NOT TRUST Crate? LOL! Do you have proof that they are untrustworthy?
MUST LOL! I wonder if you must inspect code from all applications you use? This is a game.
I wouldn’t trust modders, they are on the inside with Crate and any mod or tools they develop to test Crate’s RNG will only result in supporting Crate’s RNG goodness.
LOL! This thread. 
There are still some instances of strange drops: Kill a wasp, get a Legendary item, Kill Loghorrean, don’t get a Legendary item. Things like that baffle me!
RNG: If done correctly every game instance will have a unique RNG seed based on the TIME function. This is not the same number every 06:30 as someone suggested but a unique number as the whole time, date and year are used to generate it. Similarity will occur if drops are managed by lists attributed to Heroes, Bosses, Factions, etc. I don’t know if use of list tables happens but logic suggests that it does.
Farming v Play through v Crucible: Of these options I prefer to play the game from Devil’s Crossing to The Necropolis in Ultimate and think I get as many legendary items as farming for a similar time. The Crucible needs an Uber character to clear Gladiator so to me, and many others, it isn’t a viable way to collect drops
Soon we will have a host of Mythical items to dream over and never find, (20 days BX)
I didn’t know Zantai smoked!
ibugsy:
Maybe you didn’t read correctly or suffered from too much rabid fanboyism. Or both. Let me put it in terms even you might understand:
Crate employees are people. People make mistakes. Crate employees make mistakes. The bug reports forum is proof enough of that. So should we automatically trust anything and everything Crate employees say? Only the foolish would. Critical thinkers verify instead.
RNG in GD has been a contentious topic for ages. The developers have reassured us repeatedly about it yet it still comes up again and again. It stands to reason that at least some of us would want to put matters in our own hands and investigate the issue as much as possible. Hence, implicitly that means we aren’t blindly trusting the developers on this issue. And, if we were to investigate properly, we must be able to examine the code and implementation ourselves. Unfortunately, as noted before, this is not easy.
Do I analyse everything about the applications I use? No, because if something’s working correctly, I needn’t analyse it. And generally, applications work for me. But sometimes things appear amiss, either to myself or others. Such is the case with the RNG in GD. And it’s in those cases that greater scrutiny is requried. GD may be a game, but obviously it has inflamed passions quite a bit insofar as the RNG is concerned. Should you merely dismiss people’s passions?
On the topic of mods: Mods do not contain any complied binaries, AFAIK, and so are transparent. So whether a modder is colluding with Crate or not is irrelevant; we can always inspect and scrutinize the mod ourselves (again, verification) and use it if we deem it honest and well-made.
Starbuck:
Indeed, the use of srand(time(NULL)) and rand() has been a staple in C/C++ programming for decades. The issues with this are that a) we don’t know how properly they’ve been used in GD; and b) there are better, more modern alternatives like CryptGenRandom in Windows and functions that pull from /dev/random or /dev/urandom in UNIX-like OSes.
But perhaps that’s only relevant in cryptographic or hard science contexts. In GD, there are other factors at play that impact perceived randomness.
For one, the loot tables are limited by level range. And for some level ranges, there are comparatively fewer items available. This is most noticeable at lower levels. There’s also the expectation that if an item has dropped recently, it musn’t drop again for some time. Of course this is wrong; low probability is not non-zero probability.
Another example illustrating a different principle: Suppose that a chest can yield and only yield 5 possible unique set items, one at a time, with uniform distribution, and independent of previous events. If the player has obtained 4 of the 5 unique set items from that chest but not the 5th, the probability that the player will receive a dupe the next time the chest is opened is 80%. That’s an 80% chance of disappointment. Such is the nature of loot drops in most ARPGs including GD, perfect RNG or not.
Maybe a better solution would be to make loot drops non-uniform in distribution and more dependent on previous events. Some purists might argue this would coddle the player too much and make grinding too easy. I suppose it’s up to Crate to decide how much they want to cater to purists at the expense of the much more numerous RNG complainers.
I don’t think anyone is saying that once having dropped an item it is expected not to drop again. Rather what they are saying is that if I have a chance of two outcomes each with a probability 1/2, and after 100 events I only see 1 of the two outcomes, then it is a fair assumption that the dice are loaded.
Granted, that is a possible outcome with a low probability, but so is having all the air in a room spontaneously organize itself so that half of the air is on one side of the room, and the other half of the room is left as a perfect vacuum. That is a possible configuration, it is a possible outcome, but it will never happen, and for much the same reasons you will never get endless strings 1 of 2 outcomes in a system with a 50% 50% chance of either.
The error that tends to be made is assuming that because something has a non-zero probability, then it can happen. Technically, ideally, yes, but really, no.
Incidental streaks perhaps, from time to time, but streaks sometimes seem the rule in Grim Dawn RNG.
It already does try to reduce the likely hood of rolling a duplicate. That is where I would look first, if I were investigating the code.
no disagreement here at all, you might want to note that most people who complain about the RNG do not exactly fall into the critical thinker category however, more in the conspiracy theorist one, based on all the wild and easily contradicted speculation
And, if we were to investigate properly, we must be able to examine the code and implementation ourselves. Unfortunately, as noted before, this is not easy.
mostly because you do not have that code I assume, if this is your only hurdle (ie you know what to do with it once you have it), let me know
Maybe a better solution would be to make loot drops non-uniform in distribution and more dependent on previous events. Some purists might argue this would coddle the player too much and make grinding too easy. I suppose it’s up to Crate to decide how much they want to cater to purists at the expense of the much more numerous RNG complainers.
