Truth on Misinformation

General Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6
06/04/2014 03:59 PMPosted by AudioCG
What you literally just outlined was a perfect example of specific groupings.


yeah but you said it different. you used numbers. just saying
06/04/2014 03:37 PMPosted by MrWarglaive
06/04/2014 03:31 PMPosted by Ryaskybird
...

No, it's not. Misinformation has nothing to do whether a problem could exist in potentia. It's giving false or misleading information, i.e., lying, but on a grander scale.

Jeeze.


Saying a problem doesnt exist is misinfomation if you're not 100% sure it doesnt exist.

Steadfast belief in your claim clearly isnt sufficient or these threads would all be "right".


Okay, so even if Blizzard hasn't any evidence that a problem exists, the mere fact that it may exist means they're giving out misinformation if they say that there's no problem?

Really?
06/04/2014 04:02 PMPosted by Morthon
06/04/2014 03:59 PMPosted by AudioCG
What you literally just outlined was a perfect example of specific groupings.


yeah but you said it different. you used numbers. just saying


He didn't say specific grouping, he said "all users must be affected the same". In my example I've easily created 2 user groups.

I can create more user groups still by say "let's imagine there are 2 servers, and one server restarts at midnight, and will be down for 20 minutes". So now we have people with unicode user names, people who play at midnight, and people who are not affected.
HE did,

he just used numbers.

"The odds of account specific bugs relating to the drops specifically are almost impossible in a server side code situation, it would be more like huge chucks of group of 1000's or 10000's + players being effected, not just a couple people here and there. "

that would be the number equivalent of specific groups
06/04/2014 04:11 PMPosted by Morthon
HE did,

he just used numbers.

"The odds of account specific bugs relating to the drops specifically are almost impossible in a server side code situation, it would be more like huge chucks of group of 1000's or 10000's + players being effected, not just a couple people here and there. "

that would be the number equivalent of specific groups


Nope. It wouldn't always be a huge chuck of players. I can easily come up with examples for a bug that only affects like 100 people (for example, people's username over 100 characters will not get their progress saved due to the length of array being hardcoded to 99)

Seriously how you guys not get this.
06/04/2014 04:05 PMPosted by Ryaskybird
Really?


If they are frequently enough beset by "problems"... yes, it is. And they are.

Debunking the physical act of nerfing itself is one thing, but just chalking up something so widely experienced to "RNG being RNG" is hardly better- and possibly dead wrong.

In a game so full of bugs, that is a pretty low bar to set against a widespread claim.

edit- Yes, RNG happens... but you know what else happens? Bugs. Which one is more likely the culprit is exactly the problem I'm referring to on the table here:

Masses of players lied.
RNG happened on a massive scale.
Blizz broke sumthin.

All 3 have merit - THAT is the "problem".
06/04/2014 04:14 PMPosted by Hangender
Seriously how you guys not get this.


not that i don't get it, but i see you making arguments that most likely have a very small probability of actually occuring. can they happen, sure, are there readily available methods and protocols to rule those out, or gather data to identify those types of issues, YES.

Not saying that your examples CAN'T happen, but the likelihood is small.

so that leaves, by occams razor, something with a higher probability of happening being closer to the truth.
06/04/2014 04:18 PMPosted by Morthon
06/04/2014 04:14 PMPosted by Hangender
Seriously how you guys not get this.


not that i don't get it, but i see you making arguments that most likely have a very small probability of actually occuring. can they happen, sure, are there readily available methods and protocols to rule those out, or gather data to identify those types of issues, YES.

Not saying that your examples CAN'T happen, but the likelihood is small.

so that leaves, by occams razor, something with a higher probability of happening being closer to the truth.


Occam's razor is not definitive proof, it's more of a general guideline. And bugs are everywhere in the code, so occam's razor doesn't really help us. Plus, given how Blizzard didn't even catch the Tall Man's Finger bug (the most obvious bug in the world), I'm not sure if they even do quality assurance.

But anyways, He's saying that bugs server-side must affect all people the same way, I'm saying that's not always the case. It's as simple as that.
If you believe this is completely RNG your wrong. Nothing about anything on your common PC and your common game is completely RNG. It can be made to appear so, yet with a set amount of numbers, seeds, drop rates all this stuff is simply a highly complex mathematical equation that can easily be manipulated and i think i know how.

