Apple Now Requires Game Developers to disclose odds on "Loot Boxes" [MERGED THREADS]

Vdh2008 · 2017-12-21T16:58:46+00:00

Any comments on this?<br/><br/><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16805674/apple-loot-box-app-store-games-odds-probability-disclosure" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16805674/apple-loot-box-app-store-games-odds-probability-disclosure</a><br/><br/>

Vdh2008

Any comments on this?

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16805674/apple-loot-box-app-store-games-odds-probability-disclosure

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

Thatweirdguy

phillgreen wrote: »

If the drop rates are equal for all players and not manipulated based on factors not disclosed then publishing drop rates has no effect whatsoever.

There is no conspiracy unless its by app publishers.

There it is. If drop rates are not manipulated in anyway as many believe then Kabam should welcome the opportunity to disclose this.

Again, Apple is simply getting in front of federal regulations that see coming so as not interrupt their business model. If you think that saying items purchased with units don't count....then good for you. You are wrong though.

Also everyone please stop feeding the troll. His nonsensical posts are annoying.

UnsaferBinkie7

Thatweirdguy wrote: »

phillgreen wrote: »

If the drop rates are equal for all players and not manipulated based on factors not disclosed then publishing drop rates has no effect whatsoever.

There is no conspiracy unless its by app publishers.

There it is. If drop rates are not manipulated in anyway as many believe then Kabam should welcome the opportunity to disclose this.

Again, Apple is simply getting in front of federal regulations that see coming so as not interrupt their business model. If you think that saying items purchased with units don't count....then good for you. You are wrong though.

Also everyone please stop feeding the troll. His nonsensical posts are annoying.

You forgot to add his opinions too.

Tropical_Chris

This probably wont have a big impact in terms on the purchasing behaviour of the customers. Gambling and lotto have very bad odds and still people participate in those activities. Us humans are not as logical as we would like to think

If any, this would have bigger issues for Kabam logistically. This means they need to continuously disclose any changes to their algo which adds overhead. And they need to make sure that their app behaves as intended.

BitterSteel

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

To be more specific, that's not a generalization. I don't think all people questioning drop rates are doing so out of skepticism. I think some are generally curious, some want more information, some are indifferent, etc. It's just that I think the larger number are chomping at the bit at some sort of sign that the company hasn't been honest. Lol. Evident by the comments that assert and hypothesize that rates are altered and not as presented.

I am 100% sure that your arse is jealous of the amount of **** that comes out of your mouth

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mmx1991

You armchair lawyers can hide behind words and technicalities but the essence of this game (and many like it) is gambling.

You can put down real money and risk it for something of value. It's gambling.

You say it's not gambling because the TOS says this game has no monetary value? Really? Then why is REAL money involved if nothing of value is on the line?

Real money involved? It's gambling. No money involved, it's not gambling. But it can't be real money and no gambling at the same time. The two can't coexist at the same time and make sense.

DarkestDestroyer

Mmx1991 wrote: »

You armchair lawyers can hide behind words and technicalities but the essence of this game (and many like it) is gambling.

You can put down real money and risk it for something of value. It's gambling.

You say it's not gambling because the TOS says this game has no monetary value? Really? Then why is REAL money involved if nothing of value is on the line?

Real money involved? It's gambling. No money involved, it's not gambling. But it can't be real money and no gambling at the same time. The two can't coexist at the same time and make sense.

Amen to that 🙏

GbSarkar

Haven't read any of the thread but wtf are you guys still discussing? No one from Kabam has even commented on this issue here after Ad0ra_'s initial post and I'm pretty sure commenting on this thread won't make them. They have mastered the art of ignoring people

DNA3000

Mmx1991 wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Mmx1991 wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

See simply put, every definition I have come across requires that for gambling to occur you need to put up something of value (hint units have zero value) for a chance at being awarded something of value (hint there is zero value in any item in game refer to the TOS).

I don't care what the TOS says.

Units and shards CAN be purchased. You spin them for a chance at something. You can win or lose. It's gambling straight up.

Under what definition? Oh wait you are not worried about what is established nor contracts as you’ve already chosen to ignore the contract you entered into.

