I just masterworked Harlequins Crest 200 times

PC General Discussion
1

My goal was to hit Cooldown Reduction at least 2 times.

If the masterwork hit chance for all affixes would be the same, then this would be a 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/16 chance, or 6.25%. On average every 16th attempt would result in Cooldown Reduction being hit two times in row.

But of all the 200 times it did not happen.

Now this is EXTREMELY unlikely that this would not happen in 200 attempts. Why? Because the probability to NOT hit cooldown reduction twice in row in 200 masterworking attempts would be (15/16)^200 = 0.00000248 or 0.000248 %. If you would 400,000 times do 200 masterworking attempts, this would only happen once on average.

I don’t think that I was that unlucky.

I think that either the probabilities are not (even close to) equally distributed or that the RNG is severely bugged.

So if you, Blizzard, want to make players frustrated and make them leave the game, then you have achieved your goal.

6 Likes
2

So are you leaving the game then?

You stated you weren’t buying VoH. Yet you did. Shall I link your own words?

Why would Blizzard take you seriously if you say one thing, and yet do another? I mean, if I were Blizzard, I would take your acceptance of VoH (you both purchased it and continue to play it) to mean everything is fine; despite what you say with words.

3 Likes
3

It’s all weighted “RNG”. Not just MW’ing either.

It’s all about $$$. It makes more money to leave the system as it is and lose a few thousand players. You have to suspend logic, common sense and correct math.

1 Like
4

Good thing you aren’t Blizzard. Wow…just Wow.

1 Like
5

What if I told you there was another game out there that would allow you to farm a currency and buy pretty much exactly what you wanted…and the only thing required is grinding a currency?

What if I told you that you can almost bypass all of the RNG in that game if you put in the time?

2 Likes
6

I learned to both change blacksmiths and even relog if this happens. Doesn’t work immediately but cuts my losses atleast…of course could by chance…

2 Likes
7

I’m not addicted to money so I think a simple comprise would be allow the rng but also give the player the ability to lock in their choice ever fourth level (ie 4, 8, 12)
Spending hours farming and 100’s of million in gold only to wind up with the same exact masterworking or even worse than when you started with is one of the least acceptable things in the game.

1 Like
8

only took me 2 times to get 2 crits on cdr. sorry for your bad luck

9

RNG really is RNG.

While there are are a lot of A-RPGs that are better than Diablo 4, A-RPGs should never allow players to bypass almost all RNG. That would be anti-ARPGish.

10

Sir, this is a casino.

5 Likes
11

Wow, to much time on your hands to first off to get the crafting material to try such an attempt, like in Vegas the house makes the rules and the house always wins or there is no reason for it, it’s just our policy.

12

I don’t disagree in principle, but I think these games really need to stop using the term “crafting” for what is really just extra dice rolls.

6 Likes
13

The economy is tanked do t magic find effecting currency so any new player would be cooked at this point.

There’s some ways around it like soul core farming or gem farming but there both pretty boring activities.

14

It’s pretty much what they do anyway. They have no plans to change masterworking or tempering from what they’ve said. While I agree it can be frustraiting, at least Masterworking won’t ‘brick’ your item like tempering. The other game just happens to have more coins you can use on the slot machine is all, but the RNG is still just as bad, actually I’d say it’s worse based on the randomness of it all.

4 Likes
15

Now this is EXTREMELY unlikely that this would not happen in 200 attempts. Why? Because the probability to NOT hit cooldown reduction twice in row in 200 masterworking attempts would be (15/16)^200 = 0.00000248 or 0.000248 %. If you would 400,000 times do 200 masterworking attempts, this would only happen once on average.

This is incorrect math. Critical Masterworking happens four times not sixteen. If the system is IID (let’s say it is) the odds of getting what you want is not aggregate either so you can’t apply the law of large numbers to independent events since the LLN specifically dictates that extremely long strings of adverse results must happen.

But the fact that you used 16 makes me a little wary though as 200 / 16 is 12.5 which would suggest that you actually only did it 13 full times rather than 200 full times. This makes the outcome far more believable, you did 200 upgrades but went through 12 real critical attempts.

2 Likes
16

Okay - then prove anything I stated incorrect. Because what I stated is exactly the actions Blizzard has taken. They’ve come out and said at least twice that I know of that Tempering and Masterworking won’t be changing significantly.

Even Enchanting hasn’t truly changed since inception. Sure, you can view what’s possible now (you always could with a 3rd party site), but the odds are still hidden.

As long as people keep buying? No reason to. Welcome to the world.

2 Likes
17

Your understanding is wrong, re-read the whole original post.
Unweighted average, the chance on a 4 affix item to hit a chosen affix on 2 out of 2 crits is (1/4) * (1/4) = 1/16.
(I am assuming the OP reset before the third crit to stave off the high amounts of mats that would take, instead of succumbing to sunk-cost.)

Therefore the chance to not hit it is 15/16. The chance to never hit the 1/16 outcome over 200 attempts is (15/16)^200, or the .000248%, just as the OP said.

18

To be fair, Blizzard have said a lot of stuff, only to do the exact opposite a month later.

But neither tempering nor masterworking should have their RNG reduced.

Do people keep buying though? Afaik we have no public numbers.

19

We just got a new forum user because a wow player bought D4 for the promotional items.

20

But this is an “at least two” problem. It’s a distinct outcome in a distinct set.

So this would be true if it was a continuous set.

E: No, wait, even that logic doesn’t hold. While 1/4 ^ 2 = 1/16 the odds of not occurring in this manner are local to the events if, and only if, you’re measuring the outcome of it happening twice in a row.