Legendary "fix" is pure BS - Real, hardcold evidence here

[shyguybman]

TFW the guy in your guild that just hit 110 a few days ago gets a legendary.

[Deleted]

It's a really crappy system. Blizzard really is wrong for thinking that random drops are more exciting than earned drops.

[Magnosh]

Legendaries are dropping more often in my guild, since last week we got 7 legendary drops 2 on the same paladin and 2 for my alts.

If this is not fixed yet I should probably start farming them on my 2 alts for the 2nd drops considering I got the worst ones.

[Deleted]

This is how it looks for our guild (adjusted for legendaries that dropped because of the bug):



I sorted it from players that played a lot to less (from top to bottom). The players in green are players that play 1-2 hours a day at most, have been on vacation for up to 2 weeks of the 4 weeks legion is out etc. The players in red played (on average) 8 hours a day since launch and have done a lot mythic+ dungeons etc. Yellow is ofc in between.

From everything we have experienced and from everything I saw on streams, read on forums etc. I can say this: this is not just RNG. If the drop chance is so low that a lot of hardcore players don't even get one, players playing much, much less getting one (let alone 2 or more) should be an absolutely rare occurence. We are talking super, super rare. And yet it isn't.

There is something (still) wrong with it, I am sure.


Edit: Just realised I missed one "X". Toshirou has no legendary either.

[MathsGuardian]

This is how it looks for our guild ...<Pretty Table>... I can say this: this is not just RNG.

Really? What's the justification? It "looks unbalanced"?

Fitting this as a pooled sample it fits a binomial (actually, it fits an infinite number of the binomial family) quite well.

For example, here are some results from random variates drawn from the fitted distribution, showing number of players with 0, 1, 2,...6 legendaries:

{{15, 5, 7, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {15, 12, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {17, 9, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {18, 8, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0},
{11, 9, 5, 1, 2, 0, 0}, {17, 7, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {14, 8, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {12, 7, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0},
{14, 9, 2, 3, 0, 0, 0}, {12, 13, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0}}

Notice the similarity (amongst the samples and to your table totals)? In fact, the expectation of the fitted distribution turned out to be {14, 10, 4, 1}, compared to your {14,9,4,1} result.

I submit the evidentiary weight of your results against the hypothesis of a random system is scanty.

If the drop chance is so low that a lot of hardcore players don't even get one, players playing much, much less getting one (let alone 2 or more) should be an absolutely rare occurence. We are talking super, super rare. And yet it isn't.

Don't think I've seen "...super, super rare..." used in any mathematical text. What exactly is that? Some gut feeling or reading from some tarot cards? Did you actually calculate the probability of a low-participation (~1/4 the time by your post) player having a greater number of successes than the high-participation player? Had you, you'd find over a wide span of plausible number of trials per player and legendary success probability that it's ~5% to over 9%. Hardly what I'd call "....super, super rare...".

There is something (still) wrong with it, I am sure.

Don't be so sure. Do the math. Might there (still) be a bug? Perhaps, but there certainly has been no "hardcold evidence" against a random system presented in the 30+ pages of the thread, IMO, though there's been plenty of non-existent mathematics, or worse nonsense mathematics coming up with figures like "1 in 45 million".


Please don't take this as an attack on your post - I think it the first somewhat useful (though in a limited sense) data presented. I just think you've jumped to a so far unjustified conclusion with a surety that's questionable.

When/if some parties produce detailed, rigorously gathered data and present it with a proper mathematical analysis, we can make strides toward an evidence-based, justified conclusion. Right now, it's hearsay, anecdotal evidence, feelings, and nonsense mathematics.

[Deleted]

Really? What's the justification? It "looks unbalanced"?

Fitting this as a pooled sample it fits a binomial (actually, it fits an infinite number of the binomial family) quite well.

