When did you realize the relic system is fraudulent and what do you suggest it should be replaced with ?

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

I opened over 60 radiant relics getting a rare ninkondi part and I didn’t even make a forum post about it.

It’s just the nature of the beast, and really 7 attempts being the point where you snap and declare the system is fraudulent and needs to be replaced is kind of silly.

If you’re tilted, take a break and try again.

Or heck, spend some plat. Perish the thought.

[Krankbert]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Bengalbird:

WOW big words AND used correctly. Nicely done. That said With the 1 in 3 chance what are the odds being 1 in 3 to NOT recieve the gold after 50 (now 53) and still not get "the gold? Also as i said in an earlyer post this isn't trying for Gara prime its a part to rank up with steel meridian

Oh BTW the have been refined I dont have the exact breakdown but more then half were radiant so forgive me for having frustration

The 1 in 3 chance is for rad shares, not for running relics individually and not even radiant. You don’t even know what we‘re talking about.

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

10 hours ago, 16Bitman said:

Math is always correct, there are no opinions here, nothing I said has any chance of being used "against me", if I made a mistake you can correct it, but nothing disproves my one and only point. "This is how math works"

Why should I go out of my way to make it clear that the drop designated as "rare" is less common than the ones desginated as common and uncommon?

Not talking about the chances of other items, does not make anything I said about the chances of the rare drop any less true, I already filled enough posts talking about a single drop slot (Item desginated as Rare in a Radiant Relic).

Just to clarify my example:

"Chance of success" = The Rare Drop 10%

"Chance of failure" = Anything else 90%

 

Your math is correct!

But why is a 99.99% chance to NOT get 4 RARE/GOLD parts on the same endscreen in a Radiant Relic x4 Run such a unlikely outcome? I've NEVER managed to "obtain" this screen when I played the game.

 

That was confusingly worded, so I make it simpler by "reversing" the chance.

 

0.01% chance to see 4 rare relic drops in the same endscreen is the very right number for this outcome. How many times have you personally managed to get that? I've seen screenshots of it myself, but in my tons and tons of x4 radiant relic runs, I have never seen it myself (repeating myself often to put weight on this super rare outcome).

 

Why don't you think this equation works here?

 

Could you please reword this? I don't think I've understood your post correctly and I can not wrap my head around it, is is contradictionary to me.

I will answer your points the way I understood them.

"Your base chance of getting any result isn't 100%"

But it absolutely is! Any Result = Any outcome!

When I open a relic and make it to extraction, my chance of getting one of the items it has listed, is 100%!

"You have 4 chances at a drop table, and each chance is 100%."

But now you are correct again!

If I am in a full squad, with everyone having a relic, we all have a 100% chance to get an item that it has listed and display that item on the end screen.

With 4 of us being there, we will display 4 different results at the same time.

4 people all getting a rare drop simultaneously, is as unlikely as rolling 4 ten sided dice and having all 4 land on 10.

0.01% chance seems quite accurate to me.

[Bengalbird]

2 minutes ago, Krankbert said:

The 1 in 3 chance is for rad shares, not for running relics individually and not even radiant. You don’t even know what we‘re talking about.

im just repeating your 1 in 3 comments so that must mean you dont know what your talking by proxy

[Krankbert]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Bengalbird:

im just repeating your 1 in 3 comments so that must mean you dont know what your talking by proxy

It’s a 1 in 3 chance if you’re farming efficiently. In case of bad luck, you can sell what you got for plat and buy the part you’re looking for. You’re doing neither. Your problem already has a solution, you’re just not doing it. That’s on you.

[IzzyTH-I51]

So I didn't read everything, just skimmed a bit, but it looks like we're generally arguing about the drop chance of radiant?

Just wanted to ask if anyone has made something like an "r/data is beautiful" kind of thing, cause often, after having now farmed every single prime, save for the most recent release, I find that radiant is actually a joke, I almost always got my rares from a non enhanced relic.

I just doubt anyone's psychopathic enough to write down all their prime quality vs their relic drop quality.

Though I haven't written them down either and saying I think rad is a joke is speculation purely based on how often I think I get rares from not enhanced relics.

For all I know my luck clutches for me every time I've gone farming for the last couple years.

[Krankbert]

Gerade eben schrieb IzzyTH-I51:

So I didn't read everything, just skimmed a bit, but it looks like we're generally arguing about the drop chance of radiant?

Just wanted to ask if anyone has made something like an "r/data is beautiful" kind of thing, cause often, after having now farmed every single prime, save for the most recent release, I find that radiant is actually a joke, I almost always got my rares from a non enhanced relic.

I just doubt anyone's psychopathic enough to write down all their prime quality vs their relic drop quality.

Though I haven't written them down either and saying I think rad is a joke is speculation purely based on how often I think I get rares from not enhanced relics.

For all I know my luck clutches for me every time I've gone farming for the last couple years.

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Krankbert:

that's something that's completely impossible to eyeball because people are terrible at recognizing randomness.

[nerfinator6]

22 hours ago, 16Bitman said:

That is actually how math works.

A radiant relic has a 10% chance to drop the Rare/Gold part it displays.

When you repeat the same action with the exact same chance of outcomes multiple times, the chance of the desire outcome occuring ONCE does increase with every attempt.

You can easily calculate the chance like this:

1. Calculate the chance of failure.

The chance of failure on a single attempt is 90%, for this formula 90% = 0.9

Just multiply the chances of failure with each other, in a single 4x radiant relic run it would look like this:

0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0,6561

or

0.9 ^ 4 = 0,6561

Now just multiply the number you got with 100 to get the % chance again.

That's a 65,61% chance to fail

 

2. Deduct your results from 1 to get the chance of success.

1 - 0,6561 = 0,3439

If you want to avoid retyping the number on your calculate you can do this

0,6561 * -1 = -0,6561 + 1 = 0,3439

So a 34,39% chance to succeed!

 

Now what's important you remember and where the misconception of "multiple attempts having better chances is wrong" comes from, you will NEVER hit 100% this way, you can hit 99,999999% eventually, but if you're just too unlucky, you will never get what you want.

 

 

Now just for fun let's calculate the chance of doing 7 x4 radiant runs and getting 0 rare parts.

0,6561 * 0,6561 * 0,6561 * 0,6561 * 0,6561 * 0,6561 * 0,6561 = 0.0523347633

or

0,6561 ^7 = 0.0523347633

So a 5.23347633% chance to fail!

 

Yes, that's is quite low, but many drops, which many of us have already obtained, have an even lower chance, it's frustrating, but still far from >nearly< impossible.

gamblersfallacy.txt

[16Bitman]

22 hours ago, 16Bitman said:

Now what's important you remember and where the misconception of "multiple attempts having better chances is wrong" comes from, you will NEVER hit 100% this way, you can hit 99,999999% eventually, but if you're just too unlucky, you will never get what you want.

 

3 minutes ago, nerfinator6 said:

gamblersfallacy.txt

 

[Crabopoulos-Michael]

For me the key is "never farm for anything specific" I think I've got more prime sets just by cracking random relics in pubs to get forma than actually going for specific items.

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

1 hour ago, IzzyTH-I51 said:

So I didn't read everything, just skimmed a bit, but it looks like we're generally arguing about the drop chance of radiant?

Just wanted to ask if anyone has made something like an "r/data is beautiful" kind of thing, cause often, after having now farmed every single prime, save for the most recent release, I find that radiant is actually a joke, I almost always got my rares from a non enhanced relic.

I just doubt anyone's psychopathic enough to write down all their prime quality vs their relic drop quality.

Though I haven't written them down either and saying I think rad is a joke is speculation purely based on how often I think I get rares from not enhanced relics.

For all I know my luck clutches for me every time I've gone farming for the last couple years.

