Infernal Pit SpecialChest runs: high probability of Zod and other HRs

[NarfBG]

How should I know that? And why act 5 in particular? They don't differ only in act 5, but throughout the entire game.

Sparkly chests are generally "quest chests" ... Whenever they exist without serving a specific quest-related purpose, it's simply the case of Blizzard deciding to sprinkle them here and there for variety; or they had a quest in mind but abandoned the idea; or a combination of both ... who knows.

The bottom line is they've been extensively observed and conclusions have been made about them based on those observations. Meanwhile you're making up theories based on almost zero evidence and when everyone is telling you that this is very unlikely, you double down because nobody said it's impossible ... Note that where we say "unlikely" we mean there's no definitive proof against it yet, so nobody can be 100% sure - that's the scientific method - but it is as good as saying "no, you're just wrong on that". You might as well ask if aliens exists and will probably get the same answers.

Asking random questions that you know we can't give satisfying answers to doesn't give any more credibility to your idea.

 

[vmiguli]

@NarfBG
Statement #1

Why would you imagine anyone at Blizzard would want to do that though? That's an absurd scenario ...

Statement #2

And you didn't answer my question ... why would we imagine something like that would ever be done?

Statement #3

How should I know that? And why act 5 in particular? They don't differ only in act 5, but throughout the entire game.

Asking random questions that you know we can't give satisfying answers to doesn't give any more credibility to your idea.

"Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another." (c) Wikipedia

 

[maxicek]

Cool it please or I will be handing out temp bans. Keep it polite and respectful.

 

[NarfBG]

Hypocrisy? What? How? Because I asked you questions too? I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is, mate ...

I'm asking you questions because I don't understand where this theory of yours comes from (and I'm not the only person to express that).
You're asking me questions as a response, in an attempt to defend your theory and/or deflect criticism from it.

I'm putting your theory under scrutiny.
You're just turning it around on me with unrelated questions, as if I have anything to prove.

That's not the same thing. And mind you, I basically agreed to disagree with this post, until last night you randomly asked me those argumentative questions - I didn't put you in the spot to answer obviously unanswerable questions; you did that.

As we've been warned by a moderator already, I'll refrain from saying much more, but just for your own good - this isn't the way to promote your theory; that's just not how it works. You're supposed to prove it, not discredit naysayers.

 

[vmiguli]

The bottom line is they've been extensively observed and conclusions have been made about them based on those observations.

Yes, and the existence of 4.2 billion patterns was one of those "conclusions". You call it "conclusions", I call it "stereotypical belief".

Meanwhile you're making up theories based on almost zero evidence and when everyone is telling you that this is very unlikely, you double down because nobody said it's impossible ... Note that where we say "unlikely" we mean there's no definitive proof against it yet, so nobody can be 100% sure - that's the scientific method - but it is as good as saying "no, you're just wrong on that". You might as well ask if aliens exists and will probably get the same answers.

1. All evidence that I have is presented in this thread. You consider it "almost zero", I considered it sufficient to start a discussion and pursue a logical outcome of it. Two different considerations from two different people - nothing wrong about it.
2. The use of words "everyone", "we" and other impersonal words is a vivid substitution of logical arguments by populist generalizations. "Everyone" - is a sheer lie, just check the thread. The are guys out there who support my research, there guys who think it's BS, the latter group is not "everyone" and "we". Well, maybe it is "we", in fact, but it is definitely not all "WE"! If you continue this discussion, I would kindly ask you to operate with pronoun "I", as I do.
3. "Substitution of concepts" is a discussion technique when instead of logical arguments a person uses unrelated out of context issues. "Aliens" and "flateathers" are good examples of it.

The funniest thing about you guys, THOSE WHO SUBSTITUTE LOGIC BY EMOTIONS (which leads to rather mannerless writing style), is when you finally are proven wrong, you suddenly become silent like mice. Not a single word on a subject that was so obvious and clear just couple of days ago. You never admit that you were wrong. And never will! Because being refuted by logical argumentation (which is possibly my fate in this thread) - is common and normal, nothing wrong about it. But involving an emotional side and, consequently, a manipulative/offensive discussion technique prohibits you from doing that with dignity after all. Therefore, silence, total silence...

