Malediktus.9250 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Anet should disclose the exact droprates instead of fooling people with relative words such as common, uncommon, rare, super rare etc. If you gamble in real life you get told the odds for each price category or at least can do some easy math to figure it out. It is silly that online games can still get away with this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 For a variety of reasons, ANet has always chosen to leave it to the community to calculate drop rates. Offering qualitative categories of relative drop rates is a vast improvement, even if it's not particularly useful for making predictions. People who care about numbers are going to either collect their own data or wait for someone else to publish theirs. And it's not very useful to people who don't care about numbers to do more than offer broad generalizations about relative drop rates. There really is no reason to assume that all items in "rare" have the same drop rate and it almost certainly won't matter to the vast majority of players whether items in "super rare" have the same rates. **** > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > I do understand. And that's not how it works in any other RNG container. Just because items are in the same "drop rate category" doesn't mean they have equal rates of appearing. > > > > Maybe that's how Arenanet had been doing the RNG containers, but a normal person wouldn't know this unless they've actually experienced this. At face value, simply looking at the preview of RNG containers give the impression that items of the same category will have same or similar drop chances. Otherwise why would someone go to the trouble of categorizing them? Anet has 2 options, either don't categorize the items at all or be more honest and accurate with their categorization it's not "dishonest" to categorize the dozen items with the lowest drop rates together. Whether it's useful or not is a different question. Anyone interested in quantitative analysis is going to know do that the labels aren't sufficient to predict results. Those who pay more attention to qualitative descriptions aren't going to be helped by further gradations. The fact is that "super rare" is so rare is to be out of reach for the vast majority of players. Plenty of us won't even see any "rare" either. > > > > Even if they were equal, the drop rate of super rare items is so low we might never have enough data to figure out the true drop rates of the items. In the best known data source this season, one person opened up 50000 crates and got 4 super rare drops. Since there are over a dozen potential drops, we'd need to see data on close to 2 million boxes before we'd be able to have an idea of the actual rates. > > > > > , it's quite clear that a lot of the items in the Super Rare category have extraordinarily lower drop rate (i.e. some of the infusions) than others in the same Super Rare category (chaos of lyssa, monocle) > > What data are you using to determine this? > > (I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd like to be able to see the data so I can update my own tracking and attempt to calculate the odds.) > > > And I literally said early in this post that I've opened atleast 3 times that, which is 150000 or more crates. You literally did not say in the opening post, which is where you made your claim. Only by re-reading your many posts can anyone see the claim of 150k, but I don't see any data at all that anyone else could use. "150000 or more" isn't a very comforting when outside observers would like to know the reliability of data. If the poster doesn't know whether it was 150k or 151k, then how sure can we be that they counted the drops accurately? > There is a very distinct pattern to what was dropped Chaos of Lyssa being the more frequent (12), monocle being the 2nd most common (7), poly infusion (4), 2 winter's heart and 1 Aurillium. Quite clearly there's a pattern here. And I am arguing it is unfair and misleading to players to categorize all these items in the list as "Super Rare" when quite clearly some items are extremely more rare than others. Any person without prior knowledge would not know the different items within the same category will have very large difference in drop rate between them and simply take the description at face value because there is absolutely no description any where on the packs to say otherwise. Generally speaking, we want to have enough data that we get 20 or more items dropping in each 'bin' before we're sure that we're seeing a picture of the data. 26 items is just barely that for a category that has over a dozen different drops. Plus, I don't see mention of the weapons, the tonic, or the invisible boots. Second, within that category, there could be a further grouping (that's a typical pattern with games, including this one). Maybe when the game "rolls" a weapon, it rolls again to determine which, so even though there are 7 weapons, they share a single drop rate. But more importantly, 26 from 150k means a drop rate of 1:5770. The Festival offers maximum AP for opening just 100 boxes, so there simply aren't going to be that many folks opening even 1000. From a _qualitative_ perspective, there's no meaningful difference for anyone opening "only" 1000 boxes. They might get one super rare; it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 2; and they almost certainly won't see more than that. In other words, they aren't going to see enough super rares that it matters if the drop rates differ by a little or a lot. And, again, those interested in a quantitative perspective aren't going to rely on any qualitative labeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"squallaus.8321" said: > Some are super rare. Others Extremely Rare. "Super" already is the superlative - there is nothing rarer than super rare. