MF Bug?

[bernard shakey]

I don't think failed set or unique fully explaines a high durrability drop. I've seen nm baal drop a high durrability, rare ,double axe. he certenly has the ability to drop a bladebone axe .

mf is about sets and uniques. since the #of uniques ,failed uniques ,and what have you should remain constant with a constant amount of mf I propose we just count sets and uniques.

this will alow for a much faster compilation of many more mf runs.
to ask someone to do 1000 mf runs IDing and documenting every piece of junk that drops along the way is unreasonable and irrelevant anyways.

by the way, I dont think there might be a decline in mf effectiveness,Ive seen it I know its there.
bye all happy hunting :P

[adeyke]

I don't think failed set or unique fully explaines a high durrability drop. I've seen nm baal drop a high durrability, rare ,double axe. he certenly has the ability to drop a bladebone axe .

Bladebone must already have spawned in that game.

mf is about sets and uniques. since the #of uniques ,failed uniques ,and what have you should remain constant with a constant amount of mf I propose we just count sets and uniques.

Imagine you do two series of runs. In one, with low MF, you get 10 uniques and no failed uniques. In the other, with high MF, you get 20 failed uniques and no uniques. If you ignored the failed uniques, you might come to the conclusion that high MF actually lowers the chance of items being unique. This is not the case. For the game mechanics, failed uniques did pass the unique roll, so they should be considered uniques for purposes of the overall quality of a drop.

to ask someone to do 1000 mf runs IDing and documenting every piece of junk that drops along the way is unreasonable and irrelevant anyways.

No more unreasonable than expecting us to believe a new assertion that's contrary to our existing knowledge of the game mechanics, without any supporting evidence.

[Striker]

mf is about sets and uniques.

Last I checked, MF stands for 'Magic Find', not 'Unique/Set Find'. Believe it or not, there are rare and even magic (Gasp!) items out there that are pretty decent. MF does help to increase the drop chances of those as well.

Don't get completely blinded by gold and green lettering.

[Nystul]

Imagine you do two series of runs. In one, with low MF, you get 10 uniques and no failed uniques. In the other, with high MF, you get 20 failed uniques and no uniques. If you ignored the failed uniques, you might come to the conclusion that high MF actually lowers the chance of items being unique.

And if you didn't ignore the failed uniques, you would come to the conclusion that high MF causes all uniques to fail. Would that be a more valid conclusion? :)

Having a statistically worthwhile sample size is essential. If you have enough samples, keeping track of the failed uniques should not be necessary (unless you are trying to get actual drop percentages, and not just a relative comparison of various MF states). Keeping track of everything may give you a valid sample size in a smaller number of runs, but that benefit is probably outweighed by the tediousness of checking all items and keeping the more detailed notes.

[gekko]

Obviously the example of a pair of 20 run tests was simplistic. However, you miss the point.

Failed set/unique were, as far as the game is concerned, supposed to be set/unique. The fact that they are not has nothing to do with the ammount of MF your char has, any counter (real or imagined) that lowers your MF over time, or anything else that would be affected by the supposed decline in MF. However, ignoring failed sets/uniques (or treating them as 'failed' items) is worse -- you are actively miscounting a percentage of drops, simply because they don't show up as gold or green.

Doing enough runs should still show a decline, if such a counter exists. However, it is difficult to claim accurate and meaningful results if you are knowingly miscounting faile sets/uniques every time they drop.

gekko

[Guest]

No more unreasonable than expecting us to believe a new assertion that's contrary to our existing knowledge of the game mechanics, without any supporting evidence.

I can't speak for everybody who believes in the theory of a mf bugger thing, but I personally do not want to force anybody to believe that it's there. My last posts in this thread were merely to understand whether or not it is possible. The concesses was, that it IS possible, however unlikely.

For people who have 'noticed' a decline in MF drops, there is an explanation which can't (as of yet) be ruled out as impossible. For those who wish to cling to old concepts and the ideal that every gamer may trust Blizzard to tell us of such a thing, they can continue to believe that D2 works as 'it always' has.

[gekko]

I've never seen a SOJ rune drop, even though I've been playing for years and many people I know have seen many of them. This is because blizzard put in a secret line of code, online only, that anyone using the name "gekko" as their account name would automatically stop a SOJ from dropping in any game.

