Gambling...does the Act # matter ?

[Shagsbeard]

It's an axiom of scientific thought that "extreem claims require extreem proof". Since you really can't prove anything in this game, making claims like having gambled these three uniques when the combined forces of all of us gambling over the years yet to have found one is going to draw fire. You have to understand that you might know in your heart that you did this. You're sure of it. It happened. To us though, it's hundred's of thousands of times more likely that you are just another guy with some outrageous claim. We don't know why they do it, but they do. It's just far more likely that you are making this up than you actually did this.

Note that you probably did. I see no evidence to suspect that you didn't. But the good money is on the side of you making this up... it's just that rare for this to have happened. Don't take it personally, since it has nothing to do with you, or your post count, or what ever. It's just simple probablity. It's not something to get mad at, or hurt over.

Making outrageous claims on this forum always draws fire... you're one in many that have provoked this reaction.

Moral: If you find a Zod tonight... keep it to yourself.

 

[Peppe]

Hmm not so astronomical?

From the arreat summit:

Can I tell if an item will be Exceptional or Elite by its appearance on the Gambling screen?
No. For Circlets you can. Upgrading is done before identifying, and when it happens to a Circlet it is shown as a Coronet in the gambling screen. Therefore when gambling Circlets, they will never upgrade to Tiaras/Diadems.

http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/basics/gambling.shtml

Read carefully... you can gamble only diadams and have a 1/2000 of getting the griffon's eye since you don't have to gamble circlets/corenets it can cost less money than you think to gamble one (upgrading is done before you buy it). So if you don't see diadam no need to buy.

Now 3 uniques is quite lucky. My best is two, gambling only rings and ammys with a fully loaded lvl 80 something, so about 2.5 million. One was indeed the same seraphs ammy and another a ring. Back on battle.net i gamble a stone of jordon in 1.10. And have gambled a raven frost recently. Now i do have a gheeds charm and that bow that lowers prices, so i can process a lot of jewelry per million.

 

[Paradiso]

I've seen this kind of dialogue happen a lot on this board and I can certainly understand the reasons for keeping the SPF legit. However omegamann has now become disinterested in this forum and the game in general, simply because he announced a find that he did not even know was rare.

Many times, when a new poster makes a thread about an unlikely find, they are attacked rather viciously by posters who want to maintain the board's integrity. However many of these new posters express no intention of trading or otherwise interacting in game with other forumites. They simply want to be a part of the community.

It would be nice if new posters could be encouraged to participate in these forums, without the fear of being discredited by posting about their luck. Even if there is a chance of foul play, if your own legitamacy is not threatened, can some of the harsher posters take it easy and give the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Cormallon]

Maybe some of you could apologize to him since it appears he was just astronomically lucky?

I'm sorry, but right now : no. Gambling these three items with the same char (same character level) just is not possible. The item levels differ too much.

And even if it were possible, about 20 tries and 3 uniques (not just one griffons) is still unbelievable (didn't calculate the chances, but they are very very small), at least without some mod being involved. I don't say it is intentional, perhaps something got installed without him knowing exactly what it does...

 

[Tracul]

I guess only Frostburn saw through the ATMA readings. Guys, his clvl is (according to him) LESS THAN 76 (which is rlvl for Griffons). The ilvl for the Griffons is 85. How in the WORLD can a clvl 76 gamble for an item ilvl85? Difference of levels is +9.
Hrus also made a point. Griffons qlvl is 86, meaning anything less than 86 = failed unique.
I prolly have revealed too much already.

 

[bill_n_opus1]

omegamann, if you got that lucky then good for you.

Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to post what you did - but that's water under the bridge now.

Please understand that many members of the SPF play legit and it's rather difficult to find items like a Griffon's much less gamble them. So, you can understand how some members can be ... suspicious or defensive of such claims.

Having said this, i've gambled a Kira's Guardian, Ravenfrost, Metagrid etc ... over the many years of gambling and D2. It does happen. Currently my ATMA Bank is ~ 22 million and counting for another mass gambling spree. Hopefully I can have good luck like you did. So to speak.

