Ridiculous, yet wonderful idea

[MDK22-1519]

Dude honestly you just pick and choose what you quote to try and change what I say. I can do the same thing and make you look stupid as well. See this is my problem you don’t want to admit you are wrong. So you are instead are picking and choosing what I say to make yourself look so much better. I really don’t want to go down that road because it doesn’t help anyone.

@MicroRNA-1507

It is reality. A good item drops in a co-op multiplayer game. If everyone is contributing and of similar clicking skill than the odds of getting that item is 1/8. Therefore 7/8 of the time (87.5%) it is meant for someone else. This is simple math.

No, one forced you to invite everyone to your party did they? No one forced you to take that high level item if you felt you didn’t deserve it did they? So there for your simple math thing doesn’t add up. Oh I forgot support classes too how does that factor into your damage math? They are just standing there providing an aura being a support auradin. Oh now your math is completely destroyed. Oh well we can take that into account by xyz now it is more complicated and takes even longer and wait timers, etc Do not destroy immersion cmon.

@MicroRNA-1507

I have played normally and as a ninja looter. Just watch some of the carbot diablo satire videos. It should become immediately clear why ninja looting/FFA loot does not promote a positive player environment.

Once again no one can ninja loot if you play with friends you trust or on your own. Also you invited them to the party it was extremely rare that someone would run in un partied and take loot. Extremely rare as people realized this and would hostile them which would make the entire party hostile to them and with all the damage being dealt to monsters in the area you were unlikely to survive.

@MicroRNA-1507

Worse in FFA games where pickit exists.

There are plenty of other hacks that work like pickit and do the same thing thing in ploot games. Happened in WoW for years, years. This is a hack, not a funciton of the game. Therefore you cannot blame the game for a hack. It is cheating. So because it is cheating it is not the games fault.

@MicroRNA-1507

The fact remains that range players are at a disadvantage.

They are only at a disadvantage if they choose to be at a disadvantage. You can fire an arrow just as close as a barb can swing a weapon. Once again you can also stop right before that monster dies and run up. The way you choose to play the game is not the game being broken it is your choice to stand back.

@MicroRNA-1507

If you play with people you trust, than the loot allocation system is irrelevant. The question is public games exist and the loot system needs to take this into account.

You are in public just like in the real world. If you leave something out in the open someone can take it. If you are 40 africans disassembling an antenov airplane you got to it first you got to first. Like dude you don’t deserve a trophy just for existing, that destroys immersion because that is not how the world works man. Also timers, ploot, etc destroys immersion and that did I get it did I get it feeling. That doesn’t exist. With all sadness comes happiness when things go your way.

@MicroRNA-1507

I never said all. Taking arrows if you are a barb is pretty silly and demonstrates why FFA loot is suboptimal.

So he is not taking all your arrows? So you still have enough to use? Are barbs not allowed to use Bows?

@MicroRNA-1507

True. If 3% of players are cheaters/toxic, it is roughly a 50% chance (47.3% chance to be precise) that you will encounter one of these bad folks among three 8 multiplayer games.

No learn math. If 3% are cheaters then you have 3% not 3 out of 8. 3 out of 8 would require a much larger percentage being cheaters. Maybe this is why you do not understand how ploot does not scale well.

@MicroRNA-1507

This is the epitome of lazy gaming. Why should we reward players with FFA loot who did absolutely nothing.

Epitomy of lazy? Have you ever scavanged it takes huge amounts of time to gain even a little bit of worth. You have a distorted view of things man. It takes on average 2 weeks of cow levels to get 40chipped gems. Like seriously.

@MicroRNA-1507

This is not true.

This is true because ploot leads to account and character bound which leads to no trading. Once again D3 proved this. Proved it. The experiment has been run and millions quit because of it. Millions did not quit because of FFA. Not even in the slightest. Quit because of hacks and people duping, etc of course but, FFA did not cause millions to leave the game. Proof is in the pudding dude and FFA is the better system. It drawed people in, causes you to stay a while and listen, promotes trading and human interaction, increases the size of the in game economy.

But, you don’t want to accept it. This is not my problem.

[MicroRNA-1507]

@MDK22-1519

@MicroRNA-1507

True. If 3% of players are cheaters/toxic, it is roughly a 50% chance (47.3% chance to be precise) that you will encounter one of these bad folks among three 8 multiplayer games.

No learn math. If 3% are cheaters then you have 3% not 3 out of 8. 3 out of 8 would require a much larger percentage being cheaters. Maybe this is why you do not understand how ploot does not scale well.

In three eight players games, you will encounter up to 21 unique players. If each player has a 3% chance to be a cheat/toxic, then the odds of all 21 being non-cheats/non-toxix is 52.7% or ~ 0.97^21.

@MDK22-1519

This is true because ploot leads to account and character bound which leads to no trading.

No. Personal loot and trading can coexist. See the original D3. Before you make the false claim that Blizzard got rid of trading/auction house, please look of when FinCen rgulations were announced and the effective date of the regulations on virtual currency and the date of the AH closure.

@MDK22-1519

FFA did not cause millions to leave the game.

