Quote:Really, it doesn't make any sense.If you say so.
If you don't like that one, how about this one:
Blizzard as a compile switch on compilation that allows two different servers: one that serves single player and one that does battle net. 99.99% of the code is the same, and the same source code is used, so the programmer that talked to Jarulf was being honest. The BattleNet version keeps track of boss kills, and when your number gets too high, it does not reduce your MF, but instead starts to reroll the treasure a fraction of the time whenever it gets a unique in the loot.
If this were true, then the number of HDMIs would rise with time, and the actual uniques would decline. Therefore, you need to measure actual uniques, not just HDMIs.
As I said, there are any number of possible reasons that the ratio of actual uniques to HDMI could vary with time. If people are seeing a true drop off in treasure rate, this has to be allowed for.
To remind everyone: my current stance is that it is all psychological. I am just saying that if you really want to test it, you can not count HDMI as uniques, because they are not.
Quote:Why would it happen to pick exactly those items that result in more HDRIs and HDMIs?If this is actually happening, it would be random luck - it could have gone the other way, then people would say loot increased with time.
Quote:So your argument is that, due to some freakish flaw in the RNGIt would not be freakish. All random number generators have flaws - the freakish ones are the ones whose flaws are so minor that you do not notice them.
Also, it's not really my argument. It's just one possible example of how the ratio of HDMI to uniques could change with time. There are many, many others (such as the one I gave above.) We could spend a lot of time arguing the merits of each one, but it would be pointless. The question won't be answered until someone takes the time to run a series of tests that is long enough to satisfy everyone. If they do, I'd like to see the uniques counted separately.