ok, still doesn’t give you a good reason to conflate things people say. The reason why people might be taking things personally with you is because, maybe, perhaps, you put words into their mouths and say things that just don’t fit, or try to redirect the topic, like you did here.
Also, about the “data” thing, for one: it’s totally aside the point; pointing the discussion towards “data” is a misdirect when the concern is actually people’s experience within the system. There’s no solid ground to stand on because all we have is our own personal experience, and the “data” is all built entirely on our own qualia- which is why it’s based on personal experiences and not objective data. Imagine finding a four-leaf clover on your first day trying, and making arguments solely based on that experience.
-It’s a completely moot point to try and argue because it’s about the experience, and even if there were hard irrefutable data, that wouldn’t change the fact that the grand majority of people don’t enjoy it at all.
You can explain why you like it, and somebody else can explain why they don’t, and if enough people say the same thing in either way, in a consensus of experience, that’s where to really start building upward. The consensus, so far, is that people don’t care for the system. There’s only one person I know that plays the game that likes it as it is, the rest don’t care for it. People I know that are considering the game, when they hear what it’s like, they lose interest. Most youtube reviews have said the same thing. People putting up their own reviews often comment on it. The drop in player count doesn’t say it directly, but it for damn well isn’t going up because of the system.
The only real way to find out would be if they overhauled it into a deterministic system, then see how player count changes.
That’s a hell of a thing to claim. After post after post of people actually playing the game and using the system are getting terrible results. I have certainly given the systems a good go, and they are terrible. It’s not imaginary. Our data isn’t flawed. I couldn’t care less about % calculations people try to do, because they will always be wrong - because FatShark has hidden the weightings of different blessings, the likelyhood of T4 perks and blessings and so on.
So you have seen people like a post with bad math and taken that as proof for your cause - instead of realizing that people liked it because it concerns the terrible grind, not because of the exact math. The exact math is only known to FatShark, and it is almost irrelevant. Through simple observation and usage of the system, it is obviously and demonstrably terrible. How terrible it is, in exact numbers, is almost completely uninteresting. I don’t care if the odds are 1 in a billion, 1 in a million, or 1 in 10.000. Or even 1 in 1000. All of those odds are stupidly bad, especially for a game that claims/lies about promoting build experimentation.
You then think that posting the items you have gotten is good evidence. It isn’t. It’s terrible evidence, because every single person complaining here, who has tested the systems since release, have completely different experiences from yours. That’s how statistics and RNG work.
It’s thus laughable of you to proclaim that not only are people assuming things based on flawed math, they haven’t even tried the system. You just pulled all of that out of thin air.
And you wonder why people are upset about what you’re writing. As if saying none of us understand math, all of us believe flawed math and lies, none of us have tested the systems… as if that isn’t attacking us.
My mistake was confusing your meaning with the six 360s I mentioned in my first post (which were just greys, not finished weapons). So as long as you’re talking about ~4.2 hours per weapon yeah that’s been my experience.
I still stand by that, especially after the 7th weapon (the laspistol in the screenshot) was an immediate 376 roll into a Damnation-viable laspistol (4% crit, 25% unyielding, T3 Ghost, T3 Raking). So it cost me about 3 missions for the resources so far, and I think we could throw in a 4th to account for the resources I’ll eventually spend rerolling 4% crit into something else. The blessings are solid, but I do want to change Ghost into one of the crit-focused ones once I get one of those (but Ghost is still pretty great).
Got another weapon too, but I wouldn’t count it as an 8th because it’s legitimately a step below what I’ve been calling “effectively perfect”: TactAxe with 44% Mobility, 71% damage, but everything else above 77%. T3/T4 perks, T3 Shred, T4 Decimator blessings make it hit ridiculously hard and set it up for an eventual T4 Brutal Momentum (although I do really like Shred with Zealot crit builds). But 44% mobility means I’m down a dodge limit and so it’s definitely not “effectively perfect”.
I’m bringing up these last 2 examples to show that the average time isn’t increasing from 4.2 hours per weapon. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s decreasing either, but as I learn to go back to the RNG shop a little more to opportunistically snag some 360+ weapons (of which there are lots of greys!) I can very quickly (and quite cheaply!) get great weapons out of it.
I mean how long does the list of weapons easily-attained through crafting need to be before the nay-sayers start just engaging with the system and getting weapons out of it?