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante.1763 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > Some are super rare. Others Extremely Rare. > > "Super" already is the superlative - there is nothing rarer than super rare. ;) Super Duper Rare! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fremtid.3528 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > For a variety of reasons, ANet has always chosen to leave it to the community to calculate drop rates. Offering qualitative categories of relative drop rates is a vast improvement, even if it's not particularly useful for making predictions. > > People who care about numbers are going to either collect their own data or wait for someone else to publish theirs. And it's not very useful to people who don't care about numbers to do more than offer broad generalizations about relative drop rates. There really is no reason to assume that all items in "rare" have the same drop rate and it almost certainly won't matter to the vast majority of players whether items in "super rare" have the same rates. > > **** > > > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > I do understand. And that's not how it works in any other RNG container. Just because items are in the same "drop rate category" doesn't mean they have equal rates of appearing. > > > > > > > Maybe that's how Arenanet had been doing the RNG containers, but a normal person wouldn't know this unless they've actually experienced this. At face value, simply looking at the preview of RNG containers give the impression that items of the same category will have same or similar drop chances. Otherwise why would someone go to the trouble of categorizing them? Anet has 2 options, either don't categorize the items at all or be more honest and accurate with their categorization > > it's not "dishonest" to categorize the dozen items with the lowest drop rates together. Whether it's useful or not is a different question. Anyone interested in quantitative analysis is going to know do that the labels aren't sufficient to predict results. Those who pay more attention to qualitative descriptions aren't going to be helped by further gradations. The fact is that "super rare" is so rare is to be out of reach for the vast majority of players. Plenty of us won't even see any "rare" either. > > > > > > > > Even if they were equal, the drop rate of super rare items is so low we might never have enough data to figure out the true drop rates of the items. In the best known data source this season, one person opened up 50000 crates and got 4 super rare drops. Since there are over a dozen potential drops, we'd need to see data on close to 2 million boxes before we'd be able to have an idea of the actual rates. > > > > > > > , it's quite clear that a lot of the items in the Super Rare category have extraordinarily lower drop rate (i.e. some of the infusions) than others in the same Super Rare category (chaos of lyssa, monocle) > > > What data are you using to determine this? > > > (I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd like to be able to see the data so I can update my own tracking and attempt to calculate the odds.) > > > > > > And I literally said early in this post that I've opened atleast 3 times that, which is 150000 or more crates. > You literally did not say in the opening post, which is where you made your claim. > Only by re-reading your many posts can anyone see the claim of 150k, but I don't see any data at all that anyone else could use. "150000 or more" isn't a very comforting when outside observers would like to know the reliability of data. If the poster doesn't know whether it was 150k or 151k, then how sure can we be that they counted the drops accurately? > > > There is a very distinct pattern to what was dropped Chaos of Lyssa being the more frequent (12), monocle being the 2nd most common (7), poly infusion (4), 2 winter's heart and 1 Aurillium. Quite clearly there's a pattern here. And I am arguing it is unfair and misleading to players to categorize all these items in the list as "Super Rare" when quite clearly some items are extremely more rare than others. Any person without prior knowledge would not know the different items within the same category will have very large difference in drop rate between them and simply take the description at face value because there is absolutely no description any where on the packs to say otherwise. > > Generally speaking, we want to have enough data that we get 20 or more items dropping in each 'bin' before we're sure that we're seeing a picture of the data. 26 items is just barely that for a category that has over a dozen different drops. Plus, I don't see mention of the weapons, the tonic, or the invisible boots. Second, within that category, there could be a further grouping (that's a typical pattern with games, including this one). Maybe when the game "rolls" a weapon, it rolls again to determine which, so even though there are 7 weapons, they share a single drop rate. > > But more importantly, 26 from 150k means a drop rate of 1:5770. The Festival offers maximum AP for opening just 100 boxes, so there simply aren't going to be that many folks opening even 1000. From a _qualitative_ perspective, there's no meaningful difference for anyone opening "only" 1000 boxes. They might get one super rare; it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 2; and they almost certainly won't see more than that. In other words, they aren't going to see enough super rares that it matters if the drop rates differ by a little or a lot. > > And, again, those interested in a quantitative perspective aren't going to rely on any qualitative labeling. The invisible boots are a black lion chest drop