P.s. you always wi.

Not all contracts are legal. You can't have a contract to sell you own kid or own a slave. You guys keep throwing the TOS around like it's airtight. It's just a bunch of words that may or may not hold it court.

Legally, if you believe the MCOC TOS is not legal, you must stop playing the game. You agree to accept the TOS when you play, and if you decide the TOS is not legal and choose to disregard it, you no longer have a legal permission to play the game.

Basically, the TOS is an agreement that grants you permission to play the game under a set of conditions. If the agreement itself is considered invalid, nothing else extends you permission to access the game servers.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Snizzbar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They may be able to set provisions on App Store Purchases, but they do not have the ability or the legal jurisdiction to mandate disclosing anything purchased in-game, using in-game currency.

Nope, but they have the ability and the legal jurisdiction to exclude apps from their own app store for not following the guidelines. How long would Kabam hold out if that actually happened to MCoC? They'd fold in about thirty seconds. Lol.

QUOTE:

Android OS, belonging to Google, is Linux-based and is partly an open source. Originally developed by Android Inc., the company was later acquired by Google in 2005. iOS is Apple’s mobile operating system. Android dominates the market with a whopping 87%, while iOS comes at a distant second at 12%.

While Apple tended to dominate the market in the early stages, it is now clearly dominated by Android.

Apple have even less of the income generated through apps, at 8%, while Android through its many stores has 92% of the income

END quote

All im saying is, people shouldnt get their hopes too high that this will happen at all, and even if it does it wont make any difference at all

Um, the first part of your quote appears to come from this study: https://www.moontechnolabs.com/apple-vs-android-comparative-study-2017/

However, that study does not have your income statement and I can find no source for it. In fact, the above source states:

Apple Users access more content categories and do more online shopping than Android users. This means that they have higher mCommerce engagement than Android users.
iPhone users tend to make more In-App purchases compared to Android. Ad-displays is the main source of revenue generation in Android Apps.
As per App Annie reports, revenue generation is 60% more on iTunes store of Apple, as compared to Google Play of Android.

iOS has generally always had higher engagement and revenue numbers than Android. 2017 was supposed to be the year that Android finally overtook the Appstore, but only when counting all Android app stores world wide combined (and not just the Google Play store) but I'm not sure if that actually happened since both stores experienced huge growth overall.

DNA3000

Mmx1991 wrote: »

You armchair lawyers can hide behind words and technicalities but the essence of this game (and many like it) is gambling.

You can put down real money and risk it for something of value. It's gambling.

You say it's not gambling because the TOS says this game has no monetary value? Really? Then why is REAL money involved if nothing of value is on the line?

Real money involved? It's gambling. No money involved, it's not gambling. But it can't be real money and no gambling at the same time. The two can't coexist at the same time and make sense.

The legal definition of gambling in most jurisdictions requires both the risk of material value and the potential reward of material value. It is not enough for "real money to be involved." You have to be able to win real money. Lootboxes generally do not allow you to win money, so they are not gambling according to the law in most jurisdictions.

Because the intrinsic value of virtual items in online games is a legal grey area, there is some dispute over this, but the majority of cases I've seen so far suggest that regulating games of chance with no monetary rewards would require additional legislation. That's why some legislators are pursuing such legislation now: the current legal definition of gambling doesn't apply, or they would apply it.

Riegel

DNA3000 wrote: »

Mmx1991 wrote: »

You armchair lawyers can hide behind words and technicalities but the essence of this game (and many like it) is gambling.

You can put down real money and risk it for something of value. It's gambling.

You say it's not gambling because the TOS says this game has no monetary value? Really? Then why is REAL money involved if nothing of value is on the line?

Real money involved? It's gambling. No money involved, it's not gambling. But it can't be real money and no gambling at the same time. The two can't coexist at the same time and make sense.

The legal definition of gambling in most jurisdictions requires both the risk of material value and the potential reward of material value. It is not enough for "real money to be involved." You have to be able to win real money. Lootboxes generally do not allow you to win money, so they are not gambling according to the law in most jurisdictions.

