Relative item rarity

[grobblewobble]

I think Stingray has a good point. Without knowing exact numbers or mechanics, it is fairly safe to expect that the bulk of the probability weight in item generation will remain with existing items. Therefore, it's unlikely that the new items will make stuff notably more rare. Unless some of the new items are going to be very common, like rations and potions of water. But I wouldn't expect that, really.

[Stingray1]

Well, one thing is certain. The new items will be a lot(unquantifiably) more common than they used to be.

[Pim]

If one would like to evaluate change in item y generation he needs:
- to know items y weight - let's call it x
- to know sum of weights for all 696 or so items - cal it a
- to know sum of weights for all new items - call it b.

Rather clearly previous chance was x/a and new is x/[a+b] -- so differential is x/a - x/[a+b].

It would be easier to display the difference as a ratio increase, perhaps as a percentage. So, [a/(a+b)]*100%.

For example, a few years ago where I live, the state government sales tax changed from 5% to 6%. Our sales tax rate was multiplied by 120%. Or, a 20% increase. I am now paying 20% more sales tax than I did previously.

(This example is particularly confusing because the sales tax is measured in units of percentage already, and change is often also expressed as a percentage. At that time, there were advertisements for car dealerships saying "Buy your car NOW before sales tax goes up by TWENTY PERCENT!!" which was technically true, but also a misleading attempt to make people think sales tax was going from 5% to 25%. Of course no one could really believe such a deception; at least it served to raise awareness.)

So for a better example, if total number of item weights were 4900, and adding new items raised that value to 5000, and the relative rarity (weight) of a ring of karmic absorption is 50, then the new relative rarity has changed by a factor of (50/5000)/(50/4900) = 4900/5000 = 98%. So after the new items are added, you are 98% as likely to find a ring of karmic absorption as you were before.

(IMHO, that's easier for a human to understand than saying the odds changed by .00020408 = x/a - x/(a+b). We humans like relative quantities.)

I still think it would be much better if item rarities were sorted into categories, so that adding, for example, six new kinds of lamp would not lower the chances of finding a weapon. (Or a ring of karmic sell-me-to-a-vendor, for that matter.) Would it be appropriate to submit a Request for Enhancement even though I don't know if the program is already written in this way?

If such a change is even possible, then it's also possible to do it while keeping the current drop rates and item probability distribution unchanged. However, items "dropping" or "spawning" are not the only means of acquiring items, so some thought would need to be put into other means of item generation, and make sure this change doesn't screw that up. Gems being generated during mining, for example, isn't what I had in mind when talking about item "drops." More food for thought!

[JellySlayer]

It would be easier to display the difference as a ratio increase, perhaps as a percentage. So, [a/(a+b)]*100%.

For example, a few years ago where I live, the state government sales tax changed from 5% to 6%. Our sales tax rate was multiplied by 120%. Or, a 20% increase. I am now paying 20% more sales tax than I did previously.

This example is particularly confusing because the sales tax is measured in units of percentage already, and change is often also expressed as a percentage.

Normally for people trying to avoid confusion about these sorts of things, you'd say that your sales tax increased by one percentage point.

[Soirana]

It would be easier to display the difference as a ratio increase, perhaps as a percentage. So, [a/(a+b)]*100%.

For example, a few years ago where I live, the state government sales tax changed from 5% to 6%. Our sales tax rate was multiplied by 120%. Or, a 20% increase. I am now paying 20% more sales tax than I did previously.

Honestly for Adom if you want to speak seriously you need to include DL of the place.... and I'd rather not start on government of that wonderland I happen to live in....

As far as percents go.... if there is 1 in million chance to find item and it gets doubled... you still likely need a year or so of play to see it... But if water pots gets halved one would most certainly feel that arround midgame.

[szopin]

six new kinds of lamp would not lower the chances of finding a weapon. (Or a ring of karmic sell-me-to-a-vendor, for that matter.) Would it be appropriate to submit a Request for Enhancement even though I don't know if the program is already written in this way?

No, for as much as we mortals are concerned about technicalities... we have to trust in the Creator he will have in mind changing balances of things (getting two light corruptions getting harder with bigger pool of corruptions is same deal exactly). Requesting enhancement until you notice new item buggy behaviour as you predict doesn't make sense for me. Report a bug once it turns badly. Haven't heard about people complainoing about not getting the light corruptions to visit some locations and it's been a while with new corruptions.

[Stingray1]

I still think it would be much better if item rarities were sorted into categories, so that adding, for example, six new kinds of lamp would not lower the chances of finding a weapon. (Or a ring of karmic sell-me-to-a-vendor, for that matter.) Would it be appropriate to submit a Request for Enhancement even though I don't know if the program is already written in this way?

I'm assuming suffixes, to hit and damage die gets added after the RNG decided to create a weapon. If so then you will still get your good weapons, but only slightly less than before. Also depends on how many new weapons TB introduces.

I'm sure he has already thought about this, but see no harm in creating a RFE.

[Pim]

...you need to include DL of the place....

Excellent point, the danger level factor makes this issue much more complicated than I'd originally thought.

(getting two light corruptions getting harder with bigger pool of corruptions is same deal exactly).

Yes!

Haven't heard about people complaining about not getting the light corruptions to visit some locations and it's been a while with new corruptions.

The only people with access to those new corruptions are veterans. Unlikely to have trouble, and very unlikely to complain about the game getting harder.

But on the whole, I'm satisfied with assuming that the creator is aware of the issue, and has the means to measure whether or not it's worth fixing.