 

[Cenerae]

onegameman: Are you positively *certain* you gambled that griffon's eye? Ilvl 85 would suggest it was dropped (in the pits? I believe everything is ilvl 85 there?) rather than gambled...

I would also suggest you ignore the naysayers if you know that you are legit. If you aren't, then it is a good time to come clean, but otherwise, just ignore the negativity. Not everyone in this thread has been jumping down your throat about it, please realise.

Oh and for the record I do quite envy your luck: I must have spent about 10 million gold gambling amulets, and I've had nada. Never gambled a set or unique, ever. And I am informed that I need to get my blizz sorc up a few levels before continuing to gamble for a mara's. One can dream :grin:

 

[FrostBurn]

I've seen this kind of dialogue happen a lot on this board and I can certainly understand the reasons for keeping the SPF legit. However omegamann has now become disinterested in this forum and the game in general, simply because he announced a find that he did not even know was rare.

Many times, when a new poster makes a thread about an unlikely find, they are attacked rather viciously by posters who want to maintain the board's integrity. However many of these new posters express no intention of trading or otherwise interacting in game with other forumites. They simply want to be a part of the community.

It would be nice if new posters could be encouraged to participate in these forums, without the fear of being discredited by posting about their luck. Even if there is a chance of foul play, if your own legitamacy is not threatened, can some of the harsher posters take it easy and give the benefit of the doubt?

I could not have phrased it better myself.

There is a saying that goes something like 'Ignorance of the Law is not an excuse'. Imo, when it comes to the finer details, ignorance of the law is an excuse. One cannot expect people to understand and be aware of every last clause in the rulebook. Even lawyers do not fully grasp the intricacies of the law.

Similarly, one cannot expect people who are unfamiliar with the game to be aware of the repercussions of posting about quite such an unlikely find. Now that it has been done, it would be better to try to work out how such a find could occur, as opposed to an instant torrent of disbelief.

Is it innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent?

Is it better to give the benefit of the doubt, or to doubt without benefit?

If this is baptism by fire, then the lesson has surely been learnt... but to whose benefit?

 

[crazy_bear]

onegameman: Are you positively *certain* you gambled that griffon's eye? Ilvl 85 would suggest it was dropped (in the pits? I believe everything is ilvl 85 there?) rather than gambled...

This seems more likely to me as well (or maybe the mausoleum, but would it have to be a drop from a normal monster in either of these areas because of the bosses having higher lvl?)

To check the item levels I did a test with a lvl 86 sorc that was carrying about 2.5 million gold. She was able to gamble 14 coronets with that amount. Of these, 2 were upgraded to tiaras, none to diadems, and 2 were rare (neither of the upgraded ones) But most importantly the item lvls ranges from 81 to 90, exactly as expected from gambling rules. One of the tiaras was ilvl 81. This simply confirms that there is no hidden ilvl bonus in gamblng for circlets, and that the upgrade doesn't affect the ilvl.

So back to the original point, are you sure you didn't find that somewhere else?

 

[FrostBurn]

To check the item levels I did a test with a lvl 86 sorc that was carrying about 2.5 million gold. She was able to gamble 14 coronets with that amount. Of these, 2 were upgraded to tiaras, none to diadems, and 2 were rare (neither of the upgraded ones) But most importantly the item lvls ranges from 81 to 90, exactly as expected from gambling rules. One of the tiaras was ilvl 81. This simply confirms that there is no hidden ilvl bonus in gamblng for circlets, and that the upgrade doesn't affect the ilvl.

An excellent test! If all the 14 items ranged from ilvl 81-90 for your clvl 86 sorc, then it strongly supports that rule of -5 to +4 of char level, and also indicates that there is no separate method of item generation for circlet-class helms.

Given that the Griffon's is ilvl 85, it then becomes probable that it dropped in the Pits or the Mausoleum (well reasoned, Cenerae).

 

[crazy_bear]

...
Similarly, one cannot expect people who are unfamiliar with the game to be aware of the repercussions of posting about quite such an unlikely find. Now that it has been done, it would be better to try to work out how such a find could occur, as opposed to an instant torrent of disbelief.

Is it innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent?

Is it better to give the benefit of the doubt, or to doubt without benefit?

