|
Post by woqued on Apr 3, 2016 20:58:52 GMT
As the subject states: proposition to have XR weapons in a separate canopic purchase pool. Currently, 50 for a random weapon is quite a lot, not to mention 250 for a random weapon among all the many weapons.
Current standing suggestion: pay 100 canopics for a random token of one of the three damage type categories (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) and then the token will allow you to pick any weapon within that damage type (slashing will allow you to pick scythe, bastard sword, kukri, etc).
Using a 10 man limbo pt1 run as an example, we got 7 canopics per head + 9 to be split among 10. This means ~~15 limbo pt1 runs to get one token for an individual player; so the chances you get something at least some of your (or someone elses) tanks will use is fairly high (unless you have only one tank toon, which only uses one damage type and no PWA for a secondary damage type weapon). Considering these weapons also only have 2 elemental and 1 exotic damage types, you will need many to make proper use of them (at least while they remain uncraftable - but I think the price would be fair even if they were craftable). 100 canopics would also provide a nice trading baseline which would also grant the possibility to fairly accurately gauge the value of XR weapons as trading goods, compared to the fairly random current 50 and 250 options.
Too expensive? Too cheap? Terrible idea! Absolutely fantastic idea! What do you think?
Edit: 250 canopics for a damage type token? 50 canopics for a random weapon if you so choose - but no random weapons from regular XR random pool?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 21:10:23 GMT
Great concept, but I think 100 is a bit too expensive.
Perhaps just keep it at 50, in line with other XRs (which I already do think are too expensive) - like you said, you really would want a couple of these to put them to good use.
Alternatively leave it at 100 (or perhaps 75?), but scrap the 'three damage category' tokens and leave it as just an 'any specific weapon' token. I think that too few players will have the 100s of Canopics required to create a decent server-wide pool of weapon tokens, so any 'weapon token economy' will be quite frail.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Apr 6, 2016 19:29:54 GMT
Would be a significant decrease to XR scarcity. Not sure if that's something that the boss type folks would be cool with, especially this early in the XR game, when they're intended to be significantly more scarce than they will be in later areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2016 20:56:48 GMT
At the moment it takes ~10 hours in the hardest maps to 'farm' an XR, with a small chance of it being a weapon and an even smaller chance of it being a weapon that you want. Some people don't even want random XR weapons at all. For players who get into Limbo a little less often (eg: people who have been involved in PUG runs), it might take several months to accumulate enough Canopics to buy a single XR - imagine if their first purchased item is an XR Lance?
The other Limbo weapons are not suitable as general weapons (P1 weapons are too niche, P2 weapons are ~useless), so people tend to use DB/Abyss weapons instead. These weapons drop 3x per run, but the scarcity is 'controlled' by the weapon type being random, so it takes multiple runs to get the weapon you want; getting 'any' weapon is easy, but getting 'the' weapon is hard.
IMO XR weapons should be the opposite, where getting 'any' weapon is hard (ie: scarcity comes from the difficulty in acquiring Canopics), but getting 'the' weapon is easy. Putting weapons in a separate pool (and allowing more specific filtering of which weapon you get) accomplishes this.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Apr 6, 2016 21:52:57 GMT
Eh, it just seems a bit premature, as with the majority of these types of suggestions. Bear in mind that in all likelihood, these weapons will be the absolute best weapons you will ever get, so it should take a good amount of time to stockpile them. Not weeks, or months, but years before you have a wide variety of different damage types in a variety of desired weapons.
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Apr 6, 2016 22:11:25 GMT
Eh, it just seems a bit premature, as with the majority of these types of suggestions. Bear in mind that in all likelihood, these weapons will be the absolute best weapons you will ever get, so it should take a good amount of time to stockpile them. Not weeks, or months, but years before you have a wide variety of different damage types in a variety of desired weapons. I assure you, it will take years for anyone to stockpile weapons if they cost 100 canopic a pop. Edit: assuming they don't -only- buy weapons; but then they ignore ALL other XR loot entirely, which was not the case with every single other weapon in the game. You got other loot as well. Edit2: Do you like the pricing idea though - that you'd buy tokens instead of random weaponry ./ having weapons in a separate pool? And just the price is too low and jumping to premature decisions?