I think it is somehow maintenance related to be honest with you. Most of the time after a one is done, it is like the floodgates burst open and many legs come (not always, cant make it bluntly obvious you see). Then over the week it tampers down to nada till the next maintenance. I am highly suspicious these drops are being controlled in a controlled release manner.

Would i take anybody on the internets word for whether it is truly RNG or not? Of course not this is the internet. Unless i see proof and the full iner working, all the numbers, how it operates etc etc or is 3rd party control verified by a respectable company not associated with blizzard in any way then why would i just take someones word for it?
06/04/2014 04:15 PMPosted by MrWarglaive
06/04/2014 04:05 PMPosted by Ryaskybird
Really?


If they are frequently enough beset by "problems"... yes, it is. And they are.

Debunking the physical act of nerfing itself is one thing, but just chalking up something so widely experienced to "RNG being RNG" is hardly better- and possibly dead wrong.

In a game so full of bugs, that is a pretty low bar to set against a widespread claim.


I'm not talking about bugs. I'm talking about deliberately giving out false information, aka misinformation, aka lying.

This is what you're accusing Blizz of doing. Of deliberately lying to their customer base because there may be a bug affecting drop rates because there have been bugs affecting other areas of the game in the past.

First, let's get this out of the way: show me any code as complex as a video game that's completely free of bugs. And even if a program is riddled with bugs (which D3 is not), that doesn't mean that the programmers are lying when they say a particular feature is working as intended.

Second, I have to say again: Really?
06/04/2014 04:24 PMPosted by Hangender
Occam's razor is not definitive proof, it's more of a general guideline. And bugs are everywhere in the code, so occam's razor doesn't really help us. Plus, given how Blizzard didn't even catch the Tall Man's Finger bug (the most obvious bug in the world), I'm not sure if they even do quality assurance.But anyways, He's saying that bugs server-side must affect all people the same way, I'm saying that's not always the case. It's as simple as that.


My RNG is so crappy that i'd probably never get to experience the tall man's finger bug, nor any of the other bugs, so i won't comment on that. I believe that it's something that should be fixed since EVERYONE seems to be talking about it now, which kinda fits the "global effect" (hope i used the right word there, i'm so paranoid about it now that someone went off on the correct usage of affect and effect... yes i'm trying to inject levity).

As for the quality assurance, it's important, and it seems, Blizz might have been able to do a bit of a better job there, no doubt,

but as for occams razor being a general guideline, well... generally, guidelines for logical thinking and problem solving are a good thing. The fewer assumptions one has to make to arrive at a conclusion or result, typically the more likely that conclusion or result is correct, or at least the easiest thing to determine is NOT the correct result or conclusion.

so... generally, its not a bad way to approach a problem.

and lastly, i disagree, he didn't say that ALL people had to be experiencing the same thing, he said that large groups would have to be, what you called specific groups. I went back and looked and he did give you that not ALL people had to be experiencing the same bug. but you keep saying he is saying that.
06/04/2014 04:34 PMPosted by Morthon
06/04/2014 04:24 PMPosted by Hangender
Occam's razor is not definitive proof, it's more of a general guideline. And bugs are everywhere in the code, so occam's razor doesn't really help us. Plus, given how Blizzard didn't even catch the Tall Man's Finger bug (the most obvious bug in the world), I'm not sure if they even do quality assurance.But anyways, He's saying that bugs server-side must affect all people the same way, I'm saying that's not always the case. It's as simple as that.


My RNG is so crappy that i'd probably never get to experience the tall man's finger bug, nor any of the other bugs, so i won't comment on that. I believe that it's something that should be fixed since EVERYONE seems to be talking about it now, which kinda fits the "global effect" (hope i used the right word there, i'm so paranoid about it now that someone went off on the correct usage of affect and effect... yes i'm trying to inject levity).

As for the quality assurance, it's important, and it seems, Blizz might have been able to do a bit of a better job there, no doubt,

but as for occams razor being a general guideline, well... generally, guidelines for logical thinking and problem solving are a good thing. The fewer assumptions one has to make to arrive at a conclusion or result, typically the more likely that conclusion or result is correct, or at least the easiest thing to determine is NOT the correct result or conclusion.

so... generally, its not a bad way to approach a problem.

and lastly, i disagree, he didn't say that ALL people had to be experiencing the same thing, he said that large groups would have to be, what you called specific groups. I went back and looked and he did give you that not ALL people had to be experiencing the same bug. but you keep saying he is saying that.