only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > For a variety of reasons, ANet has always chosen to leave it to the community to calculate drop rates. Offering qualitative categories of relative drop rates is a vast improvement, even if it's not particularly useful for making predictions. > > > > People who care about numbers are going to either collect their own data or wait for someone else to publish theirs. And it's not very useful to people who don't care about numbers to do more than offer broad generalizations about relative drop rates. There really is no reason to assume that all items in "rare" have the same drop rate and it almost certainly won't matter to the vast majority of players whether items in "super rare" have the same rates. > > > > **** > > > > > > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > I do understand. And that's not how it works in any other RNG container. Just because items are in the same "drop rate category" doesn't mean they have equal rates of appearing. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe that's how Arenanet had been doing the RNG containers, but a normal person wouldn't know this unless they've actually experienced this. At face value, simply looking at the preview of RNG containers give the impression that items of the same category will have same or similar drop chances. Otherwise why would someone go to the trouble of categorizing them? Anet has 2 options, either don't categorize the items at all or be more honest and accurate with their categorization > > > > it's not "dishonest" to categorize the dozen items with the lowest drop rates together. Whether it's useful or not is a different question. Anyone interested in quantitative analysis is going to know do that the labels aren't sufficient to predict results. Those who pay more attention to qualitative descriptions aren't going to be helped by further gradations. The fact is that "super rare" is so rare is to be out of reach for the vast majority of players. Plenty of us won't even see any "rare" either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if they were equal, the drop rate of super rare items is so low we might never have enough data to figure out the true drop rates of the items. In the best known data source this season, one person opened up 50000 crates and got 4 super rare drops. Since there are over a dozen potential drops, we'd need to see data on close to 2 million boxes before we'd be able to have an idea of the actual rates. > > > > > > > > > , it's quite clear that a lot of the items in the Super Rare category have extraordinarily lower drop rate (i.e. some of the infusions) than others in the same Super Rare category (chaos of lyssa, monocle) > > > > What data are you using to determine this? > > > > (I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd like to be able to see the data so I can update my own tracking and attempt to calculate the odds.) > > > > > > > > > And I literally said early in this post that I've opened atleast 3 times that, which is 150000 or more crates. > > You literally did not say in the opening post, which is where you made your claim. > > Only by re-reading your many posts can anyone see the claim of 150k, but I don't see any data at all that anyone else could use. "150000 or more" isn't a very comforting when outside observers would like to know the reliability of data. If the poster doesn't know whether it was 150k or 151k, then how sure can we be that they counted the drops accurately? > > > > > There is a very distinct pattern to what was dropped Chaos of Lyssa being the more frequent (12), monocle being the 2nd most common (7), poly infusion (4), 2 winter's heart and 1 Aurillium. Quite clearly there's a pattern here. And I am arguing it is unfair and misleading to players to categorize all these items in the list as "Super Rare" when quite clearly some items are extremely more rare than others. Any person without prior knowledge would not know the different items within the same category will have very large difference in drop rate between them and simply take the description at face value because there is absolutely no description any where on the packs to say otherwise. > > > > Generally speaking, we want to have enough data that we get 20 or more items dropping in each 'bin' before we're sure that we're seeing a picture of the data. 26 items is just barely that for a category that has over a dozen different drops. Plus, I don't see mention of the weapons, the tonic, or the invisible boots. Second, within that category, there could be a further grouping (that's a typical pattern with games, including this one). Maybe when the game "rolls" a weapon, it rolls again to determine which, so even though there are 7 weapons, they share a single drop rate. > > > > But more importantly, 26 from 150k means a drop rate of 1:5770. The Festival offers maximum AP for opening just 100 boxes, so there simply aren't going to be that many folks opening even 1000. From a _qualitative_ perspective, there's no meaningful difference for anyone opening "only" 1000 boxes. They might get one super rare; it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 2; and they almost certainly won't see more than that. In other words, they aren't going to see enough super rares that it matters if the drop rates differ by a little or a lot. > > > > And, again, those interested in a quantitative perspective aren't going to rely on any qualitative labeling. > > The invisible boots are a black lion chest drop only. No, not true. They are in the basic supply boxes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fremtid.3528 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > For a variety of reasons, ANet has always chosen to leave it to the community to calculate drop rates. Offering qualitative categories of relative drop rates is a vast improvement, even if it's not particularly useful for making predictions. > > > > > > People who care about numbers are going to either collect their own data or wait for someone else to publish theirs. And it's not very useful to people who don't care about numbers to do more than offer broad generalizations about relative drop rates. There really is no reason to assume that all items in "rare" have the same drop rate and it almost certainly won't matter to the vast majority of players whether items in "super rare" have the same rates. > > > > > > **** > > > > > > > > > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > > > I do understand. And that's not how it works in any other RNG container. Just because items are in the same "drop rate category" doesn't mean they have equal rates of appearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe that's how Arenanet had been doing the RNG containers, but a normal person wouldn't know this unless they've actually experienced this. At face value, simply looking at the preview of RNG containers give the impression that items of the same category will have same or similar drop chances. Otherwise why would someone go to the trouble of categorizing them? Anet has 2 options, either don't categorize the items at all or be more honest and accurate with their categorization > > > > > > it's not "dishonest" to categorize the dozen items with the lowest drop rates together. Whether it's useful or not is a different question. Anyone interested in quantitative analysis is going to know do that the labels aren't sufficient to predict results. Those who pay more attention to qualitative descriptions aren't going to be helped by further gradations. The fact is that "super rare" is so rare is to be out of reach for the vast majority of players. Plenty of us won't even see any "rare" either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if they were equal, the drop rate of super rare items is so low we might never have enough data to figure out the true drop rates of the items. In the best known data source this season, one person opened up 50000 crates and got 4 super rare drops. Since there are over a dozen potential drops, we'd need to see data on close to 2 million boxes before we'd be able to have an idea of the actual rates. > > > > > > > > > > > , it's quite clear that a lot of the items in the Super Rare category have extraordinarily lower drop rate (i.e. some of the infusions) than others in the same Super Rare category (chaos of lyssa, monocle) > > > > > What data are you using to determine this? > > > > > (I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd like to be able to see the data so I can update my own tracking and attempt to calculate the odds.) > > > > > > > > > > > > And I literally said early in this post that I've opened atleast 3 times that, which is 150000 or more crates. > > > You literally did not say in the opening post, which is where you made your claim. > > > Only by re-reading your many posts can anyone see the claim of 150k, but I don't see any data at all that anyone else could use. "150000 or more" isn't a very comforting when outside observers would like to know the reliability of data. If the poster doesn't know whether it was 150k or 151k, then how sure can we be that they counted the drops accurately? > > > > > > > There is a very distinct pattern to what was dropped Chaos of Lyssa being the more frequent (12), monocle being the 2nd most common (7), poly infusion (4), 2 winter's heart and 1 Aurillium. Quite clearly there's a pattern here. And I am arguing it is unfair and misleading to players to categorize all these items in the list as "Super Rare" when quite clearly some items are extremely more rare than others. Any person without prior knowledge would not know the different items within the same category will have very large difference in drop rate between them and simply take the description at face value because there is absolutely no description any where on the packs to say otherwise. > > > > > > Generally speaking, we want to have enough data that we get 20 or more items dropping in each 'bin' before we're sure that we're seeing a picture of the data. 26 items is just barely that for a category that has over a dozen different drops. Plus, I don't see mention of the weapons, the tonic, or the invisible boots. Second, within that category, there could be a further grouping (that's a typical pattern with games, including this one). Maybe when the game "rolls" a weapon, it rolls again to determine which, so even though there are 7 weapons, they share a single drop rate. > > > > > > But more importantly, 26 from 150k means a drop rate of 1:5770. The Festival offers maximum AP for opening just 100 boxes, so there simply aren't going to be that many folks opening even 1000. From a _qualitative_ perspective, there's no meaningful difference for anyone opening "only" 1000 boxes. They might get one super rare; it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 2; and they almost certainly won't see more than that. In other words, they aren't going to see enough super rares that it matters if the drop rates differ by a little or a lot. > > > > > > And, again, those interested in a quantitative perspective aren't going to rely on any qualitative labeling. > > > > The invisible boots are a black lion chest drop only. > > No, not true. They are in the basic supply boxes as well. I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb *Edit* oh I never noticed until now that the loot table is uneven and that the box is the last thing in a separate row all by itself hiding in a long list of things. That is stupid and poorly thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante.1763 