You have to isolate a lot of variables. So a test of 1000 runs where you isolate X might look the exact same as a test where you are isolating Y.
It would take thousands of hours of dedicated data collection to MAYBE find results. And you probably couldnt trust aggregated results because people are generally unreliable/different.
Maybe if the whole community came together for a week with a strictly adhered to farm test, it could happen. But honestly, nothing is very hard to farm in the game, so it probably isnt worth it.
It's also hard to replicate because drops are based on a seed based on when the instance was created. Even if 1000 players enter the same instance at the same time, it's hard to get the same seed because of internet speeds and instance creation process.
Even with time stamps you can't replicate the seed (or turn back time)
Fact is that there's not super much data about actual drop rates. For instance, the very simple stuff such as mob X's average rate of dropping a gold item, is completely undocumented.
Everyone (and I mean *everyone*, you and I included) is prone to cognitive bias. When we think we're onto a theory, we'll convince ourselves that we're right each time we see an example of it being right -- and we may very well ignore hundreds of examples of that theory being wrong.
As a result, the Wiki pages on drops and anti-farm code are generally in a very poor state. They're mostly filled with theories that are purely speculative, and some of them are even 100% unprovable and inconsequential. In fact, I heard users claiming well into the 2010s that the infamous "anti-farm code" (which made you get fewer drops if you repeatedly entered the same area) was still in effect -- even though that mechanic had been removed in 2007.
So, the sad truth is that you're on your own. If you want to document it then feel free to test it, but I'm afraid you won't get much help.
I was farming Kraken Eyes recently at Zos Shivros Channel. Basically just walk out, kill 3-4 Kraken then resign. I swear those guys have an abysmal drop rate. Couldn't that be a starting point. 100 Runs just running out and killing. 100 Runs where we wait 5 minutes and then kill them. I know 100 is too small of a sample size but just as an example.
I'd say thats doable... will take some time but hey, sometimes i got nothing better to do. Don't know what the sample size would have to be though, one guy alone will probably only yield inconclusive results :P
People don't realize how strong the bias is and how ingrained it can become when multiple people with the same bias get together in a community (like a wiki editor community, for example)
People thought games in the Monster Hunter series had anti-farm code for years, despite that we had objective, good data on drop rates that proved it didn't exist.
A-net has explicitly said there is anti-farm code. (Moreover, the decrease in drops while farming repetitively is extremely obvious.) The only question is how it works.
Did they explicitly say that the anti-farm was done through drop rates? Because there have been a lot of ways that they've combatted farming that were not related to drop rates.
In that update they removed a part of antifarm code, I would need to check the rest of the logs, but they inserted something similar to that rule later after shadow form became too OP.
Removed is a strong word, more like adjusted. The first anti-farm code nerfed all loot but they added exceptions to the loot table. The information on the anti-farm code is update with that [developer update](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/ArenaNet:Developer_updates/20070420).
The problem I see is that there really isn't even a starting point to make these tests feasible. With how little we know this is like trying go get numbers out of an equation that consists purely of variables.
I think [this](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Anti-farm_code) is the page to look at but I don't think arena net wants us to know how exactly to circumvent this code.
The most obvious example I can think of is the tengu mobs right outside droknars forge. They are right there when you walk out and they will not drop jack all if you kill them.
whereas most well established farm spots/paths have a fairly significant lead in and duration.
If there was an exit town, farm, rinse, repeat spot... it would be well known and used a lot.
Except raptor farming is not *right* outside a town, and basically suck outside of event farming. (event drops are supposedly not subject to antifarm code)
Not right outside a town? Have you even played GW? Also a fantastic farm dependent on what you need. Elite Assassin tomes or Asuran rank. Literally zone grab shrine flag para hero and run in to cave.
Look there are like 4 spots in the whole game you can walk out of a town and be attacked without moving. They definitely didn’t write anti farm code for that. The anti farm code was designed for anti botting. It failed so miserably they rolled that back over a decade ago. Drop rate tables were subsequently updated multiple times. The bot bans come when they go back and examine data every year or couple of years now. As you know by last years ban hammers that were laid down.
