Jump to content

Magically transforming relics


(PSN)Xzelian

Recommended Posts

While attempting to farm for Lith N6 relics in order to obtain Nezha Prime Neuroptics, I experienced a very concerning bug.

Performing solo disruptions on Mars, I complete the first set and clearly saw "Lith N6 Relic" displayed. After exit however I noticed that the loot listing appeared to be missing the relic.

After examining the video recording, I can verify with 100% certainty that N6 was indeed displayed, however it as not rewarded rather I believe it was exchanged for a T4.

This is really incredibly uncool as I have absolutely 0 reason to run these other than specific lith acquisition.

Further I find "single tasking" especially in the lower levels to be a game breaking and tediously boring experience.

Finally Nezha is currently selling high, and after unsuccessfully opening several of these, while I intend to use the initial part for myself a sales set would be nice to have before the price plummets.

I have noticed that it seems to fall to pattern that I usually only acquire newer items after that time period.

Guys, I hate to say it but it looks intentional. The first time is rng, the second is annoying, the fifth or even ninth time unusual, but normally it's so bad that friends ban together to pass me parts.

(Once had a 30 dead relic run across two separate parts, that's 30 ea mind you)

Now with this to document, it just looks really, really bad, as I'm not even getting the relic to open in the first place.

Please address this. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2020-11-01 at 8:11 PM, _R_o_g_u_e_ said:

My Nezha took 12 hours across two days. You’re dealing with >10% drop rates for each relic and each piece.

This is just the nature of the beast, but I really doubt your relics are being replaced. Send your video to support or upload to YouTube if it’s legit.

Yes it is legit and there's nothing to doubt. It happened, period. I have the full video, but want to change something on my you tube account before I post.

I don't understand why people's first response is always to call someone a liar.

At over 4100 hours in this game, I can assure you I see when things look off.

On a side note, after posting I've received nothing but p5's in subsequent runs, and while this is for a "new" relic, it's also not the one I specifically need.

I think it odd that 4 in a row for something that has a %14 drop chance is showing immediately after my post.

We'll see if that continues.  At this stage it isn't definitive, but not looking good either. As I mentioned if it were a blue moon occurance it would be one thing, but post comments these almost troll like runs almost always happen. Not once, not twice but EVERY SINGLE TIME.

As for support I already have a very long standing post regarding serious issues with not so random NG, and it will be updated.

 

further update:  As to pattern, immediately after he above post things got "better."  This also falls to pattern.  Now drop rates are consistent on normal rng, but without a serious uptick to confirm real rng sway patterns justifying the original bad set.  In English, it was likely a bug addressed although without a dev weighing in directly there's no real way to be sure.  I also do some behind the scenes settings mentioned at the end of my novel below but not elaborated on to "break the pattern." So it could simply be broken coding loops I've adjusted for myself. Either way I think this needs to be addressed still.  As for the actual Part I'm not expecting miracles.  Most of my old relic cracking teams have left the game and You're right 10% is low, even with a 4 set which I usually gather my recruiting.

I was never talking about part acquisition, I was talking about getting the relics in the first place.

As for openers I as referring to multiple previous experiences where it took a team of four all running rads opening that number, not on one item but on several.

In one case it's not out of bounds, but in several it's excessive. With this part we haven't even gotten there yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2020-11-01 at 7:43 PM, (PS4)Xzelian said:

I have noticed that it seems to fall to pattern that I usually only acquire newer items after that time period.

Guys, I hate to say it but it looks intentional. The first time is rng, the second is annoying, the fifth or even ninth time unusual, but normally it's so bad that friends ban together to pass me parts.

Yet many other people are able to obtain the items.  DE is not out to get you personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Yet many other people are able to obtain the items.  DE is not out to get you personally.

Which is actually evidence to the contrary.  I'm actually trying to hold out to NOT think that's the case.  But if "many other people" are able to get these items, and I am not while legitimately trying, why wouldn't I feel singled out after long enough?

