fastest way to farm a bee shield

[[8i6_b0s5]]

for everyone who really wants the bee shield! don't let anyone tell you otherwise: this is the fastest and most effective way to farm the bee shield! and not a forest run and not even farming the first 2 treeants who drop it!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3P34-p-8Y

[[8i6_b0s5]]

Escrito originalmente por Deriveur:

I think that to verify this accurately enough, you can simply set a timer, like 1 hr, and tally how many KILLS you get, not drops. With Green/Blue/Purple generic gear so that anything slotted that is better improves the #kills vs. time ratio. Dmg type should also be included for reference. I mean, the real efficiency test should be done with physical dmg on no slag since we know the element dmg ratios, but let's not get crazy here...

So time spent is one hour, not 8, on any character, once. The build is irrelevant: we all assume that everyone is trying to min/max his/her build based on how they prefer to play, right?

You *could* spend 1 hr per character to see which one plows through the most baddies in that period if you really, REALLY wanted to optimize your farm of the bee shield up to OCD level 9001. oh! and it *should* be tested on a "normal" setup, like an i5 or something like that... Whatever Steam analytics states is the most used and at least fits the game's recommended (EDIT: minimum) specs.

And this is also assuming that you're not trying to establish the unbeatable world record of speedruning the "bi-annual BL2 official international bee shield farm simulator 2018 #thatsafact". We all have lives to live, not everyone is a speedrunner/efficiency freak. It's a game, ffs.

So there. I won't do it because I don't care. Now feel free to use my methodology and spend an hour on it to make a YT video.. Please link it when it's done so that I can show my kids how I made my mark in the world when I'm 80. You're welcome.

Well, for my testruns i chose the how long does it take to kill hellquest/ treeants 100 times per char, over the how many times i can kill them in 1h method. Should be about the same results anyway.

I included the drops just to proof, that both hellquest/treeants have the same droprate.

Unfortunatly i could have done the tests only on my current system, couse i just have 1 ;-)

But if anyone wants to do these tests on a midclass system (i doubt that), i would be intetested, if it makes any difference!

[Gonzo_o0]

Escrito originalmente por 8i6_b0s5:

[Well, for my testruns i chose the how long does it take to kill hellquest/ treeants 100 times per char, over the how many times i can kill them in 1h method. Should be about the same results anyway.

I included the drops just to proof, that both hellquest/treeants have the same droprate.

Unfortunatly i could have done the tests only on my current system, couse i just have 1 ;-)

But if anyone wants to do these tests on a midclass system (i doubt that), i would be intetested, if it makes any difference!

Yes, it's the same drop rate, we all already knew that. GBX spawned thousands and thousands of Helquists and Treants in a test environment, killed them all in a instant wih debug and tallied the Loot results en masse, not one a time (only assuming here). If there would have been any kind of bug with the drop rate after release, it would've been fixed immediately upon discovery since Loot is the second most important mechanic in the game. And it's a Legendary: it's been thoroughly tested. It falls in the "must fix" category in the QA process. One would assume so anyway... So your drop rate "proof" wasn't needed (and again your sample is way, WAAAAAY too small. Just a friendly note.)

The drop rate (10%) is treated as a finite value in our system. Finite values remove doubt. We don't love doubt: we love certainty. Hence, we love finite values. We must attempt to lower the amount of variables to get more of what we love: finite values. Or attempt to treat our variables as finite values if possible.

By definition, the drop rate is also a PROBABILITY. It's treated as a finite value for the sake of seeking the truth, but it really isn't one: its result in our system is uncertain. So there's at least one element of doubt already, and we don't love doubt: we love certainty.

Because we have agreed upon that the result of a drop rate in our system is uncertain and that we're trying to remove uncertainty from it, we NEED to discard the result and instead use the most certain element: the drop probability.

Therefore, the amount of Bee Shields you personally ended up with after 100 OPPORTUNITIES of drops becomes irrelevant since your worst enemy could've ended up with 100 Bee Shields for the same amount of OPPORTUNITIES of drops. Unlikely, but possible.

After getting 100/100, the dude quickly comes on the forums and claims :"The FASTEST way to farm Bee Shields is by blablabla... Here's proof: i got 100 drops out of 100 in X amount of time" ... and that's where it gets muddy. Actually, it was already muddy, now we're in quicksand. We're trying to introduce another element of doubt in our system when what we love is certainty...

What is the relevance of the time it took our good friend to accomplish his incredible feat at this point? If that scenario occurred as described, would YOU have accepted his data as valid? Because of the unlikely chance of the result? I doubt it, but nobody said anything about not being disingenuous. For the same reasons, we cannot interpret the results of your test as valid because of the methodology.

So, the factor YOU need to maximize in attempting to check which way is the FASTEST is how many OPPORTUNITIES drops you can achieve in a given period of time, while we attempt to make time a finite value in our system, and boy! Don't we love finite values... They remove doubt.

Since we're dealing with PROBABILITIES, in our current case 1 CHANCE out of 10 OPPORTUNITIES for both methods of farming, the more OPPORTUNITIES you get at it, the FASTEST it SHOULD be. Nobody said it will ALWAYS be the case (remember, it's a PROBABILITY) but there is A HIGHER PROBABILITY of it occurring when you have MORE OPPORTUNITIES in the same amount of time.

No, killing X amount of the same enemy doesn't bring the same result in the time it takes to kill them. Can you spot the flaw in logic in the previous sentence?

Since time is now our main focus, as it should for our exercise, the "performance" of the user (including what gear he/she has) and the quality of hardware become variables in our system, since they alter our time coefficient. Variables imply doubt and as we concluded earlier, we don't love doubt: we love certainty. The fact that you use a high-end PC NEEDS to be taken into account when you make a claim like "I have the answer and here it is". If an element is missing in your argument, I'm sorry but your answer is wrong from the get go.

How can we minimize doubt here? By using the road travelled the most often: if most people use that road, it is likely that it is the safest. Maybe not, but probably. So we use the most "popular" system based on analytics (maybe not the optimal choice, but that's the fairest one, imo), and something like "casual-ish" to "not-quite-speedrunning" farming behavior as our performance.

So there you have it: the "fastest", for lack of a more precise term, most efficient way to farm the Bee Shield (or any other item, really).

Nobody wants to do your tests on a mid-tier system, as you say, since they do not bring conclusive results. It wouldn't make a difference running them: the results would still be inconclusive. That, my friend, is a fact. Your doubt of it is correct, but probably for the wrong reasons.

You only need to invest 1 hr of your time on gathering the data you need to have an idea of what COULD be the most efficient, not 8. It's ok to lose some time when playing a game, nobody's gonna be disappointed in you because you wasted 4 seconds, once, in killing that 3rd mob from the right. And again, it's just a shield in a game, not the nuclear codes. I don't want to say you wasted your time because it wouldn't be true. I may have wasted mine but I don't care.

[Zen_Disaster]

It''s still ... alive?!?

Alrighty then... in the community spirit, I'll carry on. Yes quality (of system hard & software) matters - that's why developers always tell you the minimum & the optimal specs for their games. It's why I told the OP at the beginning of his thread that in order to most efficiently test reasonably sized samples (10,000+), he'll need an SSD; we can expand this idea to include reasonably high speed central + graphic processors, minimum 8GB RAM, high bandwidth low latency internet connection & your SSD best be of suitable size to store your overall system. Your operating system needs to be the most modern / current of its kind. That pretty much shoots my wad on the matter of in-game speeds

[Kasaur]

I have 4 different bees and i farmed only the treant where Tina balance the enemy lvls and the ones who appear behind the teenage treant in tvhm, got 2 in normal and 2 in tvhm. It only took around 1 hr to 30 mins in each difficulty.

[Toast]

the fastest way is begging

[Agarillobob]

Escrito originalmente por Toast:

the fastest way is begging