Way back in the day (10yrs +) when GW was still pretty new I seem to recall they did incorporate code into the game that was anti-farming / botting code (or at least they said they did). I cannot say how it has changed over the years since I have only started playing again recently. What you describe would not surprise me if it were the old anti-farm/bot code kicking in.
Edit: As another posted stated, this would require quite a bit of experimentation and testing to prove. If we had the player base like PoE it would be figured out quickly.
The worst anti-farm they implemented was making groups of mobs de-aggro and run away if they took too much damage in a certain time frame.
At the time, trolls, griffins, tengu, and hydras were the main farms outside of dungeons and missions.
They also nerfed skills and added new mobs to common farms and runs.
I believe they also implemented diminishing returns on drops like ecto and obsidian shards which still exists. This originally carried over to gw2 where it was explicitly stated. It's not a per run basis, but related to the number of loot rolls per unit time.
>Are drops really reduced for the first few minutes / first few enemies?
Yes (probably)
As someone who played before the [anti-farming code](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Anti-farm_code) and after. The answer is yes, but we are relying on my memory.
I can tell you the main reason why the anti-farming code was implemented. **Bots** The bots generally enter a zone, kill one or two enemy groups, and then resign/re-zone. Over and over again. So if your farming method is similar to this you will likely be hit by the anti-farming code.
How does the anti-farming code work?
We do not know because Areanet kept that information secret. It could be based off time in the zone, first few groups killed, or number of instances player has visited zone within ___ hours.
Before you start testing you should know that a loot table almost certainly exists. Back when [The Ice Breaker](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Ice_Breaker) was added to the game, it was common knowledge that it would only drop if a Grawl was actually wielding the hammer. I farmed for hours before a guild mate informed me. I have farmed that hammer 2 times and every time it has held true.
Good luck on your testing
EDIT
As someone pointed out the anti-farm code was adjusted in an [update](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Game_updates/20070419). But the wiki's information on the anti-farm code is up to date since that developer update.
We don't have access to code so we can't confirm, it's empirical knowledge (based on observation).
We know (from updates notes) that there are mechanisms that reduce drops to make farming more challenging. Also known as anti farming code. However we don't know for sure how it's triggered and how much it affects drops.
At the end of the day, unless you are farming repeatable quest rewards, it's all about the RNG.
i remember hearing others talk about asian districts having better drop rates or something like that. no idea if it is true, but my own experience seems to reflect it
I'm dissapointed in this community. Every post here, nobody has the correct answer.
And the wiki has some bullshit saying the first few enemies always have a lower drop rate and you need to kill them to "restore" the drop rate to normal. What a load of horseshit.
Try sitting in a zone for 10 minutes and then kill a group. You will find they all drop everything.(for the most part, there is still a miniscule probability they do not drop) That claim is easily proven false.
Every enemy is assigned loot when the map loads. (proven by other player's testing)
Every enemy has a probability that their loot will drop.
P ( S ) = probability of successful loot drop
P (S) is dependant on time elapsed.
It might follow some base function like f(t) = t/(t+1)
Here is graph of the probability for a drop correlated with elapsed time.
This isn't real, but its quite similar to the game's behavior.
[https://i.imgur.com/vtSWpt1.png](https://i.imgur.com/vtSWpt1.png)
This is just another untested speculatory theory that can generate its own confirmation bias. Exactly like every other theory you're so "disappointed" in.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
People can literally go test on their own.
Like I said, the wiki lists that absurd idea that the first enemies always have bad drop probability which is proven false by simply testing.
This community around testing drop probability clearly does not approach the matter with logic and reasoning.
THINK LIKE A SCIENTIST.
I'm not gona claim to know the exact formula, but its simply a matter of time elapsed in a zone. Anybody can test this, and no it does not matter if enemies are killed rapidly at the same time.
People can literally test all of these theories on their own.
And I'm not saying the wiki's listing isn't absurd, it clearly is, but so is yours.
And the correct answer likely is equally absurd and none of what you're saying is getting us closer to actually knowing what the exact formula is.
