I do wish that some had a better understanding of probability and statistics.
Hey I get it. If I have 10,000 regular DML’s, and 10,000 Ancient DML’s, I’ll probably end up with just as many really good Ancient ones as I do regular ones. But I don’t get that. I get 10,000 regular DML’s and 1000 Ancient DMLs. What I’ll get is more likely to look like this:
Throw out the best 10% of all 20,000 of these, and the worst 25% of them, and then take an average value of the Legendary powers of all the remaining normal and Ancient ones. The average Legendary power for the Ancient ones is always going to be lower than the average Legendary power for the normal ones. You could graph the results and there may be a few places where they intersect, but generally that Ancient line is going to be lower than the normal line.
Now you can trust the word of the guy who plays one account, and is a mathematician who’s hung up on statistics and probabilities, or you can trust the observations of a player who has played this game on a daily basis on six accounts over the last 12 years and has seen literally millions of items drop. Trends in the results of these drops cannot be ignored, and drawing general conclusions based on those trends is certainly valid.
Once again, the game may be following a certain set of randomly programmed behaviors, but when I’m playing, I react to how it feels. Not what the math shows.
Take that stupid Compass Rose for example. The thing almost never drops with a socket, and more often than not you’ll get a completely useless list of defensive properties, especially so if the thing is Ancient.
Right now I have 13 Compass Rose rings in my inventory. Four of those are Ancient. I had other Ancient ones but they were so horrible I couldn’t keep them for any reason. All four of these are brimming with useless defensive stats, and not a single one has a socket. One of them does have IAS, and another one has an average damage roll. Other than that it’s Resistance, Armor, Life Regen/on Hit, and one has CDR (which I can use).
Of the nine normal examples, five dropped with a socket. Two of those dropped with CHD and CHC, two with average damage, and one with IAS. The last four don’t have a socket, but each one of those has at least one of average damage, CHC, or IAS, and I can roll on a socket.
What about getting a Traveler’s Pledge with some elemental damage?
Now I don’t know how things are with other classes, because I generally play Demon Hunter and Wizard. Maybe sometimes a Monk, and some weird times a Barbarian, so I don’t really know a lot about the gear for other classes, but if you ask me how any DH piece of gear is likely to drop, I can tell you, pretty accurately, from experience, not with a calculator.
Correct. So next season right down what all the MS rolls are on your regular ones and ancient ones. Then take an average. Both should be around 175% +/- a few percent. As for your regular one being the best, well, it is 10x more likely the regular one will be the best.
This is usually your problem, confirmation bias. You can’t go with what you feel like. You need to actually do the work.
I hate Urshi. I always feel she is jamming me at 60%. One season I did around 100 GRs with all gem upgrades at 60% and charted them. My results were like 59.4% which is totally within the realm of possibility.
I always feel I rarely get a stupid ancient puzzle ring. This season, I tested it. So far I have found 71 puzzle rings, 6 have been ancient. I am slightly under the statistical average, but 71 is a small sample size, so my results are still in the range I can expect to happen.
No hate here, just do the work and actually test it out. The results are probably not what you are going to expect.
Affixes are different as some are weighted more than others. This is why when you reroll at that Prime Evil mystic, you are way more likely to get armor on your amulet than you are cc/cd/elemental/socket. They make the affixes people actually want artificially harder to get so you will play more.
3 Likes
And this is why you’re still making threads like this, i.e. because you feel it’s broken despite the facts, maths and statistics proving that it’s not.
If I have £5 in the bank, but I say I feel like I’m a billionaire, would it be a problem if people pointed out that I’m not a billionaire?
2 Likes
Several of these guys are frauds. They know most people are not good at math, so they sling around a bunch of made up or plagiarized formulas to project the illusion they’re smart. I see it on every game forum I post in where math is a factor, including this one. They know most will never know any better. Take them with a grain of salt.
On the same token, without evidence, it’s still anecdotal, which can be useful, but in a lot of cases, not as credible.
Stone / StoneOld / Slamboney should know better precisely because he has a multi-year history of making these sorts of feelings-based threads which are not supported by the evidence. When we actually get a claim where it’s easily possible to investigate his claims, and we do, it turns out that his claims are absolute bunkum.
Exhibit A…
He switched to a brand new thread with his crafting results (after about 5 weeks of saying he’d provide them)…
So, yes, you’ll forgive me if I place absolutely zero weight on how he feels things work when we’ve repeatedly proven they work exactly how the statistics / maths say they should.
5 Likes
Cool story, bro. Not interested in your attempts to try and vilify people.
Don’t give 2 
s how you feel about his feelings, sorry.
I already addressed with him that anecdotal evidence isn’t always credible.
Since you commented in.this thread, has anyone in this thread made up a formula or “plagiarized” a formula?
The area (A) of a circle is π multiplied by the radius (r) squared, whose formula is:
A = πr^2
Did I “plagarize” this formula? I am not sure that one can plagarize a formula.
6 Likes
…every time I come across that phrase (or alike) my subconscious comes up with:
Be careful what you wish for
'cause wishes do come true
The monster you’re creating
Looks uncannily like you
So you think when trolls spew unproven nonsense it’s fine but when those trolls get called out for their BS they’re suddenly victims?
Meteorblade provided evidence on Stone’s several year long streak of spewing nonsense. He’s not villifying anyone. You on the other hand seem to be willing to defend trolls due to your personal animosity towards certain people like Meteorblade.
5 Likes
I don’t even know why I’m even bothering to answer something like this…
Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a troll. This isn’t 2005.
Mmmhmmmm, I’m sure he did.
I wasn’t defending anybody, even if I was, I don’t need to justify myself to you. I clearly stated to the OP that anecdotal evidence isn’t always credible. Nice selective reading and attempt to gaslight.
This is your first comment in this thread.
To me, this sounds like you are defending.
6 Likes
This comes to mind:
In slang, a troll is a person who posts deliberately offensive or provocative messages online (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game) or who performs similar behaviors in real life. The methods and motivations of trolls can range from benign to sadistic. These messages can be inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic, and may have the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur. The behavior is typically for the troll’s amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival’s online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people.
From Wikipedia.
4 Likes
Sweet, nothing in there about “A person who says something that someone disagrees with”. Thanks a lot for that!
The wikipedia definition is clear. Dependent on the nature of the disagreement, one can troll in a disagreement.
Forum member X: The earth is flat.
Forum member Y: The earth is not flat. Here are multiple links, photos, and videos that prove the earth is not flat with scientific evidence.
Forum poster X: I disagree the earth is flat. There is no scientific evidence that shows tbe earth is not flat.
Forum poster Y: I provided links with the scientific evidence.
Forum poster X: The earth is flat and there is no proof that the earth is not flat.
In this disagreement, I would suggest that poster X is trolling.
4 Likes
You, however, cared enough to suggest that some people were frauds, and not very smart, for pointing out that his feelings don’t match reality.
4 Likes
Because some people are, that’s a fact. He’s not talking about his feelings, he’s talking about observations. In fact, if you search for “feeling” in this thread, you’ll only find posts of yours and mine. Your personal feelings however, are unimportant.
I roll a 20-sided dice 10 times. It is far more likely to observe that the first roll is not higher than the highest roll among rolls 2-10.
From this observation, I would conclude that this is expected based on probability. I would not argue that the 20 sided dice was rigged.
1 Like
Who is the “fraud” here? And I’m not referring to Stone or any of his other accounts. Because he’s an honest guy.
3 Likes
There are a few, they know exactly who they are. If people would bother checking some people’s math before obliviously agreeing with it, they would see it too, unless they’re a flunky. The point being made to the OP was, do not get hung up on people who try to play forum mathematician. Sometimes they can be right, many times, they’re not.