If this is baptism by fire, then the lesson has surely been learnt... but to whose benefit?

While I mostly agree with you I think you have to distinguish between unlikely and impossible. With the prodding from here I hope that he would have remembered if he actually found it somewhere else.

That said, I think our forum members can become somewhat overzealous. A guy that duped a griffon's eye wouldn't be bragging about his impaler for his merc. If people had paid as much attention to the rest of his post as the probabilities involved, they would have thought there was something else going on.

Anyway, Peace.
CB

 

[FrostBurn]

While I mostly agree with you I think you have to distinguish between unlikely and impossible.

Categorically ruling it as either unlikely or impossible is not my task, for I have neither the expertise nor the knowledge to do so. The best I can do is lay out the facts, and leave it to brighter sparks to 'get to the bottom of it'.

But to me, it just does not seem to mesh. If someone truly duped a Griffon's, why throw in The Impaler and Seraph's Hymn? Why interact in the forums in the past few weeks, and then PM with me with what seems to be completely innocuous questions, and then throw a wobbly like this?

The guy has twin boys, a family and an occupation. Unless he's a serious mental (which I seriously doubt), I do not think he would waste his time, and ours, by duping a Griffon's and then bragging about it here.

 

[Jude]

If he's telling the truth, he has no way to prove it, and it's awful to be accused of lying with no way to prove otherwise.

I know this because on the Off Topic and Community forums, there is an idiot who has decided that anyone who claims to be female is really a male pretending. So whenever is any woman who posts for whatever reason in any thread there, he jumps into the thread and starts flaming them, but in such a way that he hasn't been banned. It has gotten to the point that I am avoiding those forums because I find him so insulting to me and other women. There was one thread where a woman wrote for advice about being harassed by someone in person because of an internet discussion, and he kept interrupting saying that she wasn't a woman and referring to her as "he" which, IMHO, just added to her distress about being harassed by people she interacts with on the internet. Yes, it is unlikely to find women on gaming forums, but that is often because of the treatment they receive from some of the guys! Why would they hang around a place where they are treated badly and/or harassed for being female?

I don't see why people have to go to extreme lengths to prove they are not lying about something or else get called a liar or treated as one. I've always taken people on what they choose to tell me, unless I've seen evidence to the contrary, and even then, I ask them rather than accuse them. Maybe that makes me gullible (okay, it does), but it also causes much less harm in most cases.

Now, I'm not an expert on the statistics and mechanics of this game, and from what some of you have said, it may be impossible for him to have gotten this item while gambling, but from what others have said, there is a chance that it could have been possible, based on some glitch with diadems, I guess. So, given that it may have been possible, shouldn't your queries have been more polite?

Jude

 

[kabal]

Whether the Griffon's is legit or not, there shouldn't be any doubt that it wasn't legitly gambled by a level 70 something character.

And lastly I had never seen the graphic on the last item so I took a chance and got a "Griffon's Eye Diadem" with +25% FCR and + 1 to skills and some lightning stuff. The D2 page has this item listed as "Ladder only" but I got it in single player mode.

This bolded sentence leads me to believe that he didn't just find the Griffon's in the Pit/Mausoleum and accidentally lumped it together with the rest of his gambled items.

 

[Flayed One]

Whether the Griffon's is legit or not, there shouldn't be any doubt that it wasn't legitly gambled by a level 70 something character.

You can never be sure about it not being gambled. The game is a) buggy b) we don't know gambling mechanism well enough to be confident about it. We can only say it's "very unlikely". To me it's 100% possible (Im not saying thats the case. Just stating that it's possible) that some in game mechanism, or a bug, let's you gamble griffons with less then 81 clvl, and sets it's ilvl to 85. There might not be any ilvl bonus to coronets, but still it's unproved that there is no such thing for diadems. Even more, the bonus may be hidded - if an item doesn't need it, it will keep it's original clvl -5/+4 ilvl, but when it needs higher ilvl to spawn, then it's fixed at 85. There are so many probabilities that I find statement "it cannot be gambled by 70 something character" much less likely to be true than it's contradiction.