He DID say all people must be experiencing the same thing if there was a bug:

<span class="truncated">...</span>

Just curious what difference does it make whether its client side or server side, in the end a wrong number is a wrong number. This is their programming and code. It was showing inaccuracy that were observable.


The difference is this:

Bugs are NOT selective, if the drop rate was "bugged", then everyone would be experiencing the same effect, not just few people having affected accounts.


This is the 3rd time I have pointed this out, in this very thread.

The odds of account specific bugs relating to the drops specifically are almost impossible in a server side code situation, it would be more like huge chucks of group of 1000's or 10000's + players being effected, not just a couple people here and there. (You would not see dramatically different reports of "loot is fine, I got X over X" and "no drops for X time over X days" like we always do, if it was bugged, the results would be faaaaaaaaar more consistent)


If he said some people, then I would have let it go.
did anyone see the aliens? i lost track of them in all the excitement
06/04/2014 04:37 PMPosted by Hangender
If he said some people, then I would have let it go.


he did. right below that

06/04/2014 04:37 PMPosted by Hangender
it would be more like huge chucks of group of 1000's or 10000's + players being effected, not just a couple people here and there.


that was him admitting that not all people would be affected, but still that larger groups would be and not just the random individual.
06/04/2014 04:37 PMPosted by Morthon
did anyone see the aliens? i lost track of them in all the excitement


It's like Onyxia deep breathes more, but on a cosmic scale.

And Blizzard is the Illuminati, lying to the masses.
06/04/2014 04:40 PMPosted by Ryaskybird
And Blizzard is the Illuminati, lying to the masses.


just as long as they keep the anal probes away
If I was a developer or a PM on this game and these forums - I'm pretty sure I would lock threads like these and ban persistent/inflammatory users. These community managers are far more patient than myself in light of the overwhelming amount of misinformation and downright ignorance that is spread here.
06/04/2014 01:26 PMPosted by nekkra
They are trying to deliberately discredit people who challenge the validity of anything they we are told.


This is a rather bold assumption. We are attempting to avoid a situation where a rumor rampages out of control and becomes community "truth." In this case, we have investigated multiple times into drop rates to make sure they are working as they should. We have tested and retested. The results have come back consistently in each instance - drop rates are where they are supposed to be, and haven't been changed since the implementation of the Community Buff for the 2nd Anniversary. Each time we post regarding misinformation being spread, we are as certain as we can be that this is the case.

06/04/2014 01:26 PMPosted by nekkra
Are you really going to come on here and say that there is not and has never been any bugs/faulty programming in the game?


Not at all! But we do check and recheck things when community concerns are brought up or reports come in consistently. That's not the case here - rather, the occasional string of bad luck comes up and these types of posts come in waves. The reports we've received on drop rates are inconsistent, and our testing results and internal drop rate numbers contradict the suggested pattern.

RNG, being inherently random in nature and definition, is something that's easy to mistake as working inconsistently. That's the nature of the beast. What I can do is reassure you that we've done everything we can (and more) on our end to make sure it's working the way it should.

06/04/2014 01:26 PMPosted by nekkra
Especially when you have knee jerk reactions to people having fun and you nerf something by saying it was a bug?


That's a pretty unfair statement. Any change made is in the interest of the game's health in the long term, whether it's a bug fix or a balance change. We carefully weigh the benefits and detriments to such changes, and while some do result in a reduction of power, it's a byproduct of fixing something that is working against its original intent.

Everyone loves to smash face and feel powerful - but without a little control, we can inadvertantly severely restrict growth of power in the future. We want to provide additional content down the road, and if a single skill or item upsets the balance of everything else available, it substantially changes the way we develop that content. Instead of balancing everything in the future around a single outlier, it's more appropriate to bring that outlier back into balance with other aspects of the game.

You're welcome to provide constructive feedback regarding changes, or raise your concerns regarding whether or not something is working as it should. That isn't something we're trying to take away. However, in this case, we've done our leg work, and I've shared that information.

That said, this is a pretty unproductive conversation with little productive discourse, so I'll be locking this thread. If you'd like to send us your feedback regarding moderation practices, you're welcome to do so directly to lylirra@blizzard.com - she's our manager, and will be happy to review your concerns.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum