i do understand your / the math. my point is from the implimentation of the random algorithem that determines the drop chance (and that algorithem is NOT random … in the best case it is pseudo-random).
Everything is pseudo-random, there is no such thing as true randomness, does it matter?
Nevermind, i put out all the information and explained it in detail, take it or leave it.
Source of Entropy … Used for Online-Poker or some sort of Krypthography …
I like your harsh wordings that you reedit short after you’ve posted them … don’t be shy 
rofl
Trust me, i could verbally tear you to threads, but i promised Ben to play nice. so i wont, also it makes for much more boring discussions
no use continuing though, either you simply don’t understand the logic behind it or i don’t understand your question or what you are saying, very likely its me not seeing what you are saying, has happened before.
Ask a few people who played guild wars 2 who tried to get a pre-cursor … and ask them how much stuff they wasted in the “mystic toilett” (nearly everone tried that) … and then ask some others … some of them tried 100, 200 times and got absolutly nothing … others tried 5 times and got 5 pre-cursors (had one example in a guild i was member) … “luck” (in this case the randomness itself) in computer systems is a big problem. so why punish the players with an extra penalty for the algorithm ?
(EDIT: The argument behind this is … it’s fair if you play lotto once in your life and you win the first try. it’s unfair if you play lotto only 5 times in you life and you win 5 times … as far as i know this never happend with jackpots)
maybe we should wait for @KuroKuma before we start an other off-topic argument / flame-war
DARGH
do you even read what i write? or do you just ignore most of it. let me sum up your memory then.
Do… You… Understand?
i am not against the idea of refining, im actually for it, i think its a great idea, i do think there should be a penalty though, cause as i mentioned, if you got 1 every 1000 it would be fine using dropchance, however as i also showed above, you would get 3 epics and a ton of common ore if you only went with stats. im not saying it should be purely random, im saying that the randomness of it should be the focus point.
and I do not, that’s all I wanted to say
EDIT: i wrote a novel about the reasons why “not” above
1 Like
Totally fine, i accept your subjective opinion, even though your facts are wrong. and you are actually getting epic’s 3x more than the random drop chance. which was my only problem since to me your argument was that only got the same amount of epics through dedication as you did through luck.
however luck is a tough subject, and i can understand why you would disagree, some people really hate randomization and luck in games so it usually creates quite a debate 
Okay … let me try to explain it with an example …
class Program
{
private static String[] qualities = { "common", "uncomon", "rare", "epic" };
private static int[] division = {0, 900, 990, 999};
private static int max = 1000;
private static int runs = 100000;
private static Random r = new Random();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] ctr = new int[4];
for(int x = 0; x < Program.runs; x++)
{
ctr[Program.dropQuality()]++;
}
Console.WriteLine("--------------------------------");
for(int x = 0; x < ctr.Length; x++)
{
Console.WriteLine(Program.qualities[x] + ": " + ctr[x]);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static int dropQuality()
{
int ri = Program.r.Next(Program.max);
if(ri >= Program.division[3])
{
return 3;
} else if (ri >= Program.division[2])
{
return 2;
} else if (ri >= Program.division[1])
{
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
}
we have the following code (which randomly generates block qualities) [C# if you like to test it yourself, i know that naming and formatting is tremendous in this example but it’s not computer scince lesson 101 :D],
if i run this code 2 x 4 times with 100k runs in the first, and 1k runs in the second iteration i get the following output
for 100k runs
common: 89957
uncomon: 9050
rare: 906
epic: 87
common: 90063
uncomon: 8937
rare: 899
epic: 101
common: 89863
uncomon: 9057
rare: 960
epic: 120
common: 90019
uncomon: 8971
rare: 929
epic: 81
for 1k runs
common: 906
uncomon: 83
rare: 9
epic: 2
common: 904
uncomon: 92
rare: 4
epic: 0
common: 891
uncomon: 92
rare: 16
epic: 1
common: 901
uncomon: 86
rare: 13
epic: 0
although all have the same opportunities we see there are winners and loosers (even in the long run).
(nr. 3 in 100k is winner, nr.4 is looser)
and that’s the reason why i think an extra penelty for converting is not needed … some of them are already punished from the system.
the only thing i argue about is the “extra penalty”.
3 Likes
By penalty i simply mean a 1 : 15 ratio instead of 1 : 10, you say winner and loser, which is the point. the luck should be the main factor, since after all it would be a luck based system if you get less than normal, no wonder, its random, its the point of randomness. however for thing such as 1k, if you can convert all with a 1:1 ratio as the chance you would instead have 173 uncommon and 6 common, which could be turned into 17 rare which would leave 26 rare, which would turn into 2 more epics. smae thing with 3 and 4, number 4 with 13 rare could turn it into 1 epic with 3 rare to spare, thats the thing, if the argument is that you only want epics, then you have to remember the other things which you can turn into epics. which i assume is what we are talking about, only caring about epics.
now try with a million, or a billion, or maybe a trillion. then you would get closer results, chance implies that its not always close oo the stats unless you run an insane amount of tests, and yes, some will be luckier than others, which is the point, however dedication would still reduce the effect of poor luck. if you have 1 guy get epics two times in a row but common the other 998 times, and a guy getting no epics but getting 75 rares and 250 uncommon. who is the lucky one and who is the unlucky one?
huge respect for running numbers though. it does help putting it into perspective 
PS: apologies if i came off as rude, i can completely understand why some would be against luck in games as some feel that its just a cheap way to prolong gametime.