Now, I might be emotional myself, but it does not interfere with my logic.
My theory could be easily proven wrong by:
1. Statistical data
2. Programming code analysis of EACH chest (IP, PoA, Abaddon).
The first one does not necessarily include the public effort, it might be a program that imitates SparklyChests. Like, 1 million simulated runs on the specifically IP SC protocol with a HR fixation, for example, then the same with PoA / Abaddon with its own programming. Then the data could be analyzed either statistically or in comparison with each other. This is just a suggestion from a non-programmer, I have no idea of how to manage that.

So, you see, it is not impossible to prove that my theory is false. It is sufficient just to show that those three chests are identical in terms of either programming or results. Until that is done - I have a valid assumption of the IP priority (both theoretically and from my experience) even if you disagree with my point of view.

 

[NarfBG]

Yes, and the existence of 4.2 billion patterns was one of those "conclusions". You call it "conclusions", I call it "stereotypical belief".

I don't even get what you're trying to say here, but OK.

1. All evidence that I have is presented in this thread. You consider it "almost zero", I considered it sufficient to start a discussion and pursue a logical outcome of it. Two different considerations from two different people - nothing wrong about it.
2. The use of words "everyone", "we" and other impersonal words is a vivid substitution of logical arguments by populist generalizations. "Everyone" - is a sheer lie, just check the thread. The are guys out there who support my research, there guys who think it's BS, the latter group is not "everyone" and "we". Well, maybe it is "we", in fact, but it is definitely not all "WE"! If you continue this discussion, I would kindly ask you to operate with pronoun "I", as I do.

Let me clarify something - all I've been talking about here is your post #130 and more specifically this part of it:

Now let us imagine that we work for Blizzard as professional programmers. And for a new patch for D2 we are given a task to DIFFERENTIATE act 5 SCs making one of it exclusively better then the others! Yes, in previous releases all of them were supposedly identical, but now Blizzard wants to make a specific one more profitable. How to do it without inducing major changes to the program?

When I said "everyone", that was not a substition, not a generalization, not a lie. Literally everyone (all 3 of us who have replied to you) has expressed disagreement with the validity of your theory.
Meanwhile, bar the loose proposition that Blizzard supposedly may've wanted to reward us for fighting what you consider to be tougher enemies (which you should know is very relative in this game), all you've done is deflect and ask loaded questions in response. Yet you're trying to lecture me on logical fallacies and underhanded tactics ... Here's a lesson in response - what you're doing is called whataboutism.

3. "Substitution of concepts" is a discussion technique when instead of logical arguments a person uses unrelated out of context issues. "Aliens" and "flateathers" are good examples of it.

The funniest thing about you guys, THOSE WHO SUBSTITUTE LOGIC BY EMOTIONS (which leads to rather mannerless writing style), is when you finally are proven wrong, you suddenly become silent like mice. Not a single word on a subject that was so obvious and clear just couple of days ago. You never admit that you were wrong. And never will! Because being refuted by logical argumentation (which is possibly my fate in this thread) - is common and normal, nothing wrong about it. But involving an emotional side and, consequently, a manipulative/offensive discussion technique prohibits you from doing that with dignity after all. Therefore, silence, total silence...

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

Now, I might be emotional myself, but it does not interfere with my logic.

No? You just went on an entire tirade, including loads of personal attacks, which was completely uncalled for. How can you possibly pat yourself on the back and claim your emotions aren't getting the best of you?

My theory could be easily proven wrong by:
1. Statistical data
2. Programming code analysis of EACH chest (IP, PoA, Abaddon).
The first one does not necessarily include the public effort, it might be a program that imitates SparklyChests. Like, 1 million simulated runs on the specifically IP SC protocol with a HR fixation, for example, then the same with PoA / Abaddon with its own programming. Then the data could be analyzed either statistically or in comparison with each other. This is just a suggestion from a non-programmer, I have no idea of how to manage that.

So, you see, it is not impossible to prove that my theory is false. It is sufficient just to show that those three chests are identical in terms of either programming or results. Until that is done - I have a valid assumption of the IP priority (both theoretically and from my experience) even if you disagree with my point of view.

So, you're not a programmer and you don't know how one would make such an analysis (in fact, you don't even know if it's possible; you just assume it is), but until someone does it, you have a "valid assumption"? You're way over your head here ...

