Talk:Luck

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Fitting[edit]

Here's a google spreadsheet for the table. Can also do some concats to copypaste it here.--Relyk ~ talk < 08:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it Olemann89 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My mathematical knowledge isn't up to task, but would anyone be able to calculate the formula that's being used for luck, based on the data we've collected so far? Greyf0x (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your math are wrong. I currently have +35 MF and I need 290 points to raise to +36 The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.21.137.121 (talkcontribs).
You have +35MF, 31 of them from luck and 4 from achievements, am I wrong? MalGalad 11:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, you're right. Sorry.
Luck required = L
MF boost = m
L = 0.0023m3 + 0.1923m2 - 2.3327m + 107.74 (R2 = 1)
MS Excel ftw. MalGalad 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Malgalad, your curve has quite a large overshoot! Why don't you just fit an exponential? --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest two thing:
  1. Scale the y-axis to a logarithmic scale. If the curve becomes a line. We know it is an exponetial progression.
  2. If the curve isn't a line jet scale also the x-axis logathmic. If it is a line now, the progression is polynomal and the power is equal to the gradient.
  3. If it isn't a line jet, it is something wired. So try what comes to your mind, but always do step 1 and 2 before 3.
In short make sure to know which model to apply than fit everything. - Yandere Talk to me... 11:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
y = 0.0004x⁴ + 0.1058x³ - 4.5444x² + 212.3x - 593.19, R² = 1, total luck needed @ 300 is approx 5.88million, used 1-215 data Olemann89 (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent data, it seems to become linear after 30000per level is reached. Can anyone confirm that these are the actual numbers? Because then calculating the rest should be child's play. Olemann89 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Does luck overflow?[edit]

If you use an essence of luck (legendary, 500 luck), does that give you 5 points, or just 1? Daddicus (talk)

Yes, it gives 500 luck and however many bars 500 luck would fill.--Relyk ~ talk < 04:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How to read the table[edit]

How is the data in the table meant to be read? Is it "If you are on rank x, you need y luck for the next rank" or "To reach rank x, you need y luck". I am asking because I think people used both methods here. The table starts with level 1, consequently the second method seems to be the rule, else the table needed to start with 0. However, my luck-MF is 62 at the moment and my bar shows 1,250 to the next rank, which matches the first reading method.

I think the first few data pairs of your table need to be shifted down by 1 level. The solution to the emerging gap is that there are two times 150 luck at level 18 and 19, so your sums are affected too. It got to my attention because I am participating in the German wiki, we had a data table too, and someone overwrote it by copypasting the data from here. --aRTy 09:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I originally had that and changed to avoid confusion with having an innate 1% MF bonus at level 0 or something. It probably screwed up the table for people adding to it.--Relyk ~ talk < 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If we'd have it the way it is now, with the "luck to get from this level to the next one", we would need to shift all the levels, because 300 isn't needed and 0 is missing, but I do think that "luck to get to that level" would make more sense anyway. Now, I wonder, is all the table shifted or did it change somewhere along the way? Do I understand it correctly that you need 150 luck to get from 18 to 19 as well as from 19 to 20? User Noxx Sig.png 10:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused with the table. I'm currently sitting at 101% Magic Find and I need 3,780 luck to reach 102. However on the table it states I need 4,290 which is incorrect? --Blipz (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hover on your account MF stat to see how much MF you have From Luck. Sounds like you have 4% From Achievements and your Luck MF is at 97%. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I see now, so there is a breakdown on where I got my MF stat from. So is it possible that I reach 300% MF by using luck and 304% because of the achievement? Or does it stays at 300% regardless if from Luck or Achievement? Just curious. --Blipz (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
304%, the achievement bonus has nothing to do with the luck bonus. I pushed the spreadsheet down one cell to address the 150 for level 18 and 19.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
300% is the cap for From Luck. The bonus From Achievements and character-specific buffs (food/banners) ignore this cap. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
MF and Luck.jpg
At 50%, to go to 51%, I need 760 luck. This 760 appears on the 50 line of the table. Meaning the table seems to be missing the very first line: getting from 0% to 1%, which requires 100 luck. (I've verified all the numbers before 760 up to 220 and they're correct, so the error is before the 220 luck line. Most probably just the very first line omitted as I mentioned.) (See screen capture) Of course this messes up the Cumulated Luck column as well. --Alad (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right, I'm at 61% and need 1200 to get to 62%, but the table has 1280 on 62. The table should work the same as the crafting experience tables. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The table shows the ammount of luck you need at 61% MF to get to 62% MF so at 61% you indeed need 1200 to get to 62% MF. keep in mind that the MF% is related only to the MF% you get from luck (so exclude your other account bonus MF like that what you got from achivement point) Also lv 0 is indeed missing, so it could be added and all the cummulative values should be upped with 100 then. However adding lv 0 would mess up the table and it is a lot of work to just correct a 100 luck difference. If anyone wants to fix it, be my guest. for now i will just leave a note about it under the table.
I have the entire table generated in wikicode on the spreadsheet now, on the "Table generation" tab, with it starting at 0.--Relyk ~ talk < 01:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies[edit]

