Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 09:49:50 -
[1] - Quote
Hello,
being aware that the amount of sites that I was running after last patch is too low to be of empirical value, I would nevertheless askl if someone made similiar experience:
I am tracking the loot from those sites as they are a bit borderline with respect to worth running or not.
So, before patch minimum value of site was somehow determined by the amount of covert research tools which was never below 25 in total (from the Thukker array and the can together). My overall average in running them since tracking was 37.8 mln based on 143 sites.
After patch I had not one single site that contained even 20 tools. Which results in some of them being worth less than 7 mln in total loot with before patch lowest loot value ever was 10.2 mln and the average loot being 10.7 mln based on 13 sites. Again, low numbers but the immediate change in the amount of tools dropped feels not like being random.
DId someone notice the same? Is there any ressource for complex loot tables available? If the current drops are representative, those sites are definitely not worth running anymore.
Thanks in advance. |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
8403
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 10:41:18 -
[2] - Quote
RNG is R.
[b]----
CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
|
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 11:12:05 -
[3] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:RNG is R.
Of course, but this was not really the question. It was more "did someone take one dice out of 5, because I never get 5 of a kind anymore?" |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
8407
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 13:06:53 -
[4] - Quote
But it is exactly the question - you didn't say how big your sample size was exactly, but isn't there a possibility that things are working as intended, and you've just been consistently unlucky?
e: I missed the 143 site sample size, sorry.
However, my point still stands - there really isn't anyway you can definitively say that the RNG has been tampered with somehow.
[b]----
CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
|
Sheeth Athonille
Rabid Dogz Mining Void..
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 20:57:36 -
[5] - Quote
I believe that was why they were asking if anyone else has had similiar experiences? Sure it could still be random, but if you have 50 people who have ran 50 sites each and they all have the same results, odds are it isn't random.
Sorry I can't add to your sample size, I havn't ran any since the patch. I did run one a couple weeks ago and noticed that I got a lot of faction ammo, how long has that been there for? Previously to that I hadn't ran one in a few months and there wasn't any ammo back then |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
8422
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 21:46:26 -
[6] - Quote
The reason that I'm approaching this with a huge dose of skepticism is that, traditionally, when people have taken to the forums bemoaning a stealth nerf to the loot tables, it often transpires - admittedly through anecdotal evidence, but as that's all we're going on now why stop, lol - that others are not sharing the original misfortune. I think we'd need a much more extensive sample size in order to begin to definitively prove your case.
[b]----
CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
51845
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:41:56 -
[7] - Quote
Nobody really knows if loot tables have been adjusted or not. If you've been doing it for quite a while and you've noticed a definite difference in it then yes, it's been changed.
Some may agree and others will disagree. And still others will simply say RNG.
Now when RNG is used as an answer, that person is actually saying they don't know. However due to EPEEN they still need to post an answer and make it look like they know. Thus the perfect answer that can't be proved or disproved is the go-to answer - RNG.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 09:18:44 -
[8] - Quote
Sheeth Athonille wrote:I believe that was why they were asking if anyone else has had similiar experiences? Sure it could still be random, but if you have 50 people who have ran 50 sites each and they all have the same results, odds are it isn't random.
Sorry I can't add to your sample size, I havn't ran any since the patch. I did run one a couple weeks ago and noticed that I got a lot of faction ammo, how long has that been there for? Previously to that I hadn't ran one in a few months and there wasn't any ammo back then
Exactly. Bigger sample size results in higher informational value. That was the whole reason of my question.
|
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 09:31:21 -
[9] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:I think we'd need a much more extensive sample size in order to begin to definitively prove your case.
Yes, but I do not want to run 10,000 sites to have a much higher propability that the theory that it is not worth running is correct.
And no worries, I would have bet all my ISK that someone tells me "its just random". Which is by the way definitely not true as there is a - albeit unknown - distribution mechanic behind it. Empirical analysis seems to show that a given minimum and maximum number of loot esxists. Within those boundaries it is most likely (sample size to small to be even sure on this) be determined by a RNG.
|
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 09:35:57 -
[10] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote: ... you can definitively say...
Empiricism is built on the fact that it is (most likely) impossible to have infinite sample sizes. |
|
RonPaul Rox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
89
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 01:40:03 -
[11] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote: I think we'd need a much more extensive sample size in order to begin to definitively prove your case.
She's here trying to increase her sample size, not prove her case. What is it you dont understand about that?
http://imgur.com/EGjYLSL
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
632
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 04:34:49 -
[12] - Quote
I haven't run 143 of these but I've been running them on and off since they were released. Faction ammo was added and implant drops seem more rare, I can't really speak about the research tools. I've gotten some low numbers on those (like less than 10M worth from a site) but I haven't really kept track of specifics.
CCP has made alot of tweaks to these sites I think. Rats seem different also. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |