thanks, never played a dot build before so wasn’t sure. so definitely a downgrade 
If you hover over the armour stat in the character screen, the popup tells you that armour only affects hit damage.
Of course, but it’s almost as close as you’ll get to a guaranteed success without actually making it a guaranteed success.
There are no 2 ways about it. If you have RNG there’s always a chance you’ll never get the result you want, no matter the odds, if you don’t have RNG then it’s a guaranteed result.
You either have 1 or the other.
Which is a 1 in 3 chance to manage it, after all the pre-setup needed, hence another layer, hence a massive removal in motivation as you gotta redo all the long-lasting steps beforehand.
Miles better doesn’t cut it when the issue isn’t solved. Yeah, it’s better… but still an issue! 
Well, plainly spoken it’s a good philosophy!
But if the uppermost layer can’t be changed for good reasons then likely the issue is with a lower sitting layer causing said issue in the first place.
So, we got a high variability item generation system. That means it inherently has high RNG.
RNG is a factor that can cause extreme outliers, the higher variance the more likely the chance for outliers in any direction… but not in total compared to ‘normal’ ones.
That’s inherent and removing it would take away the whole functionality of the variance in the first place, which is to be avoided. Chronicon did that and it feels absolutely bad, you get non-stop success for 10 hours and then you’re ‘done’ with the game as there’s literally nothing more possible to upgrade, your character is ‘perfect’. Not a good long-term strategy… functions since it’s a ‘small’ indie game though, really great for those 10 hours!
So the lowermost layer also isn’t possible to be changed substantially.
That leaves a mechanic which counteracts the RNG introduced through the high variance in drops, which is… crafting. That’s the first and major goal of such a system after all, allowing to change items accordingly to alleviate the variance in drop-rate. More or less doesn’t matter, that’s a balance question, not a design question.
So, the issue is solved! Clap yourself on the back and be done with it, right? Well… no.
And the ‘no’ there is because EHG did something really really dumb, based on a problem ontroduced with the execution of the base system. With the powerful very deterministic crafting mechanic for base affixes you could reach the absolute top-end of gear in a day of play-time, no possible further upgrades. The game was ‘done’. The exact same issue Chronicon has actually. So EHG tried to be extra smart and save up on re-working the core system entirely… as it’s a inherently failed system. They went along to introduce Exalted affixes. Drop-only, not affected by crafting at all.
Wait a second… did crafting not fix the issue with variance? So… why are we re-introducing it and wondering ‘well, it doesn’t quite work, where did we go wrong?’. Kinda the train of thought there.
Sure, for users the first thought is ‘great, something new to strive for!’ but then it goes into the exact issues tried to be avoided via the introduction of crafting.
I mean… that should get you thinking already, doesn’t it?
So what would be viable option?
Well, none of them will sound ‘nice’ because there is no functional solution at the top layer pre-existing.
Either EHG would need to work out a completely unseen and new way (or one I’ve missed) to handle that situation.
Or they implement vastly more powerful crafting options then demise and havoc for exalted affixes specifically, but less powerful then the baseline crafting system.
Or they need to rework their fundamental mechanics from the ground up.
The last is a death-sentence for the product.
The second is possible but really hard to dial in.
The first is a unicorn to think about, especially when we take proper balancing into consideration as well as avoiding all possible pitfalls coming with that.
This would then lead to a substantial increase in production of good items based solely on the base-type and the tier levels on the item, not the affix roll itself.
Which obviously introduces severe balance and progression issues as already overall progression is done in a moment compared to any competition (nearing D3/D4 levels of retention time) but we got nothing available beyond and no powerful franchise backing the company to sustain despite that.
So the answer to that then is branching out in content increasing retention time through content quantity instead, which takes a boatload of time to create.
EHG had years to fix their crap and it has been pointed out - but drowned by ‘no, everything’s alright!’ people - repeatedly, they just didn’t look into it and understand the situation at hand… or didn’t even see those comments existing (which is a communication mistake on their ends hence, proper processing of information from customers is mandatory).
So now they scramble to fix their crap they created with mechanics like ‘havic rune’ or ‘demise rune’ or ‘weaver tree imprints’ which all affect a really really narrow aspect of the core issue existing without making a broad sweep to engulfe it completely… as doing so would also be detrimental.
Doomed if you do, doomed if you don’t.
You get a cumulative chance which isn’t 66% and also not 33%, actually depending on not only specific affixes but a range of them being available what would be needed is a ‘stochastic matrix’ to solve the likelyhood of the outcome, but that’s kinda annoying to math out.
Yes, for long-term players the LE system is not good and off-putting. In that case PoE 1 and Torchlight Infinite provide better solutions.
Yes, it is as useless.
But provides a sense of failing, which is not able to be overcome through any actual choice you as a player make, hence inherently a negative unavoidable feeling. So reducing the chance for that to exist is as mandatory as it comes.
We’re also not talking about ‘elevating’ an item but instead core progress without alternatives existing for your character.
See above, I provided the options, those are the ones available. I don’t think any other exists actually, and they’re written specifically broad enough to include every situation.
Which depends on the pre-existing affixes on the item. Havoc is not always an option, which means Redemption is the fallback method. A very high chance situation to happen and hence not able to buffer what Havoc can’t provide at the time.
Not when you focus on a singular system and don’t take a step back to take in the bigger picture. I’ve learned that when a solution inside a system seems like it’s not ‘there’ fully to take a step back and look at the underyling systems as well.
And when you do that you find the issues ‘relatively’ quickly.
