When doing quests with others, what determines who gets what drops?

Just a question here. I noticed that when doing quests with Henchmen, you hardly get any drops at all besides gold but when going out with other players, almost every monster drops something. My question is what determines what drops are assigned to what players? I see several people that I quest with constantly getting blue and yellow drops but I get all the crappy stuff. I am a level 16 W/R and have made it past Lion's Arch so I would think the drops would be good by now.

From my understanding, when you quest with henchmen, the drops are still randomly distributed amongst the party. However, you do not see drops that are assigned to henchmen. When you party with human players, you see all of the drops.

Drops are randomly distributed. Sometimes you have good luck, sometimes not.

Ok, if you want my "opinion". I think the code is jacked. Try to stay out of "even" group positions. Meaning be the group leader, third to join, or fifth to join. I think their algorithm is using some modulus or something so all the evens are getting screwed on drops. But I HAVE seen the fifth person hardly get anything so maybe it's just paranoia. Someone else notice this or can confirm it?

As for the henchmen, what did you expect? It used to be that all the drops are yours alone.. but that led to farming in a huge sense. Now since henchmen are better at teamwork than most players I've seen. They've taken the drops out of the picture/... i.e. the henchman get drops too but your not allowed to touch them lol.

It's completely random. Sounds like you've been pretty unlucky so far. =/ I've had streaks like that, then other times get a couple purple items and a black dye all in a row. As for henchmen, they get drops assigned to them just like real players, but you don't see it. They also take the same cut of your gold. It's like grouping with anyone else.

EDIT: Heh, TWO people got posts in while I was typing mine. Oh and Johncoke, yeah you're paranoid.

The only advantage to goruping with players loot wise is they can agree to give you an item or trade you for something, while henches are just plain greedy

Observational bias, and gambler's fallacy.

As far as I know henchmen share only gold and exp, but no drops. Human players see every drop around and the first one who claims takes. If someone knows that this is not right, than please add a link to an official statement about this issue.

Join a good guild and party with them. It's a lot less frustrating playing a Ranger and seeing the Elementalist get a gold bow when you know you'll get it. Also, you don't have to hang out in the trade channel trying to sell Fiery Dragon Sword.

Your wrong.

All you have to do is get in a group with 5 henchmen and you will notice you dont see drops for long periods. The game puts the henchmen in on the drops and awards them to them. But you dont see the items drop. They just automatically "go" to the henchmen.

Anyone over level 15 or so knows this and has experienced it.

Wow, I said anyone confirm this. Not criticize my ass. Prick. I said it was my opinion, and so far it seems to be working for me. Prick.

Henchmen eat drops, exp, and gold they just do so behind to the scenes to prevent nashing of teeth when a rare armor goes to the healer henchman(person?).

When doing quests with others, what determines who gets what drops?


Determined randomly by the system.

PERIOD.


Jana

I'd hate to argue with you but there is no random in computers. There are seeds with random numbers, and even random number generators. All predefined by a list of given numbers. BUT for all practical purposes (i.e. drops) it can be seen and calculated as random.

Actually, you wouldn't hate to argue with her, you relish the opportunity to unleash this pedantic drivel. This whole post was devoid of any purpose other than to try to impress somebody with useless trivia. This ridiculous argument can be extended to apply to everything in the universe, who cares. It's random enough.

All I know is, I get way more rares than anyone I ever party with. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Maybe you are the chosen one

Regarding hidden drops for henchmen - I actually think the game designers made the drops to be hidden not because they don't want us seeing what the henchies got instead of us, but because they didn't want us having to deal with henchies leaving a fight to run off and pick up their drops.... Imagine having your healer henchie deciding it was better to pick up her shield drop than to fight the battle or keep you buffed..

I'll second that

randomness is a perception, a perception computers generate with complicated equations.

At the stage of programming the factors of those equations, ie seed numbers, would have been determined by the programmer.. and therefore must have invoked a development discussion about how the perception would be acheived.