I'm at 70% right now and it says the total for next % is 1450. That's way off of what the table says. Would it be possible to datamine the real numbers? Or at least we need some kind of drop rate style table to track this with lots of players. Sol Solus (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I have 4% account bonus. 1450 at 66% is accurate. However, analyzing in the data into Excel, I see other possible inaccuracies. Of concern is 59-60%, 122%, 151%, and 207%. My spreadsheet is here. Sol Solus (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
1110 instead of 1100 at 59% is correct. --aRTy 02:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, it's 11720 at 151. That once was correct here, but got wronged in the table shifting/data revision process (see topic above). That value is already corrected in the spreadsheet linked at the very top. --aRTy 02:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Now if 121% and 206% turned out to be 6640 and 26170 respectively, everything would line up nicely with how I hypothesize Anet's algorithm works. Sol Solus (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I can finally confirm that 121% is 6630, like the article states, and thus your pattern does not fit here. --aRTy 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Table doesn't match mine[edit]

My table (for my account) doesn't match this one at all. I started tracking it at 20%, and it was 120 luck needed at that point. How can it be so different?

  • % Luck Wiki
  • 20 120 160
  • 21 130 170
  • 22 140 180
  • 23 150 190
  • 24 160 200
  • 25 170 210
  • 26 180 220
  • 27 190 230
  • 28 200 250
  • 29 210 260
  • 30 220 270
  • 31 230 290
  • 32 250 310
  • 33 260 320
  • 34 270 340
  • 35 290 360
  • 36 310 380
  • 37 400
  • 38 340 420

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daddicus (talkcontribs).

You have 4% magic find from achievement points, the table is only about the magic find from luck. You can find out how much magic find comes from which effect when you hover over the magic find/luck bar area. --aRTy 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't get the +20% for accounts existing prior to the update[edit]

And would gladly be told how to / where to get it. Thanks 217.15.224.210 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is your account older than September 3rd, 2013? If not, you can't get it. --Ventriloquist 21:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It definitely is, been there from beta and stopped playing a few weeks after. Came back today, happens that the ingame mail isn't account-wide. Found them on my oldest character 217.15.224.210 21:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical Average of Luck achieved per Level 80 Character[edit]

Hypothesis: The average player in due course of leveling a character to level 80 will achieve less than 5% of the needed 4,295,450 luck needed to maximize the existing luck scale of 300%. Request: I would like to see a population bell curve of level 80 characters with relation to where on this scale of luck percentage they reside. Is there a bell curve to the results? does it look like a statistical curve should look? Background: I started GW 2 the day it went live. I leveled 1 character to level 80 before the luck mechanics were introduced. Since the time that luck was implemented in game, I have leveled two other characters to 80. Conclusions: Dividing the amount of luck achieved to date across the number of characters that have reached level 80 on my account the ASTOUNDING conclusion is that it will take me 48 total level 80 characters doing exactly as I have done historically, salvaging all (rare and below) loot for luck in order to achieve 4,295,450 luck points (300%). Given this evidence, a review of the severity of the luck scale is merited! Please post your historical experience below! Luck achieved per account, divided by the number of level 80 characters on the account (that 1. were created after luck was introduced 2. were not leveled to level 20 with scrolls), divided by 4295450 = percentage of possible luck earned per level 80 character. Mine is 180300/2 = 90150 / 4295450 = 2% The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkyarr (talkcontribs).

