Ancient Items Roll Like Crap

General Discussion
Maybe you just shouldn't be playing an RNG loot game.
^^ Because after seven straight years of playing this game exclusively and continuously I can't make observations and then want to talk about them? This particular observation has nothing to do with whether I like this type of game, or whether I should be playing it.
05/21/2019 01:33 PMPosted by Meteorblade
05/21/2019 11:51 AMPosted by Dreyda
I have a file with thousands of legendaries (regular, ancient, and primal) that I've recorded upon identifying. I filtered the whole spreadsheet down to just ancients and I can confirm that the average stat roll is almost dead in the center of the stat range for every affix.

I'm genuinely interested in how StoneOld / StoneCold / Slamboney is going to attempt to dismiss this actual empirical evidence that disproves his theory that ancients tend to have values lower in the ranges.
I would be most interested to see that file as well. Now like he said, he didn't go very deep into classifying what he recorded, but if that file is available, for example, on Google Sheets, it would be fun to see if I could compile the statistics on particular property values. This would be without regard to the item presented, it would just need to be Ancient, and contain the property. But I seriously doubt that if the data were compiled in such a way it would contradict my observational conclusions.
05/21/2019 06:21 PMPosted by Celestrious
You get ten times more legendaries than you do ancients and you burn every single one which doesn’t beat your currently equipped legendary.

By the time you find an ancient, you will already have a comparatively rare set of stat rolls on your legendary.

This is just in your head.
Totally incorrect. I look at each item independent of any other factors. For example, the Witching Hour belt that prompted this entire discourse. That thing rolled like garbage, all on its own. The proof is in the property values and the value ranges present. There is no comparison or perceptual inaccuracies present. The thing rolled like trash, as most Ancients do.
05/21/2019 11:51 AMPosted by Dreyda
I have a file with thousands of legendaries
I don't suppose you'd be willing to make that file available via Google Sheets and let me have the link, would you? Also, maybe our in-house statistics and probabilities guru could have a go at it as well.
Assuming there is an even distribution on legendaries, Blizzard would have to write special code for ancients in order to shift their distribution.

They would not do this for three reasons.

1 they’re lazy
2 every time they create a special case in the game, they create a new source for unexpected interactions and bugs. this means more work and slower patches.
3 it serves no purpose.

There’s no way Blizzard would do this, it wouldn’t even be an idea they consider because it’s just stupid from a developer perspective.
and tadpoles
But I seriously doubt that if the data were compiled in such a way it would contradict my observational conclusions.

So, when confronted with data about thousands of items which disproves your conclusion, you're still sticking to your conclusion because "they must be looking at the data wrong".

So, going back to your original post, you're wrong because...
"The data proves you're wrong."
05/20/2019 11:59 PMPosted by StoneOld
Ancient Items Roll Like Crap

Hey Meteorblade. Here's another of the thousands of examples I can point to that tell me that the weighting on property values of Ancient items is different than normal Legendary items. Ancient items are most likely to roll in the bottom third of the range given, while Legendary items usually roll in the top third. Here's an example.

The first Ancient item of the Season dropped for me just now. An Ancient Legendary Witching Hour belt. Here is what rolled on it, with the ranges:

565 Vitality [550 - 650]
IAS +5.0% [5.0 - 7.0]
CHD +29.0% [26.0 - 50.0]
Entangling Shot +12% [10 - 15]
+6574 Life after Kill [6536 - 7725]
1.4% Chance to Freeze on Hit [1.0 - 5.1]

Every one of these properties rolled in the lower half of the possible range, and most of them very near the lower third of the range, if not lower. Now, except for a few glorious RNG exceptions, I believe this is the way the devs intended Ancient items to roll, so that even after we found one, we would be motivated to continue to play and find a better one. That makes sense. Also, it's pretty obvious after watching tens of thousands of these items drop, that my inductive conclusion is likely correct.

Now, don't just give me the statistical likelihood of a belt dropping with these property values. Give me a logical counterargument other than,
"You're wrong, because math."

This seems like statistically average for you. So expect more of the same if you keep playing.
05/20/2019 11:59 PMPosted by StoneOld
Ancient Items Roll Like Crap

and normal and primals don't?
05/21/2019 11:51 AMPosted by Dreyda
I will admit, I combined all the skill % affixes into one column because I figured that would give a better average. I also didn't check chance to bleed or native damage rolls on weapons because I don't actually know the exact ranges for the minimum and maximum and I know damage affixes changed based on weapon speed and I only recorded 1 handed or 2 handed weapon on my spreadsheet. I'm way too lazy to go through and plug exact weapon types in.
05/21/2019 10:42 PMPosted by Meteorblade
But I seriously doubt that if the data were compiled in such a way it would contradict my observational conclusions.

So, when confronted with data about thousands of items which disproves your conclusion, you're still sticking to your conclusion because "they must be looking at the data wrong".

So, going back to your original post, you're wrong because...
"The data proves you're wrong."
Well, the guy says something about the data, but I have not seen any proof in the form of numbers. Why is it you are so quick to say I am wrong about an observation anyone who plays the game can see, and so quick to accept anecdotal "proof" from a guy who is talking about his observations?

I think it is because you are stubborn, and you believe that anything that supports your opinion must be right, even if it comes to you only as a story. But why are you so quick to tell me I am wrong, when my observations come to you only as a story?

Seems that you are prejudiced, and you have made up your mind about certain facts, with no foundation whatsoever, and anyone who has an observation that threatens your position must be wrong...I get it now.

Now, if that guy does not present the spreadsheet for analysis, then his opinion is just as valid as mine, and vice versa. You, however, are prejudiced, so anything that supports your opinion, even when there is no basis for it, must be right, and anyone who has a differing opinion must be wrong.