First, as I am a programmer, I can tell you this - such a simulation program would be completely redundant, as in order to make the simulation, you'd need to know how the entire thing works; in order to know how it works, you look at the source code. And if anyone has access to the source code, then they already know all the answers.
And secondly, while I am not a statistician, I do in in fact have some formal education in statistics and can tell you for sure that 1 million records isn't nearly enough data to make a reasonable statistical analysis.

And I have to reiterate this: one needs to prove their own theory, not make assumptions until someone else disproves them.

Please stop picking fights with me, take a step back and re-evaluate your approach, because you're clearly in the wrong here.

 

[vmiguli]

Ok, our remarks on the discussion style and other comments will stay here for future inquiries. I don't see any benefit in continuation of that argument. Everybody could read it and choose for themselves which party is more convincing in that dialogue.

Now, I hope that our discussion will remain in logical borders with no emotions involved.
1. 4.2 billion = 2/32 - the amount of patterns that was presumably assigned to SparklyChests in Act 5 before my findings (#70) and finally Fruit's message a month ago (#87).

2. I think Blizzard could easily differentiate three mini-level Act 5 SparklyChests as they already has differentiated Act 5 SuperChests from Act 5 SparklyChests. Don't you think it is logical to assume that?
And, no, we will never know for sure their reasoning - only hypothetical assumptions could be proposed.

3. Having 65,536 Object seeds available makes this situation similar to LK where we have got a clear picture. Do you think more than total of 1 million runs were made there?

4. I can not prove my theory, and never could do it alone. With 1 million runs being disputable it is apparently impossible to PROVE it by any human input. Knowing that, I had a choice - either to keep the striking IP findings for myself or to start this thread. I chose the latter despite some of the forum users think it has been a mistake, as I can judge by their comments.

5. I suggested a solution of how to prove/disprove my theory about 4-5 times already. Until then it is just a hypothesis that waits for its confirmation. And yes, human beings are allowed to make assumptions without having a solid proof - that is a definition of "assumption". Please, don't take this right away from me .

6. "because you're clearly in the wrong here" - here we go again. That is not a logical statement but an emotional one.

7. There are just two outcomes for my theory about the IP SC: it is either true or false. I would love if it works out as I suggested; however, if it fails it will not leave me in ruins - I don't care THAT much about the outcome, frankly. What I care about is the slow systematic movement of the investigation itself. I have learned so much new since the start of this thread - it is a real treasure!

 

[NarfBG]

2. I think Blizzard could easily differentiate three mini-level Act 5 SparklyChests as they already has differentiated Act 5 SuperChests from Act 5 SparklyChests. Don't you think it is logical to assume that?
And, no, we will never know for sure their reasoning - only hypothetical assumptions could be proposed.

No, I don't.

Sure, Act 5 SparklyChests are different from Act 5 SuperChests, in the same way that Act 1,2,3 SparklyChests are different from Act 1,2,3 SuperChests (and Act 4 simply doesn't have sparkly chests). Aside from one sparkly chest dropping e.g. the Staff of Kings and another dropping the Horadric Cube, nobody has observed any differences between them and thus I see no reason to even suggest such differences, let alone assume them.

3. Having 65,536 Object seeds available makes this situation similar to LK where we have got a clear picture. Do you think more than total of 1 million runs were made there?

1 million runs isn't the same thing as 1 million records. With 6 chests per map, each single run is equal to 6 individial records ... I alone have made about 10k runs and merely 20 people doing at least 10k puts the total number of chest pops well above a million.

Though, I do believe that way more than 1 million runs have been made too. The information we have about LK has been accumulated over many years, by countless people, most of the time just posting/passing around the relevant screenshots of the high rune drops.
The known patterns have been not only presented, but confirmed and re-confirmed by multiple people before they were determined to be "proven" (as opposed to mistaken monster drops, or ones from different /players settings - there's a recent example of that with a Pul pattern that was mistakenly listed as a p7 one, but it turned out to be a p5 one). This does not happen with just a handful of people doing a few thousand runs each.

5. I suggested a solution of how to prove/disprove my theory about 4-5 times already. Until then it is just a hypothesis that waits for its confirmation. And yes, human beings are allowed to make assumptions without having a solid proof - that is a definition of "assumption". Please, don't take this right away from me .