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > For a variety of reasons, ANet has always chosen to leave it to the community to calculate drop rates. Offering qualitative categories of relative drop rates is a vast improvement, even if it's not particularly useful for making predictions. > > > > > > > > People who care about numbers are going to either collect their own data or wait for someone else to publish theirs. And it's not very useful to people who don't care about numbers to do more than offer broad generalizations about relative drop rates. There really is no reason to assume that all items in "rare" have the same drop rate and it almost certainly won't matter to the vast majority of players whether items in "super rare" have the same rates. > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > > > > > I do understand. And that's not how it works in any other RNG container. Just because items are in the same "drop rate category" doesn't mean they have equal rates of appearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe that's how Arenanet had been doing the RNG containers, but a normal person wouldn't know this unless they've actually experienced this. At face value, simply looking at the preview of RNG containers give the impression that items of the same category will have same or similar drop chances. Otherwise why would someone go to the trouble of categorizing them? Anet has 2 options, either don't categorize the items at all or be more honest and accurate with their categorization > > > > > > > > it's not "dishonest" to categorize the dozen items with the lowest drop rates together. Whether it's useful or not is a different question. Anyone interested in quantitative analysis is going to know do that the labels aren't sufficient to predict results. Those who pay more attention to qualitative descriptions aren't going to be helped by further gradations. The fact is that "super rare" is so rare is to be out of reach for the vast majority of players. Plenty of us won't even see any "rare" either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if they were equal, the drop rate of super rare items is so low we might never have enough data to figure out the true drop rates of the items. In the best known data source this season, one person opened up 50000 crates and got 4 super rare drops. Since there are over a dozen potential drops, we'd need to see data on close to 2 million boxes before we'd be able to have an idea of the actual rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > , it's quite clear that a lot of the items in the Super Rare category have extraordinarily lower drop rate (i.e. some of the infusions) than others in the same Super Rare category (chaos of lyssa, monocle) > > > > > > What data are you using to determine this? > > > > > > (I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd like to be able to see the data so I can update my own tracking and attempt to calculate the odds.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I literally said early in this post that I've opened atleast 3 times that, which is 150000 or more crates. > > > > You literally did not say in the opening post, which is where you made your claim. > > > > Only by re-reading your many posts can anyone see the claim of 150k, but I don't see any data at all that anyone else could use. "150000 or more" isn't a very comforting when outside observers would like to know the reliability of data. If the poster doesn't know whether it was 150k or 151k, then how sure can we be that they counted the drops accurately? > > > > > > > > > There is a very distinct pattern to what was dropped Chaos of Lyssa being the more frequent (12), monocle being the 2nd most common (7), poly infusion (4), 2 winter's heart and 1 Aurillium. Quite clearly there's a pattern here. And I am arguing it is unfair and misleading to players to categorize all these items in the list as "Super Rare" when quite clearly some items are extremely more rare than others. Any person without prior knowledge would not know the different items within the same category will have very large difference in drop rate between them and simply take the description at face value because there is absolutely no description any where on the packs to say otherwise. > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, we want to have enough data that we get 20 or more items dropping in each 'bin' before we're sure that we're seeing a picture of the data. 26 items is just barely that for a category that has over a dozen different drops. Plus, I don't see mention of the weapons, the tonic, or the invisible boots. Second, within that category, there could be a further grouping (that's a typical pattern with games, including this one). Maybe when the game "rolls" a weapon, it rolls again to determine which, so even though there are 7 weapons, they share a single drop rate. > > > > > > > > But more importantly, 26 from 150k means a drop rate of 1:5770. The Festival offers maximum AP for opening just 100 boxes, so there simply aren't going to be that many folks opening even 1000. From a _qualitative_ perspective, there's no meaningful difference for anyone opening "only" 1000 boxes. They might get one super rare; it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 2; and they almost certainly won't see more than that. In other words, they aren't going to see enough super rares that it matters if the drop rates differ by a little or a lot. > > > > > > > > And, again, those interested in a quantitative perspective aren't going to rely on any qualitative labeling. > > > > > > The invisible boots are a black lion chest drop only. > > > > No, not true. They are in the basic supply boxes as well. > > I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Zephyrite_Supply_Box Green version, super rare table very bottom. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Zephyrite_Curio_Box_(rare) Yellow version, same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlinvf.1358 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > Anet should disclose the exact droprates instead of fooling people with relative words such as common, uncommon, rare, super rare etc. > > If you gamble in real life you get told the odds for each price category or at least can do some easy math to figure it out. It is silly that online games can still get away with this.. I don't think it matters..... Lotterys have to disclose odds as part of regulation, but can you consider the average person more informed when it hasn't changed their behavior? Our thought processes are heavily governed by comparative assessment, and more knowledge/data doesn't really help us if its occurring in a vacuum. Single source is a loose example of this, as its not question of how to best obtain something, but literally "do we want this or not". Its only when you bring in "what else I can spend this resources on?" that the data actually becomes useful, and the concept of efficiency or investment cost is brought into question. For us, Gen2 Legendary weapons are obtained a specific way, yet the primary concern is if its worth investing the gold to get, if our material stock pile offsets the that cost enough, and if the gold would be better spent on something else. If gold is removed the equation (say we have 50k in the bank), then the next big blocker is deciding which weapon to get, and how often you would use it. I like Binding of Ipos, but none of my builds use Focus. But I use Axes a lot, so why not make Astralaria, even if I like the skin less. But theres a loop hole in this logic..... presumed loss vs loss aversion vs theoretical gain. In the lottery example: ts where you know the odds are stacked against you, and you could spend that resource on something more practical, but the loss doesn't impact your immediate situation, and on the off chance you win it becomes a game changer. And yes its stupid. But this concept is how insurance works, and we buy into it because we view it as loss aversion rather then theoretical gains. 2 statistically identical setups, yet our view of them is vastly different. Now while you could sit down and do the math to make a more accurate comparison of the 2 systems, you face the question of what could you be spending that time on that could be more "useful".... and it wouldn't even have to be productive. A lot of us struggle with this idea that, for time spent, Gems to Gold is way more efficient then farming for gold, but still don't want to feel like spending money is the best recourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProverbsofHell.2307 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb *Edit* oh I never noticed until now that the loot table is uneven and that the box is the last thing in a separate row all by itself hiding in a long list of things. That is stupid and poorly thought out. Is it really so hard for people just to go, "I'm sorry, I was wrong"? Pfft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlinvf.1358 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said: > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb *Edit* oh I never noticed until now that the loot table is uneven and that the box is the last thing in a separate row all by itself hiding in a long list of things. That is stupid and poorly thought out. > > Is it really so hard for people just to go, "I'm sorry, I was wrong"? Pfft. > > People can never be wrong..... reality just changed at the last minute to mess with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fremtid.3528 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said: > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb *Edit* oh I never noticed until now that the loot table is uneven and that the box is the last thing in a separate row all by itself hiding in a long list of things. That is stupid and poorly thought out. > > Is it really so hard for people just to go, "I'm sorry, I was wrong"? Pfft. > > Also: I admitted I was wrong when I posted that he was correct. My following text about how its stupid that I could make a mistake that it was not included based on the fact on how it was arranged in the box in no reason for me to grovel. I don't owe anyone an apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 I blew through all my stored materials and about 100g in mithril and got nothing but a crapton of festival tokens and a couple of glove skins.. can't say it was worth it. Suffice to say I won't be bothering with sink items again.. the drop rates are far too garbage to justify wasting any money or materials on them. I'd have been better off selling the mats tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Spiro.3291 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Common - The thing you will probably get Uncommon - The thing you might get, but don't bet on it Rare - The thing you probably are not going to get Super Rare - Everything past rare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlinvf.1358 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > > > > @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said: > > > > > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > > > > > I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb *Edit* oh I never noticed until now that the loot table is uneven and that the box is the last thing in a separate row all by itself hiding in a long list of things. That is stupid and poorly thought out. > > > > > > > > > > Is it really so hard for people just to go, "I'm sorry, I was wrong"? Pfft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People can never be