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 8, 2016 5:43:29 GMT
Great concept, but I think 100 is a bit too expensive. Perhaps just keep it at 50, in line with other XRs (which I already do think are too expensive) - like you said, you really would want a couple of these to put them to good use. Alternatively leave it at 100 (or perhaps 75?), but scrap the 'three damage category' tokens and leave it as just an 'any specific weapon' token. I think that too few players will have the 100s of Canopics required to create a decent server-wide pool of weapon tokens, so any 'weapon token economy' will be quite frail. Under the current distributions, you're proposing a change in rarity of xr weapons from roughly a chance of .3% (less than 1 percent, not three percent) given an investment of 50 tokens of getting a specific xr weapon, to a chance of either 33% or 100%. Under the distributions suggested by players and going into effect soon, the chance is roughly .23% (again, less than 1 percent, not twenty-three percent). Then factor in the latest weapon edits and paragon feats. Need I say more? Probably not, but I will. When you propose such a massive edit, you've already lost me. When you do so after a few weeks of playtime, based on little more than a feeling that they are 'too expensive', I have to think you haven't adequately considered your suggestion. XRs are actually not going to be the last weapons, as Semner suggested, but they will be close to par with them. You are suggesting that, by your own math, a player should be able to obtain the specific one they want in about 10 (or 30) hours of playtime. On top of that, the weapons are not even randomizable, which means that, once you have one, that's it. Nothing else to obtain that could outdo it, except set weapons, situationally. I'm not sure what timescale you imagine we are developing on, but these items are designed to carry the server forward for the better part of a decade. We don't have the development time - not even a fraction of it - necessary to do any more iterations of rarity, to say nothing of the massive development issues such a further rarity class would cause. I can empathize with the desire to obtain the perfect weapon now, but I hope that, after reading the foregoing, you can empathize with my strong desire to roll my eyes at reading this suggestion. I know you didn't intend it as disrespectful, but the valuation of our development time that your suggestion implies is unworkable. Also, if you want a chance to persuade the Team, you would do well to avoid referring to entire classes of weapons as 'useless'. Equally eyeroll-worthy, and completely without use in its own right as constructive criticism. We understand that some of you have been waiting for XRs for years, but we are not about to make design changes encompassing massive change (which is just poor development) based on impatience (again, poor development). Incremental change based on sound reasoning is the order of the day. We aren't ruling out changes to drop rate or purchase cost, but now is hardly the time. We will probably re-evaluate in a few months. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 7:24:58 GMT
You are right Funky, I did speak too hastily on this (something I tend to do too often, unfortunately). My apologies for that. Under the current distributions, you're proposing a change in rarity of xr weapons from roughly a chance of .3% (less than 1 percent, not three percent) given an investment of 50 tokens of getting a specific xr weapon, to a chance of either 33% or 100%. Under the distributions suggested by players and going into effect soon, the chance is roughly .23% (again, less than 1 percent, not twenty-three percent). I am a little confused by these numbers. It reads like 'the distributions suggested by players and going into effect soon' result in a decrease in probability? Which distribution is this? Also, 50 canopics yielding a 0.23% chance of a specific weapon averages out to 21000+ canopics for that specific weapon? Well over 2000 hours in Limbo (6+ hours/day for a year straight)... For comparison, pre-Limbo the single rarest Set in the module was Divine Chorus (generally considered to be 'impractically scarce') which takes ~25 hours for a skilled player to farm solo (based on what I believe is a 1/14 drop-rate overall), or longer to acquire for yourself if you do it in a group; I have personally never seen one drop, and very few players on the server have the endurance to grind for one. Abyss weapons are not the best