If we hypothetically remove the rng, are you mentally prepared to pay the cost @V1PER1987 ?
Let’s take the current featured 5* crystal for example. 6/24 are new champs for 15k 5* shards. Removing the extra 18 champs there to leave 6 new champs would mean increasing the odds of pulling a new champ by 3x. This means, to ensure same expected risk/reward ratio, you’re looking at a 60k shard price tag for the new 6 champs.
To totally eliminate rng to give you a targeted champ, you have to increase the odds of getting the champ 5 more times, which means the price tag goes from 60k shards to 360k shards for a specific champ.
At that time people won’t be complaining about rng, but rather what an unrealistic company Kabam is for setting the price tag so high.
The current crystal system is fine. People just want to find someone to blame when things don’t go their way, instead of persevering through it and be patient for better pulls.
Now you’ll tell me that’s healthy for the longevity of the game and I’ll have nothing else to say.
The game has lasted for four years with no real signs it is slowing down, and forms of entertainment that focus entirely on random rewards to an even higher extent than MCOC have existed for an extremely long period of time.
The games industry didn't randomly fall into the lootbox hole by accident. They don't do it because they are just stupidly short sightedly greedy. They did it because it works, it has always worked, and it always will work. People might complain about it, but ultimately they enjoy participating in such activities.
If you want to see an example of the lootbox idea having extreme longevity, look at Magic the Gathering. In many ways, Magic is the immediate ancestor to MMO and mobile lootboxes, and in physical and electronic form it's been around in essentially the same form for decades. And fundamentally, the game uses relatively simply actual game play mechanics: the heart of the game is making rosters of cards from random packs.
That doesn't mean MCOC is going to have the same longevity. Games live or die based on a lot of factors. But it does mean that lootboxes are not an automatic death knell.
What I find ironic about this question is if you believe MCOC deliberately ties its success to addiction, that's actually great for longevity. Nothing makes your product have staying power than if people can't stop using it. People have made that argument about the refined sugar industry.
Selling something to people that want it is business. Deliberately preying on people you know are psychologically incapable of making sound decisions is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You aren't accusing Kabam of selling crystals to people who like to buy crystals. You're accusing them of explicitly designing the game to target people incapable of making sound decisions about the amount of money to spend on crystals. That's not Girl Scouts selling cookies to people who like to eat. That's Girl Scouts deliberately targeting hospitals treating people with dietary problems and poor impulse control. I would find that equally abhorrent.
All businesses make money offering people something they want and willing to pay for. I'm a business owner. I do not prey on my customers, and I take a very dim view of companies that do.
As someone who works in the retail marketing world I’d have to say you’re in the minority.
Finding out everything possible about current/prospective customers and using that information to try and sell them something they most likely don’t really need seems to be the name of the game anymore. There is no honor in business.
And if you think this company doesn’t know exactly what their business model is (gambling) and who their customers are (gamblers) I really think you’re fooling yourself or at least underestimate the lengths companies will go to make a buck.
If you catch me with enough drinks in me, I'll tell you that most business people are too stupid to be as evil as most people think they are.
I know a guy that used to work in the casino layout field. Basically, designing casino floors to maximize "engagement." It's similar to what chain grocery stores did a decade or two ago (and still do) to psychological manipulate their customers into spending more money. The question is how fair those techniques are. It depends greatly on whether you think your customers actually possess free will or not. Are TV commercials unfair manipulation because they try to convince you to buy things you probably didn't originally want and they work?
Thing is, however grey these areas might be, I don't consider them preying, or even taking advantage of, customers. Making yourself or your products more attractive, or creating an environment that people will naturally be more comfortable in, has to be considered "fair game" when it comes to "manipulation" or we eliminate all agency from our customers.
I have had 7 bad pulls so far from 5* shards. But still it cannot ruffle me.
One thing to keep in mind is the structure
Of this game is such that its open world
Game where every month two new champs
Gets added on. So what should we do?
Chase every new champs as must have
And ruin life? Like they say control ur desires no hankering will be born. So stop
Chasing so called desirable good pulls
Disappointments will fail to peck u.
Like we take life as it comes same way take good or bad pulls as they come without getting affected by their presence
Or absence.
If we hypothetically remove the rng, are you mentally prepared to pay the cost @V1PER1987 ?
Let’s take the current featured 5* crystal for example. 6/24 are new champs for 15k 5* shards. Removing the extra 18 champs there to leave 6 new champs would mean increasing the odds of pulling a new champ by 3x. This means, to ensure same expected risk/reward ratio, you’re looking at a 60k shard price tag for the new 6 champs.
To totally eliminate rng to give you a targeted champ, you have to increase the odds of getting the champ 5 more times, which means the price tag goes from 60k shards to 360k shards for a specific champ.
At that time people won’t be complaining about rng, but rather what an unrealistic company Kabam is for setting the price tag so high.