If it were me I would definatly use the human player to NPC ratio as a good starting point. Therefore encouraging team play.
(again it maybe just me but I seem to get more/better drops when in a team full of human players.)

But whatever the true answer to this question is, it seems that they want us to beleive it is totally random (though scientifically impossible) so I wouldnt beleive them, even if they insisted.

I like that idea about even/odd number of players affecting the outcome, it has just the right ring of truth to be believable. (if you like the numbers game)

The Snowman.

First off, you are technically correct, producing true randomness is beyond that capacity of computers without help. That help may be include, asking the enduser to tap randomly on their keyboard for X seconds, taking other forms of input like time and doing calculations on it, or other outside factor. However, this is a limitation of how computers currently work, not a specific GW limitation, though I have no idea how good their random number system is.

Having said all of that, the drops in GW are as random as the technology allows. There is no difference in drop rates for full human parties, solo (no henchies), solo with henchies, or any other party combination. Henchman do eat drops behind the scenes which makes people believe the drop has changed, when it hasn't.

Unfortunetly, the term random may be the issue here, since we have to be careful of what we use it with.

Random is GENERALLY calculated over an INFINITE series of events. Using some calculus and some probability theory, you would have to have an event happen for an infinite number or tries, rolls, etc to get an accurate reading.

For example, it is possible to roll a 7 on a pair of dice 50 times in a row and STILL consider it random IF you consider that over 1 million rolls (or as many as you want approaching infinity) you would say that 7 comes up on 2 die roll once every 6 rolls. The odds are getting 7 on the 51st rolls IS STILL 6 to 1.

Programming random numbers in anything resembling a computer is something that has been done since the invention of the first relay based IBM computers using machine language and punch cards back in the 1940's, so it's not hard to do and simulate using infinite rolls (again, as many as you can stand to wait for, since infinity does not mean anything really) and see that over the long haul, yes... it is random.


Jana

Aside from being a pedantic and useless observation, it's also false, and has been for some time. Many processors these days have random data sources built into the hardware, specifically for generating true random numbers, and many operating systems take advantage of those or other external sources of random data to maintain an entropy pool for use by programs that actually require true random numbers rather than the traditional, algorithmically generated pseudo-random numbers.

Actually someone did develop a completely random computer generator, it was just took intake from the random static from computers fuzzy-microphone to set up its number.... it was about as random as you can get =P

For something to be non-random it would have to be statistically impossible to guess the outcome.

but then again its all minutia anyway, and this post was as pointful as your post...

for all intents and purposes the drops are random enough for what it needs to be.

Edit: lol 3 more posts since I started typing this... awesome =P

I was just trying to be informative sheesh. Thats why I said I hate to argue with you. And kalaris, still not random. That static isn't random. But instead of talking absoluteness, I agree, random for all general purposes. BUT I HAVE noticed an increase in drops while in those positions. So how about a few give it a try and let me know the results. It may have nothing to do with it, and just my own paranoia as I said. But if someone can do a mission (maybe a short one) in a different position each time. Record the drop results. Repeat. Maybe it isn't as random as you think. I don't have the time right now for this thoroughness.

EDIT: Just wanted to say, HAS ANYONE TESTED THIS? It's funny how SURE everyone is without testing anything. At least I said it's my opinion and observation, you people are the same that criticized the world was flat and countless other discoveries. How about this. Someone besides me do the testing so there is no biasness, in fact several people do it. Record your drops and then state which position you got the better drops in. Simple enough. Only problem is people lie and BS to fudge the numbers, guess there is no true way. Well I gave you my "opinion" I formed on my observations, test it yourself and see what you get. Instead of ranting on the fora its wrong, when you have no validity yourselves. Unless they made this open source? I must've missed the memo.

Dreamsmith as usual all BS. Show me the evidence.