wrong..... reality just changed at the last minute to mess with him. > > > > > > Her, and it's about as easy to admit you're wrong as it is to insert your nose into a disagreement between to other people and white knight for someone *rolls eyes*. > > > > First of all.... I'm half Asian, half Minority, so clearly I can't a be "white" knight. Secondly, I didn't go around mocking your nose, so I don't see why you think its necessary to make fun of mine. (Header 3): Just because you don't believe reality alters itself into a state constant irony, doesn't mean you have the right to dismiss my belief... that's just intolerant. And finally, that comment wasn't even directed "at you". So I find the hypocrisy of it all laughable, if I wasn't so offended by your unwelcome, hyper aggressive response. > > At the risk of further derailing the thread, "white knight" doesn't have any race connotations that I'm aware of but feel free to investigate the history of the term and prove me wrong at your discretion. PM me though to prevent further derailment. Also, I've never seen your nose and have no reason to "make fun of anything", if you weren't referring to me, we don't have any beef. > @"Dante.1763" said: > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > > > > @"ProverbsofHell.2307" said: > > > > > > @"Fremtid.3528" said: > > > > > > I literally looked at the loot tables this morning but if you'd like me to go ingame and get a screenshot to prove you wrong brb *Edit* oh I never noticed until now that the loot table is uneven and that the box is the last thing in a separate row all by itself hiding in a long list of things. That is stupid and poorly thought out. > > > > > > > > > > Is it really so hard for people just to go, "I'm sorry, I was wrong"? Pfft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People can never be wrong..... reality just changed at the last minute to mess with him. > > > > > > Her, and it's about as easy to admit you're wrong as it is to insert your nose into a disagreement between to other people and white knight for someone *rolls eyes*. > > > > First of all.... I'm half Asian, half Minority, so clearly I can't a be "white" knight. Secondly, I didn't go around mocking your nose, so I don't see why you think its necessary to make fun of mine. (Header 3): Just because you don't believe reality alters itself into a state constant irony, doesn't mean you have the right to dismiss my belief... that's just intolerant. And finally, that comment wasn't even directed "at you". So I find the hypocrisy of it all laughable, if I wasn't so offended by your unwelcome, hyper aggressive response. > > Yea...Uhm..white knight isnt a racist connotation its used to define someone who goes to extremes to defend women on the internet. And inserting a nose into a conversation is an old phrase. Perhaps you are reading way to far into things. I........ I don't know if this a joke anymore, and its actually starting to scare me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 > @"Kal Spiro.3291" said: > Common - The thing you will probably get > Uncommon - The thing you might get, but don't bet on it > Rare - The thing you probably are not going to get > Super Rare - Everything past rare Thats how i saw it too. Overzealous labelling will just be silly at some point. Or just name the drop chances from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenedge.9675 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 TL;DR - gambling is BAD, M'kay ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > For a variety of reasons, ANet has always chosen to leave it to the community to calculate drop rates. Offering qualitative categories of relative drop rates is a vast improvement, even if it's not particularly useful for making predictions. > > People who care about numbers are going to either collect their own data or wait for someone else to publish theirs. And it's not very useful to people who don't care about numbers to do more than offer broad generalizations about relative drop rates. There really is no reason to assume that all items in "rare" have the same drop rate and it almost certainly won't matter to the vast majority of players whether items in "super rare" have the same rates. > Putting labels to the items means that they want players to have certain assumptions about the items. Labelling them as drop rate related terms such as "Common", "Uncommon", "Rare", "Super Rare" means they want a normal player to assume drop rates of the items. And I am arguing the current labelling will set unrealistic and inaccurate expectation in the average player. You being someone who is out there specifically to looking for drop rates of various items tells me you are already very experienced skeptical about the underlying mechanisms and therefore not the average normal player. Whether this apply to the vast majority of players or not is really besides the point. It matters to people who do try these Zephyrite Supply Box a lot. Are you telling me just because most players don't roll 100k boxes, we'll just pretend people who do rolled 100k or more boxes don't exist and they don't matter? > it's not "dishonest" to categorize the dozen items with the lowest drop rates together. Whether it's useful or not is a different question. Anyone interested in quantitative analysis is going to know do that the labels aren't sufficient to predict results. Those who pay more attention to qualitative descriptions aren't going to be helped by further gradations. The fact is that "super rare" is so rare is to be out of reach for the vast majority of players. Plenty of us won't even see any "rare" either. > Except it is dishonest. The moment you advertise and set an label for an item you are setting an expectation for said item. > You literally did not say in the opening