You’re welcome to talk to the people who edit the drop chances in the wikis. They clearly do their research.

[nslay]

47 minutes ago, 16Bitman said:

 

 

Each roll is indeed independent... so even if you have 99.9999% chance to get at least one of something in N rolls, each roll is still 10% each time (if we’re talking radiant).

Though I’d say you absolutely must get it eventually or the thing is not actually distributed as 10%,90%.

EDIT: I guess you could die of old age before you get the thing, but then the evidence points to the thing not being distributed as 10%,90%

[16Bitman]

5 minutes ago, nslay said:

Each roll is indeed independent... so even if you have 99.9999% chance to get at least one of something in N rolls, each roll is still 10% each time (if we’re talking radiant).

Though I’d say you absolutely must get it eventually or the thing is not actually distributed as 10%,90%.

EDIT: I guess you could die of old age before you get the thing, but then the evidence points to the thing not being distributed as 10%,90%

Yeah, with our current chances, not getting it ever, is so unlikely, that there is no person that managed to get "eternally unlucky" yet.

The chances are weighted in a way that the likelyhood of an eternally unlucky person ever existing, is also nearly impossible.

 

Reiterating the point of "gamblers fallacy" again:
 

Spoiler

 

The chances of you ever winning in a casino, let's use a slot machine for this example, are legally weighted to consume more money than they pay out.

I have no hard numbers here, as my sources are just from stuff I've seen on TV ages ago.

Even if you do hit the "winning at least once" chance, it's still only "at least once", so it is a lot more likely that your win, that will take a long time to achieve, will not pay you out as much as you invested.

Never gamble money to win money, the chances of you essentially gifting your money to another person, are very high.

 

 

[nslay]

1 minute ago, 16Bitman said:

Yeah, with our current chances, not getting it ever, is so unlikely, that there is no person that managed to get "eternally unlucky" yet.

The chances are weighted in a way that the likelyhood of an eternally unlucky person ever existing, is also nearly impossible.

 

Reiterating the point of "gamblers fallacy" again:
 

  Hide contents

 

The chances of you ever winning in a casino, let's use a slot machine for this example, are legally weighted to consume more money than they pay out.

I have no hard numbers here, as my sources are just from stuff I've seen on TV ages ago.

Even if you do hit the "winning at least once" chance, it's still only "at least once", so it is a lot more likely that your win, that will take a long time to achieve, will not pay you out as much as you invested.

Never gamble money to win money, the chances of you essentially gifting your money to another person, are very high.

 

 

The chances an eternally living person who tries forever never getting something with 10% chance is 0.

 It's different to believe your number of rolls increases your odds versus invoking the properties a known distribution is supposed to have. In fact, it's how we can detect unfair RNG. You MUST get the thing in a finite number of attempts or else the thing can't possibly be distributed as 10%,90%. And if you can sample thing enough times, you can do something like a hypothesis test to show that it isn't distributed as 10%,90%.

[16Bitman]

1 minute ago, nslay said:

The chances an eternally living person who tries forever never getting something with 10% chance is 0.

No, completely wrong!

With how probablity works and there being no "pity timer" in this game, this chance is always greater than 0.

The chance of not getting a rare part in 1000 radiant relics is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000174787125%

The chance for not getting a rare part in 4000 radiant relics is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000933%

 

These kind of low chances are "practically impossible".

The chance of a person existing, that never gets the rare drop out of a radiant relic, are so absolutely absurdly low, that you can in practise, assume that this will never happen and make no precautions for someone like this ever existing.

But in pure theory, which math is all about as long as it is still "on paper", it is possible.

In practise, a person would most likely quit before they even open 1000 relics with no rare parts.

In practise, some people will open 28 relics and proclaim that they already hit a treshold of practical impossibility.

23 minutes ago, nslay said:

In fact, it's how we can detect unfair RNG. You MUST get the thing in a finite number of attempts

Already explained above, but I'll still reiterate.