But I've been in an Even Slot and got better drops then everyone else. But I also believe in luck and fate. So then again, I'm probably not the best judge for this. But it seems fairly even. I just don't normally get any drops that can help me at anyway. But other members of my Guild love me.

Someone has been paying way too close attention.

Oh for crying out loud, it's common knowledge to anyone in the computer science field, particularly if you have a background in security. Google it yourself. I will admit, however, there is one slight error in the otherwise perfectly factually correct post I made: I said processor manufacturers were integrating them into the processor, when it fact they're integrating them into the chipset rather than the CPU itself. If you have a recent Intel or AMD motherboard, you probably have a true random number generator on it. It's in demand for security applications. If you thought the part about it being integrated into operating systems was BS, Google for information on the functioning of the /dev/random device's "entropy pool" under Linux. If you thought something else was BS, be more specific, and I'll be happy to explain it.

Randomness is much more than a perception, although it is true that sometimes the perception of randomness is generated using equations, sometimes even complicated ones, although in fact most pseudo-random number generators use a surprisingly simple equation (developed my Lehmer in the 40's).

Hehe. Highly unlikely. Computer scientists have been beating this topic to death for decades. The seed numbers are unlikely to be determined (they may infact come from a true random number source), the only thing do be determined in implementing the RNG would be the factor and the constant used in the formula. Since good values for these have been known for decades, it was probably simply implemented without discussion, assuming they even implemented it themselves rather than using a standard library call implemented by Microsoft of some other vendor.

It is not scientifically impossible to create a true random number generator. In fact, that's easy. It is scientifically impossible to completely eliminate randomness from a computing system, though. That leads to some interesting fields of research, like probabalistic algorithms. For example, Fermat developed a shortcut for testing the primeness of a number. However, it doesn't always work -- it fails on extremely rare numbers known as Carmichael numbers. They are in fact so rare that the odds of you randomly picking a Carmichael number while trying to find a prime are smaller than the odds of a cosmic ray flipping a bit in your memory, giving you an incorrect result when trying to use the traditional, "bullet-proof" algorithm to determine if a number is prime. Thus, although on paper the traditional algorithm is perfect and Fermat's shortcut is flawed, in the real world, Fermat's shortcut is actually more reliable on real-world hardware. Since the complete elimination of randomness is impossible on real-world hardware, sometimes "probabalistic algorithms" which execute in a shorter timespan are more reliable that perfect ones!

But I digress...

You know, I shouldn't have to disprove you. I'm not the one slinging these things out of fact. But since you can't seem to prove yourself, or know your wrong in the first place. Then I'll spend minimal time disabusing you in case you think your not. And I guess by your own admission, you either aren't in the computer science field or don't have common knowledge.

Alright you already admitted its on the chipset, that's a step. Now I've got to show everyone else that moderators are human too and can make errors. Well some are more prone than others about elitism and know-it-alls and can't admit when they're wrong.

Here are a few examples of your entropy:

User mouse movement, audio samples, keyboard presses, even percentage hard drive reads. Obviously hard to predict but NOT RANDOM! And never will be.

The LINUX /dev/random driver samples operating system device states. Hmmm doesn't seem to be the random to me? Just assumes that its too difficult for someone to predict. Which has been proven wrong, but I can't use it because I don't know the source. Unlike you, who seem to think what you say is fact.

There is even the Intel RNG (810 chipset). This detects quantum movements for which noone can predict yet. Keyword being yet, but this isn't what you're referring to so guess it's out. That means air turbulence inside the disk drive is also out... well everything you described isn't random. If you'd said something of these two you'd have some credibility as we cannot predict them as of right now. But you didn't, instead you BS'd. Which doesn't fly with me.

"Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." John von Neumann

EDIT: Wow you edited your post to spew more examples out. Vey nice. Still wrong (and on many of your examples, but I'm not going to argue perception with you.. because everything is perception regardless). I guess its the length of the post and obscure examples that make you right. You win.