It's an intriguing idea to attempt to discover how much ambient luck players acquire. Unfortunately, I don't think it's trivial to compare results across accounts, because there are too many different ways to play the game.
  • Some people hardly ever salvage greens or blues.
  • For a brief period, it was profitable to salvage ecto and resell crystalline dust. Even now, market fluctuations create periods where it's close to break-even to acquire luck in this fashion. Similarly, there are periods of time when you can buy cloth armor and salvage it for profit (growing your MF all the while).
  • The type of game play you engage in affects the loot you get: map completion, dungeon speed clearing, following world bosses, and doing event chains all generate different amounts of blues/greens per hour.
In short, your mileage will vary.
Even if that weren't true, it's clear from the exponential curve of luck vs magic find that ANet always expected that most people would never max out their luck-based MF; it was always intended as a long term, but largely unobtainable goal. Put another way, the severity of the luck scale is precisely what they had in mind. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The variable game play styles and various methods for collecting loot for luck salvage are precisely why I am interested in other players comparative experience. By no means is it assumed that the best luck collection methods are in use, on my part or on others. This is why the hypothesis is 5% while my personal experience is 2%. If enough samples of the statistic were collected significant comparative observations could be made. The calculation for the stat expresses the variable aspects you mentioned and would be expected to reflect such variability. As for its triviality, it is both an expression of what has taken place historically and a comparative expression, due to it taking into account the kind of things you mentioned. What stat would you find to be more significant to the effort of assessing player success in participating in the luck acquisition process?
I find your observations about the luck system to be reasonable and in fact I arrived at the same deductions, however it is precisely these observations about the design that I posit are grounds for challenging the design intent and reforming it. 40 to 50 level 80 characters worth of item consumption per account is reasonable? Think about the sheer economic impact on the availability of goods! The article points out that 75% of the crafted items were sold to vendors, but what about the market for the other 25%? What do these mechanics look like now with the luck system in place? Has it created unmet demand by diminishing supply?
What would happen to the market if enough players opened their wallets and converted gems to gold and bought their way to 300%? Do you want everyone on this hamster wheel permanently or are the side effects too averse?
Theoretical impact aside, the luck system is a brash violation of Anet's theory of offering grind free mechanics in their game play. Its a gold sink, it depresses the market, its so perversely amp'd up that its ultimate benefits are unobtainable except for those players clinically obsessed with the game. Why not strive for a result at least slightly more attenuated towards a bell curve when taking historical performance under consideration? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkyarr (talkcontribs).
People don't level characters to 80 and then just abandon them - they keep playing on those 80s. An 80 will earn more luck than a character leveling up, because you get all tasks done faster (you're stronger) and have access to superior loot. Therefore, using "average luck per characters leveled to 80" is not a very useful or accurate statistic at all.
Vendoring is the last resort for loot. Almost every item in the game, it's more profitable either to salvage or to sell on the trading post. This is even true for basic rarity gear (white). If people are vendoring stuff, that's their own fault for not being smart with their finances.
No one would buy their way to 300% luck because it's meaningless. The sheer amount of money you would spend on that endeavor would take far too long to recoup in improved drops. This is because magic find itself is relatively unimportant. Magic find has the greatest effect for farmers - people who just run around killing monsters all day long. Most of the ways to play Guild Wars 2 do not harness the full potential of magic find.
Let's say you do dungeons - magic find barely helps you, because it has absolutely no impact on the loot you get from chests or champion bags, and that's the majority of the loot. Dungeons also don't involve slaying many foes, relative to the time spent in them; a typical run through Ascalon Catacombs p1 or p3 results in less than 50 foes slain, even including the optional Kholer encounter. Furthermore, many enemies in dungeons are of Elite (silver) rank. They are harder to kill, but don't have an improved chance to give better loot, which further slows down the process. Only champion and legendary foes are guaranteed to drop an item every time. However, even then, magic find doesn't make that big a difference. Anyone who's run on champion trains can tell you that the majority of the valuable loot doesn't come directly from the champions - it comes from the champ bags, which don't care about magic find.
It's the same for most other aspects of the game. Magic find only really matters for things like farming, The Crown Pavilion, Dry Top, and other such events that just involve running around killing lots of enemies. Luck only becomes a "hamster wheel" if you think of it as such. If anyone thinks they "have to" get to 300% luck, they either don't understand how futile it is, or they vastly overestimate the benefits of having 300% luck.
Finally, there are so many other ways to raise magic find other than luck - ways that are cheaper, easier, and faster to obtain. That alone means that luck really doesn't matter, and it's not some huge glaring problem that insidiously corrupts the economy. That assertion doesn't ring true to me, anyway - how is it a "gold sink"? If you take your average useless blue or green item, your choices are either to salvage it or sell it. You can almost always sell such items on the trading post for more than the vendor cost. If you salvage the item, it's to gamble on getting the materials; the luck is just an afterthought. Alternatively, people who run a lot of dungeons or run the trains often salvage all their loot just so they can free up inventory space quickly. This is a loss for them compared to selling some of the items on the trading post, but it's a "Time is Money" decision, and not a gold sink related to luck in any way. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 20:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe I misunderstood the intent of the Original Post. I think the idea is to critique the design of the Luck|Account-MF system in that it benefits the super-obsessed at the likely expense of the "average" player. Jkyarr does this, in part, by attempting to put some numbers on the time and cost to a "typical" player and show that it's potentially onerous, in exactly the ways in which ANet has said they would avoid in GW2.
I don't think the evidence presented supports that view and I disagree for other reasons. Even so, I think it's an intriguing concept and a worthwhile conversation to have, because, as Jkyarr points out, it's tricky to even figure out how to measure any of this.
But, regardless of the merits of the critique, very few people are going to participate in a discussion held here. First, only a tiny fraction of the player base looks at wiki talk pages. More importantly, ANet staff almost never do. Less importantly, wikis are typically poor tools for engaging in this type of back & forth.
Therefore, I recommend that Jkyarr start a discussion on the official forums, where it's much more likely to get feedback. Alternatively, the guildwars2 subreddit or GW2 Guru forums are also good places to start. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)