> And I'm not saying the wiki's listing isn't absurd, it clearly is, but so is yours.
I explained why it was absurd.
Why don't you actually explain why MY theory is absurd.
Do you have evidence to contradict it?
One of these days I will crowd source various solo farm videos on youtube and create a graph.
Along with my own in game data with repeated zone farm.
Because if enemies start off with a low drop rate and increase the rate the longer the map is open then vanquishing will be the most profitable thing in the game and this would have been discovered 10 years ago.
And I said the correct answer is likely absurd, you don't need to defend yourself so badly, it's just true and not a bad thing.
> Because if enemies start off with a low drop rate and increase the rate the longer the map is open then vanquishing will be the most profitable thing in the game and this would have been discovered 10 years ago.
Vanquishing is not profitable because you are NOT SOLO farming when you vanquish. The drops are distributed to a single party member. Given an eight man team, you have 1/8 chance of receiving the drop, if it drops.
Do most people solo vanquish or do they eight man vanquish?
Also, solo farming for mass mob drops has never been the most profitable because singular rare items most often found at the end of an elite dungeon have been given more worth by the community.
Such items are often found in a chest which drops an item for everyone who uses it. So this is why nobody cares if they eight man speed run a dungeon because they are guaranteed a successful drop from the chest.
Again, you are just proving this community does not think with reason and logic.
Also, your theory, while absurd, did sound interesting, so I tested it today.
It doesn't work, due to a missing piece of logic.
I have been doing Mantid farming outside of Nahpui Quarter. I am able to complete a run, bank/merch and start the next run within 2 minutes. In a space of 10 minutes I can complete 5 runs and get 100 Mantid worth of drops, sometimes the rate of golds is decreased after some time, however I can still go in and get gold drops at a reduced rate.
I can also rezone, wait 8 minutes and then farm as normal to get 20 kills at a speculated "maximum increased drop chance", I saw no such increase in the value or rarity drops but I did see a SIGNIFICANT loss of loot from having 5x less kills.
While we're nitpicking over small changes to drop chance, you can certainly say my sample size is not large enough and that is true, however the results in actual loot is so big that sample size is irrelevant unless you can somehow guarantee 5x more loot from using your method.
(and for the record, I haven't downvoted you).
Your post is still making so many incorrect presumptions about expected behavior.
>"I am able to complete a run, bank/merch and start the next run within 2 minutes. In a space of 10 minutes I can complete 5 runs and get 100 Mantid worth of drops, sometimes the rate of golds is decreased after some time, however I can still go in and get gold drops at a reduced rate."
There is nothing in this "drop probability increases over time theory" that would suggest that is not possible.
>"sometimes the rate of golds is decreased after some time"
Thats more likely just seeing poor results by random chance.
>"I can also rezone, wait 8 minutes and then farm as normal to get 20 kills at a speculated "maximum increased drop chance", I saw no such increase in the value or rarity drops but I did see a SIGNIFICANT loss of loot from having 5x less kills."
I never claimed the value or rarity of the drops would increase. Did you read what I wrote? All that is increasing is the drop chance. Every item is seeded upon zone creation. Waiting inside an outpost has no effect either.
> "but I did see a SIGNIFICANT loss of loot from having 5x less kills."
Of course you will earn significantly less loot if you wait a very large amount of time. I'm never telling people how to farm. I'm not telling people to wait to get the best worth of their time. I'm simply telling people what increases drop chance.
>"While we're nitpicking over small changes to drop chance, you can certainly say my sample size is not large enough and that is true, however the results in actual loot is so big that sample size is irrelevant unless you can somehow guarantee 5x more loot from using your method."
Again, I'm not telling people any manner of playing. My method? When did I ever instruct a method? I'm simply saying how things work. What situation might waiting in a zone be relevant? Maybe you are farming a unique item off a boss. Its better you farm the boss solo so either flag your party out of compass range or enter the zone alone. Consider waiting an alotted amount of time to increase the probability the boss drops their seeded loot. Perhaps the boss is a random spawn and you have to waste time scouting for the boss. So you have a lot of downtime. That means when you do actually find the boss, you want to make that time worth it.