You only get purple or yellow items if you have purple or yellow dyed armor.
If you don't pick up every 5th drop, the 6th -10th drops will be yours.

Oh sorry, I was just testing my new random GW fortune cookie program.

First of all, that's exactly what I was refering to. And second of all, if your point of contention is that you believe everything is ultimately predictable, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary (hence your emphasis on "yet" with regards to quantum states), then why didn't you just say so to begin with? We could have avoided all the rest of the unnecessary arguments. I simply don't argue with determinists, creationists, or members of the Flat Earth Society (at least, not anymore). None of these are rational positions, given the scientific evidence, so there's no point trying to argue with anyone about it. Feel free to have faith in the ultimate, theoretical predictability of things if you wish. Just don't pretend it's a scientifically supportable proposition. There's better evidence against determinism than there is against creationism, although perhaps not as good as that against the flat-Earth theory.

Hmm. I've already admitted one of my mistakes in this thread. I have yet to see you admit to the several you've made.

I've made mistakes? I admit to them if I see them. Point them out, maybe I have. I've admitted it on other fora. In fact just today in a different thread about how resurrection at shrines work. And what the crap, determinism is just as scientifically supportable as evolution and creationism. Just because your "perception" deems it invalid doesn't mean its so. They're called theories for a reason.

Oh and unless you edited your posts to support your argument. You weren't referring to that, you're referring to entropy and the Linux random number storage. Lying isn't a suit that fits anyone.

So do I. Why would you assume otherwise, particular when you yourself admit to seeing me do it?

Not all theories are equally supported by the evidence. At some point, you have to let a bad theory go. (Determinism was never a scientific theory, however -- rather, it was a philosophical view. It's never really had any scientific evidence for it.)

I didn't even mention Linux in my first post. I brought it up when you asked for examples of how Operating Systems are integrating non-algorithmic random number generation into themselves. (You didn't actually ask that explicitly, you just said that statement was BS, since you said all my statements in that post were BS, so that was indeed what you were asking for -- if you meant to ask for something different, again you should have been more specific.)

Then stop doing it, or if you actually believe what you said, go back and read more carefully. Accusing someone of lying when all that happened is you didn't understand what they were saying is really bad form. In fact, it's bad form in any case. I've done nothing but argue the facts. If you disagree about the facts, fine, we can argue the facts all day and nothing's wrong with that, there are many things in the world for which reasonable men may disagree. However, every single post you've made in reply to me has contained as least one ad hominem attack, sometimes outright name-calling, which is a clear violation to this forum's rules. Can it. If you want to argue about the facts, fine, but at least show a little maturity in the process and refrain from the personal attacks.

Overpowering abusive moderators you "can it", you've also left subtle attacks. I never lied, you yourself admitted you spoke of linux in your second post as if its what you're referring to in your first post. Never once did you state quantum movement. Not once. As for theories, they're constantly changing and bringing back old ones, just to keep from arguing about this subject.

The Transcendental Character of Determinism, Suppes page 254

“Deterministic metaphysicians can comfortably hold to their view knowing they cannot be empirically refuted, but so can indeterministic ones as well.”

Neither has it been proven or disproven as we don't have the means. As for your last paragraph, you never said anything remotely linked to quantum movement or air turbulence detection (again unless you edited your posts). But I'll say it again, Lying is a suit that doesn't fit anyone. Did I ever name call you? I don't remember doing it, and I can't find it. Sorry if I did. You may be some things but you didn't deserve a name applied to you. I said some moderators, and it was implied towards you but never directly called you by it. Except explicity in the first line because of your continual lying.

I never thanked you for calling me pedantic. I really do take it as a compliment. As I'm sure you don't mind me stating that your ideas and beliefs are pretentious to the extreme.

Indeed, in my first post, after mentioning how processor manufacturers are incorporating RNG into the hardware (this was refering to things like Intel's RNG on the 810 chipset), I went on to mention how operating systems were integrating support for them into the OS (this was refering to things like Linux's /dev/random). For some reason, you fixated on the second point while ignoring the first, then when I pointed out the first, claimed I was lying about ever having said to to begin with. I'm not lying, never was. Go back and reread, more carefully this time.