I will take your "MUST" as 100%.

There is no 100%, EVER achieveable in this formula.

"Practically guranteed" is open to interpretation of what you consider it to be in a percent chance, could be 99, 99.9%, 99.99% and so on, but it's never 100%.

 

28 minutes ago, nslay said:

And if you can sample thing enough times, you can do something like a hypothesis test to show that it isn't distributed as 10%,90%.

This is true.

But my post was never about if DE is telling the truth or not.

It was never about the drop chance being potentially fraudulent.

 

This is entirely about one thing only.

"This is how math works"

Nothing else.

[nslay]

20 minutes ago, 16Bitman said:

No, completely wrong!

With how probablity works and there being no "pity timer" in this game, this chance is always greater than 0.

The chance of not getting a rare part in 1000 radiant relics is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000174787125%

The chance for not getting a rare part in 4000 radiant relics is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000933%

 

These kind of low chances are "practically impossible".

The chance of a person existing, that never gets the rare drop out of a radiant relic, are so absolutely absurdly low, that you can in practise, assume that this will never happen and make no precautions for someone like this ever existing.

But in pure theory, which math is all about as long as it is still "on paper", it is possible.

In practise, a person would most likely quit before they even open 1000 relics with no rare parts.

In practise, some people will open 28 relics and proclaim that they already hit a treshold of practical impossibility.

Already explained above, but I'll still reiterate.

I will take your "MUST" as 100%.

There is no 100%, EVER achieveable in this formula.

"Practically guranteed" is open to interpretation of what you consider it to be in a percent chance, could be 99, 99.9%, 99.99% and so on, but it's never 100%.

 

This is true.

But my post was never about if DE is telling the truth or not.

It was never about the drop chance being potentially fraudulent.

 

This is entirely about one thing only.

"This is how math works"

Nothing else.

An eternally living person who tries forever is making a number of attempts approaching infinity. Your example does not reflect this condition. The chance that person never gets the thing approaches 0. It's impossible for that person to never get the thing if it's really a 10% chance (or any non-zero chance).

That person MUST get it in a finite number of attempts (which can include arbitrarily large numbers of attempts)... or it's not really a 10% chance at all (it would actually be a 0% chance).

[SheikaVoid]

Just now, nslay said:

An eternally living person who tries forever is making a number of attempts approaching infinity. Your example does not reflect this condition. The chance that person never gets the thing approaches 0. It's impossible for that person to never get the thing if it's really a 10% chance (or any non-zero chance).

That person MUST get it in a finite number of attempts (which can include arbitrarily large numbers of attempts)... or it's not really a 10% chance at all (it would actually be a 0% chance).

Yep, because chance/infinity = asymptote approaching zero.  I'm no statistician, but that's a basic principle.

[16Bitman]

7 minutes ago, nslay said:

An eternally living person who tries forever is making a number of attempts approaching infinity. Your example does not reflect this condition. The chance that person never gets the thing approaches 0.

This is the key word here, "approaches 0", eternally approaching 0.

With every additional attempt, your chance of failure decreases, but it is never 0.

The equation below is false

"0.9 ^ X = 0"

X is an unknown number in this example.

This equiation above is false

There is no number you can replace "X" with to achieve 0.

 

14 minutes ago, nslay said:

That person MUST get it in a finite number of attempts (which can include arbitrarily large numbers of attempts)... or it's not really a 10% chance at all (it would actually be a 0% chance).

No, they don't have to get it in a finite number of attempts.

This completely fictional "eternally unlucky" person, does not exist in complete isolation.

There are many players in this game, most of which have obtained many rare parts from relics.

 

When "eternally unlucky" presents their data to someone else, analyzing "eternally unlucky"s data will lead you to believe that a rare drop does not exist.

However, let's say "eternally unlucky" presents their absurdly large collection of screenshots to these forums.

Some people will quickly reply with "Sorry dude, but I just got a rare part today, you are really unlucky!"