No one claimed that. Your hyperbole does not persuade.

@MDK22-1519

Proof is in the pudding dude and FFA is the better system.

This does not agree with the current state of aRPGs. Your argument about game ease is not the reason for this change by multiple video game studious.

@MDK22-1519

you don’t want to accept it.

True since I believe in evidenced based decisions based on reality and facts.

[MDK22-1519]

@MicroRNA-1507

In three eight players games, you will encounter up to 21 unique players. If each player has a 3% chance to be a cheat/toxic, then the odds of all 21 being non-cheats/non-toxix is 52.7% or ~ 0.97^21.

Here is the math. Since you think you understand it but, can’t explain it real well. You have 3% of 100,000 players = 3,000 toxic players. You then take 97,000 / 8 = 12,125 you have a 1 in 12,125 chance of having a cheater. Which is roughly the same odds of finding a pearl in an oyster. Do math right or don’t do it at all. The more people the even greater the odds you will never see it.

@MicroRNA-1507

No one claimed that. Your hyperbole does not persuade.

I didn’t hyperbole millions left the game because of ploot. Ploot caused bound items because of WoW and item sprawl

@MicroRNA-1507

This does not agree with the current state of aRPGs. Your argument about game ease is not the reason for this change by multiple video game studious.

So because it exists it is good? There are more games with FFA loot then ploot.

@MicroRNA-1507

No. Personal loot and trading can coexist. See the original D3. Before you make the false claim that Blizzard got rid of trading/auction house, please look of when FinCen rgulations were announced and the effective date of the regulations on virtual currency and the date of the AH closure.

If this was true why was account bound and character bound items created to limit the spread of too many good items.

[Jani-2764]

@MDK22-1519

Dude honestly you just pick and choose what you quote to try and change what I say. I can do the same thing and make you look stupid as well. See this is my problem you don’t want to admit you are wrong. So you are instead are picking and choosing what I say to make yourself look so much better. I really don’t want to go down that road because it doesn’t help anyone.

Well with MicroRNA you need to deal with this. That is his style. Deny to answer/react what isnt suiting his narrative. Erm where have we seen this?

[Geezer-11142]

I’m sorry but there is so much wrong with your math that I don’t know where to start.

Why would you possibly divide the number of non-cheaters by the number of players per game (including yourself, easy mistake to make, I even made it earlier when doing a similar equation) and then assume probability based on that already flawed equation?

I am so confused at how you reached those numbers, like…I completely don’t understand how that happened.

[MicroRNA-1507]

@MDK22-1519

@MicroRNA-1507

In three eight players games, you will encounter up to 21 unique players. If each player has a 3% chance to be a cheat/toxic, then the odds of all 21 being non-cheats/non-toxix is 52.7% or ~ 0.97^21.

Here is the math. Since you think you understand it but, can’t explain it real well. You have 3% of 100,000 players = 3,000 toxic players. You then take 97,000 / 8 = 12,125 you have a 1 in 12,125 chance of having a cheater. Which is roughly the same odds of finding a pearl in an oyster. Do math right or don’t do it at all. The more people the even greater the odds you will never see it.

Your explanation is so wrong mathematically.

In your example, the odds that the first person is legitimate is 97,000/100,000 = 97%. The odds that the second player is legitimate is 96,999/99,999 = 96.99997%. The odds that the third person is legitimate is 96,998/99,998 = 96.99994%. So on and so forth for the first 21 distinct players.

To calculate the overall probability that all 21 players are not cheater/toxic, you need to multiple all the percentages together. When you do this, the final probability is 52.7% which approximates the binomial distribution of 0.97^21.

If you still do not believe me, you can check the math online as shown below.

@MicroRNA-1507

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.

If you still won’t believe the mathematical truth, here is someone else’s explanation.

@Skimt-2626

The end result is the same.

Hypergeometric

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%.

Binomial

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.

[MDK22-1519]

Your theory is flawed from the hop because it is based off of diminishing returns.

You are eliminating the total number for each game you make. Where in actuality the number never changes because those same original people are not excluded from landing in the same games with the same people. Then you add timing in and playing with friends the odds go down not up because people of a feather tend to flock together.

Binomial only works without replacement of n. But, n is replaced every time because you are not removing the other people each time. So like I said your theory is flawed from the hop. Any possible permutation is available any time a game is created. So because you are not eliminating people it remains constant. Since it’s an unchanged constant and you can occur in the same permutation as before there is no diminishment of odds.

[Mindless-1928]

D2 is a dog eat dog world. What makes it fun. Going hostile is also fun. People can create reputations in the game.

[MicroRNA-1507]

@MDK22-1519

You are eliminating the total number for each game you make. Where in actuality the number never changes because those same original people are not excluded from landing in the same games with the same people.

If the playerbase is large (in your example 100,000) and cheaters/legitimate associate randomny, the odds of getting a duplicate player in three 8 player game is remote.

@MDK22-1519

Binomial only works without replacement of n.

The binomial distribution is a fair approximation given the size of the total population in your example of 100,000 players where we are assessing only 21.