But you still stand by your 4.2 hours having any statistical meaning despite me having demonstrated, just by looking at perks, that the average time is much higher, even with very optimistic rng?
sort of suggests you should use zero words like that? like if the only function the insult had was to back up your argument and it did the perfect opposite, which it will =you can write a dissertation explaining something is incorrect and if you call them a (expletive) in the abstract they aren’t reading it, then it’s counterproductive?
utter nonsense. data is trivial to gather, there are a million ways of doing it. contrary to your implication, the plural of anecdote is not data. here’s me testing a simple hypothesis in the system (0.048% to roll specific max 1 perk and 1 blessing - #75 by coolcab). easiest thing in the world - in another thread i outlined what you would need to do to make such statements about curios with any kind of confidence and the limitations and assumptions you’d need to make here: (Dev Blog: Deep Dive into the Shrine - #551 by coolcab). imo that’s a methodologically robust route, please feel free to kick the tyres if you’re more statistically minded than i am.
it’s not hard to gather data you are just disinclined to do so. which is fair! if you don’t wanna play the game don’t, i extend that to everyone good lord. i could not give one flip about playercounts or any of that nonsense. when i stop, which i suspect will be soon since i’m getting bored with all the endgame items i have to be totally honest and am finding learning them a bit of a slog, then i’ll stop. please leave if that will make you happier, it’s what i intend to do.
or are there different criteria - when it’s 0.048, a totally silly thing to say, it’s true but now that we know it’s off by magnitudes it’s oh who’s to say. it’s unknowable! could be one in a billion could be one in a trilliondy trillion, both totally reasonable estimates.
mate, if i wanted a lesson in these things i’d be better off flagging down a random high school student than asking you.
i didn’t really believe that figure, it just matched what i feel and as such it’s clearly probably mostly true. after all, quote
sure seems like you pretty uncritically agreed in both word and deed and didn’t have any problems with these calculations when they matched what you wanted, bud. now that the figures aren’t matching the version in your head, now it’s all ineffable and unknowable.
They match for perfect weapons and curios. Actually worse in reality but it was mentioned the “hidden” mechanics aren’t taken into account let alone any others. Generally considered unfair when things affect probabilities unknown to the players when it’s assumed all things have equal chances. It’s called predatory in other games.
Prove the figures. Go on. I’ll wait. Prove the exact RNG with the exact weightings in the system. I’ll wait.
You’ve also handily ignored that there were huge efforts on this forum pre-patch 4 to gather thousands of datapoints, and the results were truly abysmal. Was that made up? Or are you making things up?
they almost certainly do not, and you have no more insight into how likely they are when you started. this isn’t “hidden mechanics”, the game doesn’t hide that perk levels are correlated to item level, nor does the game imply as your math does that you can get the same perks the same time - as someone was kind enough to demonstrate later. you also miscounted the number of perks available, most likely having googled it and found a list with the defunct “toughness resistance”, i think. and when i asked you to test it reasonably you said:
which isn’t true either, as i explained. none of the “math” you did had anything to do with the game, but it would have also been wrong even if you were trying to calculate the odds for “i have a bag full of marbles, i want to choose three in three pulls, how likely is it”
or in other words, you were disinclined to test it, like i said.
until then we can only disprove things, proving is much more difficult. it’s trivial to disprove silly things, like “all perk levels are equal” as i did with the bet. it is also trivial to prove “perks are unweighted”, at least in rerolls, i think that’s true go prove me wrong. i can’t think of a reasonable methodology of proving “the blessings are weighted” outside of tens of thousands of hours of play, which incidentally 1) i don’t think it true and 2) you are still making a gigantic assumption, that the odds are stacked against the rare outcomes.
also thousands of datapoints just outside of view. they’re everywhere! everyone has done so much research that proves my point that is simply too elegant and evident to cite at all.
you wanna take the bet i offered someone? that would give us a data point, either of them. lets test to see who has a better intuitive assumption of these systems from observation, or make some money for charity? offer is open to all takers btw.
cite this, please. because i remember you saying this in response to someone saying something totally different that didn’t actually imply the conclusion you drew (Dev Blog: Deep Dive into the Shrine - #571 by brosgw here) but you again even there jumped to the maximalist conclusion - ie, you uncritically accepted a datapoint that backed up your bias, even though it didn’t necessarily demonstrate what you thought it did.
and again mate, this is a high school level math problem:
You have a bag with 21 marbles in it. You need to pull three specific marbles, in any order. Calculate the odds of pulling those three marbles.
and you answered (1/21=0.047) so (0.047)(0.047)(0.047) you would have gotten it totally incorrect. that’s not hidden mechanics - garbage data in garbage data out.
You mean this? Needing 5000 clicks? Yeah, seems pretty big difference to me to need 5000 more clicks than a previous one. Feel free to run some auto clickers on curios with different T4 perk amounts and blessing quality to see what it runs. I can’t because I uninstalled the game
which again matches my model (that item level correlates with perk level) but you like your conclusion because it lets you confirm your biases ie that the system is infinitely stacked against the player. and to be clear this person is not providing data, they are providing an anecdote, drawing meaningful conclusions without at least thinking about it for one second will let you pick and choose any conclusion you want.
