Gambling...does the Act # matter ?

[Junts]

I've been reading this forum even though I mostly play on bnet (my only SP char is approximatley level 40) because I find Hrus's guides and the mfinding techniques used here to be far more informative.

The more I read, the less I really feel like I'd want to be a regular part of this forum. The post that started this thread was not offensive. When I started playing D2, and the first Diablo for that matter, someone new in the glow of their first great find was something I - and everyone around me, when it was me - treated very well.

This forum's full of paranoid threads in which people talk about deleting their entire set of characters because its POSSIBLE, though not proven and not even that likely, that a potential cheater who had an item for about a week might have cheated with it and therefore everything the player who recieved it has to be destroy..wait a minute.

Far be it for me, who has literally twenty thousand hours on online games over the last decade, to say this, but is it possible some people here take the game - and themselves - a little too seriously? "Wow man, you just found one of the rarest, coolest items in the game, grats .. by the way, can you show us that little thing? Its such a rare item we'd like to record it for posterity" .. man, wouldn't that have accomplished the same thing and gone a long way?

I'm pretty sure that if I ever start playing my SP characters more than my bnet ones, I will be reading this forum and not posting in it. New people aren't really remotely welcome here.

To say nothing of good luck, bad friends, or simply not understanding the game very well. Apparently to take part in the SPF you need to not only play single player Diablo2 - you need to know as much about it as Hrus does.

 

[Llathias]

I really don't see a point in accusing the original poster. Why would he hack those items and come here to tell it? Bragging is not an answer, for his lack of knowledge/experience of D2 is obvious, hence I have doubt that he'd brag about how he managed to find the oh-so-rare Griffon's. He said he gambled it because it looked shiny! :shocked: Trying to trade is definitely not the case. Drawing attention is also not logical, for if he's been here long enough to want attention from other members, he'd know that such a thread would get him flamed. Then why the heck are you flaming him?

That said, I personally don't believe that the Griffon's is legit. Not because it's very unlikely to roll an upgraded unique in gambling, but because it's impossible with the ilvls and clvls involved. And also because there were no justifying info from game pros like RTB, Thrugg etc. However, neither do I think the original poster is a malicious cheater. Intentionally or unknowingly, he might have installed a mod, which is his own business by the way, which might be the cause of such results. Even if that is the case, pointing out that it's an impossible find, suggesting a reinstall or explaining why he should play legit (if the mod was intentionally installed) would be the right thing to do.

domac has a very good point. We keep saying "what you do on your own computer is your own business" then offend people who are neither trying to interact nor bragging about the shadowy accomplishments. If, in the future, he wants to trade, don't trade with him. But don't accuse and flame him because of what has happened in his own computer, which is not clear to begin with.

To give an example, FrostBurn recently claimed to have found double durability rare monarchs from Hell Meph. I truly believe he is a legit and respected member of the community, like most of you do. The facts were pointed out and he realized that it might in fact have been double durability magical monarchs. Although having very similar signs, lying and being confused are two very different things.

Edit1: So the first EU my barbarian found (3rd EU in total) was a WF. Does that make me a cheater?

Edit2: I remember being caps for ilvls in Normal difficulty.

 

[RTB]

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".

Ever since the with-hunts started those rules have died. And honestly, I'm kind of annoyed at the generalisation, because not the entire SPF is like that. Let AE be the one to set us 'all' straight.

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'll say this: The odds of such data corruption to happen is very very rare, I can remember two items in my entire time at the SPF getting corrupted in this way. And this Griffon's Eye is not one of them, because of the Ilvl. AFAICT it was found from a normal monster in one of the area_lvl 85 lvls, which is still quite a nice rare drop I must say.

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.

You should read more carefully. The graphic of a Diadem is never shown in the gambling screen, only the normal version of it which is the Coronet.

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.

As mentioned above, that's called data corruption if a value changes without it being changed by code. Your theory makes no sense really, a hidden Ilvl bonus? Blizz would call that a feature, because Ilvl isn't visible in-game anyway.

 

[Junts]

And that is to say nothing of the very valid possibility the item was found elsewhere.

Also - I think it would be very interesting to see what happens when someone gambles a set of modifiers (via diadem/tiaras) that are not only higher level than they, but have a significantly higher level requirement (IE, a level 70 char gambles at +5 on a diadem, netting level 93 affixes which make the required level 87). In that situation, does the item in question recieve an ilevel equal to the char level, even though an item of that ilevel should not possibly be able to spawn the mods in question - or does it acquire the minimum possible ilevel required to spawn those mods? The second makes a certain degree of sense, and would explain the Griffon's Eye - instantly.

In fact the more I think about it, the more it seems completely necessary - since gambling is just a randomly generated magical/rare item, in the cases of these coronets, tiaras and diadems, if it was creating an ilevel 80 item, it would not be able to recieve the required ilevel bonuses.

Also, Coronets and Circlets, having very small bonuses, would very easily conceal themselves within the gamble range. Only Tiaras and Diadems, and only some which land very high level modifiers (like a low level gambling up to 90 with a diadem and getting +2 skills) could manifest this phenomenon.