I can't explain why they would do this, I understand it flies in the face of all logical reasoning why they would do this in secret, and I don't expect you all to believe me; however, I know it's true, it's technically possible and therefore can't be dismissed, and everyone who disagrees with me is just naive in thinking that blizzard wouldn't make such a change to the game.

Does that about sum it up?

gekko

[bernard shakey]

[[/QUOTE] Does that about sum it up?

no, no it dosn't

[Guest]

As I said, i'm not trying to shove the concept down your throat. I'm trying to keep it alive as a possibility.

[gekko]

So, what did I miss in my summation? My example was obviously contrived and is obviously ridiculous -- blizzard definately did not add a line of code just to stop little ol' me from obtaining a SOJ. However, it is technically possible. For me to put such a theory forward, however, I must offer better reasoning and evidence than "I just know it's there" or "trust me I've seen it" or "it's technically possible."

Grade 9 science, folks -- the scientific process. If a theory *can* explain a phenomenon, that doesn't mean you accept it. You test your theory (which, I notice, no one has actually done since this thread started), you catalogue your results, you present your findings and see if your theory holds water. The burden of proof lies not on the community to disprove your theory -- it is on you to prove your idea has some merit. As of yet, no one has done so.

You may believe what you wish -- the second you present it here as a possibility and suggest it explains how something works, you'd better be able to back your beliefs up. If you can't, keep your theories to yourself.

gekko

[Fragbait]

Hi gekko,

Just wanted to throw in an example (!fictional!) to show that the whole thing could be the other way round (though I don't believe it to be):

"I have never seen such a 'wonder ship' - there are no such things.
Really, do you media guys have nothing better to do than demoralizing our nation?
And how have you envisioned this so-called wonder weapons? There's no such technology to stay underwater for more than a few hours.
The notional german 'Sub-Marine' or whatever it's called, is nothing more than pure fiction. Our ships have nothing to worry about."

- Petty Officer Second Class John Doe, Nov. 7. 1914 - exactly 6 months before the sinking of the Lusitania by a german submarine


Greetings, Fragbait

[Guest]

by the way, I dont think there might be a decline in mf effectiveness,Ive seen it I know its there.

This is at the top of the page, and is just one persons' impression of decreasing effectiveness in magic find. There are many, MANY other people who feel the same way, all of which who have done countless runs, and claim that there is a decrease in their drop quality.

People HAVE been testing their theory indirectly in their search for godly items, but not in the scientific manner you asked for.

You may believe what you wish -- the second you present it here as a possibility and suggest it explains how something works, you'd better be able to back your beliefs up. If you can't, keep your theories to yourself.

Extremely callous. Where would the world be if everybody throughout history kept all of their theories which they never proved to themselves? Putting an idea out there as a possibility is no crime.

My example was obviously contrived and is obviously ridiculous -- blizzard definately did not add a line of code just to stop little ol' me from obtaining a SOJ.

I think that your example is much more unlikely than Blizzard putting in an mf bugger. I see know reason why they SHOULDN'T do it... Blizzard is constantly trying to get people to explore different areas of the game, and this prevents people from doing runs, because they lose heart. In your example, Blizzard has no motive whatsoever to stop you from getting an SOJ.

[lfd]

There are many, MANY other people who feel the same way, all of which who have done countless runs, and claim that there is a decrease in their drop quality.

This has already been explained in That Really Long Thread. People who are suspicious that their drops are declining in quality tend to see that pattern and convince themselves. Human brains are great at spotting patterns, but utterly terrible at spotting the lack of a pattern.

People HAVE been testing their theory indirectly in their search for godly items, but not in the scientific manner you asked for.

If they haven't been doing their testing in a scientific manner, then their results are useless at best; they're certainly inadmissable and cannot be brought up and used as "proof".

This argument could really do with some (scientific) test results rather than unproven assertions. Whilst I appreciate that what you are trying to do is urge everyone to keep an open mind and be receptive to the possibility, you're having the side effect of seemingly claiming that everyone who is putting forward the viewpoint that there is no such programmed-in magic find decrease is close-minded and simply refusing to believe the evidence in front of them. The problem is that there is no such evidence being presented.