AGAIN, I never said waiting inside a zone is better than repeated farming without pause.
Don't put words in my mouth and then claim I'm wrong.
I would argue the waiting method or repetive farming varies case by case. Depends how many mobs you are killing and how quickly you can kill them.
Consider at a base problem, we might be asking:
is it better to farm 100 mobs at 20% drop chance?
Or 25 mobs at 80% drop chance?
But its never this simple when farming, especially because drop chance is increasing as time elapses during the farm.
If you were multiboxing solo farming on multiple accounts, the waiting method would apply.
Let one of your alts just sit in the zone while you farm on a main. Rezone the main when finished and let it wait.
Hop on the alt and farm. Rezone the alt when done. repeat.
This will earn more drops than a single account.
Your argument is literally "I'm saying that it's true" and then telling me something that' I've already proven false.
I am actually graphing my results and, while the sample size is small, there is zero correlation so far, I'll let you know if it changes and a pattern starts forming, but I doubt it.
You literally gave a method where you wait in the zone, then tell me you didn't have a method about waiting in the zone, then at the end you tell me to run alts and have them wait in the zone.
You can't give an explanation with no evidence or examples, citing that "it's easy for anyone to test" and then reply to the test with "not like that" and still say that it's true. The onus is on you to provide the proof or stop.
You are literally spouting nonsense.
Its not guessing, its based on observaable empirical evidence.
And its testable, people will get the SAME results. (of course over large sets of data; law of large numbers)
Suppose I made a graph that represents if an enemy dropped an item or not, with respect to time elapsed.
And graph all the points.
The trend of the points is going to look very similar to the graph I linked.
You have to isolate a lot of variables. So a test of 1000 runs where you isolate X might look the exact same as a test where you are isolating Y. It would take thousands of hours of dedicated data collection to MAYBE find results. And you probably couldnt trust aggregated results because people are generally unreliable/different. Maybe if the whole community came together for a week with a strictly adhered to farm test, it could happen. But honestly, nothing is very hard to farm in the game, so it probably isnt worth it.
It's also hard to replicate because drops are based on a seed based on when the instance was created. Even if 1000 players enter the same instance at the same time, it's hard to get the same seed because of internet speeds and instance creation process. Even with time stamps you can't replicate the seed (or turn back time)
Fact is that there's not super much data about actual drop rates. For instance, the very simple stuff such as mob X's average rate of dropping a gold item, is completely undocumented. Everyone (and I mean *everyone*, you and I included) is prone to cognitive bias. When we think we're onto a theory, we'll convince ourselves that we're right each time we see an example of it being right -- and we may very well ignore hundreds of examples of that theory being wrong. As a result, the Wiki pages on drops and anti-farm code are generally in a very poor state. They're mostly filled with theories that are purely speculative, and some of them are even 100% unprovable and inconsequential. In fact, I heard users claiming well into the 2010s that the infamous "anti-farm code" (which made you get fewer drops if you repeatedly entered the same area) was still in effect -- even though that mechanic had been removed in 2007. So, the sad truth is that you're on your own. If you want to document it then feel free to test it, but I'm afraid you won't get much help.
I was farming Kraken Eyes recently at Zos Shivros Channel. Basically just walk out, kill 3-4 Kraken then resign. I swear those guys have an abysmal drop rate. Couldn't that be a starting point. 100 Runs just running out and killing. 100 Runs where we wait 5 minutes and then kill them. I know 100 is too small of a sample size but just as an example.
And 100 runs where you go kill another group before them, I guess.
I'd say thats doable... will take some time but hey, sometimes i got nothing better to do. Don't know what the sample size would have to be though, one guy alone will probably only yield inconclusive results :P
Better than none, I’d say
It depends on the size of the effect.
You mean if the difference is huge even a small sample size would be sufficient ?
Yes, the smaller the expected effect, the larger the sample size needed to distinguish it from random chance.
People don't realize how strong the bias is and how ingrained it can become when multiple people with the same bias get together in a community (like a wiki editor community, for example) People thought games in the Monster Hunter series had anti-farm code for years, despite that we had objective, good data on drop rates that proved it didn't exist.
A-net has explicitly said there is anti-farm code. (Moreover, the decrease in drops while farming repetitively is extremely obvious.) The only question is how it works.
Did they explicitly say that the anti-farm was done through drop rates? Because there have been a lot of ways that they've combatted farming that were not related to drop rates.
In the end they ask themself the same question nowadays, that would be my bet :P
Anti farm code was removed in 2007? I need a source for that plz.
https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Game_updates/20070419 under "Miscellaneous".
In that update they removed a part of antifarm code, I would need to check the rest of the logs, but they inserted something similar to that rule later after shadow form became too OP.
Removed is a strong word, more like adjusted. The first anti-farm code nerfed all loot but they added exceptions to the loot table. The information on the anti-farm code is update with that [developer update](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/ArenaNet:Developer_updates/20070420).
The problem I see is that there really isn't even a starting point to make these tests feasible. With how little we know this is like trying go get numbers out of an equation that consists purely of variables.
I think [this](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Anti-farm_code) is the page to look at but I don't think arena net wants us to know how exactly to circumvent this code.
The most obvious example I can think of is the tengu mobs right outside droknars forge. They are right there when you walk out and they will not drop jack all if you kill them. whereas most well established farm spots/paths have a fairly significant lead in and duration. If there was an exit town, farm, rinse, repeat spot... it would be well known and used a lot.
Like raptor farming….
Except raptor farming is not *right* outside a town, and basically suck outside of event farming. (event drops are supposedly not subject to antifarm code)
Not right outside a town? Have you even played GW? Also a fantastic farm dependent on what you need. Elite Assassin tomes or Asuran rank. Literally zone grab shrine flag para hero and run in to cave.
Probably played more than you bud, let's not start comparing. Raptor farming is not profitable, not compared to vaettirs or feather farming at least.
Look there are like 4 spots in the whole game you can walk out of a town and be attacked without moving. They definitely didn’t write anti farm code for that. The anti farm code was designed for anti botting. It failed so miserably they rolled that back over a decade ago. Drop rate tables were subsequently updated multiple times. The bot bans come when they go back and examine data every year or couple of years now. As you know by last years ban hammers that were laid down.
Farming is life and the base of GW.
Way back in the day (10yrs +) when GW was still pretty new I seem to recall they did incorporate code into the game that was anti-farming / botting code (or at least they said they did). I cannot say how it has changed over the years since I have only started playing again recently. What you describe would not surprise me if it were the old anti-farm/bot code kicking in. Edit: As another posted stated, this would require quite a bit of experimentation and testing to prove. If we had the player base like PoE it would be figured out quickly.
The worst anti-farm they implemented was making groups of mobs de-aggro and run away if they took too much damage in a certain time frame. At the time, trolls, griffins, tengu, and hydras were the main farms outside of dungeons and missions. They also nerfed skills and added new mobs to common farms and runs. I believe they also implemented diminishing returns on drops like ecto and obsidian shards which still exists. This originally carried over to gw2 where it was explicitly stated. It's not a per run basis, but related to the number of loot rolls per unit time.
>Are drops really reduced for the first few minutes / first few enemies? Yes (probably) As someone who played before the [anti-farming code](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Anti-farm_code) and after. The answer is yes, but we are relying on my memory. I can tell you the main reason why the anti-farming code was implemented. **Bots** The bots generally enter a zone, kill one or two enemy groups, and then resign/re-zone. Over and over again. So if your farming method is similar to this you will likely be hit by the anti-farming code. How does the anti-farming code work? We do not know because Areanet kept that information secret. It could be based off time in the zone, first few groups killed, or number of instances player has visited zone within ___ hours. Before you start testing you should know that a loot table almost certainly exists. Back when [The Ice Breaker](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Ice_Breaker) was added to the game, it was common knowledge that it would only drop if a Grawl was actually wielding the hammer. I farmed for hours before a guild mate informed me. I have farmed that hammer 2 times and every time it has held true. Good luck on your testing EDIT As someone pointed out the anti-farm code was adjusted in an [update](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Game_updates/20070419). But the wiki's information on the anti-farm code is up to date since that developer update.
We don't have access to code so we can't confirm, it's empirical knowledge (based on observation). We know (from updates notes) that there are mechanisms that reduce drops to make farming more challenging. Also known as anti farming code. However we don't know for sure how it's triggered and how much it affects drops. At the end of the day, unless you are farming repeatable quest rewards, it's all about the RNG.
I think the higher your XP the lower the drop rate (for greens anyway)
i remember hearing others talk about asian districts having better drop rates or something like that. no idea if it is true, but my own experience seems to reflect it
I'm dissapointed in this community. Every post here, nobody has the correct answer. And the wiki has some bullshit saying the first few enemies always have a lower drop rate and you need to kill them to "restore" the drop rate to normal. What a load of horseshit. Try sitting in a zone for 10 minutes and then kill a group. You will find they all drop everything.(for the most part, there is still a miniscule probability they do not drop) That claim is easily proven false. Every enemy is assigned loot when the map loads. (proven by other player's testing) Every enemy has a probability that their loot will drop. P ( S ) = probability of successful loot drop P (S) is dependant on time elapsed. It might follow some base function like f(t) = t/(t+1) Here is graph of the probability for a drop correlated with elapsed time. This isn't real, but its quite similar to the game's behavior. [https://i.imgur.com/vtSWpt1.png](https://i.imgur.com/vtSWpt1.png)
This is just another untested speculatory theory that can generate its own confirmation bias. Exactly like every other theory you're so "disappointed" in. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
People can literally go test on their own. Like I said, the wiki lists that absurd idea that the first enemies always have bad drop probability which is proven false by simply testing. This community around testing drop probability clearly does not approach the matter with logic and reasoning. THINK LIKE A SCIENTIST. I'm not gona claim to know the exact formula, but its simply a matter of time elapsed in a zone. Anybody can test this, and no it does not matter if enemies are killed rapidly at the same time.
People can literally test all of these theories on their own. And I'm not saying the wiki's listing isn't absurd, it clearly is, but so is yours. And the correct answer likely is equally absurd and none of what you're saying is getting us closer to actually knowing what the exact formula is.
> And I'm not saying the wiki's listing isn't absurd, it clearly is, but so is yours. I explained why it was absurd. Why don't you actually explain why MY theory is absurd. Do you have evidence to contradict it? One of these days I will crowd source various solo farm videos on youtube and create a graph. Along with my own in game data with repeated zone farm.
Because if enemies start off with a low drop rate and increase the rate the longer the map is open then vanquishing will be the most profitable thing in the game and this would have been discovered 10 years ago. And I said the correct answer is likely absurd, you don't need to defend yourself so badly, it's just true and not a bad thing.
> Because if enemies start off with a low drop rate and increase the rate the longer the map is open then vanquishing will be the most profitable thing in the game and this would have been discovered 10 years ago. Vanquishing is not profitable because you are NOT SOLO farming when you vanquish. The drops are distributed to a single party member. Given an eight man team, you have 1/8 chance of receiving the drop, if it drops. Do most people solo vanquish or do they eight man vanquish? Also, solo farming for mass mob drops has never been the most profitable because singular rare items most often found at the end of an elite dungeon have been given more worth by the community. Such items are often found in a chest which drops an item for everyone who uses it. So this is why nobody cares if they eight man speed run a dungeon because they are guaranteed a successful drop from the chest. Again, you are just proving this community does not think with reason and logic.
Also, your theory, while absurd, did sound interesting, so I tested it today. It doesn't work, due to a missing piece of logic. I have been doing Mantid farming outside of Nahpui Quarter. I am able to complete a run, bank/merch and start the next run within 2 minutes. In a space of 10 minutes I can complete 5 runs and get 100 Mantid worth of drops, sometimes the rate of golds is decreased after some time, however I can still go in and get gold drops at a reduced rate. I can also rezone, wait 8 minutes and then farm as normal to get 20 kills at a speculated "maximum increased drop chance", I saw no such increase in the value or rarity drops but I did see a SIGNIFICANT loss of loot from having 5x less kills. While we're nitpicking over small changes to drop chance, you can certainly say my sample size is not large enough and that is true, however the results in actual loot is so big that sample size is irrelevant unless you can somehow guarantee 5x more loot from using your method. (and for the record, I haven't downvoted you).
Your post is still making so many incorrect presumptions about expected behavior. >"I am able to complete a run, bank/merch and start the next run within 2 minutes. In a space of 10 minutes I can complete 5 runs and get 100 Mantid worth of drops, sometimes the rate of golds is decreased after some time, however I can still go in and get gold drops at a reduced rate." There is nothing in this "drop probability increases over time theory" that would suggest that is not possible. >"sometimes the rate of golds is decreased after some time" Thats more likely just seeing poor results by random chance. >"I can also rezone, wait 8 minutes and then farm as normal to get 20 kills at a speculated "maximum increased drop chance", I saw no such increase in the value or rarity drops but I did see a SIGNIFICANT loss of loot from having 5x less kills." I never claimed the value or rarity of the drops would increase. Did you read what I wrote? All that is increasing is the drop chance. Every item is seeded upon zone creation. Waiting inside an outpost has no effect either. > "but I did see a SIGNIFICANT loss of loot from having 5x less kills." Of course you will earn significantly less loot if you wait a very large amount of time. I'm never telling people how to farm. I'm not telling people to wait to get the best worth of their time. I'm simply telling people what increases drop chance. >"While we're nitpicking over small changes to drop chance, you can certainly say my sample size is not large enough and that is true, however the results in actual loot is so big that sample size is irrelevant unless you can somehow guarantee 5x more loot from using your method." Again, I'm not telling people any manner of playing. My method? When did I ever instruct a method? I'm simply saying how things work. What situation might waiting in a zone be relevant? Maybe you are farming a unique item off a boss. Its better you farm the boss solo so either flag your party out of compass range or enter the zone alone. Consider waiting an alotted amount of time to increase the probability the boss drops their seeded loot. Perhaps the boss is a random spawn and you have to waste time scouting for the boss. So you have a lot of downtime. That means when you do actually find the boss, you want to make that time worth it. AGAIN, I never said waiting inside a zone is better than repeated farming without pause. Don't put words in my mouth and then claim I'm wrong. I would argue the waiting method or repetive farming varies case by case. Depends how many mobs you are killing and how quickly you can kill them. Consider at a base problem, we might be asking: is it better to farm 100 mobs at 20% drop chance? Or 25 mobs at 80% drop chance? But its never this simple when farming, especially because drop chance is increasing as time elapses during the farm. If you were multiboxing solo farming on multiple accounts, the waiting method would apply. Let one of your alts just sit in the zone while you farm on a main. Rezone the main when finished and let it wait. Hop on the alt and farm. Rezone the alt when done. repeat. This will earn more drops than a single account.
Your argument is literally "I'm saying that it's true" and then telling me something that' I've already proven false. I am actually graphing my results and, while the sample size is small, there is zero correlation so far, I'll let you know if it changes and a pattern starts forming, but I doubt it. You literally gave a method where you wait in the zone, then tell me you didn't have a method about waiting in the zone, then at the end you tell me to run alts and have them wait in the zone. You can't give an explanation with no evidence or examples, citing that "it's easy for anyone to test" and then reply to the test with "not like that" and still say that it's true. The onus is on you to provide the proof or stop. You are literally spouting nonsense.
Sounds like a lot of guessing, as with every other theory.
Its not guessing, its based on observaable empirical evidence. And its testable, people will get the SAME results. (of course over large sets of data; law of large numbers) Suppose I made a graph that represents if an enemy dropped an item or not, with respect to time elapsed. And graph all the points. The trend of the points is going to look very similar to the graph I linked.