 

[Cormallon]

The ilvl as a starting point for every drop or gamble result is very well known and analyzed. Ilvl is where every such process starts. The ilvl then determines which base item types are possible, and in case of sets / uniques which specific item can drop (important when the set / unique qlvl is higher than the base item type qlvl).

Only in case of magic / rare items, the combination of ilvl, qlvl and magic bonus determines which affixes are possible, here are the circlet / coronet / diadem bonuses. Although bugs are possible, in this case it adds to the unlikelyness of this item being gambled: now he not only has found 3 uniques in about 20 gambles, but in addition has found a bug that nobody has seen before.

 

[jjscud]

You can never be sure about it not being gambled. The game is a) buggy b) we don't know gambling mechanism well enough to be confident about it. We can only say it's "very unlikely". To me it's 100% possible (Im not saying thats the case. Just stating that it's possible) that some in game mechanism, or a bug, let's you gamble griffons with less then 81 clvl, and sets it's ilvl to 85. There might not be any ilvl bonus to coronets, but still it's unproved that there is no such thing for diadems. Even more, the bonus may be hidded - if an item doesn't need it, it will keep it's original clvl -5/+4 ilvl, but when it needs higher ilvl to spawn, then it's fixed at 85. There are so many probabilities that I find statement "it cannot be gambled by 70 something character" much less likely to be true than it's contradiction.

While I personally think this guy is honestly mistaken rathing than trying to pull a fast one, The forum can't operate on this principal.

If something doesn't mesh with well know and documented mechanics (like ilvl = +4/-5 when gambling) the forum as a whole is better off rejecting it then simply assuming a bug is at fault. Its just not reasonable to expect the forum to assume some bug or glitch is at fault when something otherwise impossible happens.

 

[grogs1]

You can never be sure about it not being gambled.

I'd say thay you can be very confident that it's not possible given RTB's post a couple of pages back....

...the point is that the minimum Ilvl for Griffon's Eye is 84, which he can't possibly reach as a Clvl 74 character....

 

[domac]

This thread makes me very very sad. A person came to the forum asking a question, and you guys immideately attack him. It's discusting and wrong.

Use some logic for God's sake! If he used a mod (on purpose) would he come to ask how gambling worked ??? I imagine he would know that mod gave him these items or why would he install that mod in the first place.?

With the first link the chain is forged. First time someone comes with a rare (impossible) find - there's your excuse for the witch-hunt and acquisations! I hear all of you tall one thing - "what you do on your computer is your business." And you all just ignore that rule. And this one too: "Don't abuse other members".

You say you do it for the sake of legitness, well I didn't see that he offered those items for trade!!! Blah blah blah... if you wanna find out what you all should have done, read on:


If it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to get such things by gambling, you should warn him that he may have some drop or gamble mod on his computer, HELP HIM to identify and remove it. That's humane thing to do: help others if they need it.

But if you're too immature to do that the very last thing you should have done is PROVE that it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to gamble that item. PROVE means by facts and not probabilities. And by IMPOSSIBLE I mean... IMPOSSIBLE, whether due to a bug in the code of the game or by clvl or whatever. If it happened due to a bug it's POSSIBLE.

I hope we all (you) learned something and that we (you) are a bit wiser. I bid you a good day.

 

[Flayed One]

I'd say thay you can be very confident that it's not possible given RTB's post a couple of pages back....

I'm not implying you cannot be confident. Im simply implying, that the game is so complicated you can never be sure. And while I 100% agree with jjscud's oppinion on wheter a comunity can operate using "it couldn't happen, so it must have been a bug" rule, I say that untill someone get's deeper in mechanics of gambling diadems, you guys shouldn't be so agressive towards a person simply asking a few questions. Showing distrust, and being hostile combined with saying "it can't be, you must lie!" are two different things, especially before proving him to cheat, and I belive they're quite often mistaken here.

Answers to original questions:
I belive it act doesn't matter when gambling.
You can find info about open wounds here: http://www.purediablo.com/guides/news.php?id=551


-edit- great post domac. Especially "I hear all of you tall one thing - "what you do on your computer is your business." And you all just ignore that rule. And this one too: "Don't abuse other members"." part.