Then more people will prove with their own screenshots, that rare parts do infact exist.

We even get our fictional friend "average data loving joe" to post his own absurdly large collection of screenshots, which come very close to the exact drop chances DE advertises on their own website.

 

In statistics, "eternally unlucky" is an outlier, a person that skews the results with very unaverage numbers, outliers get excluded from statistician to show the true average result.

 

Completely fictional example:

"The average person in Alaska owns 1 369 863 platinum"

"Sorry we have to retract the statement of the previous week, "MarketTestAccountNotSteve" owns 1000000000000 platinum, our researches have actually found them to be the only person that owns platinum in Alaska!"

Again, this is completely fictional, a world in which nobody but one person has Warframe on their PC in Alaska.

This entire example was just about outliers in "the average" calculations.

29 minutes ago, SheikaVoid said:

Yep, because chance/infinity = asymptote approaching zero.  I'm no statistician, but that's a basic principle.

More in depth example above, but approaching zero does not equal 0.

Example on how statistician handle outliers above too, when a single person in a small dataset changes the result drastically, they will be excluded from equation.

[SheikaVoid]

5 minutes ago, 16Bitman said:

This is the key word here, "approaches 0", eternally approaching 0.

With every additional attempt, your chance of failure decreases, but it is never 0.

The equation below is false

"0.9 ^ X = 0"

X is an unknown number in this example.

This equiation above is false

There is no number you can replace "X" with to achieve 0.

 

No, they don't have to get it in a finite number of attempts.

This completely fictional "eternally unlucky" person, does not exist in complete isolation.

There are many players in this game, most of which have obtained many rare parts from relics.

 

When "eternally unlucky" presents their data to someone else, analyzing "eternally unlucky"s data will lead you to believe that a rare drop does not exist.

However, let's say "eternally unlucky" presents their absurdly large collection of screenshots to these forums.

Some people will quickly reply with "Sorry dude, but I just got a rare part today, you are really unlucky!"

Then more people will prove with their own screenshots, that rare parts do infact exist.

We even get our fictional friend "average data loving joe" to post his own absurdly large collection of screenshots, which come very close to the exact drop chances DE advertises on their own website.

 

In statistics, "eternally unlucky" is an outlier, a person that skews the results with very unaverage numbers, outliers get excluded from statistician to show the true average result.

 

Completely fictional example:

"The average person in Alaska owns 1 369 863 platinum"

"Sorry we have to retract the statement of the previous week, "MarketTestAccountNotSteve" owns 1000000000000 platinum, our researches have actually found them to be the only person that owns platinum in Alaska!"

Again, this is completely fictional, a world in which nobody but one person has Warframe on their PC in Alaska.

This entire example was just about outliers in "the average" calculations.

More in depth example above, but approaching zero does not equal 0.

Example on how statistician handle outliers above too, when a single person in a small dataset changes the result drastically, they will be excluded from equation.

Apologies, but, from an engineer's perspective, it really doesn't matter if the outlier in the RNG is 1/infinity, and that the chance is an asymptote approaching zero infinitely.  Mathematically, I'd never express 1/infinity as 0, but I would say, in terms of the function of computer programs and number generators, that a statistical outlier of 1/infinity is functionally nonexistent, and I don't see the need for the distinction when the functional behavior of computer programs such as these almost guarantees that the item will be acquired.

[HoustonDragon]

You'll make yourself insane trying to calculate and game the system. Every MMO deals with RNG chasing the carrot rewards.

 

Honestly, if you're missing a specific part, cash the others you've collected from the relics and turn them into Plat to be able to buy the other ones from other players. At least there ARE other methods than solely being limited to your own luck for drops.

[nslay]

1 minute ago, 16Bitman said:

This is the key word here, "approaches 0", eternally approaching 0.

With every additional attempt, your chance of failure decreases, but it is never 0.

