.

Omniclasm · Jul 10, 2007, 08:12 AM // 08:12

The truth about loot scaling is it has caused a lot of this.....

By the way, loot scaling is based on how quickly you kill. I killed 12 monsters solo, individually and got 4 elementalist tomes, 2 white weapons, 1 blue weapon, and a couple piles of gold.

arcanemacabre · Jul 10, 2007, 08:20 AM // 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniclasm

The truth about loot scaling is it has caused a lot of this.....

I think we can agree on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniclasm

By the way, loot scaling is based on how quickly you kill. I killed 12 monsters solo, individually and got 4 elementalist tomes, 2 white weapons, 1 blue weapon, and a couple piles of gold.

You're pulling that out of the same spot manitoba got his figures, aren't ya? One set of 12 monsters isn't enough to prove much of anything.

Omniclasm · Jul 10, 2007, 08:26 AM // 08:26

That was just an example, been through there quite a few times leveling my pet. Everytime I went most of them dropped an item. You can test it yourself, leave Gates of Kryta, and slowly kill the Mergoyles one by one. I went through the run probably 15-20 times in NM and 5 in HM. Every time I got more than 1-2 items. Most of them will drop an item, but if you kill 3 at once, you MIGHT get one item from them.

I didn't record any videos or keep excel tables, that is just an observation after spending a few hours there.

arcanemacabre · Jul 10, 2007, 08:35 AM // 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniclasm

That was just an example, been through there quite a few times leveling my pet. Everytime I went most of them dropped an item. You can test it yourself, leave Gates of Kryta, and slowly kill the Mergoyles one by one. I went through the run probably 15-20 times in NM and 5 in HM. Every time I got more than 1-2 items. Most of them will drop an item, but if you kill 3 at once, you MIGHT get one item from them.

I didn't record any videos or keep excel tables, that is just an observation after spending a few hours there.

Well that's odd because I have completely different anecdotal evidence. I often test new builds by "farming ettins". I do this because there is a good mix of different types of monsters (such as mergoyles, tengu, etc), but spaced far enough apart so that I'm not overwhelmed. The builds I'm testing are not farming builds, they're designed to be with a team, and usually have a res and a single personal heal, the rest damage/support.

Anyway, I do this multiple times a week with different characters and different builds. When I kill something, I'm killing it much slower than a standard soloer, and one-by-one. The drops I get now are much less than they were before loot scaling, hands down. I honestly don't care, because I'm not doing this run for money - at all. Just an alternative to Isle of the Nameless for testing out builds.

So I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I see no increase/decrease in drops for how fast/slow I kill things, period.

Omniclasm · Jul 10, 2007, 08:40 AM // 08:40

Then maybe I am somehow blessed, I don't know. I've never been known for getting good drops. I wasn't doing it for gold either. I'll look at it more tomorrow, and post screenshots or something. I'm tired, and not really wanting to argue about it and fight to try and prove myself. Frankly I don't care. I don't like soloing, and I think loot scaling is a great update.

Gawa · Jul 10, 2007, 08:53 AM // 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniclasm

By the way, loot scaling is based on how quickly you kill.

I'd say that is one factor in the calculation, yes. Slip an 'also' between your 'is' and 'based' and then we are getting somewhere i reckon.

I dont have hard figures, but from my observation over a few weeks i can say that when i party in a group of 8 i get roughly the same amount of gold coin drops, whites and blues as when i am the only member of a party.

In terms of soloing, I have found that i tend to get more overall drops if i kill 8-10 beasts individually in HM, compared to killing them at once while 55'ing. I am guessing this was factored in specifically to counter people 55'ing.

I may get 3-4 drops killing them one at a time, compared to 1-2 drops taking them at once. These numbers are not facts and could be wrong as i havent tested the individual method scientifically yet, I will endevour to gather statistical evidence of this tonight and let you know.

edit- sorry, only noticed this now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

Now as far as the AoE killing at same time IT IS A BUG, its more of a proximity bug than a timed kill bug. And for not getting stuff outa the first 12 or so heres a little help. Wait 1 minute before you start killing things, and you will get drops from them also.