I DO think my account is somehow bugged, because I'm not getting some of these things in what I feel is an appropriate time, and I think there are others in this scenario who simply don't fathom a coding error could be the cause.  

So when I see consistently fair drop tables, (and I mean in line with what the wiki percentages are.) Cat affinity procs which do not exceed absurd run cycles (again two to three times what the expected proc times are) Riven rolls which are not repeating specific negatives in wild excess of probability, then sure.

(On a side note with the cat; I have found if prior to my next mission, if I verify my cat was not mis-loaded, move my charm mod, then move it back, affinity procs return to normal. I actually believe this may be tied to the fact I keep charm in the first position, and the cat will proc on load in sometimes. If there is an error in posting it does not affect, yet simultaneously does not refresh either. This allows for other charm bonuses to proc, giving the illusion the mod is working as intended. I really should post it with my findings as a separate bug report with workaround, but there it is.)

Does bad luck happen? YES it does.  I have had entire poker tourneys without a playable hand, and it's !@#$% infuriating. If it happens one night it's a bother, if it happens two It's really annoying, but when I was running games if it happened to a specific player with skills three tourneys in a row, I would look for cheaters targeting that player and usually found one.

Rng is the great coders religious out.  "It's just rng" is a great way to dismiss something without checking, and worse it's a way for coders to postpone or be negligent in a bug which renders some with unfair advantage.

 I've been screen-shotting my relics and running what the wiki claims is 14% probability for n6's. The numbers are median without a considerable uptick that I would expect in a real RNG scenario, following my initial post.  But right now I'm on bad game table 1, they are juuuuust enough to not be able to 100% call foul. But the amazing transforming relic did indeed happen.  To clear, things went back to normal after my second post, but I have not seen the positive numbers to offset the negative validating normal rng patterns.

Now I will say what I have before on the subject. I WILL post the video of the amazing "transforming relic" but I really need to sort out something grossly elaborate with my youtube account which requires initiating a response with them first, and currently with my main homes plumbing backed up, my outside socket tied to a failed gf breaker which is out of production, it hasn't been a really big priority.

So here's the last thing I'll say in response to your post.  I did not (as in a previous post) come here for outside player opinion.  I consider non constructive opinion in something that does not offer a further means of scientific testing to be abusive.  You are certainly entitled to it, but I think it promotes toxicity when you and others immediately attempt to belittle or discredit other players, and if I AM feeling potentially abused, someone attempting to discredit me will make me feel even MORE abused.

You are supporting the concept of it by attempting to be inflammatory on behalf of the devs, who may very well NOT be inflammatory.

So here's the thing. I stated "I hate to say it but it 'looks' intentional." and to those who I have played the game with, it does.  That's a serious problem, so much so that many I know have just left.  Now whether it's rng, a bug, or a penalty it's now cost D.E. revenue, and rather than just switch titles, I am attempting to point something out that is causing players to leave.  I mentally count about 30 so far who have had the same experience, witnessed it happen to me, and either now barely log on or have left entirely.  There are also major issues I'm sure they are studiously working on such as players not accruing railjack intrinsic that take priority, but I do want all of this out there.

In truth I really don't want to post here, but I have a support ticket of a similar nature with more details, but that took over 3 months by their timing (6 from initial post) to receive a response of any kind. This is sadly the fastest way to reach someone who can look into it.

There are "game breaking" rng patterns I have discovered that the MOMENT I have a direct line to a dev I will discuss, but really fear to post here for player abuse reasons. If I do have a penalty of any kind it's likely that someone's sorted out that I've sorted out what I have. (although support has stated in their response this is not the case)  I will summarize by saying that what you think is random really isn't as much as you think, there is a code which defines your drops, and sometimes it can be repeated. Sometimes it can be bugged.  When I find something that works in a positive fashion, I never abuse it.  I also think that devs can, if they want, adjust these by player, but don't want to believe they would without valid notification or reason.  It has happened to me in another title however, and was proven to me by a third party with concrete evidence, so if it can happen there it can happen here; but I really think D.E. means better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, baldy117 said:

you gotta stop looking at those Rigged Fifa pack opening well its a insult to you tubers to call those sellouts you tubers

Lol thanks for the tip.