Because the intrinsic value of virtual items in online games is a legal grey area, there is some dispute over this, but the majority of cases I've seen so far suggest that regulating games of chance with no monetary rewards would require additional legislation. That's why some legislators are pursuing such legislation now: the current legal definition of gambling doesn't apply, or they would apply it.

Wrong.

Gambling requires your "something of value" in order for a chance to obtain Material Goods or goods and services, especially those considered unnecessary luxuries.

DNA3000

Riegel wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Mmx1991 wrote: »

You armchair lawyers can hide behind words and technicalities but the essence of this game (and many like it) is gambling.

You can put down real money and risk it for something of value. It's gambling.

You say it's not gambling because the TOS says this game has no monetary value? Really? Then why is REAL money involved if nothing of value is on the line?

Real money involved? It's gambling. No money involved, it's not gambling. But it can't be real money and no gambling at the same time. The two can't coexist at the same time and make sense.

The legal definition of gambling in most jurisdictions requires both the risk of material value and the potential reward of material value. It is not enough for "real money to be involved." You have to be able to win real money. Lootboxes generally do not allow you to win money, so they are not gambling according to the law in most jurisdictions.

Because the intrinsic value of virtual items in online games is a legal grey area, there is some dispute over this, but the majority of cases I've seen so far suggest that regulating games of chance with no monetary rewards would require additional legislation. That's why some legislators are pursuing such legislation now: the current legal definition of gambling doesn't apply, or they would apply it.

Wrong.

Gambling requires your "something of value" in order for a chance to obtain Material Goods or goods and services, especially those considered unnecessary luxuries.

Technically yes, gambling laws specify "something of value." I was speaking colloquially here.

I am unaware of any jurisdiction that defines gambling with the phrase "unnecessary luxuries." Reference please.

Most US states define gambling similar to my own state of Hawaii, which legally defines the act of gambling to be: "A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome."

"Something of value" is defined in the statute: "Something of value means any money or property, any token, object, or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service or entertainment." cf: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_ch0701-0853/hrs0712/hrs_0712-1220.htm

The definition requires that the "something of value" have some monetary value, either directly or indirectly. The phrase "involving extension of service" is legally technical having to do with closing a loop hole in gambling establishments awarding "credits" that could be used to further gameplay and eventually be exchanged for cash. For example: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/washington-federal-court-finds-social-casino-games-not-gambling.

Pertinent passage:

As for their first contention—that the chips allow users to extend gameplay—the plaintiffs pointed to the definition of “thing of value” under Washington’s Gambling Act (RCW 9.46.0285), which in pertinent part, includes anything “involving extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge.” The defendant (successfully) argued that the definition of “thing of value” was adopted after courts in Washington and throughout the county found that some businesses were attempting to circumvent anti-gambling laws that prohibited them directly awarding cash or prizes by awarding “free plays” that later could be exchanged for cash. Therefore, the focus of the analysis should not be on whether extended plays are awarded—but whether those extended plays could eventually result in awarding cash or prizes.

In all of my research on the subject in the past, all legal analysis tends to eventually arrive at the seminal question of whether something of monetary value is being risked, and something of monetary value is potentially being awarded, based primarily on an element of chance. Up to now, courts have been unwilling to state that just because someone claims something to have monetary value that it does. There must be some legitimate legal way to convert the one into the other for that value to be recognized legally.

Richcowboy888

I do hope and wish Apple puts the kibosh on Kabam so they reveal how they’ve been cheating the community.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Cujo999

ViperKingV wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Except you have no take home on that wager. You can't withdrawal from your Account. You don't own it. You are renting the license to use their product. There is no payout. Ever. Your Account, everything in it, the game itself, is property of Kabam. It's right there in the TOS. Which is why it's not governed by an Age of Majority as Gambling is. It's not Gambling. No matter how people spin it.