Of course we can make assumptions, but we need at least some basis for them. We make assumptions to fill in the small blanks of otherwise almost complete theories and the problem I have with your assumptions is that I don't see the basis for them.

You did few thousand runs, got lucky and started this thread with the proposition/assumption that Act5 chests are dispropotionately more rewarding for high runes. I'm actually fine with that, even if skeptical, just because almost nobody had investigated those before - it's a good start.
However, after all the feedback you got, and especially @Fruit basically laying out all the info, you turn to a different assumption (that one chest in particular is way more rewarding than others) and I don't see any logical basis for that. Nothing suggested it; you just came up with it for no apparent reason as far as I can tell.

6. "because you're clearly in the wrong here" - here we go again. That is not a logical statement but an emotional one.

You called me hypocrite and a liar, and proposed ways of disproving your theory that I easily demonstrated were not realistic. You were wrong about all of those things and I used logical arguments, and only logical arguments to show that; you're just calling me emotional every time I say you're wrong about something.
Sorry, I can accept that your belief in your own theory is in your mind stronger than the arguments presented against it; if you don't continue to put such labels on me and stop asking me questions, I'm happy to never respond again. But I cannot accept this, as you're the only one who's let their emotions get involved since I first posted.

 

[vmiguli]

Thank you for your response, especially for the style of it.

No, I don't.

Sure, Act 5 SparklyChests are different from Act 5 SuperChests, in the same way that Act 1,2,3 SparklyChests are different from Act 1,2,3 SuperChests (and Act 4 simply doesn't have sparkly chests). Aside from one sparkly chest dropping e.g. the Staff of Kings and another dropping the Horadric Cube, nobody has observed any differences between them and thus I see no reason to even suggest such differences, let alone assume them.

Ok. We have different views on this. The question was "why Blizzard would ever do something like that", my answer was, to put it short, because they already have differentiated other chests, so we know they DO this thing. This does not persuade you. On the contrary, I think, it answers the given question. All right.

1 million runs isn't the same thing as 1 million records. With 6 chests per map, each single run is equal to 6 individial records ... I alone have made about 10k runs and merely 20 people doing at least 10k puts the total number of chest pops well above a million.

Though, I do believe that way more than 1 million runs have been made too. The information we have about LK has been accumulated over many years, by countless people, most of the time just posting/passing around the relevant screenshots of the high rune drops.
The known patterns have been not only presented, but confirmed and re-confirmed by multiple people before they were determined to be "proven" (as opposed to mistaken monster drops, or ones from different /players settings - there's a recent example of that with a Pul pattern that was mistakenly listed as a p7 one, but it turned out to be a p5 one). This does not happen with just a handful of people doing a few thousand runs each.

You are very convincing here. I agree.

You did few thousand runs, got lucky and started this thread with the proposition/assumption that Act5 chests are dispropotionately more rewarding for high runes. I'm actually fine with that, even if skeptical, just because almost nobody had investigated those before - it's a good start.
However, after all the feedback you got, and especially @Fruit basically laying out all the info, you turn to a different assumption (that one chest in particular is way more rewarding than others) and I don't see any logical basis for that. Nothing suggested it; you just came up with it for no apparent reason as far as I can tell.

This is false.
Please, read this thread and see that you are wrong for yourself.
Hint: #52 will help

You called me hypocrite and a liar, and proposed ways of disproving your theory that I easily demonstrated were not realistic. You were wrong about all of those things and I used logical arguments, and only logical arguments to show that; you're just calling me emotional every time I say you're wrong about something.
Sorry, I can accept that your belief in your own theory is in your mind stronger than the arguments presented against it; if you don't continue to put such labels on me and stop asking me questions, I'm happy to never respond again. But I cannot accept this, as you're the only one who's let their emotions get involved since I first posted.

I totally disagree. I think you are writing from another reality or something like that. People are different, I can not understand your logic. For me, its "logic". Apparently, my clear and coherent thinking that I try to express in writing does not look so clear and coherent to you either. I am surprised, but well...
One example. You ask me a vague question, I respond with a question that serves as an answer. You insist on my response - I reply as thorough as I could. You comment with your disagreement. Ok. Later I ask you YOUR question in an identical situation. I got a mannerless and impolite reply, blaming me for asking such questions in the first place. It was your question that you had addressed to me days before that! Twice! And insisted on an answer! How this situation could be ambiguous in any way?
Well, our current dialogue starts from #131 and finishes here. It is open for everyone to make their own judgement: both in terms of logic and emotionality

 

[Phevo]

Perhaps its time to agree to disagree

 

[maxicek]

I was about to post the same thing

I think most people lost interest about this point anyway:

So I'm confused, is this better or worse than LK? xD

Worse, unless you want a zod. Even then, act 5 superchests might be better. For cham, trav is better.