comparison IMO because they are more 'incidental findings' in a run that has tag bonuses (Abyss Wins) as a primary/extra incentive, as opposed to Limbo/Elysium which is done *purely* for loot. Also, if you want a chance to persuade the Team, you would do well to avoid referring to entire classes of weapons as 'useless'. Equally eyeroll-worthy, and completely without use in its own right as constructive criticism. I will have to stick to my guns that at first glance, the P2 weapons do not look very practical in Limbo/Abyss due to widespread healers; the only real targets they might be useful against are critters that are 1) non-healers + 2) hard to insta-kill + 3) uncommon/niche enough that players won't have better-crafted weapons for them anyway. So far it seems like there aren't enough mobs meeting the above criteria to justify using P2 weapons as a legitimate swap option in Limbo/Abyss. In areas like Hell with less healers overall, I believe the 2x standard crafted DB weapons will each deal more damage (assuming you have standard buffs) to typical tank targets than a P2 weapon anyway. Conclusion: The P2 weapons offer a lazy option (ie: no swapping) to deal 'decent' damage to any non-healer. Because the types of players that are able to acquire P2 weapons tend to be very familiar with weapon-swapping, they likely have little use for a lazy option that deals less damage in most cases + is only practical in easier areas, so I feel that these weapons won't be used much and are a particularly lacklustre reward for slaying the final boss of Limbo P2. If anything, the current XR weapons would be a much more appropriate boss-drop. The weakness of P2 weapons has already been discussed several times in-game with Team members present (though it's possible/probable that you in particular weren't) which is why I just posted it without elaboration, my fault sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Apr 8, 2016 13:30:08 GMT
You are right Funky, I did speak too hastily on this (something I tend to do too often, unfortunately). My apologies for that. Under the current distributions, you're proposing a change in rarity of xr weapons from roughly a chance of .3% (less than 1 percent, not three percent) given an investment of 50 tokens of getting a specific xr weapon, to a chance of either 33% or 100%. Under the distributions suggested by players and going into effect soon, the chance is roughly .23% (again, less than 1 percent, not twenty-three percent). I am a little confused by these numbers. It reads like 'the distributions suggested by players and going into effect soon' result in a decrease in probability? Which distribution is this? Also, 50 canopics yielding a 0.23% chance of a specific weapon averages out to 21000+ canopics for that specific weapon? Well over 2000 hours in Limbo (6+ hours/day for a year straight)... Doing math in a vacuum is fun, isn't it? Anything seems dire when you do it from the perspective of a single hypothetical player who, for some reason, has no interaction with other players and has to farm canopics all on his lonesome. While we're in the realm of the hypothetical... If there were 2 groups, running Limbo parts 1 & 2 daily for 2 months (ok sorry I'm rounding down, ~62 days), they would yield 21,740 canopics, roughly 435 XRs. This would include one of every single XR weapon in the game (again hypothetical, not experimental probability), and multiples many other XRs. That's a pretty substantial stock of XRs from which players can trade with one another. Yes, I know, there aren't groups other than yours running Limbo regularly as of yet, but it will come. Again, this whole discussion is premature. But once you have multiple groups running Limbo on a regular basis, many of your frustrations are going to be alleviated, I think.
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Apr 8, 2016 16:30:57 GMT
I will note that this is not about venting my frustrations on current drops. It was a suggestion, and the thread asked for opinions. Too low price? Too low %? Ok. That was what I was looking for in responses. I will edit accordingly and return to it in a few months if needed.
I would also note that One weapon is not enough for tank to bring out the best in it. It is enough to cover one mob type on a given run, perhaps a few more - but with only 2 elemental and 1 exotic types, unlikely to cover too many mob types with one weapon. This is also assuming you only use one weapon type on your toon not utilizing the multiple physical damage types - for your XR anyway.
