Law of Kulle might be better if

General Discussion
1

…If Ancient items didn’t roll like crap!

I finally got an Ancient Dawn Hand Crossbow, with decent damage and other properties, but with 52% CDR to Vengeance [50-65]%. I rerolled it, of course, into a non-Ancient version, and, also of course, it had horrible damage and 65% CDR to Vengeance.

Right now I have 3 Dawns with 60, 65, and 65% CDR and 3 Ancient Dawns with 52, 52, and 53% CDR.

I think everyone knows my stance on Ancient and Primal items.

Ancient items almost always roll like crap!

Anecdotal Analysis

After watching tens of thousands of Legendary and Ancient items drop in this game, it’s pretty obvious what Blizzard’s philosophy is on Ancient items.

Since Ancient items roll a much higher range on Main Stat and Vitality, and appreciably higher ranges on many other properties, Blizzard has reduced the probability, or “weighting,” on the chance that the higher ranges of the more desirable damage-dealing properties will roll, and they have weighted the Legendary Power to roll in the lower half of the available range.

How many Ancient rings have you found that have 4.5% CHC, or amulets with 8.5% CHC? How many Ancient Witching Hour belts with 5% IAS and 26% CHD? How many Ancient Focus/Restraint rings with main stat, Armor, and CDR? How many Ancient Compass Rose rings with the mandatory Main Stat and Movement Speed, with Vitality, Life regeneration, and RCR? I recently picked up a Primal Ancient Legendary Focus with Dex, Vit, and Armor. And, a final example, an Ancient Kymbo’s Gold amulet with 16% Lightning [15-20%], 853 Dex [825-1000], 15% Life [14-18%], and 77% Gold [75-100%]. Every one of these properties rolled very close to the lowest possible value in the range, and this amulet is an exemplar of all Ancient items.

Don’t even get me started on Ancient gloves.

Primal Ancient items always roll the maximum possible value on whatever property appears on the item. So instead of weighting the property value, Blizzard weights the property itself; therefore, the most desirable damage-dealing properties that can appear on an item have the smallest chance of actually appearing. Thus, we are presented with a continuous string of horrible Primal Ancient Compass Rose rings, among all the other horribly rolled Primal items.

It’s ridiculous that Blizzard would purposely cripple what should be an excellent item because they’re afraid of it being “too powerful,” When they are fine with adding massive power creep in other ways. Why make players feel bad (to put it mildly) about these items?

I wish Blizzard would simply stop giving low values a high chance to roll.

One of the things I liked about Jay Wilson was that one of his philosophies was, “There’s no such thing as too much power!”* But when it comes to these Ancient “power” items: amulets, rings, gloves, and some other items, the adage that I coined comes to mind:

“Blizzard giveth and Blizzard taketh away, usually at the same time.”

*Diablo III: Gameplay Trailer - YouTube

2 Likes
2

I thought that Dawn was supposed to be cubed? Maybe, for that exact reason?

Diablo is a hamster in a wheel game, i.e. the eternal grind from hell, so it will always be like that with items, especially ancients and primals in D3.

2 Likes
3

Cube the quiver, equip the bow.

1 Like
4

RNG is RNG. If you don’t like the grind, might want to try another game.

1 Like
5

This is not proven to be the case. As you said this is a feeling you get from anecdotal analysis, which isn’t good enough reason to make this claim. Even if you literally wrote down all the stats of every ancient/primal you got it wouldn’t count.

My anecdotal analysis is that this is not the case at all. Not trying to be snarky by saying this at all. Just making the point that I honestly don’t pick up the same which is why anecdotal evidence isn’t good enough.

I haven’t played DH in years and this season with 100ish hours played I got more than one decent ancient Dawn with 63%-65% range.

6

^^ Well, I have over 18000 hours in this game on 6 accounts over the last 8 years, and I play every day. If I’m on the road, I’ll rent a motel room and set up a system just to play this game.

So, your very possible good luck does not outweigh my observation of the hundreds of thousands of items I have picked up over the years, so I will stand behind my anecdotal analysis over your brief fortune. I believe it’s fact, and what I see while I’m playing supports it.

Here’s a “just now” example. I’m re-rolling 5% CHC on an Ancient Accursed Visage helm (UE set), and it took 42 re-rolls to go from 5% to 6%, while I saw 4.5% 3 times, and 5% 6 times. Never a 5.5%.

7

There’s no conspiracy and no1 set up lines on any kind of items. This is all random, lines are random and stats are random. Same with leg affixes.

Why any1 should do things like this?
For me all this game is one big rng, and i think its unhealthy (and silly) create theories just to adjust them to your rng.

First reason for this is simple - no1 care d3 much and no1 got time to setup/manipulate your drops. All u can do is grind more and right rolls eventually will drop.