Moreover, I did remove a player. That is why I wrote the first was 97,000/100,000 =97% while the second distinct player is now 96,999/99,999 = 96.99997%.

You will notice the number of 52.7% is the same (they do differ slightly) whether you use a binomial approximation or a hypergeometric exact calculation.

[Arkannon-1740]

I was the same way. In allot of ways, it really added tension to the environment without forcing you to PvP…it forced you to pay attention.

Of course, that was only in SC. I never played public games in HC, which was about 90% of my playtime in the last few years I played it.

Heck, there were times that I even respected an HK when they did it well. I remember a chargeadin that totally got me and made me laugh. Complemented the guy, he even gave me a few items and it was a good experience.

[MDK22-1519]

@MicroRNA-1507

I leave. I am not a toxic player.

You leave the game. You are then very unlikely to choose that same game ittration again. This introduces selective bias into the game.

Then there is this baal run is giving me gg experience I am going to stay in this game. Even more selective bias. I want to play with my friends even more selective bias.

A constant divided by a constant remains with a constant answer. The only way that changes is when you get into really weird imaginary numbers. Since we are not doing the square root of a negative these need not apply.

[Arkannon-1740]

the problem with the issue is that they would need to rebalance the whole looting system to take into account personal loot. It’s not just a toggle…drop chances are based on the fact that you can trade. In a similar way to PoE, SSF leagues can be brutal due to these limitations.
I’d almost rather see a league variant like the do in PoE. That would separate the personal looters from the regular ones. There’s not much satisfaction in having personal loot and never getting crap, while watching your friends on the same league get all their juicy runewords and laugh at you.
But I tend to play SSF HC in diablo, so this doesn’t impact me much. But if it came down to developer time, I’d prefer a focus in other areas, like better character skins (bfugly amazon as an example), and smoothing out actual game balance if they were to “change” anything.
But I’m perfectly fine with the game as it is. If there’s ever a struggle to decide on changing anything, better to change nothing.

[MicroRNA-1507]

@Arkannon-1740

It’s not just a toggle…drop chances are based on the fact that you can trade.

Instanced/personal loot and account bound are distinct terms. Personal loot in D2 still would be tradeable. Therefore, since total drops remain constant and items have the same tradeability, Blizzard would not have to rework things.

Your PoE example is wrong. Personal loot is not SSF. The PoE example is multiplayer games where you can choose for that game session FFA loot, timed loot, or personal/instanced loot that coexist well.

[MDK22-1519]

Dude if the total number of drops remains the same then everyone gets a trophy. Including the guy not applying any effort which you already said you were against.

It also wouldn’t remain the same because not 8 items drop every time in a 8 player game. There are no instances in D2. So once again another game change.

What happens when all it drops is a pot or rejuv. Everyone should get one? Great you just unbalanced the game again because now no one dies. No only one person should get one? What if that person didn’t need the pot? Wait no it should go to the person that needs it? Wait they weren’t contributing anything now the main damage person dies and everyone wipes.

Ploot has never worked well. It is a fallacy to think it does. It does not belong in the gameplay D2 has as it is not instance based. On top of that increasing the number of items decreases the value it is basic supply and demand. It would take a major rewrite to include a new loot structure and about 1 year of balancing done.

[MicroRNA-1507]

@MDK22-1519

Dude if the total number of drops remains the same then everyone gets a trophy. Including the guy not applying any effort which you already said you were against.

No. If total drops are kept constant and in an 8 player game, Baal drops 5 items, 3 players will not get any loot for either a FFA or instanced loot game. Baal does not drop 40 items.

Simply think of it as using the normal D2 algorithm to determine a drop in multiplayer. Once a drop is determined, it is assigned to one of the players associated with the monster kill.

[Geezer-11142]

@MDK22-1519

Ploot has never worked well. It is a fallacy to think it does.

This seems incorrect. If this were remotely true, you would have game designers rethinking personal loot constantly. Game designers are doing the exact opposite, going more and more deeply into solidifying personal loot in nearly every new game.

[MDK22-1519]

@MicroRNA-1507

No. If total drops are kept constant and in an 8 player game, Baal drops 5 items, 3 players will not get any loot for either a FFA or instanced loot game. Baal does not drop 40 items.

So now instead of them having a chance you have guaranteed 3 people will not get an item. How is that fair?

[MicroRNA-1507]

@MDK22-1519

@MicroRNA-1507

If total drops are kept constant and in an 8 player game, Baal drops 5 items, 3 players will not get any loot for either a FFA or instanced loot game. Baal does not drop 40 items.

So now instead of them having a chance you have guaranteed 3 people will not get an item. How is that fair?

It is fair because it is always the case in that example that 3 players get nothing. There is an old saying a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Seeing a loot drop is not the same as acquiring that loot item.

[MDK22-1519]

@Geezer-11142

This seems incorrect. If this were remotely true, you would have game designers rethinking personal loot constantly.

The earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth don’t you know that…

Just because everyone does something doesn’t mean it is correct.

[Arkannon-1740]

So your saying that each player would get their own loot drop that is equal to playing solo?