For example, here are some results from random variates drawn from the fitted distribution, showing number of players with 0, 1, 2,...6 legendaries:

{{15, 5, 7, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {15, 12, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {17, 9, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {18, 8, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0},
{11, 9, 5, 1, 2, 0, 0}, {17, 7, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {14, 8, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {12, 7, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0},
{14, 9, 2, 3, 0, 0, 0}, {12, 13, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0}}

Notice the similarity (amongst the samples and to your table totals)? In fact, the expectation of the fitted distribution turned out to be {14, 10, 4, 1}, compared to your {14,9,4,1} result.

I submit the evidentiary weight of your results against the hypothesis of a random system is scanty.


Don't think I've seen "...super, super rare..." used in any mathematical text. What exactly is that? Some gut feeling or reading from some tarot cards? Did you actually calculate the probability of a low-participation (~1/4 the time by your post) player having a greater number of successes than the high-participation player? Had you, you'd find over a wide span of plausible number of trials per player and legendary success probability that it's ~5% to over 9%. Hardly what I'd call "....super, super rare...".



Don't be so sure. Do the math. Might there (still) be a bug? Perhaps, but there certainly has been no "hardcold evidence" against a random system presented in the 30+ pages of the thread, IMO, though there's been plenty of non-existent mathematics, or worse nonsense mathematics coming up with figures like "1 in 45 million".


Please don't take this as an attack on your post - I think it the first somewhat useful (though in a limited sense) data presented. I just think you've jumped to a so far unjustified conclusion with a surety that's questionable.

When/if some parties produce detailed, rigorously gathered data and present it with a proper mathematical analysis, we can make strides toward an evidence-based, justified conclusion. Right now, it's hearsay, anecdotal evidence, feelings, and nonsense mathematics.

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/t...9186982?page=1

How odd.......another RNG system not working properly and they didn't test it...


but the legendary RNG system works flawlessy.....sure......MMO C are the most diehard fanboys of any game I have ever seen. Blizzard is perfect, they are gods among men.

If it were truly fixed. They would just post another message in the 91 page forum thread saying that it is.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...ynn/Akkis/feed

4 legendaries in a week.

[Deleted]

Really? What's the justification? It "looks unbalanced"?

Fitting this as a pooled sample it fits a binomial (actually, it fits an infinite number of the binomial family) quite well.

For example, here are some results from random variates drawn from the fitted distribution, showing number of players with 0, 1, 2,...6 legendaries:

{{15, 5, 7, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {15, 12, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {17, 9, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {18, 8, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0},
{11, 9, 5, 1, 2, 0, 0}, {17, 7, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {14, 8, 5, 1, 0, 0, 0}, {12, 7, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0},
{14, 9, 2, 3, 0, 0, 0}, {12, 13, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0}}

Notice the similarity (amongst the samples and to your table totals)? In fact, the expectation of the fitted distribution turned out to be {14, 10, 4, 1}, compared to your {14,9,4,1} result.

I submit the evidentiary weight of your results against the hypothesis of a random system is scanty.


Don't think I've seen "...super, super rare..." used in any mathematical text. What exactly is that? Some gut feeling or reading from some tarot cards? Did you actually calculate the probability of a low-participation (~1/4 the time by your post) player having a greater number of successes than the high-participation player? Had you, you'd find over a wide span of plausible number of trials per player and legendary success probability that it's ~5% to over 9%. Hardly what I'd call "....super, super rare...".



Don't be so sure. Do the math. Might there (still) be a bug? Perhaps, but there certainly has been no "hardcold evidence" against a random system presented in the 30+ pages of the thread, IMO, though there's been plenty of non-existent mathematics, or worse nonsense mathematics coming up with figures like "1 in 45 million".


Please don't take this as an attack on your post - I think it the first somewhat useful (though in a limited sense) data presented. I just think you've jumped to a so far unjustified conclusion with a surety that's questionable.

