res7less
Jumpkin
Heh, never try to force Own into commenting on anything anyone says. He's always all huddled up in his nice and cozy turtle shell of absurdly high self-esteem, only occasionally descending from the high heavens to teach us common rabble a lesson Thanks for the props, though!I think your idea about capping at a particular value (eg. 10%) is spectacular. 10% is an example of a compromise between Own's (and a few others') distaste and what a majority of other people want. 10% is never guaranteed, but you shouldn't be grinding for too much longer at that point. Of course, it complicates the distribution, but what can you do? Sorry to ping you again Own, but I figured res7less' idea would be of some interest to you.
Huh, that's kinda surprising. The more you know, eh? Thanks for explaining!On the topic of large decimals, Res7, It's actually quite the opposite. The more decimal points you have for a decimal value, the more accurate calculations involving that value will be. Of course there is an element of computer error and that is one reason why we don't need to be 100% mathematically rigorous. However, by maximising the number of figures that number has, the more accurate we get.
While I agree on
I'm 100% in opposition to making drops less likely to happen early on just to ensure that a majority gets them at a specific grind amount.
I don't really see the big deal in
Trying to rig the 'luck' behind the scenes to try and ensure the majority of players gets something at around the same time removes the concept of a rare drop and turns it more into a kill quest with a bit of wiggle room masquerading as luck. You're unnaturally unlikely to get it on your first kill, or first ten, but at kill 50 you have a so-so chance and kill 100 you've got a great chance. Which is a system that only really works in any satisfying way if the player has no idea it actually exists. If they know that the game is secretly fudgeting the numbers the idea and thrill of anything being a rare find vanishes.
Sure, there is some truth to that, but what's wrong with making it a "quest"? The aspect of luck isn't removed entirely, you're only narrowing down the area to be lucky/unlucky in. You can still get lucky early on and you can still get unlucky with higher percentages, just within a smaller area. However, the interesting thing about your statement is that it inadvertently singles out the pivotal point around which the opinions of all the posters seem to differ, namely whether it's more important to create satisfaction or to avoid frustration.
Influencing luck does reduce satisfaction if it's known, but it also salvages the collateral damage for extremely unlucky sods who grind for hours on end without success. And since it appears that you can't have both, the key is probably to find the right balance between those two. Ultimately, I don't think there is an optimal solution, there never is. But at least being aware of the up and downsides might help defining what you want your system to be like and what it's supposed to achieve.