 

[jiansonz]

if it was creating an ilevel 80 item, it would not be able to recieve the required ilevel bonuses.

Diadems have qlvl=85, which means that they are impossible to gamble with a lower clvl than 81. You can not gamble items with a higher qlvl than the maximum ilvl possible for the gambling character.

Circlets have qlvl=24. That´s why you start seeing them in the gambling window when the character reaches clvl 20. They will be rare by then, but they do happen. They never show up in the gambling window at clvl 19. Diadems should work the same way.

 

[Flayed One]

Ever since the with-hunts started those rules have died. And honestly, I'm kind of annoyed at the generalisation, because not the entire SPF is like that.

I belive by "you all" he meant persons that attacked original poster(that;s how I understood it), so I don't think you being annoyed is justyfied, although if he meant whole SPF then that part of his post might be really found offending. But you've got to admit that he's got a point with "do not abuse other members" rule.

As mentioned above, that's called data corruption if a value changes without it being changed by code. Your theory makes no sense really, a hidden Ilvl bonus? Blizz would call that a feature, because Ilvl isn't visible in-game anyway.

Blizz made many stupid things in the game, besides Im not saying that's the case, and I'm also not implying that case would make any sense. Im simply saying that it's possible, and untill someone dig into the code deep enough to prove that there's no other mechanisms then -5/+4 rule, I'm still gonna defend my point. I can even state that there may be a small chance of gambling... let's say... a SOJ when gambling hats, and you cannot be 100% sure it's not true before you check it.... ok, I exaggerated a bit :tongue: , but I belive you understand my point. Personnaly I belive he found it and have mistakened it for something he gambled. The second most probable version in my oppinion is what Junts described in his post.

 

[Belgarion]

Has anyone who accussed the creator of this thread ever taken into account the possibility of a bug in the game ?

I know it sounds impossible to some of you that all the fine mathematic for MFing and Gambling might not be 100% watertight, but from my personal experience as a programmer I know for sure that it is impossible to have a programm of this size without bugs. Only the intervall in which they influence the program can be very small.

This and the wonderful thing called statistics make it possible to gamble such an item. Unlikely as it might seems.

 

[RTB]

But you've got to admit that he's got a point with "do not abuse other members" rule.

Both rules are supposed to be in effect, but nowadays that's just not happening.

Blizz made many stupid things in the game, besides Im not saying that's the case, and I'm also not implying that case would make any sense. Im simply saying that it's possible, and untill someone dig into the code deep enough to prove that there's no other mechanisms then -5/+4 rule, I'm still gonna defend my point. I can even state that there may be a small chance of gambling... let's say... a SOJ when gambling hats, and you cannot be 100% sure it's not true before you check it.... ok, I exaggerated a bit :tongue: , but I belive you understand my point. Personnaly I belive he found it and have mistakened it for something he gambled. The second most probable version in my oppinion is what Junts described in his post.

Tell me about... some bugs in the game have been there since 1.0. The code for gambling has indeed been checked, and there are no such mechanisms AFAIK. In theory, a SoJ from gambling anything except rings is possible, but there'll be time machines before that's going to happen. Junts' example refers to magic_lvl, which has an effect on affixes only. Diadems can get any affix (that may spawn on circlets of course) no matter the original Ilvl, because if the Qlvl is lower than the Ilvl it replaces it in the max Alvl calcs, and then the magic_lvl is added to it.

 

[Flayed One]

Tell me about... some bugs in the game have been there since 1.0. The code for gambling has indeed been checked, and there are no such mechanisms AFAIK. In theory, a SoJ from gambling anything except rings is possible, but there'll be time machines before that's going to happen. Junts' example refers to magic_lvl, which has an effect on affixes only. Diadems can get any affix (that may spawn on circlets of course) no matter the original Ilvl, because if the Qlvl is lower than the Ilvl it replaces it in the max Alvl calcs, and then the magic_lvl is added to it.

One of such "stupid features" to me is the ability to upgrade normal/exeptional versions to a phase blade without them ceasing to be etheral. If you say that gambling code have been checked, and there is no other mechanisms, then I have to take your word for it.

To be honest I have a feeling that you're avoiding the point I've really been trying to defend.Are you trying to prove me wrong(no sarcasm), or just to clear up false statements about gambling?(its really an honest question. It may sound sarcastic, but it's just because english isn't my first language)

After checking some formulas you're 100% right about junt's example. But my point stands still.It's a) possible he gambled it(thou very less likely), b) possible he found it and is mistaken (more likely). Of course there is c) he tries to cheat us, but I still belive reactions shouldn't be so hostile, as long as it haven't been proven he cheats, and supposedly shouldn't be even if it would be proved. There are more civilised ways of trying to retain forums legitimacy.

 

[Shagsbeard]

The "maybe there's a bug" people don't understand statistics. If there was a bug that allowed us to get this item in the manner described, we would have gotten it long ago... many times. Diadems and amulets are the most frequently gambled items and we'd have seen a bunch of Griffen's Eyes gambled by lower level people if such a thing were possible.