The current crystal system is fine. People just want to find someone to blame when things don’t go their way, instead of persevering through it and be patient for better pulls.
Where was my complaint? I simply said their business model is based on gambling. I stand by my statement. The others on this thread have the right to their own opinion even if it conflicts with mine. However, you’re not going to convince me that this game is not setup to favor the house. Even assuming RNG is setup to have even odds for each champion, Kabam has made it to where only roughly 15-20 of the champion pool is above average and maybe 30 others are viable (and that’s incredibly conservative). So you have a 50/130ish chance to get something worthwhile which is 38.5%. That means that 61.5% of the pool is essentially trash that is only good for those who do arena. Now I don’t have a degree in mathematics but that favors the house. Also keep in mind the odds were worse a year ago. And even two years ago. Now that good champs are starting to fill the basic people are starting to get more and more chances at something good. Maybe around 2025 the odds of getting something decent will even put with the trash.
Comments
If we hypothetically remove the rng, are you mentally prepared to pay the cost @V1PER1987 ?
Let’s take the current featured 5* crystal for example. 6/24 are new champs for 15k 5* shards. Removing the extra 18 champs there to leave 6 new champs would mean increasing the odds of pulling a new champ by 3x. This means, to ensure same expected risk/reward ratio, you’re looking at a 60k shard price tag for the new 6 champs.
To totally eliminate rng to give you a targeted champ, you have to increase the odds of getting the champ 5 more times, which means the price tag goes from 60k shards to 360k shards for a specific champ.
At that time people won’t be complaining about rng, but rather what an unrealistic company Kabam is for setting the price tag so high.
The current crystal system is fine. People just want to find someone to blame when things don’t go their way, instead of persevering through it and be patient for better pulls.
Some people can’t separate the two. Like distant cousins that got married, but didn’t know they were cousins until they became bedfellows.
The game has lasted for four years with no real signs it is slowing down, and forms of entertainment that focus entirely on random rewards to an even higher extent than MCOC have existed for an extremely long period of time.
The games industry didn't randomly fall into the lootbox hole by accident. They don't do it because they are just stupidly short sightedly greedy. They did it because it works, it has always worked, and it always will work. People might complain about it, but ultimately they enjoy participating in such activities.
If you want to see an example of the lootbox idea having extreme longevity, look at Magic the Gathering. In many ways, Magic is the immediate ancestor to MMO and mobile lootboxes, and in physical and electronic form it's been around in essentially the same form for decades. And fundamentally, the game uses relatively simply actual game play mechanics: the heart of the game is making rosters of cards from random packs.
That doesn't mean MCOC is going to have the same longevity. Games live or die based on a lot of factors. But it does mean that lootboxes are not an automatic death knell.
What I find ironic about this question is if you believe MCOC deliberately ties its success to addiction, that's actually great for longevity. Nothing makes your product have staying power than if people can't stop using it. People have made that argument about the refined sugar industry.
If you catch me with enough drinks in me, I'll tell you that most business people are too stupid to be as evil as most people think they are.
I know a guy that used to work in the casino layout field. Basically, designing casino floors to maximize "engagement." It's similar to what chain grocery stores did a decade or two ago (and still do) to psychological manipulate their customers into spending more money. The question is how fair those techniques are. It depends greatly on whether you think your customers actually possess free will or not. Are TV commercials unfair manipulation because they try to convince you to buy things you probably didn't originally want and they work?
Thing is, however grey these areas might be, I don't consider them preying, or even taking advantage of, customers. Making yourself or your products more attractive, or creating an environment that people will naturally be more comfortable in, has to be considered "fair game" when it comes to "manipulation" or we eliminate all agency from our customers.
One thing to keep in mind is the structure
Of this game is such that its open world
Game where every month two new champs
Gets added on. So what should we do?
Chase every new champs as must have
And ruin life? Like they say control ur desires no hankering will be born. So stop
Chasing so called desirable good pulls
Disappointments will fail to peck u.
Like we take life as it comes same way take good or bad pulls as they come without getting affected by their presence
Or absence.
Where was my complaint? I simply said their business model is based on gambling. I stand by my statement. The others on this thread have the right to their own opinion even if it conflicts with mine. However, you’re not going to convince me that this game is not setup to favor the house. Even assuming RNG is setup to have even odds for each champion, Kabam has made it to where only roughly 15-20 of the champion pool is above average and maybe 30 others are viable (and that’s incredibly conservative). So you have a 50/130ish chance to get something worthwhile which is 38.5%. That means that 61.5% of the pool is essentially trash that is only good for those who do arena. Now I don’t have a degree in mathematics but that favors the house. Also keep in mind the odds were worse a year ago. And even two years ago. Now that good champs are starting to fill the basic people are starting to get more and more chances at something good. Maybe around 2025 the odds of getting something decent will even put with the trash.