 

[NarfBG]

You did few thousand runs, got lucky and started this thread with the proposition/assumption that Act5 chests are dispropotionately more rewarding for high runes. I'm actually fine with that, even if skeptical, just because almost nobody had investigated those before - it's a good start.
However, after all the feedback you got, and especially @Fruit basically laying out all the info, you turn to a different assumption (that one chest in particular is way more rewarding than others) and I don't see any logical basis for that. Nothing suggested it; you just came up with it for no apparent reason as far as I can tell.

This is false.
Please, read this thread and see that you are wrong for yourself.
Hint: #52 will help

I've read the entire thread, and just reread #52 as well - you come up with some confusing math there, ok ... how am I wrong? How is anything of what I wrote false?

You did start the thread after just a few thousand runs in total - fact.
Fruit did provide us with a complete list of the rune drop patterns, for both types of chests - fact.

Are you trying to say that your theory based on treasureclasses.txt probability laid out in #52 is the basis of your current one? If so, then ... well, having a complete list of patterns means they're all fixed, which makes your treasureclass.txt-probability based one invalid.

You called me hypocrite and a liar, and proposed ways of disproving your theory that I easily demonstrated were not realistic. You were wrong about all of those things and I used logical arguments, and only logical arguments to show that; you're just calling me emotional every time I say you're wrong about something.
Sorry, I can accept that your belief in your own theory is in your mind stronger than the arguments presented against it; if you don't continue to put such labels on me and stop asking me questions, I'm happy to never respond again. But I cannot accept this, as you're the only one who's let their emotions get involved since I first posted.

I totally disagree. I think you are writing from another reality or something like that. People are different, I can not understand your logic. For me, its "logic". Apparently, my clear and coherent thinking that I try express in writing does not look clear and coherent for you either. I am surprised, but well...

See, you start with this preposition that you have "clear and coherent thinking" and therefore can do no wrong. If anyone disagrees, they must be wrong, not thinking straight and being emotional ... If you look back at any of my posts you should be able to see that aside from asking questions, ALL I've done is refer to facts.

Was it your clear and coherent thinking that called me a hypocrite and a liar, compared me to a scared mouse and whatever else you spewed in that rant? You've made personal attacks against me on multiple occasions, while I have not done so even once - this is a pretty reasonable indicator of who's being emotional in my book. Even if we say we have a difficulty understanding each other, I can't possibly understand how you can deny succumbing to your own emotions.

One example. You ask me a vague question, I respond with a question that serves as an answer. You insist on my response - I reply as thoroughly as I could.

Yes, you didn't answer my question; you deflected it, hence my insistance.

You comment with your disagreement. Ok. Later I ask you YOUR question in an identical situation. I got a mannerless and impolite reply, blaming me for asking such questions in the first place. It was your question that you had addressed to me days before that! Twice! And insisted on an answer! How this situation could be ambiguous in any way?

You didn't ask me my question. I asked you why Blizzard would do something like what your theory suggests, in order to understand where the theory in question is coming from to begin with.
You asked me why SparklyChests and SuperChests (specifically for Act5, which I still don't understand why) are different.

(which by the way I did try answer)

For one, those are definitely not the same questions, but more importantly - you have a theory to prove and I don't. I'm not here saying I know everything there is to D2, so I don't understand why you would ask me that to begin with.

As for being mannerless and impolite ... First of all, the only explanation I for why you asked me that, that I can come up with is that you're trying the old "let's show you can't answer my question either, so that makes my point valid somehow" trick (a.k.a. whataboutism) - pretty mannerless and impolite if you ask me. But also, don't be that guy who is offended by everything they don't like.

I was being as polite as I could, and certainly no less than the way you directed the question at me (especially given that I thought we'd agreed to disagree at that point). Then followed the personal attacks against me ...

------

Sorry all, I promise not to continue this as long as I'm not given any more labels, said to be from another reality and such.