Actually I was referring to this though.

To save space I did trim to just the end of round one, but that was the only editing performed. I do have the non edited full clip if I need to provide it. 

Me hovering over relics at the end was my own amazement at the results in verifying relic contents. It just so happens it makes it easier to point out the results.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

Which is actually evidence to the contrary.  I'm actually trying to hold out to NOT think that's the case.  But if "many other people" are able to get these items, and I am not while legitimately trying, why wouldn't I feel singled out after long enough?

Because it's RNG and there are losers sometimes.  I'm sorry to have to break that to you, but it is what it is.  I can go into my own RNG struggles with getting pieces (like Vauban Prime parts from T4 defense back in the day and having to go over 100 Rot C runs to get it, or Frost Chassis on T3 def and spending a full month running nothing but that mission to never get it at all, while others complained about not getting their 5th copy of it) but that's all it is.  RNG.

11 hours ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

Rng is the great coders religious out.  "It's just rng" is a great way to dismiss something without checking, and worse it's a way for coders to postpone or be negligent in a bug which renders some with unfair advantage.

Then chart your drops.  I've done just that for sorties (for an example - as have others on these forums) and guess what?  The drop chances even out in the long run to be just what is posted.  If you really think something is going on, then you'll need to start doing that and documenting results (gathering evidence).

11 hours ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

So here's the last thing I'll say in response to your post.  I did not (as in a previous post) come here for outside player opinion.  I consider non constructive opinion in something that does not offer a further means of scientific testing to be abusive.  You are certainly entitled to it, but I think it promotes toxicity when you and others immediately attempt to belittle or discredit other players, and if I AM feeling potentially abused, someone attempting to discredit me will make me feel even MORE abused.

I'm sorry, what?  It's abusive to point out that RNG is a thing and likely not a bug?  OK, have fun with that.  Bye.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Because it's RNG and there are losers sometimes.  I'm sorry to have to break that to you, but it is what it is.  I can go into my own RNG struggles with getting pieces (like Vauban Prime parts from T4 defense back in the day and having to go over 100 Rot C runs to get it, or Frost Chassis on T3 def and spending a full month running nothing but that mission to never get it at all, while others complained about not getting their 5th copy of it) but that's all it is.  RNG.

Then chart your drops.  I've done just that for sorties (for an example - as have others on these forums) and guess what?  The drop chances even out in the long run to be just what is posted.  If you really think something is going on, then you'll need to start doing that and documenting results (gathering evidence).

I'm sorry, what?  It's abusive to point out that RNG is a thing and likely not a bug?  OK, have fun with that.  Bye.

 

Paragraph a). Once again you've made this personal and cast shade without actually reading what I wrote and taking a moment to comprehend it. I never said there wasn't or even Shouldn't be RNG. I never said there weren't ever any bad runs, and in another response to a player who posted low numbers with a similar complaint, I actually defended the stats on D.E.s side stating with actual proven real life probabilities that they weren't being shafted. What I didn't do is completely discount their experience, explaining if they see that negative pattern too many times then there's an issue to be looked at.

Paragraph b) Here is where you aren't reading, aren't thinking or maybe both before you respond.  I am posting specific times where numbers are exceeding pattern. In THIS case the real origin of the situation is a bug I have now posted a video on to prove. The problem here is your desire to follow me around and attempt to discredit me ALSO is now tied to attempting to discredit the video supported 100% proven bug I've posted. To quote you earlier "Looks bad mate."

As for gathering additional documentation, that is what I have mentioned I am already doing. Yet another hooked on phonics moment.  I have also mentioned there are things I absolutely CANNOT share that when the devs read my post are likely able to understand but you cannot. So when you drop an uninformed challenge into the mix it stirs up trouble. At least after two days you finally offered a scientific proposal for better tracking.  That is how your first response should have read.  I don't have a problem with engaging in a private conversation with you one or more of these topics, and actually think you may have a great deal to offer if not in being a devils advocate with your own data, but that that brings me to...