There's not even convincing evidence that such an even has ever happened in the history of the game, nor evidence that it's even possible. You might as well argue that God thought this guy deserved a Griffin's Eye and bestowed it upon him in all his grace. It would be just as convincing as "maybe it was a bug".

My estimates of the probabilities at hand have the front runner on this guy mistakenly thinking he had gambled something that he got in the Mausoleum or pits... probably the Mausoleum. Second to this is that he's one of those guys who just has to claim stuff in order to feel like he's part of the group. There's lots of those about.

I do find it odd that people are claiming "witch hunt". This really doesn't have the characteristics of some of our classic witch hunts in the past. We're really not calling this guy a liar, merely pointing out that it's very likely he's mistaken. Our witch hunting skills are more honed than most forums and perhaps this could look like a hunt, but it really isn't.

 

[Vang]

Diadems have qlvl=85, which means that they are impossible to gamble with a lower clvl than 81. You can not gamble items with a higher qlvl than the maximum ilvl possible for the gambling character.

Then the easiest way to prove/disprove this is a legit item is to gamble in the early 70's and gamble coronets. When one person gets a Diadem, its proven, when we blow 8billion gold and no one gets one, its disproved. I'm almost positive I've gambled diadems before 80 multiple times.

 

[FlimFlan]

Is it possible that the a diadem with a lower ilvl was rolled and then by chance it became the unique, even though he technically wasn't high enough level for it? Or would this have just produced a failed unique since he was not high enough level. I do not understand the mechanics of gambling, so I am just throwing it out there. I checked my Stormlash (posted the stats in one of the item find threads) and the ilvl is 94 which is in the range since I gambled with my level 97 Barb.

 

[mwints]

Second to this is that he's one of those guys who just has to claim stuff in order to feel like he's part of the group. There's lots of those about.

For some, the rewarding part of this game is finding the higher end items. Some have played this game for years and never found an IKSC, Tal's Armor, Stone of Jordan, HOZ, Titan's, etc. I would think one who has spent numerous hours running Pindle and Meph should be excited to see those items drop. I would also think this would be the place to share that excitement. Isn't sharing common interests (D2, character builds, items) and goals being part of the group of this forum?

 

[jiansonz]

It´s a good idea to keep track of the ilvls of the Coronet class items we gamble, for a while now. Maybe there is something going on that we don´t know about?

Gambled Diadems with a character less than level 81 or Tiaras with a character less than 66 is what´s interesting here.

 

[Flayed One]

The "maybe there's a bug" people don't understand statistics. If there was a bug that allowed us to get this item in the manner described, we would have gotten it long ago... many times. Diadems and amulets are the most frequently gambled items and we'd have seen a bunch of Griffen's Eyes gambled by lower level people if such a thing were possible.

With all due respect, it's you who don't understand statistics. If there's something like 0,00000001% chance for gambling griffons with a 74 lvl character would you dare to say "we would have gotten it long ago... many times"? really? with 10 000 000 000 gambles you would only have 50% chance to actually gamble it, and with no matter how many tries, you couldn't be 100% sure you would do it.(no offense intended. If it sounds aggresive it isn't meant to)

I do find it odd that people are claiming "witch hunt". This really doesn't have the characteristics of some of our classic witch hunts in the past. We're really not calling this guy a liar, merely pointing out that it's very likely he's mistaken. Our witch hunting skills are more honed than most forums and perhaps this could look like a hunt, but it really isn't.

That's a good one, and you're probably right. :wink3:
It also makes me shiver when I imagine what would happen if someone triggers such a "real witch hunt".:tongue:

 

[RTB]

To be honest I have a feeling that you're avoiding the point I've really been trying to defend.Are you trying to prove me wrong(no sarcasm), or just to clear up false statements about gambling?(its really an honest question. It may sound sarcastic, but it's just because english isn't my first language)

A bit of both, it's possible in theory, but you just won't see it happen. Like I said, I don't believe that item's gambled. btw, in the above post you underestimate the chance for it to happen. I know it happens much less often than that.

Vang: That proves nothing. I don't remember if the rule Ilvl >= Qlvl is still in effect for the base itemtype , but if the difference between the Clvl of the gambler and the Qlvl is bigger than 7 it's impossible to get a Diadem anyway.

FlimFlan: Failed unique then.

 

[kabal]

Would anyone be willing to say "it might be a bug" if the original poster claimed to have found a Zod off of Meph?

 

[Flayed One]

Would anyone be willing to say "it might be a bug" if the original poster claimed to have found a Zod off of Meph?

would anyone be willing to say "I don't belive you gambled this" if the original poster claimed he gambled tireless(alvl 14) boots at lvl 8?

 

[kabal]

would anyone be willing to say "I don't belive you gambled this" if the original poster claimed he gambled tireless(alvl 14) boots at lvl 8?

Yes.

10 chars.

 

[Shagsbeard]

So what you're trying to tell me is that there is a .00000001% chance that you can gamble a griffin's eye, but the chance that this guy is mistaken is somehow less? Even if there was a 1% chance this guy was mistaken, that's ten million times more likely. The good money is on the "mistake" proposition. Before you comment on my knowledge of statistics... do your homework. Have it graded.