Still took over a year for me, but I’m also not a dev and am supposed to fix that as my main lifelyhood.
Yes, the progression scaling is absolutely insane in LE and needs severe work to be reigned in properly.
Oh, their solution is simply a bad design choice.
A better solution would’ve been a properly scaling system there.
As example:
You go ahead and find your first 1 LP item of a unique you need, great! Now upgrade it! You get no guarantee as it’s progression. Base RNG should apply in this situation still.
But the twist, when you actually hit the 1 LP item and find a 2 LP item it formerly felt like a regression to miss 2 stats entirely, that obviously shouldn’t happen.
So the solution? A third slot to input a already rolled unique of the exact same type. If the Affix is a 1 to 1 correlation (T7 health and T7 health for example) then you can ‘lock it in’ and guarantee it to hit, with the former unique being consumed in the process. Now only the second Affix is RNG limited.
This ensures a gradual smooth progression. This way you can piece by piece advance without ever ‘falling back’ which produces the bad feeling.
Don’t worry, beyond a single T7 affix MG is worse then CoF! Long-term CoF is the superior faction actually, short term solely to get to a starting point - and then lack any progression - it’s MG.
Player factions are a nice idea but badly executed, failing to achieve what their goal is inherently.
CoF comes a lot closer then MG at least though in doing that.
Yes, which makes a guarantee for 1 LP worthless for some and extremely OP for others.
Hence not a good design. Creating a superior outcome should be based on acquisition rate of the LP item and not solely on a individual situation. Reduction of RNg through the law of big numbers, causes players to generally hit the upgrade more likely around the same timeframe and making it possible to more easily work towards it.
I’m playing MG. In 600 hours of gameplay I never saw that item once 
But the ability to mass-spam ring uniques does definitely allow that to drop surprisingly easily in CoF
The magnitude of difference is so severe that we’re once again talking about the possibility of someone existing which experiences that in terms of world-population size over the span of generations.
Hence not applicable.
1 Like
Did you read what I was replying to?
in fact it does, when you flip coin first time chances are 50/50, when you flip second time chance to get two in row are lower,
1 Like
Every flip is 50/50 regardless of previous flip. The overall statistical average will always trend towards 50/50, but the chance of each individual flip never changes.
Actually wrong.
The chance for a single coin-flip is 50/50.
For consecutive coin-flips the formula is (1/2)^k (‘k’ being the exponent, hence the number of flips.)
Hence if you have 2 coin flips that means it’s 1/2^2 = 1/4 outcomes. Which is 4 possible outcomes. That means since there’s only 2 outcomes it stays at 50%.
2 options given are ‘heads’ and 2 options given are ‘tails’, a 50/50 split.
At 3 tries it changes though. 1/2^3 = 1/8… and we only got 3 tosses, right? So the chance of getting 1 time ‘heads’ is not 50% anymore since out of 3 tosses only 1 is allowed to have heads. That means Toss 1, Toss 2 or Toss 3. Never Toss 1 and 2 or toss 2 and 3.
This means our probability is 3/8.
So it’s a 37,5% chance to achieve such an outcome.
Yes, every singularly viewed event is a 50/50 chance, but your chance to have gotten a single ‘positive’ outcome (tails in this case) after 3 tries still would be 62,5%.
This is considering the overall statistical outcome, sure, not the chance of the next flip. Each flip has the same 50/50 chance and has no influence on the next flip. This is what I meant when I said “every flip is 50/50 regardless of previous flip. The overall statistical average will always trend towards 50/50, but the chance of individual flip never changes.”
The topic is clearly talking about the overall statistical outcome though?
It wasn’t the OP I was responding to, it was a post by AngryEvilCookie
Which also states ‘two in a row’.
The sentiment behind it is consecutive outcomes, not individual ones hence.
In his example it would be a chance of 25%.
1 Like
Absolutely, but the expectation per instance will always be 50/50. We’re on the same page, for sure
I’m impressed that you managed to say a thing then conttadict yourself in the next sentence. Are you trying to confuse people by mixing combinations and permutations?
Just tried another 3 LP2 slams today, im done with this game. none of them hit, this is stupid frustrating and makes me not want to play
I AM DONE
Just a brainfart and issues with explanations as usually, so here the long version to clear it up:
4 possible outcomes.
3 unique outcomes.
2 are identical of the 4.
It’s
‘1 + 1’
‘0 + 1’
‘1 + 0’
and ‘0 + 0’
In our case we only searched for ‘success once’ hence ‘1 + 1’ and ‘0+ 0’ are not relevant, they have no succes or a double success (you would’ve stopped after the first)
This leads us with the 2 identical outcomes for our case, ‘0 + 1’ and ‘1 + 0’ which is ‘one success and one miss’.
And I actually upon writing it out I realize the nonsense of the formula used, it’s the wrong one entirely… after all we only want to have ‘1’ existing, that’s it, isn’t it? The ‘1’ represent our chance of success after all.
So in reality our success chance with the outcome is 1/n actually… since anything else then a row of ‘0’ is a success for us.
In that case with 4 rolls anything else then (0 + 0 + 0 + 0) is acceptable for us. Which means from our (1/2)^4 = 1/16 our actual chance to fail is now… 1/16, or 6,25%.
Which means our winning chance with 4 consecutive rolls is actually 93,75%.
Mind you, with LP that’s a differenct case because we have a intrinsic 1/3 chance to hit the right outcome and hence a different percentile, it was only related to the dice example.