[Guest]

Whilst I appreciate that what you are trying to do is urge everyone to keep an open mind and be receptive to the possibility, you're having the side effect of seemingly claiming that everyone who is putting forward the viewpoint that there is no such programmed-in magic find decrease is close-minded and simply refusing to believe the evidence in front of them.

I'm extremely sorry my arguement has come off that way. It just makes me angry that people still look at the possibility as though it was ludicrous (sic?).

Blizzard has,

1. The capability (as discussed earlier)

2. The motive (see my last post, but it is IMO)

Hard evidence? No, none. Any evidence proving the opposite? Not really. I have read the long thread, and understand about the whole patterns thing, but I think it unlikely. Although your standards of 'godly' do increase every time you find a nicer item, a Shako is still a Shako.

[gekko]

The motive you suggested makes no sense -- if it was blizzard's intention to prod people into exploring all areas of the game, why would they not announce such a counter? Keeping it secret would punish the runners, but would not directly encourage more diverse play. Announcing such a counter would both punish runners AND encourage, at the least, far more "new" character creation.

That's really besides the point, however. The point is that still, no one has attempted to actually do some experiments to verify this. As I've mentioned before, the burden of proof lies on you to prove such a thing exists. So go prove it. Give me numbers. Give me evidence. Then we'll talk. Until you do that, your theory holds no more weight than my suggestion that blizzard doesn't want me to find a SOJ. Regardless of whether you think my theory is more or less ridiculous, we both have no more than our assertion that we "definately know it's true, because we've seen it."

gekko

[Fragbait]

Hi gekko,

The motive you suggested makes no sense -- if it was blizzard's intention to prod people into exploring all areas of the game, why would they not announce such a counter?

Perhaps it does make sense after all:
What would bot users and boss rushers do first if Bliz announced that such a counter has been installed? They'd stop running them and find something equally cheesy as an alternative. The people that aren't running them would continue as before.
Now, if Bliz wouldn't announce that such a thingy has been installed?
Botters and rushers would continue to rush these bosses, and would be (secretly) punished. 'Normal' players would continue playing like they always did and wouldn't be bothered. Just as Blizzard could want.

I'm still not saying that it's there, though :P

Also, that one gave me a nice laugh:

Give me numbers. Give me evidence. Then we'll talk.

:lol: :lol: And what are you doing right now? :lol:

PS: sorry for your SOJ luck. But there are worse things. *thumbs up* !


Greetings, Fragbait

[gta-maloy]]

Last I checked, MF stands for 'Magic Find', not 'Unique/Set Find'.  Believe it or not, there are rare and even magic (Gasp!) items out there that are pretty decent.  MF does help to increase the drop chances of those as well.

Don't get completely blinded by gold and green lettering.
[right][snapback]50984[/snapback][/right]

No effect on drop chance....just on whether or not the item is magical/rare/set/unique.

Oh, and I found a pair of +2 javs/IAS/35% poison Res gloves today =D

[lfd]

,Oct 20 2004, 03:38 PM]No effect on drop chance....just on whether or not the item is magical/rare/set/unique.
[right][snapback]57794[/snapback][/right]

Post necromancy™ aside, your pickiness is ill-founded. "MF does help to increase the drop chances of [sets, uniques, rares, magical items]" is a perfectly valid way of expressing it. MF makes it more likely that any item that drops is magical, rare, set or unique; end of story.

Edit: did you mean to say that MF doesn't decrease the chance of no-drop?

[gta-maloy]]

I was refering to this:

MF does help to increase the drop chances of those as well

This phrase makes it sound like MF gives either a lower no drop chance or a better chance at the wanted TC....both are false.

[Raven Vale]

So , getting a high durability rare means it tried to drop the unique but could'nt because the unique had already dropped ? Reading up a bit on the bladebone axe and the baal rare drop made me post this . I have just done a hell meph run , quite a few , pick up crap and sell , always on the lookout for a decent rare . 2 minutes ago a rare Hand scythe dropped with 216 Durability . As far as I know there are no Unique Hand scythes , so what makes the durability on this so high ? I killed nothing in this game except for meph btw .

Take care