The equation below is false

"0.9 ^ X = 0"

X is an unknown number in this example.

This equiation above is false

There is no number you can replace "X" with to achieve 0.

 

No, they don't have to get it in a finite number of attempts.

This completely fictional "eternally unlucky" person, does not exist in complete isolation.

There are many players in this game, most of which have obtained many rare parts from relics.

 

When "eternally unlucky" presents their data to someone else, analyzing "eternally unlucky"s data will lead you to believe that a rare drop does not exist.

However, let's say "eternally unlucky" presents their absurdly large collection of screenshots to these forums.

Some people will quickly reply with "Sorry dude, but I just got a rare part today, you are really unlucky!"

Then more people will prove with their own screenshots, that rare parts do infact exist.

We even get our fictional friend "average data loving joe" to post his own absurdly large collection of screenshots, which come very close to the exact drop chances DE advertises on their own website.

 

In statistics, "eternally unlucky" is an outlier, a person that skews the results with very unaverage numbers, outliers get excluded from statistician to show the true average result.

 

Completely fictional example:

"The average person in Alaska owns 1 369 863 platinum"

"Sorry we have to retract the statement of the previous week, "MarketTestAccountNotSteve" owns 1000000000000 platinum, our researches have actually found them to be the only person that owns platinum in Alaska!"

Again, this is completely fictional, a world in which nobody but one person has Warframe on their PC in Alaska.

This entire example was just about outliers in "the average" calculations.

More in depth example above, but approaching zero does not equal 0.

Example on how statistician handle outliers above too, when a single person in a small dataset changes the result drastically, they will be excluded from equation.

OK, so we agree that the chance of not getting the thing approaches 0 as the number of attempts approaches infinity. 

So it's impossible (probability= 0) to not get it after an infinite quantity of attempts. This can't happen. There you go, you necessarily get the thing after a finite number of attempts... 

Finite does not mean pity timer. It is not a fixed value. It is not a "small" value... finite is any value < infinity. And you know that it's impossible to not get the thing for an infinite quantity of attempts.

[SheikaVoid]

2 minutes ago, nslay said:

OK, so we agree that the chance of not getting the thing approaches 0 as the number of attempts approaches infinity. 

So it's impossible (probability= 0) to not get it after an infinite quantity of attempts. This can't happen. There you go, you necessarily get the thing after a finite number of attempts... 

Finite does not mean pity timer. It is not a fixed value. It is not a "small" value... finite is any value < infinity. And you know that it's impossible to not get the thing for an infinite quantity of attempts.

Honestly, I just don't understand the insistence on specificity beyond any reasonable measure.  I don't need asymptotes explained to me, and I'm sure you don't either, it's just silly to be a stickler about 1/infinity not providing a guaranteed chance of acquisition, these are issues of theory, not practice.

[White_Matter]

20 hours ago, Dunkelheit said:

Yet you did not address any of my questions.

I got the frame and both prime weapons in 2 hours and honestly, I was a bit sad that it was over so soon. Yes, this might have been a lot of luck, but I blew through content in 2,5 hours that they set up for 3 months. But of course, I had other things that I needed to farm for a lot longer. My 2nd Protea took 2 weeks to get her. In the meantime I helped a friend of mine to farm Gara Prime and she was not so lucky. But we fun playing the game, so that time flew by.

And your "there is much more to it"... ? I play this game for 8 years and I NEVER had a problem to get a silver or bronze drop. Granted, sometimes the gold drop might need a bit more effort, but silver and bronze?

Last but not least, you are required to grind the necessary relics for it? Really? So what is your proposal? That we run a 1,5 minute mission for 3 times on average and are done with the content in 10 minutes??

If you really complain about getting a prime frame, I don't want to see your posting for other items in the game, which can be really a bit frustrating to farm. You should have farmed Necramechs and their weapons when they just arrived.