I think the main problem with that is the complexity of it, unless you keep it as simple as it currently is where the game tracks if the same unique already dropped in this session to reduce the probability for duplicates
or if you ask them to provide it… did that some time ago to try to reproduce the random item values in my tool (tinkered with that a bit, but so far that is not supported)
So, if you want to take a close look, let me know
I’m actually surprised you threw this assumption in there, giving lip service to what could just as well be a ‘vocal minority’, as hard as you tried to come across as analytical/objective with your post.
Just an observation.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Id wager that group think suppresses alot of voices. Just yesterday I looked at one of the twitch streams. Within 5 mins some guy makes an observation, “oh look how many of these axes I have, i guess the RNG just really favored these this run.” He had 4, but refuses to point out the obvious WTF why am I getting this item over and over again. How many different items COULD have rolled at level 85? Calling someone an RNG conspiracy theorist or insinuating they are imagining things is a powerful way to make them suppress the urge to call out the obvious. But in nearly every thread I read on steam about item drops, someone complains about it, so if you don’t see or hear them its because you won’t look.
And yes, a company has an incentive to make a product be perceived as whole and polished and as complete as possible, that is the nature of marketing. Not acknowledging a common perception among some players and dismissing it when it arises, knowing it would be very difficult to prove on the user end, would just be good business sense.
Maybe. Then again we are dealing with the internet here. Not a whole lot in the way of suppression going on. When it’s so easy to be anonymous why would a lil bit of this ‘group think’ hold any significant sway?
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
I don’t think anonymity changes how we feel about the way that others perceive and react to us. It makes some bolder maybe, more argumentative perhaps. Its a fake identity but its your identity none the less, powbam does not want people to think powbam is a nutcase.
You have me pegged all wrong 
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Probably, but i mean in general, all the “powbams”. There is probably something inherently a little crazy about coming here everyday and hashing out nonsense like this. I know i can get sucked in too easily.
given the number of units sold I’d say we have a negligible amount of RNG complainers, and I mean that very literally.
You always will hear more complaints than praise, so them being more ‘numerous’ (that word in itself is quite an exaggeration, and you even had to add a ‘much’ to make it even more blatant) means next to nothing.
the obvious here being that having 4+ uniques drop in 5 mins is a way better ratio than I accomplish I presume
How did your test go ? The fact that you are back to anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that you have nothing better to show for your efforts…
Last info was
Oh mamba, always look for 2 interpretations, i always mean the other one. He got them earlier in the course of playing and within 5 minutes of my watching he made a comment on it. My fault for a poorly constructed statement I suppose. I believe it was the guy who it twitching right now, perpetualMM, but i could be wrong I looked at three, I watched him the most though cause he had a kickass beard.
That test is in the “ill get to it when I get to it bin”. Bigger prios, game time will diminish, maybe for a while again.
Personally I’m kind of ambivalent. On one hand, I don’t want a cheap, artificial and inauthentic experience stemming from a nice and considerate nanny-RNG.
On the other hand, I do get hugely frustrated with the RNG sometimes. It’s only human.
Both of us are speculating, but I’d wager more that pretty much every player has complained, if not on these forums then in their minds, at some point about the RNG. On the other hand, how many people do you think truly appreciate RNG purity? Probably not as much.
About the units sold: Why people buy ARPGs at all is quite interesting. For some people it’s basically a slot machine, a device for gambling. For others it’s a way to feel some steady progress. It can be for fast-paced action, actual role-playing, the story, or just because their friends are playing it. Maybe all of the above. In any case, I don’t believe that the number of units sold should imply anything about how many people complain about the RNG.
complaining in your mind is not at all the same as assuming that there is something wrong with it. That is more cursing at it because it again did not drop the item you are looking for imo.
As to speculating, to a degree, I go by the threads in which people actually wonder if it is working, and those are not exactly flooding the forums.
I don’t believe that the number of units sold should imply anything about how many people complain about the RNG.
then give me a better indicator… the more users there are, the more users that will complain about something seems a pretty sound assumption for just about anything to me
I guess we’re talking about two things here:
When I say that perhaps Crate should cater more to RNG complainers, I was referring to consideration of the second issue. Because when people complain about the RNG, often what they’re really complaining about is the lack of dependency on previous events.
then give me a better indicator… the more users there are, the more users that will complain about something seems a pretty sound assumption for just about anything to me
I don’t know what you’re saying here: first you said “given the number of units sold I’d say we have a negligible amount of RNG complainers” implying an inverse relationship between # of units sold and # of RNG complainers. Then you said, “the more users there are, the more users that will complain about something” implying a direct relationship.
Whatever the case, like I said both of us are merely speculating at this point with zero actual evidence.
Practically speaking, some ideas on what Crate (or us) can do to gather hard data:
But, more than likely, any decision will come down to what medierra personally thinks is right, and all of this will have been for naught.
