i’m unsure of the point you are making here. again if you have a better model i am all ears, i suspect what you are describing i handwaved on the “get smarter people to do it”. if i had to do a quantifiable analysis to try and demonstrate what i was talking about this would be how i gather data. i offered repeated approximations based on observable data, these were discounted. apparently i am simply the luckiest person on earth?
no, it wouldn’t - you’d immediately be able to detect simple things like “is T1 as likely to roll as T4 on a level 80 curio”, even if you couldn’t get it to a high precision you’d be able to detect that to a high level of confidence in, what you tell me. is a hundred enough, can i demonstrate this by rolling a hundred times? i can do that if you’d like to wager? i’ll stream it to twitch, i’ll give you better odds by only rolling on a 77 curio, if i roll a single T1 i lose the wager and if i roll none you lose. this model i am critiquing assumes i would roll roughly 25, so i’m sure it’s free money for you.
It appears that there might be method to the RNG madness. Using the ocr autoclicker program, I noticed that the number of times clicked to get T4 perks seem to depend on the base level of the item plus the level of the other perks.
For example, with a +17% Toughness curio, the T4 perk I wanted usually appeared within a couple hundred clicks. Now with a +15 Toughness curio, it usually took more than a thousand clicks to get a T4 perk that I wanted. If you already have a T3 or T4 locked perk, I’ve had an instance where it took more than 5000 clicks to get the 2nd T4 perk I wanted.
So it appears to me that the RNG algorithm includes modifiers that makes it even more difficult to get the perfect perk mix.
oh yeah very very obviously, the weighing is super strong. that’s why i’m so confident i can make a wager like that, i don’t gamble and i genuinely don’t think i am - i have clicked literally thousands (tens of thousands?) of times on these curios, and i don’t think i’ve seen a T1 roll once. i only roll on over the breakpoint items so 76 or higher iirc.
e: i am less convinced of perks influencing it? but it’s possible.
also another observation i make sometimes of people grappling with chance: when you felt you weren’t getting the T4 perk you wanted i assume you were you still getting T4 perks. how would the game know which perk you want. the game launched with roughly half of the perks completely broken - how would the game know which perks are chase? toughness regen went from a dead slot to insanely broken to arguably best in slot - do the odds adjust to the metagame? did someone at fatshark sit down prelaunch and go “ah, XP will always be bad, but TR is great” and weigh it highly even though it was completely broken, or is the RNG machine constantly watching your inventory and trying not to distribute to you something you have too many of/too many equipped? how would it possibly know your intent?
i don’t think there is anything complicated going on at all, at least with perks i think it is straight unweighted. which feels waaaaaaay worse to the player.
Thanks for the details. Didn’t even think that the blessing on the curio could change it (the odds), or that if you have 1 T4 perk unlocked it would make it EVEN harder to get another T4. If that’s truly the case I am just astonished. That’s so… Evil.
the blessing on the curio determines the item level, the item level determines the likelihood of perk tiers. this is more evident when leveling weapons, which start with 0 blessings, so your first two rolls are at disadvantage to the second two. you would actually expect the opposite - that having higher tier perks would positively influence the rolls, but i have a theory that the blessing is the only thing that determines this and perks do not? i’ve never noticed much correlation between consecrating curios and getting higher tier perks, but small sample size.
this is why to calculate the odds you’d need to test at different item levels and determine the influence.
the odds are and always have been atrocious yeah (but probably not quite what was proposed previous). curios are right now very strongly superior to get in the store because at least you can mitigate the hardest roll (the blessing, which will influence everything else) by only buying high stat blessings and if you’re patient can maybe get a high stat blessing and a T4 perk you want.
this is why EGs and other totally random curio sources, ie the melk store, are so terrible, you have a 1/4 chance of rolling the type of curio you want, then you need a good blessing roll which is very unlikely, then you roll the perk gauntlet without the limited control consecration offers, and even with melks higher range it’s awful. but just like white weapons, store curios of high level consecrated is usually your route to optimal items.
Part of me really has to wonder why they leaned so heavy into the rng on curios where trinkets, necklaces, and charms were for the most part fine.
I guess you could argue trinkets we’re far more limited (being set with specific traits that had set bonuses vs any stat rolling on them and being locked to specific slots) but you also had a lot more control over what you got at the end of the day especially with reds and the traits were vastly superior to anything you could really roll on a curio currently. Hell they weren’t even locked to characters.
I think it would also be far more bearable in theory if it was handled like weapons or anything where you have 2 stat perks and 1 major boon that at was treated like a blessing. Atleast then you get 2 things you could re-roll per curio in their proposed system and it would probably making going from purple to orange feel way better.
Tbh the thought of having to level 3 separate curious on 3 (potentially 4) more characters gives me a headache.
One might have thought that the ratings of this game, including the feedback that has already been given, would be enough to cause a rethinking at the decision-making level of FS… (that is, before this DevBlog appeared), but nothing really seems to have reached there.
Its part of the live service model. Just an unnecessary time sink totally understandable people don’t want it. Question is do they mean it when they say they are listening or are they a soulless predatory cooperate entity
They use a predatory business model and use all the usual buzzwords, so yeah, no. They always spin their community posts as “we listened to you” to make people shut the f up. Then they make some silly decision like adding another layer of RNG to crafting and go “trust us”(“after all, they know what they are doing and f they stray, they LISTEN” lol ).
They do listen, but it’s their game and their right to act.
A proper overhaul would also entail scrapping more work and redoing it - not something anyone in the company wants, although it happens regularly in game development.
Just taking the locks off would appease a huge portion of the community, right now. No rework required. This isn’t even the highest tier of gear, it shouldn’t be so impossible to build what you want.
There are other ways to keep people playing if that’s what they want. Give them something to slowly accumulate over time for instance like aquilas for cosmetics.
It’s ok to lock some content to incentives your players to keep staying in the game but there is a fine line how to do it. If you lock the what the hardcore players come for behind thousands of hours they are just not gonna bother wasting their time. And the numbers of active players speak for themselves.
Just want to point out that’s it is rare to see so much consensus from a group of gamers about something. 99% of the posts here, and there are a lot of posts, are saying the same exact thing: we don’t want more RNG and ditch the item locks.
There are a few people disagreeing, but they are by far in the minority.
The best way to keep players coming back is to introduce more content. They wanted it to be a live service game, but they made an auto-gambler. The better way to retain players is to keep new maps and weapons coming in, not this numbers game bs.