If you’re trying to say that a digital reward is not an item of value, that is certainly untrue. Whatever you want to call it, Players pay money to buy chances at winning rare game items that help us compete in the game. Kabam shouldn’t need to be forced to provide us with the odds for the items they make available for us to purchase, they should do it on principal. If Kabam chooses not to comply with Apple’s new guidelines or changes aspects of the game to avoid posting odds, my conclusion will be, that The company & forum Mods have not been honest with us. There is no reason for them not to do it, unless the odds are not fixed percentages, and in game modifiers are being used to determine outcomes. Posting the odds will not result in lower game revenues.
While we are awaiting Kabam’s response, I ask the Mods to clear up one thing. The 5* Premium Hero Crystals Cost 5000 shards more than a basic 5* crystal. 5,000 shards whether you buy them or earn them, they have a real $ cost/value to most players. Im not sure how this number was calculated but there seems to be a player consensus that the probability of getting the featured champ Is between 20-25%. Can we get some response if not an actual number?
Does the additional 5,000 5* shards for a featured 5* crystal provide at least a 20% probability to pull the featured champ?

It's in Kabam's ToS agreement that you agree that your account and all in game

Cable wrote: »

So if Kabam isn’t in full compliance with Apple rules and regulations does that mean players can ask for a refund?

All apps go through Apple's review process. If it's in the store, it's approved by Apple, so I doubt you'll have much luck with that argument.

Apple's guidelines are seemingly deliberately very loose and open to interpretation by their reviewers. MCoC's crystals likely already conformed to the new rule. The guidelines simply state that before purchase, the user must be made aware of the odds of getting a type of item. In the case of PHC's, the little blarb about "Guarantees a 2* champion with a rare chance at a 3* or 4* champion" satisfies the stated guidelines. "Champion" is being interpreted by Apple as the "type of item.". Apple never stated they had to give drop rates for specific Champions or rarities.

Vdh2008

Cujo999 wrote: »

ViperKingV wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Except you have no take home on that wager. You can't withdrawal from your Account. You don't own it. You are renting the license to use their product. There is no payout. Ever. Your Account, everything in it, the game itself, is property of Kabam. It's right there in the TOS. Which is why it's not governed by an Age of Majority as Gambling is. It's not Gambling. No matter how people spin it.

If you’re trying to say that a digital reward is not an item of value, that is certainly untrue. Whatever you want to call it, Players pay money to buy chances at winning rare game items that help us compete in the game. Kabam shouldn’t need to be forced to provide us with the odds for the items they make available for us to purchase, they should do it on principal. If Kabam chooses not to comply with Apple’s new guidelines or changes aspects of the game to avoid posting odds, my conclusion will be, that The company & forum Mods have not been honest with us. There is no reason for them not to do it, unless the odds are not fixed percentages, and in game modifiers are being used to determine outcomes. Posting the odds will not result in lower game revenues.
While we are awaiting Kabam’s response, I ask the Mods to clear up one thing. The 5* Premium Hero Crystals Cost 5000 shards more than a basic 5* crystal. 5,000 shards whether you buy them or earn them, they have a real $ cost/value to most players. Im not sure how this number was calculated but there seems to be a player consensus that the probability of getting the featured champ Is between 20-25%. Can we get some response if not an actual number?
Does the additional 5,000 5* shards for a featured 5* crystal provide at least a 20% probability to pull the featured champ?

Apple's guidelines are seemingly deliberately very loose and open to interpretation by their reviewers. MCoC's crystals likely already conformed to the new rule. The guidelines simply state that before purchase, the user must be made aware of the odds of getting a type of item. In the case of PHC's, the little blarb about "Guarantees a 2* champion with a rare chance at a 3* or 4* champion" satisfies the stated guidelines. "Champion" is being interpreted by Apple as the "type of item.". Apple never stated they had to give drop rates for specific Champions or rarities.

Doubt it. Saying "Guaranteed chance at a 2 star blah blah" is NOT stating odds. You can BET that unless you see exact odds stated there WILL be complaints to Apple, and they WILL come down hard on MCOC

Cujo999

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Cujo999 wrote: »

ViperKingV wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Except you have no take home on that wager. You can't withdrawal from your Account. You don't own it. You are renting the license to use their product. There is no payout. Ever. Your Account, everything in it, the game itself, is property of Kabam. It's right there in the TOS. Which is why it's not governed by an Age of Majority as Gambling is. It's not Gambling. No matter how people spin it.