Indeed. No scientific theory is ever proven. That doesn't negate the fact that some theories are better supported than others, as I pointed out last time.

Is this an utterly pointless statement, or is it a direct contradiction to your next one:

I haven't lied once, in this thread or on these fora.

I don't doubt it, I'm frequently quite pedantic myself, and don't mind it being pointed out when I am. However, in my first post, where I used that word, it should be pointed out that I was merely agreeing with the previous post that said your point was pedantic. My point of contention was what came after the "in addition to being..." part.

Be my guest. I have no problem with that. I do find it humorous, however, that my ideas are deemed pretentious simply because they contradict yours, and that I'm no less firm in my support in them than you are in yours. I didn't call you a pretentious know-it-all when you didn't agree with my points where I (in my belief) demonstrated what you were saying is false, but for some reason you assume when you do the same and I don't agree, I'm simply refusing to admit something rather than simply disagreeing with you. With all due respect, I believe you're being a great deal more of a pretentious know-it-all than I. I'm willing to accept that people genuinely don't agree with me, rather than insist they must be refusing to admit their wrong when they don't. THAT is the height of pretentiousness.

Henchies definitely get their cut, true story:

Player1: Oh cool a chest
Player1: WTF? It's empty
Player1: Now it says it's already opened, I'm submitting a bug
Me: a henchmen must have got it
Player1: what?
Me: the henchmen, they get drops too
Player1: what are you talking about?
Me: The henchmen, they get a cut of the loot there was something in there but the henchmen got it
Player1: That's stupid why do they need loot

I thought it was pretty funny...

Tired of arguing with you.

Many means more than one.
Recent AMD and Intel motherboards DON'T have them. Only on specific applications for security. So I don't have one on mine... at leat not the RNG of quantum movement as this is what your referring to. Or now not? Or now am? Or wait, what are you referring to? All I see is entropy.

Your right I expected you to admit your wrong. Guess I was expecting too much. I admit when I'm wrong, you defend yourself but do not point out any of these fallacies you claim I make. You can't seem to find them I guess. You win.

"Don't argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" -- Or wait you out with patience and circular statements.

A person actually recommended me to this forum for answers, guess he meant don't participate in them. As there are people who argue when they're wrong and say they'll admit it when they never do. He did have troubles with the staff though so I never believed him, I now know where the troubles came from.

I don't expect you to "admit" that you're wrong when you clearly believe you are right. You started out by saying "there is no random in computers." This is a false statement, but given that you mistakenly believe it is true, it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to "admit" you were wrong. To expect that, I would have to be insisting you're being dishonest. Whether you've used the word or not, you've been calling me a liar from the begining. Are your really so full of yourself that you honestly can't believe someone would honestly disagree with you? That if someone disagrees, they must be being dishonest?

I've pointed them out in each and every post, from the very first.

You're free to participate in them, just don't expect other people to squelch themselves merely because they disagree with you. Why you are acting as if I somehow have less right to defend my viewpoint than you do to defend yours? Because I'm a mod, I'm supposed to let BS pass under my nose without comment? Sorry, not gonna happen. Although I never refer to it as "BS", at least not from the get-go, as you did to me (while adding an ad hominem "as usual" to the mix). You went out of your way to provoke me from the get-go, and then wonder why someone who acts that way might "have a problem with the staff"? And what, precisely, is the problem, other than that I've disagreed with you?

I can see why you might be having problems, though -- someone has already reported one of your name-calling posts (in a completely different thread) to the moderators. They did this before this discussion even began. So let's not pretend your problem with moderation has anything to do with me.

I say this lovingly...

Some of you guys need to put the Doritos away, peel off your black t-shirts, take a shower, apply liberal deoderant and go get yourselves laid.