</thread>
05/22/2019 12:04 AMPosted by Steve
05/20/2019 11:59 PMPosted by StoneOld
Ancient Items Roll Like Crap

and normal and primals don't?

Oh! Don't ruin his thread with disturbing facts!
:-)
05/21/2019 09:11 PMPosted by StoneOld
There is no comparison or perceptual inaccuracies present. The thing rolled like trash, as most Ancients do.

Last four words are your perceptual inaccuracy.
See also: “Urshi is a liar” conspiracy.

05/21/2019 11:14 AMPosted by StoneOld
I completely agree that the properties that appear on an item are totally random and don't follow any kind of fixed pattern.

That's funny. Property distribution is totally weighted, but all your paranoia has gone into believing Blizzard is messing with values. Which is pretty much meaningless: rare properties are build-enabling, so their chances to spawn are a big deal, but value roll is what, 0.05% of your GR limit? Yeah, 100% low rolls may compound to 2-3 levels in total, absolute priority compared to whether your build works at all.

And even if your conspiracy theory is true, what's next? Where's the official Blizzard statement, that says value rolls are uniformly random, which you could triumphantly disprove with your findings and expose their evil machinations? I've never heard about one.
05/22/2019 12:16 AMPosted by Slamboney
I think it is because you are stubborn

Just when I thought you already had your Irony skill maxed out you come out with a gem like this.

05/22/2019 12:16 AMPosted by Slamboney
you believe that anything that supports your opinion must be right, even if it comes to you only as a story. But why are you so quick to tell me I am wrong, when my observations come to you only as a story?

Of course I believe his "story" more. Your "story" is based on how you feel about items. His "story" is based on empirical data about thousands of items. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind if you can actually show any evidence that I should. However, do you have anything other than "because my feelings say so" as an argument?
If you really do have a database of thousands of items then it would be fairly straightforward to do some statistical analysis to find out if ancients are really rolling below average.

If the differences are as large as OP is suggesting then a few thousand items would be more than sufficient evidence for such a significant bias to be obvious.

But we would need to actually see this evidence.
Confirmation bias is a thing. Look it up.

This isn't complicated. Leaving everything in a game to chance is frustrating and stupid. It's an error in the core design theory of the ARPG. Blizzard knows this. It's why things like Kadala exist to tip the odds slightly in your favor and give you some control. The problem is they think any control that would make item drops less than overwhelmingly the source of desirable items is bad. So Kadala has an extremely low chance of producing what you want. It's daft and self defeating.
05/22/2019 02:32 AMPosted by Meteorblade
Of course I believe his "story" more. Your "story" is based on how you feel about items. His "story" is based on empirical data about thousands of items.
OK, this one more try.

How do you know his story is based on anything? Have you seen the sheet? Have you verified its accuracy? Why are you willing to take that guy's story about property value distribution and not mine? Perhaps because he agrees with your opinion? So even though me and that guy present to you the exact same proof* - words on this web page - you are inclined to say he is right and I am wrong.

Why?

*actually my proof is better because I recorded the stats of an item to demonstrate my claim.
05/22/2019 03:50 AMPosted by Amonra
If the differences are as large as OP is suggesting then a few thousand items would be more than sufficient evidence for such a significant bias to be obvious.

But we would need to actually see this evidence.
How the hells are you still getting people to engage you on these troll threads? Your life's work. Bravo?
*actually my proof is better because I recorded the stats of an item to demonstrate my claim.

You're using a single data point and trying to extrapolate from it the results of not only your entire loot history, but the loot history of millions of players, and you can't tell why people don't trust your "story"?

If I posted the affix values of a really good ancient, and claimed that almost all ancients dropped like that, would you accept that as proof? If your answer to that is no, then we should reject your claim for the same reason. If your answer to that is yes, then we have two diametrically opposing claims that preclude each other so which is true?
05/22/2019 01:11 PMPosted by ChangBooster
How the hells are you still getting people to engage you on these troll threads? Your life's work. Bravo?


Argumentation is a useful skill and it’s often the case that people with the worst ideas are the hardest to dislodge. Even if you can’t persuade them directly, being able to make an argument persuasive enough that the majority of people will not walk off a cliff with the lunatic is also a useful survival skill.

This is practice with a subject and in an environment where none of this matters.

Practice is how you improve at anything.
*actually my proof is better because I recorded the stats of an item to demonstrate my claim.

actually the person that used the 1000 is better proof because he just didn't use 1 item and said the rest is the same

How do you know his story is based on anything? Have you seen the sheet? Have you verified its accuracy? Why are you willing to take that guy's story about property value distribution and not mine?

How do we know your story is based on anything, where's your sheet?
For all we know you just printed out a list of the worst properties and stat range and expect us to believe you and you are only taking 1 item and using that where as the other person using a heap more ancient items to compare them all against one another instead of taking 1 and saying they are all like that
And besides the rest of us have picked up hundreds of ancients and seen the scores on those to know that what you are saying is a load of rubbish

05/22/2019 12:31 AMPosted by Jazz
05/22/2019 12:04 AMPosted by Steve
...
and normal and primals don't?

Oh! Don't ruin his thread with disturbing facts!
:-)

Oh sorry I forgot about that, I suppose I should delete the part where we have all picked up plenty of ancients to know how they roll
:-)
95% of all my Ancient Items came from drops...dropped in the 'golden age' of T10.
-btw, i have 14 characters to 'feed'.

i seldom get a useful ancient from the gambling hoax at the cube.
-so now i barely try after a year of frustration and bounties.

Kadala gambling can be deleted from the game IMO, barely any chance.
-she only drops legendary items and set legendaries.
-soulshard logistics is even an annoyance to me.

-and direct ancients start dropping more than once a week if you play at least Grift 90...!

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum