# Adventure Boards (Average Weekly) Reward Calculation

Huh, good catch…

It’s plausible. There’s no way to know for sure, and the data currently also fits your observation.

One could argue Occam’s Razor, though. Why sort results, when it’s not necessary to do so? Also, the number of Common + Common + Rare (in that order) outcomes gives me pause regarding sorting of results. It’s too neat for purely random results, although surely a possible outcome naturally.

Perhaps an analysis of the rarity outcomes by slot would shed light on the matter for identifiable patterns.

I don’t know, i’d argue it’s a simpler explanation that the tasks are displayed sorted than that they took the time to change how the tasks are rolled from 4.4 to 4.5. That’s a lot more work. And there have clearly been non-common tasks in slot 1 & 2 at some point, so why overhaul the system dramatically such a short time after its creation? Sorting for display purposes is definitely a simpler explanation from where I’m sitting.

Also, they don’t have to sort chest loot displayed by rarity either, but they do. There’s no way the loot is actually received key by key in the order it’s displayed when opening multiple chests at a time.

I think we’ve already determined with some certainty that duplicate tasks won’t occur, but that the same kind of task with a different rarity can. It’s likely going to be a VERY long time before we see a double legendary, legendary + mythic or double mythic combo to prove 2 different deed tasks can occur. Though I suppose one of those 3 combos for any other resource should give some confidence that it’s possible.

Ok, while I’m pretending not to do work at the second job tonight, I ran the screenshots present in the thread to date since 4.5 through a basic count analysis. That covers August 29th to October 11th.

The results are as follows:

44 is too low of a sample size to draw any conclusions beyond reasonable doubt, but one can’t change the number of days since the patch launch.

If one looks at each slot independently, there has never been any rarity higher than Rare in Slot 1 to date. This would support the claim of sorting by rarity. After all, it would be difficult to believe that one task would never roll higher than Rare, right?

Disarding the anomaly Legendary roll in Slot 2, 25-55-20 looks like a reasonable spread for rarities here. But, then again, that would require acceptance of the premise that outside of a freak chance for a Legendary roll in this slot (if separate tables), there are no possible tasks of epic or higher.

Looking at Slot 3, this looks like a distribution that seems normal, except that Legendary tasks are a bit higher that what one would reasonably expect to see. No common tasks appear in this slot.

Now, if one looks at all of the data as a whole, the distribution looks almost exactly as what has been normally expected, outside of a high Legendary appearance rate.

So, on it’s face, the evidence might actually support sorting of the results.

One thing really, really bugs me though. The occurrence of Common + Common + X results is far too high, at 22.7% of the time.

That, coupled with the lowest possible result being Common + Common + Rare repeating multiple times (9.1% of all data), gives me significant pause. If the data is truly random and sorted, why haven’t we seen a triple common result yet? Why is this floor appearing so often? The second most common result is Common + Common + UR, at 6.8% of outcomes.

Is it plausible that these three slots have seperate loot tables, that when combined, functionally construct what would be a single normally distributed table?