The only way this could be true is if the RNG of each server(and only the part of it that dictates item quality, not affixes) is seeded with a completely static value every game depending on the server itself, which would be nonsense. If any of their developers were stupid enough to do that, they could fix it in five minutes of work. If this were true, there would be extensive proof of it by now and Blizzard would have fixed it in moments. Any time something like this comes up in a Blizzard game and it isn't definitively proven within days, you know it has to be fake.
Do a google search on "confirmation bias" guys. People who are trying this want it to be true, and so they look real hard for evidence that it's true while dismissing evidence that it isn't. And the people who do luck into legendary drops when they try it are more likely to post here about it than the people who don't.
All the randomness in Diablo 3 is generated by the internal clock. This thread is BS.
The more you call their bluff, the more they will come back and post more BS about finding "7 legendaries this run after seeing none for 800 hours, woot!".
People see what they want to see and logic certainly will not persuade them.
I heard it from a reliable source who's cousin's sister's ex-husband does QA at Blizzard's secret Bangalore offices, that they changed the loot server algorithm. The new formula is: Math.Floor((Account Birthdate Year-1000)*0.1) + (Account Birthdate Month * Length of Subscription in months / 6).
Gonna test it out as soon as 1.05 goes live, but this comes from a VERY reliable source!
Alright guys, this thread is now quite old and the original poster hasn't seem to come back for a while now. It has died a couple times and was bumped back to the first page, having essentially the same posts for the last 10-15 pages: some people will swear this is real (because they'll have lucky drops) and some will swear it's bullshit.
In the end, there's absolutely no way for any side to prove it without any reasonable doubt. Right now, the only purpose is serves is to have people who didn't see this thread before try the theory and either waste their time (if they don't get drops) or think that they got fooled (if they don't get drops).
I'll close this thread now.
And by the way, don't get us wrong, it's not that we forbid you from talking about this subject. If you want to keep discussing and analysing whether this is a possibility, by all means do it. But let's just have a fresh start on this matter (with a new thread, with less repetitive posts), ok?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
40th has many oneshotting mobs. even with 900 allres
Do a google search on "confirmation bias" guys. People who are trying this want it to be true, and so they look real hard for evidence that it's true while dismissing evidence that it isn't. And the people who do luck into legendary drops when they try it are more likely to post here about it than the people who don't.
The more you call their bluff, the more they will come back and post more BS about finding "7 legendaries this run after seeing none for 800 hours, woot!".
People see what they want to see and logic certainly will not persuade them.
Gonna test it out as soon as 1.05 goes live, but this comes from a VERY reliable source!
Yep... got 3 legendaries in 1 game on server 213 (I checked for the lolz cause this theory is stupid)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderIn the end, there's absolutely no way for any side to prove it without any reasonable doubt. Right now, the only purpose is serves is to have people who didn't see this thread before try the theory and either waste their time (if they don't get drops) or think that they got fooled (if they don't get drops).
I'll close this thread now.
And by the way, don't get us wrong, it's not that we forbid you from talking about this subject. If you want to keep discussing and analysing whether this is a possibility, by all means do it. But let's just have a fresh start on this matter (with a new thread, with less repetitive posts), ok?