The Age of Winter 555 corrupted timline cleared to see all types of nodes there

[Kulze]

@DJSamhein

Which is why I said it was the “fairer” solution.

Fair would be to balance in a targeted manner rather then doing it as a great swipe affecting everyone differently.

@DJSamhein

With LE, you have smaller fluctuations for everything.

So that leads to: ‘I don’t know when I can expect an item’.
‘I don’t know when a player should even expect a specific grade of progress’.
‘I don’t know which power level a player will have related to content at any specific time’.

It’s a balance nightmare. I have no clue about anything. All I can do is flail around blindly rather then making informed decisions.
Might hit the mark… might fail the mark.

It’s not preference. Either you have the knowledge and use it… or you don’t have the knowledge and acquire it. Luck is exactly that… luck. And unless you become so skilled that ‘luck’ is the norm it’ll run out.
And what then?

@DJSamhein

but other uniques will take longer.

Why?
As mentioned. I can either get every single unique once per 1000 hours… or I can get every sort of category once per hour. That’s up to the design behind it.

If I see too few uniques in generally by the second you can also implement a modifier based on the amount of uniques for quantity. Then yes… that 1000 changes suddenly… but each item stays still in relation to each other.

Not even that is guaranteed. Everything changes. nothing stays constant. It’s a prime ‘chaos machine’ still.
There is not a single fixed value anywhere. You can’t say ‘I wanna see this category that often’ ‘I wanna see that item that often’ ‘I wanna see those in proportion to the other types that often’ you got nothing.

[gregory_portman]

This thread went out of topic completely. I juat wanted to say that ~10 nodes out of 220 is to few when you choose to farm rings and amulets.

I would like to know if players agree or not with the statement.

[Kulze]

Too few

[gregory_portman]

Lol

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

Fair would be to balance in a targeted manner rather then doing it as a great swipe affecting everyone differently.

The point is that it affects everyone the same way. PoE’s method is the one that affects players differently if they’re on SSF or trade requiring external systems to bridge the gap.

@Kulze

So that leads to: ‘I don’t know when I can expect an item’.

It doesn’t. You always know when you get the item. The only difference is that when LE says they will add a new unique, you won’t know what the new value will be. But once the item is added, you know it again.

EHG added rings in 1.1. In 1.1 you know you will get 1 in 1000. If they annouce that they will add 2 more rings in 1.2, right now you won’t know how many you will need then, but once you have the reroll values for them, you know it once again.

It’s still a calculable percentage. It just requires a longer formula and isn’t immediately perceivable from outside how percentages will change before you add them. But once they’re added, you know it again.

@Kulze

I have no clue about anything.

You still do. LE’s method can be reduced to a single table just like PoE’s where each item has a fixed percentage to get.

@Kulze

Why?
As mentioned. I can either get every single unique once per 1000 hours… or I can get every sort of category once per hour. That’s up to the design behind it.

If you add uniques and you can still get every single unique once per 1000h, that means that individual chances have dropped (more uniques, takes the same time). And since you keep your anchor(s) in the same timeframe, all other uniques shift even more.
If you add uniques and you can still get every sort of category once per hour, then individual chances have increased (more uniques, takes longer to get them). And since you still have the same timeframe for anchors, all other uniques shift even more.

I though we had agreed on this already. You either keep “a” or “the” the same, but that causes bigger shifts in the other.

@Kulze

If I see too few uniques in generally by the second you can also implement a modifier based on the amount of uniques for quantity.

Again, this is a universal external multiplier, it doesn’t really matter for this discussion. You can do the same thing in LE (which is what CoF does).

@Kulze

Then yes… that 1000 changes suddenly… but each item stays still in relation to each other.

Again you’re shifting goal posts. The whole premise was that your 1000 would always stay 1000.
If you want each item rarity to remain the same in relation to each other, LE’s method does that.

@Kulze

There is not a single fixed value anywhere. You can’t say ‘I wanna see this category that often’ ‘I wanna see that item that often’ ‘I wanna see those in proportion to the other types that often’ you got nothing.

You can. Since LE’s method can be translated to a single drop chance table you can analyze that and decide what you want to change.

@gregory_portman

I would like to know if players agree or not with the statement.

Without more data points we can’t really know. Was that a fluke and you got too few of them? Was that the norm? You can’t really make an informed opinion on an RNG system with just one entry point.

If we assume it’s the norm, how many different types of nodes are there? You have XP, gold, runes, glyphs, affixes, idols, arena keys, rare and exalted for each slot, general unique/set, specific unique/set type, beacons (let’s ignore the other special ones, since they’re rare).

Considering that those types of echoes should be rarer (as opposed to gold/glyphs/etc), 1 in 22 actually seems sort of balanced and they’re rolling as if they’re common.

It would be more useful if you could give a total breakdown of each node type, but I can understand that it would be quite boring to do.

[TyphonBaan]

@DJSamhein

@gregory_portman

I would like to know if players agree or not with the statement.

Without more data points we can’t really know. Was that a fluke and you got too few of them? Was that the norm? You can’t really make an informed opinion on an RNG system with just one entry point.

I think you are answering a question he didn’t ask. I think you answered, “is the system that builds the mono-boards fair from a targeted-farming perspective”.

I think he’s asking exactly what he asked, which is, “do you think 10 nodes out of 220 is crap given that I’m trying to use mono to target farm”. It could be that over all the system is reasonable, and he just got a 99% crap result. But yes, 10 nodes out of 220 is crap.