Drops rates in first 2 wks of new content vs week 3 and beyond

[Jasparion]

I believe that code would be on the server, not the client...the client would just receive the results of the role. Now, question is: how to get our hands on the server code ;-)

Im pretty sure loot tables have been posted before, only to have the posts deleted. Whether they are actual tables or people having fun stirring up a mob I do not know.

But there have been admissions in the past that drop rates have been adjusted based on player feedback.

[FestusHood]

Hi,

The conclusion that everything is fine rests on the assumption of nothing being broken, but this can and does happen. Besides that, I think there is a good commercial reason to have higher drop rates when packs are new to encourage sales.

Thanks.

I'm not sure i see why that would make commercial sense, but if they did do this, wouldn't it be more effective if it was acknowledged?

[Aletys]

My experience is definitely this ^
...and don't get me wrong, I appreciate the extra drops that first week or three.
Maybe there's a hidden mechanic to the code that states to flood the community (each world) until each reaches 200 items delivered, then reduce to .05% chance to drop? idk, but it's definitely noticed by myself and was a topic of many conversations with guildies who have been on extended breaks (hoping they return).

I know that I & my guildies, & everyone I run with, has had the same experience with every new pack for the last 2-1/2+ years (that's how long I'vew been playing). Run it like crazy the first 1 or 2 weeks after it comes out, and you get lots of drops. Run it later, and rarely ever see any drops at all, even on EE. We have seen this with 3BC, Orchard, Archons, etc. And, when something doesn't drop at all, it may really not be in the loot tables (eg: Drowned Priest's Torch out of 3BC was left out of the loot tables on the first release).

So perhaps, as someone else mentioned, there is something hidden in the old code.

[Jasparion]

I'm not sure i see why that would make commercial sense, but if they did do this, wouldn't it be more effective if it was acknowledged?

Then they would have to acknowledge the subsequent nerfing. Much like when increasing drop rates it implies they got the previous drop rates wrong. So you dont generally hear anything about it. It just gets done.

In fact, you dont generally hear many acknowledgements of anything bad. Because that makes the claims real.

Think about how long it took to get ladders looked at. Supposedly fixed, but one of the Waterworks ladders is still terrible. And apparently lag doesnt exist (when you log in from Turbine headquarters...).

[Grailhawk]

Then they would have to acknowledge the subsequent nerfing. Much like when increasing drop rates it implies they got the previous drop rates wrong. So you dont generally hear anything about it. It just gets done.

In fact, you dont generally hear many acknowledgements of anything bad. Because that makes the claims real.

Think about how long it took to get ladders looked at. Supposedly fixed, but one of the Waterworks ladders is still terrible. And apparently lag doesnt exist (when you log in from Turbine headquarters...).

You are taking this to far, the current crop of dev's have never said lag does't exist. As a matter of fact Sev has said lag is an issue that they are continuously working on (how you read continuously working on is up to you but they have acknowledged the existence of lag) they have also said that the latter bug is a case base case issue that needs to be fix one latter at a time that doesn't excuse that it still exists but it does means they know it exists and are not lying to use about it.

[blerkington]

I'm not sure i see why that would make commercial sense, but if they did do this, wouldn't it be more effective if it was acknowledged?

Hi,

What I meant by that is it may encourage people to get packs early. And money now is better than money later.

By not acknowledging that drop rates were lowered, you avoid a discussion about whether or not that is fair. I don't think this would be the most ethical approach, but it would be better than making a statement which was untrue. Which as I've said, I don't think is being done intentionally here.

But there is the possibility that someone is mistaken about drop rates working as they believe them to be. I very much doubt either Severlin or Cordovan checked all the relevant code before giving us their assurances. What they told us is presumably how they believe things are, which isn't necessarily the same as how they are.

I'd actually like to see drop rates standardised and/or published because I think the chest reroll mechanic for AS is gambling which potentially uses real money without the house providing a fair disclosure of the odds. It's not like a lottery or casino where you can figure it out by yourself.

There was a period of time when named items had a very small drop rate in ToEE, and people got burned spending shards rerolling those chests. The same is true of the Jack Jibbers Blade, a very useful item which appears to have an unusually low drop rate. That's a nice little earner for the company.

Thanks.

[FestusHood]

Then they would have to acknowledge the subsequent nerfing. Much like when increasing drop rates it implies they got the previous drop rates wrong. So you dont generally hear anything about it. It just gets done.

In fact, you dont generally hear many acknowledgements of anything bad. Because that makes the claims real.

Think about how long it took to get ladders looked at. Supposedly fixed, but one of the Waterworks ladders is still terrible. And apparently lag doesnt exist (when you log in from Turbine headquarters...).

Still, it seems like having a sale on something but not advertising it. Don't find out until the cashier rings it up. If they were going to intentionally do this to increase pack sales, it would make sense to let it be known. If they don't want it to be known, why do it at all? I don't see how they would gain by that.