I will try and test this also. Going with your thoughts that it is proximity related..then i have to assume that even in a group, if we are strongly offensive and can kill a group of tightly packed beasts very quickly, that they will also drop in proximity to each other at the same time (or near to) and thus we could end up with 'missing' drops based on this 'bug'..? If you are correct, and it is a bug, then it will be impossible to scientically test this. If it is a timing related feature of the calculations, then the stats should still be valid.

manitoba1073 · Jul 10, 2007, 10:37 AM // 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

LoL

Anyway, the point is you do not know what the percentages are because Anet has not, and will not release them. Because of that fact alone means your numbers are entirely made up. They have to be - because you don't have enough information.

Follow this with me:

1 person in an 8-person party is getting 1/8 or 12.5% of the drops.
1 person solo in that same zone, thanks to loot scaling, should be the same 12.5%.
However, Gaile has informed us the droprate for a solo person is higher than that same person in an 8-person party.
Here is the discrepancy - we have no idea how much higher. She did say "may now earn about twice as much gold".
First of all, this was from Gaile, not someone who worked on the code for loot scale, and not on their main site.
Second of all, her wording was "may" and "about", not "exactly".
This leaves much up to the imagination, is far from definite, and no figures can be ascertained from it with any certainty - period.

Her exact words: "The loot scaling for gold and common loot is not linear with the number of players in the party, and it includes an element of randomness, so while the difference is not easy to quantify, it is by no means a factor of eight."

Now, by pulling "specific" figures out of that, you are essentially pulling them out of your ass. You are no "mathmatician" [sic]. Of course, neither am I.

TY for showing how and why Im right, even though you were trying to show I was wrong. And Gailes quote is dead on, ofcourse its not a factor of 8 but a division of 1/8 and then roughly doubled (ie leeways). And would make the claim of based on party size wrong when in conjuction with max party sizes of 6,4,2 and the elite areas of 12. So once again TY for showing I was right. And I take ur [sic] and raise you a [pfft]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

Here's some bedtime reading for you manitoba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, hopefully after reading it you'll understand why people are laughing at your claims.

I suggest this one for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math

arcanemacabre · Jul 10, 2007, 12:15 PM // 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

TY for showing how and why Im right, even though you were trying to show I was wrong. And Gailes quote is dead on, ofcourse its not a factor of 8 but a division of 1/8 and then roughly doubled (ie leeways). And would make the claim of based on party size wrong when in conjuction with max party sizes of 6,4,2 and the elite areas of 12. So once again TY for showing I was right. And I take ur [sic] and raise you a [pfft]

Ok, now care to explain how I showed you were right with random 24-28% BS numbers?

Leeways, lol. If you don't know what the percentage is, saying random percentages is not a leeway, it's just plain wrong. Sorry!

hallomik · Jul 10, 2007, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Since my first post made zero impact on this debate, I’ll try this one more time with a simpler example.

**Warning: this place doesn’t exist. Do not ask me where it is.**

Suppose you’re in a zone that is normally 4 man. In my previous formula this would mean P or zone Party size = 4. A full human team would as a group get all the drops.

Suppose further only two things drop in the zone: white Raven Staffs and Ectos. Suppose again that 8/10 drops are Raven Staffs and 2/10 drops are Ectos. Raven Staffs are Scaled. Ectos, as we all know, are rare materials and are exempt from scaling. In my previous formula, this would mean X or portion of drops exempt from scaling = 0.2 or 20%.

If a full human team killed 100 baddies, on average, they would get a total of 20 ectos and 80 raven staffs. Each person on that team, again on average, would get 5 ectos and 20 raven staffs.