post, which is where you made your claim. > Only by re-reading your many posts can anyone see the claim of 150k, but I don't see any data at all that anyone else could use. "150000 or more" isn't a very comforting when outside observers would like to know the reliability of data. If the poster doesn't know whether it was 150k or 151k, then how sure can we be that they counted the drops accurately? Not "many" post I mentioned it in my 2nd post of this thread, which was the 4th post from the top. I am here to report and complain about a trend that is contrary to what arenanet's current drop rate related categorization of items portrays. Having simply opened enough Zephyrite Supply Box will substantiate my claim for a trend. I'm not here to provide you with exact statistics. If you're so picky about 150k vs 151k then go roll your own. > > Generally speaking, we want to have enough data that we get 20 or more items dropping in each 'bin' before we're sure that we're seeing a picture of the data. 26 items is just barely that for a category that has over a dozen different drops. Plus, I don't see mention of the weapons, the tonic, or the invisible boots. Second, within that category, there could be a further grouping (that's a typical pattern with games, including this one). Maybe when the game "rolls" a weapon, it rolls again to determine which, so even though there are 7 weapons, they share a single drop rate. > Then you obviously don't understand how trend and statistics work in general. As the sample size increases the confidence interval for the said claim to be right increases. The chances of my claim of the trend for the drop rates of the items in the Zephyrite Supply Box to be wrong after sampled 150,000 of them is pretty low. It is not perfect but good enough to talk about some items in the Super Rare category have extraordinarily low chances compared to other items in the same category. Out of the 26 Super Rare item drops, 12 of them is Chaos of Lyssa, 7 being monocles. I think the trend is pretty clear. > But more importantly, 26 from 150k means a drop rate of 1:5770. The Festival offers maximum AP for opening just 100 boxes, so there simply aren't going to be that many folks opening even 1000. From a _qualitative_ perspective, there's no meaningful difference for anyone opening "only" 1000 boxes. They might get one super rare; it's extremely unlikely that they'd get 2; and they almost certainly won't see more than that. In other words, they aren't going to see enough super rares that it matters if the drop rates differ by a little or a lot. > Yeah so just because most people won't open that many Zephyrite Supply Box, screw those that open a lot. Again this is besides the point of misrepresentation in the labelling of items that drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 > @"keenedge.9675" said: > TL;DR - gambling is BAD, M'kay ? As a general rule don't expect to win when you gamble. That is not the problem here. The problem is the current way that arenanet categorise items into "Common", "Uncommon", "Rare" and "Super Rare" is misleading and set unrealistic expectations because items categorized as Super Rare will in reality have vastly different drop rates to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > @"keenedge.9675" said: > > TL;DR - gambling is BAD, M'kay ? > > As a general rule don't expect to win when you gamble. That is not the problem here. The problem is the current way that arenanet categorise items into "Common", "Uncommon", "Rare" and "Super Rare" is misleading and set unrealistic expectations because items categorized as Super Rare will in reality have vastly different drop rates to each other. Unrealistic maybe.. but certainly effective enough to get players to sink ungodly amounts of mats into them... I am of the mind that after 20,30 bags and nothing but useless tokens, it really isn't worth the effort any longer, but for some that isn't enough of a reason to refrain from buying. If players woke up to the fact this isn't a sure thing then maybe the data coming back to ANET would perhaps sway them into thinking they need to make adjustments. Until then expect to be unexpectedly disappointed almost every single purchase. ANET only dangle the carrots, we are the ones who cant stop ourselves from reaching for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloc Freidon.5692 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 My problem is that some of the items in Rare shouldn't even be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drecien.4508 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 They should rename the category to "claw machine" lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 It's a joke. I opened over 1,000 of them throughout the festival, and the rarest things I received was the mini and (the most valuable one) a heavy-armor monocle, which both I had already unlocked before the festival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artemis.6781 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > It's a joke. I opened over 1,000 of them throughout the festival, and the rarest things I received was the mini and (the most valuable one) a heavy-armor monocle, which both I had already unlocked before the festival. Yeah I was very disappointed that I got the back skins in the chests when I had all of them from the first festival. I thought I'd at least get a wardrobe unlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lahmia.2193 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 It's probably been said before but this is Anet's way of boosting the economy. Everyone and their mother trades in materials for these boxes, in the hopes they get a rare drop. Material prices rise and Anets work is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now