I do not attempt to criticize the system and "just shut up and take it", because in no way is this any hassle for me. I have 3 months to get the frame. And if I play the game regularly, it would be quite hard to avoid getting the frame. If I would be so angry about the system of prime loot and frames, I would probably think about playing another game, because this one might not be the right one for me. The opposite is true, I have played other F2P games and I am happy that I can target farm the things that I want. In other games, you would not have the possibility to farm the items, you would need to buy lootboxes and be LUCKY that the frame you want to be in it.

But since I really want you to enjoy the game, here are some hints how you can cut down your time:

1. Prepare prime releases by making sure that all your syndicates are filled with affinity and buy the relic packs after the patch is out.

2. Prepare by farming the syndicate items in the syndicate missions to get even more affinity.

3. Prepare by farming Steel Essences, which you can sell for relic packs as well.

4. Prepare by farming plat.... even on release day, you might be able to get the prime frame for 200p, probably even lower. This way, there is no hassle at all about it.

5. Wait a week and you will get the frame for 100p.

6. Farm money in real life and buy the prime access. No hassle at all.... You will even have the great feeling that you supported the game you like. And if you buy the big prime access, maybe you get the money for Christmas/birthday/Diwali, whatever you prefer, you will get 4k plat as an addon, which will enable you to buy the next 20 prime frames after it, if you save the plat, if prices stay like that. 40 if you wait a week. Yeah, I know, not everyone is blessed with such an amount of money. But 20 prime frames means at least 6 years of playing Warframe and never worrying about a single prime farm. And the game is 100% playable for free.

7. Most important: Warframe is a Marathon, not a sprint. If you want all the items and you want them today, you will become frustrated, because the game is simply not build this way. Lower your expectations, join a clan, find friends, talk via Discord or anything else and have fun while doing it.

If all this does not feel fair, I don't know what to say to you. How does this compare to World of Warcraft, where you need to save a bucketload of DKP points on several raids till you get one single item for your toon and you even pay 15 bucks per month?

 

 

I adressed the part that is relevant, which is being able to quickly get the BP doesn't mean you get the entire prime access right away as it requires time investment to farm relics or traces and/or the rest of the parts. 

And again, you are attacking an imaginary argument. I never said we should be able to farm the entire thing extremely quick. I spent around an hour or more to get 4 AXI G6 relics from 7/8 - 4 round disruption missions. And that is just a relic for one part. Granted, it is the rarest part, but when you consider I'll have to go and grind more for that relic and hope I get the part and then go back to doing the same for the rest of the parts, it becomes a crule chore. 

And oh, that is utter BS that you got everything in 2.5 hours unless you got some parts off the market or you got all the relics and the parts on the first attempt.

 

[CerealPlayer]

On 2021-06-03 at 3:09 PM, White_Matter said:

In my case right after it was implemented. 

But recently, after getting 3 common and 1 *uncommon drops on my 7th radiant AXI G6 run for the Gara BP, I realized the relic system is absolute garbage once again. Through out those 7 runs, all 4 people had radiant relics and didn't even get a rare drop once and it was mostly common rewards eventhough statistically it shouldn't be the case.

 

Less dilluted loot tables, or a token system is needed urgently.

edit : *meant to say uncommon not rare

This just might be the dumbest post I've read on these forums so far. Your bad luck =/= the system is fraudulent.

[White_Matter]

 

On 2021-06-04 at 12:05 PM, _R_o_g_u_e_ said:

I opened over 60 radiant relics getting a rare ninkondi part and I didn’t even make a forum post about it.

It’s just the nature of the beast, and really 7 attempts being the point where you snap and declare the system is fraudulent and needs to be replaced is kind of silly.

If you’re tilted, take a break and try again.

Or heck, spend some plat. Perish the thought.

The problem is that you need probably more than 7 attempts(which again relies on RNG) to get the relics to be able to get those 7 attempts.

If all it took was to do 7 attempts of a void fissure mission, you'd have a point. But getting the relic obviously takes longer than just running through a fissure mission.