Luck is the main factor even if the ratio is 1:10. ofc you can convert the other stuff to epics too. but the one poor guy with the hughe amount of commons (which are in fact only ~150 more than the the other guy) should not be punished with extra costs (nr.3 will made even more epics from his drops … but that’s ok in my opinion, that’s luck).
100k would take 83h for collecting if every pick takes 3s. i think the set is high enough … don’t you ? the outcome is always something like a bell curve (some are winners, others not).
can’t chance the system of luck … but could make it “not that hard” for the unlucky ones
Ignoring the finer details of the latest 30 something posts regarding drop rates and luck (I did read the first dozen posts thoroughly, after that it seems much of the same but in fine detail and highly debatable), I can’t help but feel like this approach, while a common staple in many mmo’s to some degree or another, is simply too grindy and not “sandboxy” enough. B< is a game centered on discovery, and I feel the crafting and recipies should reflect that to a greater degree.
As I understand the system proposed by @zouls, crafting the highest quality items would encourage two likely behaviors.
A) mine a ■■■■ load of ore yourself just to get enough rare materials for a high quality item.
B) dump a small fortune trading for rare materials.
Neither of these activities suit the role that I imagine zouls hopes to fill as well as they could. You want to be a legendary crafter, are you going to spend hours of mining just to craft one legendary item? At what point do you cease to be a full time crafter and instead become a miner that crafts on the side? If you go the trade route, how can your prices be competitive against miners if you have to pay a premium for rare materials?
2 Likes
There is the thing though. you cant really use that as an argument cause it goes both ways
thats just… why is it ‘‘unfair’’ that a person gets 20 less epics to start with but fair when he has 30 less after conversion? what is the logic in that? there cannot be such a thing as ‘‘fair’’, if you make the requirements lower then also the guy who get more, will get even more, but why is that more fair than the one guy just getting a little less? that is my problem with your logic.
Man… you know i despise this word like the plague, it is used too often by fools who doesnt want to do anything, but i do see what you are getting at and i think you might have skipped on thing
the epics would have to be rare, it shouldnt be a case where common, uncommon or rare is useless which it seems to be treated as if you get epics or nothing. it should not be ‘‘i have an epic sword you have a rare, you are now useless compared to me’’ but more like ‘‘after 100 hours i have finally collected the materials for this epic sword which very few people have achieved to create’’
there is a balance, however there is also the other side, you can easily make epics too easy to find, meaning they will have little to no value. is that better? that you just find epics every 50 ore or so? doesnt that kinda ruin the point of a high quality rare material, the fact that it isnt rare at all?
but yeah, 1000 is a bit overkill. it was just to make sure there were tiers of rarity. what else would it be to keep its value? 10, 25, 50? 5, 25, 75? that just seems too easy to get higher quality stuff then.
And that’s exactly where my Idea of atomation come in place Automation-Discussion (Maybe @Havok40k can change the OP by the way )
yeap … i think the value should be high too. like 25, 100, 350 or something …
1 Like
that does seem more fair. it depends on how much ore in a vein though, atm i am pretty sure we have iron mushrooms which is like 20 - 30 iron split with very little distance between them, so the numbers would have to be based on how often you find those things anyways.
so lets do this, lets try with ‘‘dedicated’’ time to more realistic standards. i would say you would roughly collect 1 ore per minute,maybe 2 of dedicated mining if you are in an area with veins.
so you should get an uncommon around every 10 min, a rare around every hour and an epic around 5 hours of dedicated mining, in average ofc. (this is including time it would take to move from vein to vein and to find them)
1 Like
still a bit high i think if we have to make ingots from them, but if not it sound good.
Depends… on how many you need, and for what… assuming you need 2 or 3, do you think 15 hours of work is unfair for an epic weapon? especially if you can refine the other ores to get more epics, meaning it might only take 10?
i meant if you need 3 for an ingont and 5 for the epic (15 x 5h = 75h) … i think we are hardened too much on the word “epic”. an epic iron sword will be much worse then a common “adamintium” sword or something that is like 5 tiers higher (expect when, as i mentions priviously, every epic has its unique stats [like life-steal])
1 Like
ah yeah, in that case indeed, i always thought 1 ore was 1 ingot, hmm, is worth remembering.
1 Like