All the latest gear has been bound to account. Once you have bought the pack, why should they really care at what rate you pull stuff from it? If they are worried about overall content longevity, well that would be just as true when it was new as later. In fact, to me, it would make sense to do it in the reverse. Raise drop rates later, like lowering a price, to further entice people to buy it who weren't convinced when it was new.

[FestusHood]

Hi,

What I meant by that is it may encourage people to get packs early. By not acknowledging that drop rates were lowered, you avoid a discussion about whether or not that is fair. I don't think this would be the most ethical approach, but it would be better than making a statement which was untrue. Which as I've said, I don't think is being done intentionally here.

But there is the possibility that someone is mistaken about drop rates working as they believe them to be. I very much doubt either Severlin or Cordovan checked all the relevant code before giving us their assurances. What they told us is presumably how they believe things are, which isn't necessarily the same as how they are.

I'd actually like to see drop rates standardised and/or published because I think the chest reroll mechanic for AS is gambling which potentially uses real money without the house providing a fair disclosure of the odds. It's not like a lottery or casino where you can figure it out by yourself.

There was a period of time when named items had a very small drop rate in ToEE, and people got burned spending shards rerolling those chests. The same is true of the Jack Jibbers Blade, a very useful item which appears to have an unusually low drop rate. That's a nice little earner for the company.

Thanks.

I suppose it's possible there is some bug or legacy code that alters droprates over time. I'm sure they are setting current drop rates though. As you mention, they raised the drop rates on named items in temple of elemental evil. The bug/legacy code doesn't seem to have overidden that, or has it? Look at the droprates of stuff in the demonweb now. They were able to raise those droprates by a lot, and nothing has seemed to set them back to a lower rate.

[phalaeo]

a dev commented on this before awhile back. he said drop rates are the same on day 1 as weeks 3.

Then either that person said it naively, or they're flat out not telling the truth. New content always has a significantly higher drop rate for at least a week after release.

And they have adjusted drop rates- anyone ran Shroud lately? I get at least one LDS per run, sometimes two.... I don't know, I've run hundreds of Shrouds, and I don't remember getting an LDS every single run a few years ago.

[jaedom]

Of course there is evidence.

It's called "Hotfix."

lol I always thought the same thing. Gotta beat the hotfix. As a pretty hard core player in a full static group it definitely seems to go down. In the first week you will have items just rot in the chest, but by week two or three the rate just dies. For instance, the quiver in the last pack everyone wanted help farming them. In the first week we were seeing one or two a run which was great. The same group of non ransacked I might add players the following week nothing. We have multiple accts with capped toons and even going though 8 ransacks myself none dropped. Could it be luck sure, but we added up 52 runs without a drop vs. 1 or 2 a run before the hot fix. These were done with full groups. So my tin foil hat is firmly in place. By the looks the fewer items that exist the more it drops and once it reaches a certain number the rate adjusts to balance. This has been noticed in nearly every advent of new content. I myself in the first week of necro got 3 mythic minos and haven't seen one drop since and we run the arc two of three times a week.

[hit_fido]

There is no change in the rate of loot drops based on time since the quest or raid was released.

Emphasis added - that's not incompatible with a system where the drop rates are higher the first few times a given account runs the quest or raid...

glances left... glances right... slinks back off the forums...

[Saekee]

As someone that's been farming eNecro for a year, ransacking 4 characters a month then giving up in disgust til next month, and NEVER having seen an epic Chord of Reprisals.... It MUST be true!

Or I'm Wi-Flagged.

Got it on a first run for a monk who didn't need it. That is the trick--run a toon that won't use it. (This is another conspiracy theory but we know it is true.)

[Feralthyrtiaq]

I ended up with Torcs on 3 alts wayyy back within a run or 2 of DQ...

After 100+ runs on my completionist I have yet to see one.

I sincerely believe that toons get some degree of +/-% to loot drops at 1st life creation to encourage sharing and team play...

[EllisDee37]

And they have adjusted drop rates- anyone ran Shroud lately? I get at least one LDS per run, sometimes two.... I don't know, I've run hundreds of Shrouds, and I don't remember getting an LDS every single run a few years ago.

Probably because a few years ago there was only a single end chest. Now there's three if you run it on elite, plus you also now get a chance at them from the end reward. So 2 chances per run (part 4 & 5) a few years ago has grown to 5 chances per run today.

[Jyhdif]

This might be more true for Epic, as running heroic elite solo (perhaps a diff between solo and group?) on the Archons pack this week I pulled 1-2 items from each quest. Are all of you commenting solely on the raid, or the epic quests as well? I would love to upgrade to the epic riftmaker, but I am not a ransacker.

[FifthTime]

a dev commented on this before awhile back. he said drop rates are the same on day 1 as weeks 3.

Yeah, cause they would never fabricate something would they?

[knightgf]

Yeah, cause they would never fabricate something would they?

I'm sure they always double-check their looting system either to make sure it's coded right and not bugged or with intentionally borked drop rates.

/sarcasm

[Cordovan]

All right, we've already answered the question in this thread. If it's just going to be used to call us liars, it's over.