At least in timed loot, you have a few more seconds than traditiional FFA loot if you were really worried about griefing.
Cheaters should not be rewarded for their misbehavior.
If in a 2 player game, one is legitimate player and the other is a cheater, I think common sense, fairness, and valuing integrity would be that the legitimate player should be entitled to gear over the unscrupulous cheater.
One of Blizzard’s mottos is “Play nice; Play fair”
2 Player game, items drop one person manages to pick up all the items. No cheating.
Other player screams CHEATER in all caps. Doesnt make the other person a cheater.
Not everyone who gets gear before you did it because they are cheating.
Do some people cheat sure. Is it a vast majority? No. Mainly because a vast majority of players are to lazy to bother to install or run such applications. Or they morally, dont want to do such things.
There are benefits to Personal Loot, there is no denying that. But there also is a lot of negatives. And would require a lot of extra game systems under the hood to Try and mitigate the problems.
How about instead of wasting untold amounts of development time doing that, you just play by yourself or with friends who will have zero chance of “Cheating” you out of “Your Loot”
It doesn’t take a majority of players using pickit to ruin the game’s economy…even if one 1 person uses pickit per 3 public games played, that is enough to destroy any sense of fair play and sour people on public games and cooperative play. And that’s only got to be 1/24 people using a cheat. Right now the cheaters on bnet are much more than 1/24 of bnet…this could spell disaster for D2R.
Correct. However, if that person is using a cheat program, than they are a cheater. To be honest back in the day, I got really good at “legitimately” ninja looting. This is allowed but becomes toxic quickly to others.
The problem is what percent and how many players are in a multiplayer game. Let’s assume it is only 3% of all players and someone tends to play in 8 player public games (private game are not terribly relevant to the conversation). This means that there is roughly a 50% by your third public game that one of those game will have a cheater mathematically. (0.97^21)
Blizzard made a public game option for a reason. To think that real-life friends will always coincide on when they can play together is a logical fallacy.
Upvoted for actual math, definitely didn’t want to do it myself.
Hopefully with the transition to battlenet, it will eliminate duping (assuming Blizzard can get things fixed) and reduce botting. The problem is that we know that cheating still exists in D3, so it would be naïve to assume that D2R will be cheat free, especially with a financial incentive due to free trade and RMT is much more significant than D3 currently.
As a counterpoint to this, I think all personal loot supporters should recognize that there is a tradeoff, and at some point if pickit is battled well enough, personal loot could be more detrimental to the equity of drop distribution than FFA-only.
So long as people understand what personal and FFA loot are, and that there are in fact downsides to both, we can recognize that in the future it’s possible the devs will be weighing both options, possibly using the frequency of cheating in public games as a template.
There is no way, by 3 games of 8 players, you will have 50% chance to run into cheaters that are 3% of Total overall player base dude. Interacting with 21 players is such a tiny portion of the overall player base your percentages wouldnt be any where near 50%
When there are hundreds of thousands of players, that math literally doesnt add up at all.
Even with thousands of players that math doesnt add up to 50% chance after interacting with 21 players.
Thats basically, saying after 3 games, you will have seen a HUGE % of the overall player base to have 3% of the player base of cheaters have a 50% chance to be in your game. That doesnt add up to me.
What he’s saying is that you will have crossed paths with at least 1 player who cheats, within those 3 games.
The math seems to check out, but what do I know I counted myself when doing the first hypothetical, lol
My math is correct.
If 3% cheat, then 97% are legitimate. In three 8 player games, let’s assume you will encounter 21 distinct players.
The odds that all 21 players are legitimate is 0.97 raised to the power of 21 (or as I wrote 0.97^21 = 52.7% or roughly 50% as I said).
If you do not believe me, please find a link to a binomial calculator.
Binomial Probability Calculator (stattrek.com)
Probability of success on a single trial Enter 0.97
Number of trials Enter 21
Number of successes (x) Enter 21
This mathematical result that can be independently verified demonstrate that if 3% cheat, then after encountering 21 players, the odds are roughly half (47.3%) that at least one of those 21 players is a cheater.
Why not 1.07 for example?
I really hope you’re not referring to LoD.
interact with .1% or less of players base, 50% chance 1 of them is the 3% of the pop that is cheating.
That makes no sense.
In the initial math, we assumed that 3% of the total playerbase used cheats. It does not matter the total size of the playerbase in this calculation with a notable exception.* It could be thousand or a million. The primary thing that matters is the percentage. Imagine it this way, 3% is the same as 3 in 100 or 30 in 1,000 or 300 in 10,000 or 3,000 in 100,000.
'* The exception to this is if the playerbase was exceptionally small. For example, if D2R only had 10 players to interact with than it would not be possible to encounter 21 distinct players. For simplicity, I have ignored for the time being that you can interact with the same player twice (or more) in my example.
The total pop does matter. When there are thousands of players. interact of 21 becomes Less and less of a percentage of total player base.
when 21 unique players is 1% of the player base, the 3% being hackers interaction rate would be different.
Then if 21 unique players is .0000001% of the player base. the number of hackers in the 3% goes up but the Tiny number of uniques you meet makes that 3% way less likely and no way its 50%.
You can scale up pop and that would scale % of hackers, but if in scaling you dont adjust the unique players met that would change chances.
meet 21/100 players, chance of hacker at 3% of pop, mathematically sure larger chance to meet one.
21/1000000000000000000000 players, chance of meeting the 3% hacker pop is way less. because 21 players is a lot less % of the population.
What you say is mathematically wrong.
The premise was 3% of total players were cheaters. If the total population is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 players as you wrote than 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 would be cheaters to be 3%.
It is roughly 50% chance that you will encounter a cheater among 21 players in a population of 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 cheaters among 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 players. Of course, your numbers are entirely preposterous as there are only 7 billion or so people on earth and D2R is incredibly unlikely to sell 100 million copies.
of course my numbers are preposterous we are using assumed random numbers for population and % of hackers. That are pretty much based on nothing.
When meeting 21 players is a larger portion of the over population interacting with the 3% hackers is higher then when 21 people, is fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a % of the population.
So what. The question is what are the odds to interact with at least one cheater in 21 players where 3% of the playerbase cheats.
I have shown you the math and an independent website that validates my calculation. Please show me how you calculate the odds of interacting solely with legitimate players when 3% of the total playerbase are cheaters assuming random chance.
I think I understand your error. Let’s assume there is 100,000 players. You are trying to argue incorrectly that there are 97,000 legitimate players so it will be easy to avoid the cheaters due to their sheer numbers, neglecting the percentage of cheaters. You failed to account for 3,000 cheaters (or 3%). On average by random chance alone it is still 3% as the ratio is (97,000 legit to 3,000 cheaters). Mathematically, there are 2 states (cheaters/non-cheaters) and the exact binomial probabilities can be calculated.
It was pretty obvious there was never supposed to be any changes to the game. That’s probably why they revealed D4 first.
The most unusual thing they did was add a modern skill bar to controller. Some PC players are going to want that. It’s a big change but probably has majority support.
The collection is hypergeometric, not binomial, but it doesn’t matter. The end result is the same.
If the population is 200000, and 6000 (3%) are cheaters. We grab a collection of 21 players, and look for 0 players who is cheating.
with(Statistics);
X := RandomVariable(Hypergeometric(200000, 6000, 21));
evalf(Probability(X = 0));
Result: 52.7%.
Ignoring max population, we are looking for 21 legitimate players out of 21 players.
with(Statistics);
X := RandomVariable(Binomial(21, 0.97));
Probability(X = 21);
Result: 52.7%
I disagree with pretty much everything MicroRNA says, always, but whether you like it or not, that’s university statistics for you.
Do you really think I wanted to get into the difference between a binomial and hypergeometric distributions? I was trying to keep it simple.