Paragraph (line) c) Yes. without the statement you posted in B, it is an unsupported challenge which then is a personal affront to my integrity and honesty. So to me it is abusive. I've mentioned in another "conversation" that I really believe that you are trying to be helpful in most of your posts, but I also see where it feels like you talk down to other players.  I feel you should slow down a bit and consider where your input is even needed at all. In this case you didn't comment on the original bug. I mean you just didn't.  It was an immediate affront to challenge my perception that RNG can bug.  I am (in a positive way) challenging the devs to create a better rng scenario that uses a different methodology than the aspects I've already found to be crackable and repeatable with potential backlash fail safes. It's like when Penn and Teller are talking in code to the magician on stage and the audience doesn't really understand but the intended audience does. It's why I keep repeating "this is not for you" because it isn't.

This is the bug report section, not players helping players. I did not ask for your input. If you can truly offer hard line stats on my cross platform game play I very much welcome it. This section of the forum is for players reporting bugs however, and not even on your posted platform. If you are going to respond with anything less than hard evidence, then future note, what you re doing is abusive. Finishing up with "O.K. have fun with that" might have well been then same thing as saying "Nanny, nanny boo boo."

You are 100% entitled to your opinion, but have 0% right to attempt to discredit mine without real backing. Please do not post in my bug reports regarding RNG unless you can provide 100% statistical evidence that a player's algorithm cannot bug. Just because you do not feel yours doesn't doesn't mean another's can't.

This entire conversation is off topic. The Title and actual bug reads "magically transforming relic" I believe I have adequately shown this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

I am posting specific times where numbers are exceeding pattern.

Yeah, if something has a 10% drop chance that doesn't mean that you'll get the part guaranteed within 10 runs.  It means you'll get it on average 10% of the time given large numbers of runs.

48 minutes ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

As for gathering additional documentation, that is what I have mentioned I am already doing. Yet another hooked on phonics moment.

Coming from someone who claims that anyone disagreeing with them is akin to abuse, you probably shouldn't be throwing stones around your glass house.

 

49 minutes ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

The problem here is your desire to follow me around and attempt to discredit me ALSO is now tied to attempting to discredit the video supported 100% proven bug I've posted. To quote you earlier "Looks bad mate."

I've said nothing beyond talking about RNG.  You are implying that DE are out to get you, which you did before - the last time we had a "discussion" on these forums, that you also labeled as abuse towards you because I didn't automatically agree with you.

I think we're done here.  I'll be adding you to my ignore folder from here on out.  I do hope you get the drops you're looking for, but I'm done with the arrogance and insults.  Bye.

51 minutes ago, (PS4)Xzelian said:

I have also mentioned there are things I absolutely CANNOT share that when the devs read my post are likely able to understand but you cannot.

I did find this funny though.  No really, I laughed.  Good job.  I needed a laugh today, so thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously hope the ridiculousness is over. For anyone paying attention I don't expect a relic to pop in 10 runs, but I do expect a team of four all running radiants to get it within 30.

When those drop cycles run that high for more than 3 items, that raises a flag to me. 

Sometimes I paraphrase circumstances in posts because in my mind I'm not really posting for the community, I'm trying to communicate with D.E.

In any case as I've stated before, the point was to show that the relic posted then changed to something else later.  I believe I've adequately done that.abusive. I do think 

I do not think that anyone who disagrees with me is automatically abusive, but do think it matters how it's approached.  I also think that it matters where the post happens.  

I do not think D.E. is "out to get me." but do not always agree with public handling policies and aloof communications.  From the perspective of someone who has carried a penalty from a different title who vehemently denied it for over a year, I can at times be jaded, but as I've said I'd like to believe the folks at D.E. are better than that.

In any case I think I've shown that the issue legitimately happened. I want to thank  _R_o_g_u_E_ for digging to get me to produce proof, while often I assume D.E. has this data inevitably the burden does fall to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...