[Research] Map increased item quantity (IIQ% ) and its role in map sustainability

Why everyone put together quanity and tiers? Should it not be like: map with x IIQ and y pack size droped n count of maps (regardless there tiers). Quanity has nothing to do with droped map tier? So if you run 100 maps with 40% IIQ and get 30 maps droped (again tier don't matter), then you run 100 maps with 100% IIQ and get 50 maps droped (again tier don't matter) and you make conclusion, that IIQ gives more maps, even if thats mean you got x100 t1-7 from x100 t9-11. It's like: big IIQ -> need drop map, some other stuff joins in and says, f* that guy and drop him t1 in t10.

Also it's unknown about "base" drop chance. If hight tier map x has tiny chance then 20% or 100% increase will not make huge difference. If in highter tiers "base" chance decrease a lot then IIQ gived difference become even more smaller. It's still here, so saying IIQ give more maps is right, just "100% increase" in reality can be very tiny. Two tiny is still more than one tiny but even three tiny may be not enought to sustain hight tier maps.

--
Some info from me.

- I run t1-7 if unid (magic and rare) or 15+ quantity from drop or map is underground (t5), strand or ledge. Always alch.
- T8 when i dont have "normal" t9+ maps and i dont want run "bad-for-health" t9+ maps. No chisel.
- T9-11 i chisel (only if i can do boss), alch and chaos if bad-mods for my build. I dont re-roll till i get map-size and/or hight IIQ - mods are run-able, i run it.
- I have one, fck ONE t12 for ages. So have runned 0 of t12+.

I trade-up 3->1 all T3-7. (T1-3 goes for chisel recipe). I do trade-up tier by tier and do like one trade-up every 6-10h (no clock involved) of mapping (i pick up every fck scroll, rare and so on, not rushing, thought clear speed is good, less than 10min unless pain-in-ass-map/layout and so on).

The point is that i use a lot of maps for chisel recipe and i regulary trade-up a lot of maps. So in general i get a lot more maps then i run. I would say that IIQ work, just problem is that in most time IIQ is "consumed" by droping low-tier maps. If you run t1 you can get only t1-3 maps so it's same tier or up, if you run t12, you can get t1-14 maps, chance that you roll in that t12-14 is a lot less than t1-11. T1-11 will "consume" most/all of your IIQ and pack size.

What's the surpise here?

If players actually thought and believed that the map drop rates, especially higher tier ones, have been 'improved' as claimed, I got a very nice bridge to sell to you.

Dear OP,

Now is not the time to give up. It takes little effort to criticize. What you have provided the community, has taken great effort. It would not be fair to yourself to give up.

Always remember, "Haters gonna hate".

Sincerely,

Your Biggest Fan

Here's my translation for everyone.

IIQ has an extremely minute effect on high tier maps and map drops. However there is an effect and it's linear! Not deviating as shown in the graph. If all map drops regardless of tier were shown in the graph it would be a perfectly straight line with the far right being imperceptably higher than the left.

.

"

Entropic_Fire написал:

A linear relationship means a map with 100% iiq will drop 2x as many maps as a map with 0% iiq.

Nope.
"x=y" is linear.
"x=0.2y" is linear too.

"

dummyone789 написал:

Why everyone put together quanity and tiers? Should it not be like: map with x IIQ and y pack size droped n count of maps (regardless there tiers). Quanity has nothing to do with droped map tier? So if you run 100 maps with 40% IIQ and get 30 maps droped (again tier don't matter), then you run 100 maps with 100% IIQ and get 50 maps droped (again tier don't matter) and you make conclusion, that IIQ gives more maps, even if thats mean you got x100 t1-7 from x100 t9-11. It's like: big IIQ -> need drop map, some other stuff joins in and says, f* that guy and drop him t1 in t10.

We have no idea if all maps have the same number of monsters, or even if the same map always has the same number of monsters. There's no way to control for number of enemies.

.

"

Chris написал:

This thread has been linked to us a lot of times today and we're worried that it might be spreading misinformation.

You said "Not all map drops were being included in the research data", and then conclude that higher IIQ doesn't help much. Can you post your raw sample data that includes all map drops? IIQ is linear on items and maps. Note that the map boss has a chance of an extra map, which can bias the data if you don't take it into account.

Our concern is that people will read the thread and think that IIQ doesn't help (when it significantly does, as your data should show when you look at all the drops) and then receive fewer maps, further increasing the complaints about drop rate.

So we can conclude one of the following:
A) Chris is a liar
B) There's some bug in IIQ.
C) The OP has errors, intentional or otherwise, in his methodology or analysis.

Statistics are hard to do properly and easy to misinterpret, map IIQ should be easy to code and well layout, Chris has no reason to lie and many reasons to tell the truth.

I'm going with option C.

I would like to point out that you do a terrible job of experimental controls.

There should be a single map type run to minimize confounders like map layout, the probability of a map drop from a given level mob being in your measured tier range. For example, if you ran 100 no quantity tier 9s and 100 100% quantity tier 7s, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a non linear relationship in quantity for the T7-9 range because I expect a map drop in a T9 is more likely to be in that range than a map drop in a T7. I might be wrong but it's an unknown and you should try to remove it from the equation.

You should run no pack size maps and skip the boss. This is because pack size doesn't increase rare mobs or the boss count(so it isn't a straight up multiplier) and the boss has an extra chance to drop maps.

Another thing that's wrong is you have no control to compare to. You compare all sorts of different quantities but you don't establish a baseline from 0 quantity maps.

Also, no mention of the Zana map device's effect, which will skew the results in favor of low quantity maps. Maybe you accounted for it, maybe you didn't.

I think I'll stick with Chris's advice and ignore the OP's.

"

silumit написал:

"

Entropic_Fire написал:

A linear relationship means a map with 100% iiq will drop 2x as many maps as a map with 0% iiq.

Nope.
"x=y" is linear.
"x=0.2y" is linear too.

these people with their limited math skillz

are our schools really so bad these days they don't make them plot lines on graphs like back when i was walking uphill both ways