@semner - I do hope the Limbo running groups will come. However, I think your vacuum math example only proves how weird the XR weapon acquisition as it stands is; two groups doing both pt1 and pt2 daily for 2months is quite funny exaggeration, and that would put us at ONE weapon of specific type for entire server to share. I think assuming (longterm) people would be willing to run Limbo with the harsh challenge for no tag benefits even 3 pt1s and 1 pt2 a week longterm is optimistic. That would put us at ~~21840 canopics a YEAR - so one weapon of a particular type in existence in a year - assuming everyone buys random 50s and not 250 subby books or other categories.
Either way, it seems the thread got the stamp of HASTY GREEDY BASTARDS! Despite me explicitly asking for opinions on pricing as a conversation starter. That makes me a bit sad; but not something that I didn't expect. As said before; will return to this thread in a few months if need be - perhaps people will suddenly be all about Limbo and EE drops before we know it.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Apr 8, 2016 16:50:55 GMT
I don't think it's so much any one calling you greedy. It's more that the original suggestion increases the acquisition rate of a specific XR weapon by 7,174% (suggestion vs. picking a random XR). Or 2,693% over choosing a specific type of XR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 19:45:55 GMT
The 'math in a vacuum' is highly relevant because calculating odds for a specific player to get an item let's you compare it to other/previous item rarities. One specific XR weapon is over 80x rarer than the previous 'rarest item in the game', which was generally considered to be so hard to acquire that players tend to not bother farming for it.
It's easy for an on-looker who isn't running it to comment as though 2x P1+P2's will happen daily in the future, but if you realistically view the situation from a player's point of view it should be obvious as to why this will never happen.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Apr 10, 2016 2:07:39 GMT
Either way, it seems the thread got the stamp of HASTY GREEDY BASTARDS! Despite me explicitly asking for opinions on pricing as a conversation starter. That makes me a bit sad; but not something that I didn't expect. As said before; will return to this thread in a few months if need be - perhaps people will suddenly be all about Limbo and EE drops before we know it. If that's what you gleaned from my post, I might as well have not posted. Please try to be a little less glib. When I post, I spend time thoughtfully responding to your concerns, and I am giving up time that would otherwise be spent on the mod, in the hopes of increasing player understanding of our development process, which in turn will hopefully improve the quality of suggestions. Responses like this tend to make me think my time is better spent on the mod. In your defense, I think Semner's post was a bit inflammatory, but practically speaking, your suggestion was seriously off the mark. If you want a little insight into my mindset, take a look at Burke's seminal work on classical conservativism. The Cliff Notes version is that large, sudden changes are fail. Burke actually predicted the failure of the French Revolution because it was a system shock. Burke suggests that large, sudden changes rebound and fail. His theories have surprising resonance with evolutionary biology, which tells us that species do not adapt well to large sudden changes (typically resulting in either extinction or evolution by bottleneck). Unless the dev team got something SERIOUSLY wrong (which is rare, but not impossible), you should be suggesting small, incremental edits. I learned early on that this bit of political theory/philosophy/biology has equal application to game design. Rubber-banding between extremes just makes a lot of extra work with very little actual improvement in game experience. I am a little confused by these numbers. It reads like 'the distributions suggested by players and going into effect soon' result in a decrease in probability? Which distribution is this? These ones here: highergroundpoa.proboards.com/thread/24533/out-100In point of fact, I went with your suggested distro on weapons, 10%. Actually, I went with more than that, since, while I asked players to force numbers to out-of-100, my method of assignment didn't allow that. The actual number for XRs, at present, is 10/93. Here's the function: int GetRandomLootType(int nRarity, int nLevel=RANDOMLOOT_AREA_LVL_ALL_URS) { string sSelect;