Now, suppose a Solo farmer killed the same 100 beasts. That person would get all 20 ectos, since they’re exempt from scaling, but they would only get ¼ of the 80 raven staffs because they are subject to scaling. Therefore, in this fictional farm spot, the solo farmer would get 20 ectos plus the 20 raven staffs he or she would have gotten in a full group or a total of 40 drops.

Therefore, if X = 0.2 and P = 4, the expected Loot drops (L) are 0.4 or 40%.

You can perhaps see better how the original formula works: L = (1/P)*(1-X)+X

L = (1/4)*(1-0.2)+0.2
L = (.25)*(0.8)+0.2
L = 0.2 + 0.2
L = 0.4

Loot drop for solo farmer = 40% in a 4 man zone with 20% of drops not scaled.

This is why Gaile cannot give precise figures on the impact of scaling. Unless you know what percentage of drops are not scaled -- which varies by zone -- and the party size, you cannot determine how many more drops a solo farmer would expect to get. If, as I wrote earlier, 15% of drops aren’t scaled in an 8 man zone, a solo farmer would expect to get double what a member of a full team would get. This “doubling” cannot be applied generally, however and was meant to give people a rough idea without going through the math I just did. The mistake the OP makes is assuming that Gaile’s “doubling” comment can be applied consistently. It really cannot.

arcanemacabre · Jul 10, 2007, 01:40 PM // 13:40

Very good point, Hallomik, I hadn't even considered that. Her comment about possibly earning twice as much might just be factoring in all the loot that isn't scaled. In which case, manitoba is way off. This would mean the loot scaling is a strict 12.5% for a solo in a zone made for 8 players, but then an extra unknown percentage added on for everything not scaled. Of course, if you're extremely lucky, you might make double the amount you could in a team, but highly unlikely.

This is probably how it is:

Solo on an 8-player map = 12.50% + non-loot-scaled items
Solo on a 6-player map = 16.67% + non-loot-scaled items
Solo on a 4-player map = 25% + non-loot-scaled items
Solo on a 2-player map = 50% + non-loot-scaled items

hallomik · Jul 10, 2007, 02:06 PM // 14:06

You've got the idea now, yes, but your math is just slightly off.

It should be,

Solo on an 8-player map = 12.50% of loot-scaled items + non-loot-scaled items

Nestaron · Jul 10, 2007, 02:09 PM // 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Deth

Once again Hard Mode FTW!!!

Plus anyone else notice bosses sometimes drop 3 things? Wonder how that factors in, and thats in normal mode most of the time.

Had a boss drop 4 things in hard mode, 3 of which were gold and none of them for me.

Wouldn't of been so bad, but that monk had 5 gold drops that run and the warrior had 2 or 3! All i got was 2 stinking purples and a bunch of whites.

cellardweller · Jul 10, 2007, 02:59 PM // 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

I suggest this one for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math

You seem to enjoy people laughing at you so I'll stop trying to help you realise why.

lennymon · Jul 10, 2007, 03:46 PM // 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levi Garett

You guys should just take his word for it since Manitoba is the self proclaimed founder of 55HP monking...

very wise, let the smiling and nodding commence. can I be the self proclaimed creator of beer? (oh wait I already am)

MSecorsky · Jul 10, 2007, 03:53 PM // 15:53

OK, I'm completely hypothesizing here, but this feels like what's going on.

A critter has a % chance in any area (which may vary) to drop an item. IF that creature is calculated to drop an item, then the item to be dropped is determined. If it's an exempt item, it is dropped. If it's an item subject to scaling then based on the number of party members there's a percent chance the item will not drop.

So... sum it up:

Creature Dies.
Determine if creature drops item (based on a percent chance to drop).
-- If yes, determine what item drops. Is the item exempt from scaling?
---- If yes, drop item.
---- Else, determine percent chance on item dropping based on party size. Roll random.
------ If the random is still in the percent chance to drop, then drop, else do not drop.

Now... this actually makes a simple flat percent to get something nearly impossible (or at best rather difficult) to calculate with any precision... but if I wrote the code, it would look something like that. Simpler from a logic perspective.