Fair enough I don’t have tangible proof besides my own little numbers.
And your stance is literally “what blizzard said goes” even after they were wrong about an extensive list of things and lied about a bunch of stuff and also refused to answer many questions about a bunch of things.
You know you have no proof to back up your claim that the game uses true 40% drop chance unrelated to previous runs. Which is fine. But acting like I’m the only one who has to prove something just because you believe the status quo to be inherently true is nothing short of a farce. You have less proof than me, you don’t even have anecdotal evidence, you only have feelings, and as we all know this is useless.
They also said this season would have less burst dmg on tanks, completely false.
They said they could pull the plug if the designs of shadowlands turned out to be bad, they didn’t, they only pull the plug way way way way way too late.
They advertised mounted combat for wotlk or some other xpack, we haven’t seen any of this until unholy dk hero talent.
And the list goes on and on.
Look, it’s probably true that there’s no bad luck protection, but who’s proving it? Them saying it is literally the definition of not a proof.
Again, we have to go by what the developers say. Yes sometimes there are bugs that were making things happen that were not intended, but something as big as weighed drops wouldn’t be a bug.
During Castle Nathria the raid was dropping more than intended and was fixed. That’s a bug, not intended design.
There’s nothing that suggests that end of dungeon drops are weighted. There are sources that say that there is no bad luck protection. Weights drop rates are bad luck protection.
There’s also a difference between lying and falling through on a promise or intended goal.
I think “how is it going to be tuned” is such a different question than “does a mechanic exist or will it” that I’m not even sure what to say about that.
Based on your feelings yeah. Not based on my numbers.
There’s definitely nothing that suggests the drops are truly random either except “Blizzard’s word” and clearly not everyone values this the same.
Definitely anecdotal but I don’t see how this is more confirmation bias than what you’re doing. Blizzard says words, I say words, you chose to believe them because they say something you already want to believe. Text book confirmation bias on your side from the get go. So using “confirmation bias” as a counter to my argument has no value here because you’re already deep in it.
I also have no other number than my own to base this on since blizzard doesn’t give numbers either, they can’t they don’t play the game, if they did they would fix many of the current glaring issues with classes, and that not in a several months waiting time, they would do the fixes that take 5 minutes immediately to make everyone happy instead of watching them quit the game and spam forums with hate posts.
But my numbers are already A LOT more than what you or blizzard have to offer. Still no one here has even came close to begin trying to prove that a true unmanipulated random loot distribution is at play. Your strongest argument so far is “statistically speaking it’s possible that a strong coincicende is making you see things that can,t prove your point to be right”. Which to be fair is actually true, I could mathematically speaking be experiencing one of the strangest statistical phenomenon ever seen, and I could never notice it. But the fact that you think this has a stronger possibility of happening than what I’m suggesting, is a little wild. Is there truly no part of you that think that MAYBE what I said could have a slim chance to be true at all or this is completely impossible?
There’s a major difference from Blizzard’s words and yours. Blizzard is the developer and had direct control of this. You are a random person and can’t equate your words as equal to Blizzards when it comes to their own game design. It would be a different story if another random person said it’s not weighted and I chose to believe them based on my own bias. That’s not what happened here.
I’ll bring up what I said earlier. If a mount has a 1% chance of dropping it doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to get it within 100 runs. Probability is not additive. There are people who say they have over 500 attempts logged, but that doesn’t mean the drop rate is wrong. It just means they are very unlucky.
M+ 40% drop chance
Probability of getting a drop by:
First run: 40%
Second run: 64%
Third run: 78.4%
Fourth run: 87.04%
Fifth run: 92.224%
Sixth run: 95.334%
Probability of getting sequential drops:
First run: 40%
Second run: 16%
Third run: 6.4%
Fourth run: 2.56%
Fifth run: 1.024%
Sixth run: .4096%
This goes back to what I was talking about earlier about the non-standard bell curve. The 50th percentile is on 40% chance. As you can see, even by the 5th run you have almost a 1/10 chance of still not getting a drop. The sequential drop number also shows you why we see/hear of people getting sequential drops much less.
Someone’s word is not proof of anything. I’m not saying you should believe me, I’m saying you shouldn’t believe blizzard either so asking me to prove something should make you realize that you also have to ask blizzard to prove it because I didn’t prove my point and they also did not prove their point. You have no reason to believe any of us, except that if you want to just go with the flow believe blizzard, and if you refuse to believe me it gives you a reason to entertain yourself with internet arguments.
I understand all that.
But can you prove that dungeon loot distribution follows this?
This is just an equation of what it should be, this is not data. You have no data to counter my data. You’re trying to prove me wrong by saying there’s a possibility that my numbers are just a luck of the draw, which I admit could be true, very unlikely phenomenon but it could be true. Why are you more likely to entertain that this unlikely mathematical phenomenon is more likely than Blizzard lying? We already determined that you stand on very deep confirmation bias seeing that I can see the possibility of me being wrong but you can’t see the possibility of you being wrong despite having less evidence and weaker likelihood of being right considering the level of coincidence necessary for me to be wrong?
It’s like you’re basing everything you said on some fabricated imaginary belief that if no one reported similar numbers to what I’m saying it’s because everybody looked into it and they all came to the conclusion that loot distribution is true random so that should serve as undeniable proof, when the reality is almost no one looks at that, including you obviously.
If you refuse to believe me just because Blizzard said so, just say so, you don’t have to post a list of numbers without linking them to any data and act like this proves something. It objectively does not.
I understand that. What I was saying was that their words outweigh any of ours.
No, none of us really can; however, based on our interaction it does seem like it is. We see more people get drops if they had 1-2-3 runs without any and we see significantly less getting sequential drops. Which you used as part of your reasoning for believing the drop rates are weighted to essentially prevent a hot-streak. Nothings been shown or stated that would fall outside the statistical data that was just presented.
You keep pointing to the possibility of Blizzard lying, but that would mean that they intentionally programmed it to be weighted and are telling us that there’s no bad luck protection. Lying means there’s intent. What have they actively lied about in the past that isn’t better categorized by simply falling short on their intended design goal?
The numbers are literal statistical probabilities based on 40% chance for A occurring (getting a drop) and 60% chance for B occurring (not getting a drop). These are assuming Blizzard is following a non-weighted 40% drop chance.
Still haven’t got it. I got the gale trinket from Grim in my vault and maybe did it twice lol. But I am back on the hunter theory crafting builds and carrying low keys.