if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RACEBOOK, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "1 1 "; if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CRAFTBOOK, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "2 "; if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_WEAPON, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 "; if (nRarity < RANDOMLOOT_AREA_LVL_OVER40) { /* we allow more weapon drops in early levels because less time spent there */ sSelect += "4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 "; sSelect += "4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 "; sSelect += "4 4 4 4 4 "; } } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMMOCONT, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "8 8 8 8 8 "; if (nRarity < RANDOMLOOT_AREA_LVL_OVER40) { /* we allow more ranged drops in early levels because less time spent there */ sSelect += "8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 "; sSelect += "8 8 8 8 8 "; } } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDMOLOOT_TYPE_ARTIFACT, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "32 "; if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CONSUMABLE, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "128 "; if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "256 256 256 256 256 "; sSelect += "256 256 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "512 512 512 512 512 "; sSelect += "512 512 512 512 512 "; sSelect += "512 512 512 512 512 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "1024 1024 1024 1024 1024 "; sSelect += "1024 1024 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "2048 2048 2048 2048 2048 "; sSelect += "2048 2048 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "4096 4096 4096 4096 4096 "; sSelect += "4096 4096 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "8192 8192 8192 8192 8192 "; sSelect += "88192 8192 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "16384 16384 16384 16384 16384 "; sSelect += "16384 16384 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_MOTE, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "32768 32768 "; if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 "; sSelect += "65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD, nRarity, nLevel)) { sSelect += "131072 131072 131072 131072 131072 "; sSelect += "131072 131072 131072 131072 131072 "; } if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_TORCH, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "262144 262144 "; if (GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CRAFT_GEM, nRarity, nLevel)) sSelect += "524288 ";
sSelect = GetStringLeft(sSelect, GetStringLength(sSelect)-1); string sReturn = GetRandomSubString(sSelect); return StringToInt(sReturn); }
Basically, if that type is available, I concatenate a bunch of substrings and pick one number type at random out of the result. Availabilities for XRs are as follows (still under the new system): int GetIsRandomLootTypeAvailable(int nType, int nRarity, int nLevel=RANDOMLOOT_AREA_LVL_ALL_URS) { switch (nRarity) { case RANDOMLOOT_RARITY_C: switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: return TRUE; default: return FALSE; }
case RANDOMLOOT_RARITY_UC: switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: return (GetSubString("123_56_______", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_");//in these strings we treat 9 as all areas over 40, but for SELECT we must use 8 not 9 or higher case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: return (GetSubString("12_4567890123", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_"); case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: return TRUE; case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CRAFT_GEM: return (GetSubString("1_3_5_7_90123", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_");//craft gem 9 only availble in LL (but SELECT is again 8 not 9) case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMMOCONT: return (GetSubString("_____6_______", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_"); default: return FALSE; }
case RANDOMLOOT_RARITY_R: switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING://LL add more here case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: return TRUE; case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMMOCONT: return (GetSubString("______78_____", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_");//level 35 ammo containers are level 7, but we allow them at 8. SELECT 7 special check case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_WEAPON: return (GetSubString("1__4_678_____", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_");//level 35 weapons are level 7, but we allow them at 8. SELECT 7 special check case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_TORCH: return (GetSubString("________90123", (nLevel - 1), 1) != "_");//torch only availble in LL (but SELECT is again 8 not 9) default: return FALSE; }
case RANDOMLOOT_RARITY_UR: if (nLevel < RANDOMLOOT_AREA_LVL_40) return FALSE; else if (nLevel < RANDOMLOOT_AREA_LVL_ALL_URS) {//this group should only SELECT rarity 4 AND RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AREA_VARIANT type (& 16) switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMMOCONT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CONSUMABLE: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: return TRUE; default: return FALSE; } } else { switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RACEBOOK: return (nLevel == 11 || nLevel == 12);//UR racebooks do not spawn in Hells or paragon areas case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_WEAPON: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_TORCH://racebook, weapon, and torch only available in Loot int 10+ areas case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMMOCONT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CONSUMABLE: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: return TRUE; default: return FALSE; } }