When/if some parties produce detailed, rigorously gathered data and present it with a proper mathematical analysis, we can make strides toward an evidence-based, justified conclusion. Right now, it's hearsay, anecdotal evidence, feelings, and nonsense mathematics.

I should have specified: the system seems to be randomly choosing (rolling) accounts for legendaries (perhaps every day?), but there is no evidence that you can influence the outcome by doing more things that can get you a legendary.

And that is what was announced and what is their stance till today: the chance is slim, but the more you do, the higher the chances are that you get one. And there is no evidence for that.

I just wish they would say how it works, because this is just becoming more and more frustrating right now.


Edit: Also you treat the brackets I created as absolute but they are not. I just did them to show that there is no correlation between doing lots of legendary-awarding stuff or not doing it. Plus, you assume there is a system at work that works, which, at this point, is dubious to say the least. So much is not working in Legion, including the Legendary drop system - and everyone claimed "thats just anecdotal evidence!!!!"...and it wasn't. They found out about the bug because people shared their experiences.

[Sunnydee]

Bad luck protection system will make it 100% if you're unluckiest man on the planet and won't drop legendary (reseting the system) untill it reaches 100%, that's the whole idea behind bad luck protection aka. pitty timer. So yeah, it's actually guaranteed, or is it too strong word for 100% over time?

ive had 100% garrison missions fail in this game.
Guaranteed you say?

[SirBeef]

ive had 100% garrison missions fail in this game.
Guaranteed you say?

The only way you could fail a 100% mission is if you failed to counter all the abilities and situations.

[Deleted]

Can some of the Blizzard defender please answer this:

Why are they not responding anymore to a 91 page thread?
All they have to do: "No worries everything is working as intended and we are closing the thread now".

You know exactly they can't do that because it isn't fixed. There seems to be multiple issues with their RNG systems all across legion and confirmed by the devs.

[SirBeef]

Bad luck protection system will make it 100% if you're unluckiest man on the planet and won't drop legendary (reseting the system) untill it reaches 100%, that's the whole idea behind bad luck protection aka. pitty timer. So yeah, it's actually guaranteed, or is it too strong word for 100% over time?

I am curious as to when it reaches 100%. I don't care if or when I get one since I only play a few nights a week. However, my wife has run more mythics, mythic +s, has reached the highest mythic + in the guild, has reached exaulted with every facfion, and has cleared every normal and heroic boss 3 times, and two mythic bosses. She has zero legrndaries while we have most of our raid teams have one with many having three.

- - - Updated - - -

Can some of the Blizzard defender please answer this:

Why are they not responding anymore to a 91 page thread?
All they have to do: "No worries everything is working as intended and we are closing the thread now".

You know exactly they can't do that because it isn't fixed. There seems to be multiple issues with their RNG systems all across legion and confirmed by the devs.

Not responding go a thread does not mean it has not being paid attention to. Not to mentio they have addressed the not commenting on threads omplaint multiple times in the past with what I said.

[Sunnydee]

The only way you could fail a 100% mission is if you failed to counter all the abilities and situations.

exactly! Point being 100% isnt a mathetmatical 100% in this game, never been.

[Deleted]

Not responding go a thread does not mean it has not being paid attention to. Not to mentio they have addressed the not commenting on threads omplaint multiple times in the past with what I said.

Bullcrap. They do not leave such threads open for everyone to speculate and getting mad.

[schwarzkopf]

You cannot prove anything with such a small data set.

You can disprove something though .... to a reasonable degree of certainty.

The chances of ONE person in 10 million getting 3 legendaries in 2 days is such that a greater than 95% chance there is a non random effect at play.

That's assuming a very high drop rate for the legendaries compared to what it probably is, a lower drop rate increases the change from 95% to close to 100%.

Now - we don't know what the non random effect may be, it may be a bug or it may be intended.

[Deleted]

You can disprove something though .... to a reasonable degree of certainty.