If you’re trying to say that a digital reward is not an item of value, that is certainly untrue. Whatever you want to call it, Players pay money to buy chances at winning rare game items that help us compete in the game. Kabam shouldn’t need to be forced to provide us with the odds for the items they make available for us to purchase, they should do it on principal. If Kabam chooses not to comply with Apple’s new guidelines or changes aspects of the game to avoid posting odds, my conclusion will be, that The company & forum Mods have not been honest with us. There is no reason for them not to do it, unless the odds are not fixed percentages, and in game modifiers are being used to determine outcomes. Posting the odds will not result in lower game revenues.
While we are awaiting Kabam’s response, I ask the Mods to clear up one thing. The 5* Premium Hero Crystals Cost 5000 shards more than a basic 5* crystal. 5,000 shards whether you buy them or earn them, they have a real $ cost/value to most players. Im not sure how this number was calculated but there seems to be a player consensus that the probability of getting the featured champ Is between 20-25%. Can we get some response if not an actual number?
Does the additional 5,000 5* shards for a featured 5* crystal provide at least a 20% probability to pull the featured champ?

Apple's guidelines are seemingly deliberately very loose and open to interpretation by their reviewers. MCoC's crystals likely already conformed to the new rule. The guidelines simply state that before purchase, the user must be made aware of the odds of getting a type of item. In the case of PHC's, the little blarb about "Guarantees a 2* champion with a rare chance at a 3* or 4* champion" satisfies the stated guidelines. "Champion" is being interpreted by Apple as the "type of item.". Apple never stated they had to give drop rates for specific Champions or rarities.

Doubt it. Saying "Guaranteed chance at a 2 star blah blah" is NOT stating odds. You can BET that unless you see exact odds stated there WILL be complaints to Apple, and they WILL come down hard on MCOC

It states the odds exactly. You have a 100% chance of getting a Champion from a Premium Hero Crystal. Apple's guidelines state that they must make the user aware of the odds of getting a certain TYPE of item. Logically, Champions are a type of item. It says nothing about them having to reveal the odds of getting a specific item(like a specific Champion) or a certain rarity of item(2*, 3*, etc.).

DNA3000

Cable wrote: »

So if Kabam isn’t in full compliance with Apple rules and regulations does that mean players can ask for a refund?

I should point out that the lootbox clause is in the app developer guidelines. The guidelines are not "rules" or a checklist that developers must follow, and following them is not necessarily sufficient to have an app approved either. The guidelines were published by Apple because app developers were getting apps rejected by the app store without clear guidance as to what they were doing wrong or what they were allowed to do. Apple started publishing the guidelines to be just that: guidelines that were supposed to be used by the app developers to know what to steer towards and what to steer away from if they wanted their apps approved quickly.

In other words, the guidelines are not a recipe for making an approved app, they are a way for Apple to signal to developers what they are looking at and what they will scrutinize more carefully. Apple can still choose to accept or reject an app from the app store entirely at their own discretion. That's why attempting to figure out what the boundaries of the rule are is missing the point a bit, because Apple doesn't use the guidelines as strict rules. They use them to signal to developers what to be careful about. Apple is *signalling* that they are looking at this issue more carefully and may start rejecting apps they feel do not properly disclose enough information. How much information that is, is probably something that will evolve over time.

You can't ask for a refund just because an app is not in compliance with the guidelines because a) the guidelines are not hard and fast rules, b) those guidelines are for the app approval process and not a prerequisite for being in the app store, and c) in any case they are terms between the app developer and Apple and have nothing to do with you.

DNA3000

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Pertinent passage:

In all of my research on the subject in the past, all legal analysis tends to eventually arrive at the seminal question of whether something of monetary value is being risked, and something of monetary value is potentially being awarded, based primarily on an element of chance. Up to now, courts have been unwilling to state that just because someone claims something to have monetary value that it does. There must be some legitimate legal way to convert the one into the other for that value to be recognized legally.

As you agree in the end mate, not classed as gambling at all at the moment. Every court case has ruled the other way in fact.

As far as I'm aware, every western court case has ruled the other way. I've heard of a couple unusual exceptions in China and Korea.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

Vdh2008 wrote: »

Cujo999 wrote: »

ViperKingV wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Except you have no take home on that wager. You can't withdrawal from your Account. You don't own it. You are renting the license to use their product. There is no payout. Ever. Your Account, everything in it, the game itself, is property of Kabam. It's right there in the TOS. Which is why it's not governed by an Age of Majority as Gambling is. It's not Gambling. No matter how people spin it.

If you’re trying to say that a digital reward is not an item of value, that is certainly untrue. Whatever you want to call it, Players pay money to buy chances at winning rare game items that help us compete in the game. Kabam shouldn’t need to be forced to provide us with the odds for the items they make available for us to purchase, they should do it on principal. If Kabam chooses not to comply with Apple’s new guidelines or changes aspects of the game to avoid posting odds, my conclusion will be, that The company & forum Mods have not been honest with us. There is no reason for them not to do it, unless the odds are not fixed percentages, and in game modifiers are being used to determine outcomes. Posting the odds will not result in lower game revenues.
While we are awaiting Kabam’s response, I ask the Mods to clear up one thing. The 5* Premium Hero Crystals Cost 5000 shards more than a basic 5* crystal. 5,000 shards whether you buy them or earn them, they have a real $ cost/value to most players. Im not sure how this number was calculated but there seems to be a player consensus that the probability of getting the featured champ Is between 20-25%. Can we get some response if not an actual number?
Does the additional 5,000 5* shards for a featured 5* crystal provide at least a 20% probability to pull the featured champ?

Apple's guidelines are seemingly deliberately very loose and open to interpretation by their reviewers. MCoC's crystals likely already conformed to the new rule. The guidelines simply state that before purchase, the user must be made aware of the odds of getting a type of item. In the case of PHC's, the little blarb about "Guarantees a 2* champion with a rare chance at a 3* or 4* champion" satisfies the stated guidelines. "Champion" is being interpreted by Apple as the "type of item.". Apple never stated they had to give drop rates for specific Champions or rarities.

Doubt it. Saying "Guaranteed chance at a 2 star blah blah" is NOT stating odds. You can BET that unless you see exact odds stated there WILL be complaints to Apple, and they WILL come down hard on MCOC

I think game companies are going to try to find wiggle room here. This is how Blizzard chose to interpret the disclosure laws in China for Hearthstone, publishing odds as such:

In adherence to new laws, Hearthstone is hereby declaring the probabilities of getting specific card rarities from packs, with details as below.
Note: Each Hearthstone pack contains cards of 4 different rarities.
RARE - At least 1 rare or better in each pack
EPIC - Average of 1 every 5 packs
LEGENDARY - Average of 1 every 20 packs
In addition, please note that as players open more packs, the actual probability of opening cards of a higher quality increases in tandem.

That's not precise odds, and it doesn't precisely detail the mechanics of the "pity timer" but it currently appears to put them in compliance with the law. I would expect something similar to be what Apple is after.

Thatweirdguy

If they revealed info like Hearthstone does that would be miles ahead in transparency compared to now. I hope it would require a statement on the validity of RNG which many people doubt exists. I opened 15 of those 2017 checkmate crystals yesterday and received a bunch of 3*'s and 2 4* KP's. Seems the odds of that happening would be very rare but it is apparently RNG.

GroundedWisdom

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Cable wrote: »

So if Kabam isn’t in full compliance with Apple rules and regulations does that mean players can ask for a refund?

Depends for what and for what reason mate tbh. Dont risk losing your account, check 1st. @GroundedWisdom on here seems to know re this, and Reddit has many people who have got refunds from Apple as well

Well, I suggested in another Thread that someone contact both Kabam and Apple for a mistaken purchase. This would be an entirely different scenario. If you're asking for Refunds because you believe the company is non-compliant, and you're still playing, that's another subject.

New_Noob168

Honestly, the odds aren't right. The new champs that were recently added aren't the same odds as if someone were to get 1 antman or 1 falcon... I now people can get a voodoo or hyperion from those basic 5*, but the odds on gettting ronin, antman, falcon are far higher.