8

Another of the effects of having a million of random stats, each of them with random numeric values.

1 Like
9

Sigh, not this again.
Every time we’ve done actual analysis of your claims you’ve been proved wrong.

Around 25% of them because the possible values are 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5% and 6.0%)

Around 20% of them because the possible values are 8.0%, 8.5%, 9.0%, 9.5% and 10.0%

I’ve got a Demon Hunter that’s wearing a primal Focus with DEX / CHC / CHD / Socket. So what?

Please explain how lots of people, me included, have lots of ancients where the affix values are at, or very close to, their maximal values.

Take a look at the gloves on my Crusader BlessHammer which are 9.5% CHC, 47% CHD, 7% AS, 20% AD. Not only close to maximal values, but also quadfecta.

I agree. Which is why they don’t purposefully do anything of the sort.

If you’re going to claim that this is a fact, you’re going to need to provide evidence for that. Of course, in all your previous “OMG! RNG is broken!” threads, when we’ve investigated, we’ve found absolutely nothing to back up your claims and, indeed, many instances where you were proved just plain wrong.

Remember all that stuff about crafted bows / crossbows?

6 Likes
10

RNG is RNG, I’ve gotten plenty of Ancient items with max or near max rolls on the legendary property or nice bonuses like CHD. I’ve also gotten plenty that were trash. I agree that for some items the number of layers of RNG you have to jump through is quite annoying, but you’ll have to provide more than antidotal evidence of your memory of drops to convince me that the stat ranges themselves have a nefarious weighting on Ancient items separate from normal items. The “seed” used to approximate random may give you some odd results at certain sample sizes, though.

For UE MS yes, for GoD it is typically worn and the quiver is equipped.

11

Stone, you really are beating that dead horse. Enough already man.

1 Like
12

Here is your explanation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_bias

You salvage hundreds of non-ancient stuff but only notice and remember ancients.

4 Likes
13

“working as intended”
Lets please move on to another topic

14

ALL Items almost always roll like crap
So don’t see the point of just targeting Ancients

It’s not good for your health to complain about the 1 thing this game was built on.
The fact that it’s random and if you expect to get top perfect rolls for every item

And since when in a random roll game are you guaranteed what you want first time round

15

Your very possible bad luck with hundreds of thousands of items does not outweigh the averages of the billions (?) of items picked up by all players combined. That was the point of bringing up my experience as well.

Your 18 000 hours of gameplay with the amount of items you have seen and countless re-rolls is statistically insignificant compared to the total for all players in terms of claiming this as fact. Your total amount of items is not even close to a useful sample size needed to determine whether the game is geared toward certain stats and ranges.

I am entirely willing to believe that what you are saying about the rolls you get are 100% correct. But it is not enough of a sample size to claim it as fact.

1 Like
16

Possible values for CHC on the helm are…

  1. 4.5%
  2. 5.0%
  3. 5.5%
  4. 6.0%

From your own testimony, your re-rolls resulted in these affix values…

  1. 4.5% - 3/42 re-rolls (cumulatively, that’s 3/42 of the total re-rolls)
  2. 5.0% - 6/42 re-rolls (cumulatively, that’s 9/42 of the total re-rolls)
  3. 5.5% - 0/42 re-rolls (cumulatively, that’s 9/42 of the total re-rolls)

That leaves 33/42 re-rolls unaccounted for. But, as we know they were not 4.5%, 5.0% or 5.5%, that leaves the only other possibility, i.e. 6.0%

Worst-case scenario, you got the nine undesired results as the first nine results.
That means, at most, you had to re-roll this item 10 times to get 6.0%
Why would you re-roll it a further 32 times after you got the result you wanted?

17

Possible values for CHC on the helm are…

  1. 4.5%
  2. 5.0%
  3. 5.5%
  4. 6.0%

CHC is NOT guaranteed to roll on helms. So 32 out of 42 times mentioned there was NO CHC at all.

2 Likes
18

42 rolls ain’t bad. Big momma has been far nastier to me on occasion. Besides, what’s it cost to roll it up? Yellow mats, Souls, and gold. All three of those things are trivial to get. If you truly thought that your RNG of getting a helm with rolls you wanted was better playing the game than re-rolling that helm, you would have been doing so. 42 ain’t bad and didn’t take you very long, either physically rolling it or gathering the mats. And since that helm seems to be your BIS item (otherwise why bother?) 42 rolls and mat gathering is a small price to pay for being able to say you’ve made it.

19

Not reallly accurate. A usable quiver is extremely hard to find, which is why most people dual Dawn/Valla’s and cube the quiver.

21

Good clarification, but that doesn’t make my answer inaccurate. You said yourself most people do that. I said it was typically done. Just because I didn’t get into the why doesn’t make my claim inaccurate…