The chances of ONE person in 10 million getting 3 legendaries in 2 days is such that a greater than 95% chance there is a non random effect at play.

That's assuming a very high drop rate for the legendaries compared to what it probably is, a lower drop rate increases the change from 95% to close to 100%.

Now - we don't know what the non random effect may be, it may be a bug or it may be intended.

Isn't it supposed to lower the drop chance the more legendarys you have? We would have to consider that too.

Making this: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...ynn/Akkis/feed

Even more retarded. FOUR LEGENDARIES IN A SINGLE WEEK!

[schwarzkopf]

Isn't it supposed to lower the drop chance the more legendarys you have? We would have to consider that too.

No - I thought it was just meant to be the same chance, meaning that 2 legendaries in a few days for a few hundred toons is still within reason for a large population like WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

Even more retarded. FOUR LEGENDARIES IN A SINGLE WEEK!

Seems like you get way higher chance off heroic EN kills... each of his dropped off such kills.

[Deleted]

If you have a 10% chance of getting an item, a number is rolled between 1 and 10, and if that number matches the ONE number out of 1 - 10, you get the item. It is possible to never get an item. Ever.

No that is totally FALSE!
Blizzard specific said they implemented a bad luck protection.


And you can turn it as much as you want - people with one leg allready are STILL having more chances to get another leg compared to people with zero.
So the "bug fix" of the bug they didnt see - is still not fixed.
Yes, Blizzard often CLAIMS they fixed something when in REALITY they DONT.
(MY thanks to WOD fucked up archeology progress is still fuckuped and not fixed no matter what Bliz claims)

[Deleted]

No that is totally FALSE!
Blizzard specific said they implemented a bad luck protection.


And you can turn it as much as you want - people with one leg allready are STILL having more chances to get another leg compared to people with zero.
So the "bug fix" of the bug they didnt see - is still not fixed.
Yes, Blizzard often CLAIMS they fixed something when in REALITY they DONT.
(MY thanks to WOD fucked up archeology progress is still fuckuped and not fixed no matter what Bliz claims)

Selection bias. People who already got their first legendary are far more likely to be chainrunners of dungeons, they are therefore also more likely to get their 2nd as they have far more chances to roll at it.

[impending doom]

And that is what was announced and what is their stance till today: the chance is slim, but the more you do, the higher the chances are that you get one. And there is no evidence for that.

Making this: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...ynn/Akkis/feed

Even more retarded. FOUR LEGENDARIES IN A SINGLE WEEK!

This is someone with 870+, if we look at the people at this level(thru wowprogress), we see that about 98% of them already have at least 1 legendary, due to lot of farming of high level content. From that 98% we can estimate that the avg drop chance for their first legendary must be somewhere around 15%-25% per day. For some of them maybe even higher if they've ran high level mythic+ dungeons almost non-stop. Now if we use a moderate 15% chance per day, then the odds for getting 4 legendaries within 4 consecutive days is 15%^3 = 0.34%. Even if this is only very rough estimate, it's clearly not something "astronomically rare", considering there's 100's of people already at 870+.

Wow is full of bugs, but if you want to find one in RNG system, the only way is to use at least decent sample size and proper math. So far there hasn't been any proper statistical sign about a bug in this thread, only single occurances and not even really rare ones, and they're only going to cause unnecessary confusion and making finding the real bugs just harder. On the other hand, we already have some decent statistics around which pretty much prove that:

A) There are much more people with only 1 legendary, than people with 2+.
B) People who put a lot more effort(skill+time) in farming, their chances to get legendary are much higher.

[Darsithis]

No that is totally FALSE!
Blizzard specific said they implemented a bad luck protection.

I didn't say that they didn't have protection. I was only describing one likely way they've programmed in randomized items drops. "Bad Luck Protection" would probably factor in as either additional higher-chance rolls or simply increases the initial chance. For instance, if your chance is 30%, then you just need to roll one of 3 numbers out of 10 to get your item.