case RANDOMLOOT_RARITY_BUR: switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RACEBOOK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CRAFTBOOK: case RANDMOLOOT_TYPE_ARTIFACT://only until demonweb pits and maze expansion case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMMOCONT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CONSUMABLE: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_TORCH: return TRUE; default: return FALSE; }
case RANDOMLOOT_RARITY_XR: switch (nType) { case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RACEBOOK: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_WEAPON: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_HELM: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_ARMOR: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BOOTS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BRACERS: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_AMULET: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_BELT: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_CLOAK: /* case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_MOTE -commented out to return FALSE until motes fixed */ case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RING: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_SHIELD: case RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_TORCH: return TRUE; default: return FALSE; }
default: return FALSE; } return FALSE; }
Assuming I did my back of the napkin count correctly, 10/93 random XRs will be weapons. With respect to the old distros, sorry, I didn't spend enough time checking before posting. It's actually much lower than 15%, so more will wind up dropping. Here is the function: string GetRandomResrefLooteXtremelyRare(int nRaceBkSlots=6, int nWeaponSlots=15) {
string sRes; int nOtherCount;
SQLExecDirect("SELECT count(*) FROM randomloot WHERE rl_rarity = 6 AND rl_type & ~5"); if (SQLFetch() == SQL_ERROR) { WriteTimestampedLogEntry("LOOT ERROR : database unable to find loot table."); return ""; } else nOtherCount = StringToInt(SQLGetData(1));
int nRoll = Random(nOtherCount+nRaceBkSlots+nWeaponSlots); string sCheck;
if (nRoll < nRaceBkSlots) sCheck = "rl_type & " + IntToString(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_RACEBOOK); else if (nRoll < (nRaceBkSlots+nWeaponSlots)) sCheck = "rl_type & " + IntToString(RANDOMLOOT_TYPE_WEAPON); else sCheck = "rl_type & ~5";
string sSQL = "SELECT rl_res FROM randomloot WHERE rl_rarity = 6 AND " + sCheck + " ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1";
SQLExecDirect(sSQL); if (SQLFetch() == SQL_ERROR) { WriteTimestampedLogEntry("LOOT ERROR : database unable to resolve XR loot pick."); return ""; } return SQLGetData(1); }
I was assuming (oops) 15/100, but nOthercount is actually 164 at the moment. That means current 'any weapon' droprate is actually 15/(2+15+164), or .08 (8 percent) of XRs. There are 46 weapon types. That makes current chances of a given XR weapon dropping from a 50 canopic expendature = 1/46 * 0.08287292817679558011049723756906, or 0.0018015853951477300024021138602. Under the new system, that will increase to 10/93 * 1/46, or 0.00233754090696587190275829827022. So, good news. Your chances of getting a specific weapon from spending 50 canopics are about to go up 29.7 percent, not down. Based on a rough approximation of your own suggestion, no less. You do realize that what you just posted is not in the same zip code as 'useless', I hope? Also note your identical use in the linked 'Out of 100' thread, with reference to another weapon set. Not smart, unless you want to be a) ignored, b) arrogant, and c) nearsighted (which, unfortunately, appears to be a widespread condition in this thread). Useful to you is not the same as 'useful', and neither is 'useful now' the same as 'useful ever.' On a more practical note, in the interests of gleaning data, what percentile of healers do you consider 'widespread'? Have you tried running with paragon levels capped? In fact, wouldn't such weapons be a non-lazy option, as they auto-hone to non-healers, requiring frequent swaps? Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 3:29:15 GMT
I just put the P2 weapons through some proper trial numbers against specific Limbo mobs using my KV data, and their results were significantly better than I intuitively expected. In short, I was completely wrong; they are NOT useless in Limbo like I previously believed.
My apologies once again. This has been quite humbling for me, I will try my absolute best to be a lot wiser and more patient about making suggestions/comments in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Apr 10, 2016 4:55:00 GMT
I just put the P2 weapons through some proper trial numbers against specific Limbo mobs using my KV data, and their results were significantly better than I intuitively expected. In short, I was completely wrong; they are NOT useless in Limbo like I previously believed. My apologies once again. This has been quite humbling for me, I will try my absolute best to be a lot wiser and more patient about making suggestions/comments in the future. This post is great and earns you mad respect in my book. Props.
|
|