**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
Technically, Kabam has made statements about the drop rates already. They've stated that within a specific rarity and outside of specific and described alterations in odds (i.e. crystals explicitly stated to have "increased odds" at certain drops), all champions are equally likely. That means within a rarity, if you know how many champs are in that rarity, they have specified the relative odds of those champions dropping. What they haven't stated are the relative odds of *different* rarities dropping, i.e. the difference in odds between a 2*, a 3*, and a 4* champion dropping from a PHC.
When you say "if it is truly RNG" you understand that even if Kabam were to be manipulating the relative odds of certain champions dropping that would have nothing to do with the random number generator or with the drops being "random." Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to give one group of people a one in a hundred chance for 4* from PHC and a different group of people a one in ten chance for 4* from PHC, I wouldn't touch the random number generator at all. The way a reward drop table works in games like this is there is a reward table, like a spreadsheet, and the computer generates a random number, like a dice roll, to determine which reward you get. For some reason a lot of people think that the reward table looks like just a list of rewards, say a list of a hundred champions, and Kabam somehow manipulates the random number generator to make the number "8" come up more often than "12" to manipulate the odds. That's not how this works.
Conceptually, the way this works is closer to this. Imagine a table with one hundred entries. The first one says "4* champ" and the rest don't (I don't want to bother with 3* and 2* odds now). The computer rolls a number from one to one hundred, and whichever number comes up that's your rewards. Since only the number "1" contains a 4* champion entry, you have a one in a hundred chance to win that champ.
If I like you, I give you a different crystal that looks the same but contains a different table. This one has ten entries that say "4* champ" and the rest don't. The computer rolls the same random number from one to one hundred, but this time ten entries contain 4*, so you have a one in ten chance of getting that champion.
If you were going to manipulate odds, that's how you would do it. Every champion would be randomly drawn, and the random number generator would generate completely unbiased unskewed random numbers. Whether you manipulate the odds or not, the drops are "truly random." In fact focusing on the "randomness" of the drops is itself rather missing the point of how these things work. Randomness is how the drops are selected: in an unbiased and unpredictable fashion. But odds is a completely different thing. Odds are determined by how the reward drop table is constructed. The odds specify the ratio of one kind of drop to another, and odds have nothing to do with the random number generator.
The pool isn't all the champs. .. I think it's 3 pools a day eachpool containing a specific number of champions that you can pull
You haven't stated how changing odds can directly increase revenue. Crystal odds are not a revenue knob you can just turn to get more and less revenue because there's no direct correlation between drops and spending. It is easy to make the trivial connection that if you give out less stuff, players will then spend more money to get the same stuff. But that's not how that works.
But you didn't answer my question. My question was: why put an incentive in the game and not tell anyone about it? You're saying hypothetically an incentive is worth putting in since it can significantly affect revenue. My question stands. Why put an incentive into the game and not tell the players about it, removing the ability for it to directly affect behavior? It can't be because they think telling players is unnecessary, they filed a patent that explicitly extolled the benefits of telling players about incentives to alter loot box odds.
They haven't been reverse engineered, but they have been measured. Some crystals, like PHCs, have enough streamed data on Youtube and in other places to be pretty certain what the drop rates are to within small margins, and also very certain those odds do not change depending on the player. The recent GMC survey generated results that seem consistent with other crystals, and the drop rates for 5* featured have been studied since when the crystal first came out (I'm one of the early sources for the "20% - 25%" figure of merit).
Here is the answer. Say the algorithm has a 80% success rate in guessing which player would spend more money if they “missed” their feature pull. Have a f2p player, or nearly, f2p in their ally pop a crystal and get an amazing pull. Turn down the spenders odds and watch the money come rolling in.
Just one of MANY possible ways data and these games are set up to feed into your subconscious.
Whale goes fishing,
And maybe nearly f2p player decides to try and drop an Odin to dupe his new pull, to no avail.
This image got me jailed
China was the first to step in on the loot box fight, European nations (Germany for one) are now stepping up as well as the United States. I feel like loot boxes will be going away in the near future. Just from what I've read on news reports. I'd rather have a game where you pay for content and not pay for a chance at content. I tend to have an "entertainment budget" that I use and to be honest from poor pulls I tend to not use it on this game more times than when I open my wallet. But thats just me.
Just because you can write it, doesn't mean anyone can or does do it. Why say the algorithm has an 80% success rate; why not say it has a 100% success rate? Do you believe 80% is more plausible?
I'm not sure why you're quoting me here, because this seems to have nothing to do with what I said.
I suppose it is possible you might think what I said was something like "players have had no success in making changes to how lootbox monetization systems operate" or something like that. But if you look at the post I was replying to, what I said was that people often believe that lootbox odds are rigged to operate in a manner other than what the game operators says they operate at, and the players with that belief tend to turn out to be wrong when proof eventually emerges.
It is obvious that people have been pushing back on certain aspects of how lootboxes and other kinds of microtransaction monetization systems work, and have had some successes recently. That has nothing to do with what they *think* about how the systems function. If anything, part of the purpose of disclosure rules is to dispel many of the misconceptions about how they work.
I was simply stating a way it COULD work, as you had asked.
And i was throwing a figure out (80%) just a number from thin air, as i doubt that anything could have a 100% success rate.
I was looking for a plausible way. I'm unaware of any game that currency uses predictive algorithms like that, although I concede it is only a matter of time before such things happen. The technology to do that didn't exist when MCOC was first created, and it likely doesn't currently exist at a price point to make the technology available to most mobile game companies yet. My guess is that such a thing is at least technologically feasible within the next year or two.
You'd be surprised, though, just how backward game companies are when it comes to technology. Remember: most game companies outsource almost all of the technological infrastructure that is used to power their games, from the frameworks to the networking to the server back ends. It wasn't too long ago that most games were written in C. Not C++, C. And it is still extremely common in the game industry for text assets to be built in Excel, as in literally Excel the spreadsheet. And by text assets, I mean things like the abilities and statistics for all the champions in MCOC.
If you open a 5* Basic, you have a 100% chance to gain a 5*. XD
Except when it’s a 4* Psylocke
She was never in the Crystal. That was only the visual. I get what you're saying though. Lol. It was just a little humor on my part.
I swear this is probably what Kabam is trying to argue they need to provide: "if you open a 5* crystal that's 100% chance of getting a 5*!"
If the champs they designed were entirely equal, then yeah, everyone would be pretty happy that. But gawd, most champs are kind of disappointing, which makes even opening a 5* crystal feel like a gamble.
I'm guessing it's actually these kinds of details getting argued. That Kabam could leave room to say, select a random subset of available 5* champs at any period in time, and just report "it's a 100% chance for a 5*".
I suspect there will be "games within the game" played for a while before this is truly public.
You could also raise the point of Confirmation Bias. "The odds are manipulated because we roll the disappointment more than anything.", when in reality, the sheer number of Champs people consider disappointing make it a viable certainty. It's a perception thing. If people are only going for a small number of Champs and consider the rest garbage, that leaves little room for favorable rolls. TL:DR - When you narrow the window of what you want, you open the window of what you don't want, and disappointment makes people think it's rigged.
Yeah, I don't really think it's anything but a straight percentage, but I could totally see some PHB in a meeting just trying to keep things as flexible as possible "just you know, in case".
I'm just bracing for the first reveal of "odds" to basically be meaningless lol. And then everyone says "WTF does this mean" and it goes back and forth for a while.
So long as the odds of each individual 5* champ are equal, that is in fact all they would need to provide for that crystal. Except I'm not sure they would actually need to provide the odds of the drops within a 5* basic crystal because those are not normally purchased with cash or units. That's a bit of a grey area.
They’ve had 5* basic crystals for sale before. And 5* shards.
They have had them before, but these requirements are not retroactive and the requirement itself only says that the odds need to be disclosed to the player "before purchasing." They would only need to disclose the drop rate for the crystal if and when it was offered for sale like that again.
Fragment sales are, I believe, a legitimately odd grey area. Kabam could argue that the vast majority of fragments are earned in game and not sold and they can only be used to purchase one set of items, 5* crystals, and that could be a legitimate exception to the disclosure requirement if Apple accepted that idea. I don't think that line of thought extends to units because units are obviously an in-game currency used to purchase a multitude of in-game items: that's what makes it a legitimate in-game currency. But 5* shards are not an in-game currency as people normally think about them.
I'm not saying that they are definitely in or out, just that I can see a legitimate argument surrounding them that Apple would listen to.
The display is in fact only visual. There's definitive proof that the contents of the spinner are independent of what the crystal contents actually are. In asking if anyone got her, they were trying to determine if the error was *only* in the spinner or if the error was also made in the reward table separately.
To summarise: I don’t mind hustle, I do mind deception, I think this is why the odds haven’t been released, they aren’t that simple
I can think of two reasons for your predicament.
1. You are misjudging champions to overemphasize the ones you don't have verses the ones you do. For example, Morningstar is not a top tier champ. Mephisto is mostly a good defender except under special conditions. Cap WWII used to be a top tier champion, but he's been overtaken by a ton of champs. I don't know what your roster looks like in total, but your abbreviated description isn't convincing that you have an especially poor one.
2. Whether your roster is poor or not, statistically speaking more people should have lesser ones than have greater ones because most people's list of great champions is a small fraction of the total. As the vast majority of people are not good at statistics in general, I feel safe in assuming you are judging the odds of drawing your particular roster intuitively rather than mathematically, and that intuition has been scientifically proven to be faulty in pretty much every experiment that measures people's ability to judge statistics.
In other words, confirmation bias.
Let me ask you a question. If you believe the crystals are weighted to make the "bad" champions much easier to pull, how is it you are pulling Kamala Khan only now?