New drop rates display

BCdiscman wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Care to point out where I said they would find a way to back out? I said I don't agree with Apple's actions on this. I still don't. Check your facts.

Wasn't pointed at anyone in particular. Maybe instead of wisdom should have said 'unassailable knowledge'. Sorry if you took offense.

Fair enough. I apologize. My name has been used that way before. I figured it was a reference to me because of my stance. All good.

Crimson8399 wrote: »

Drop rates indicate the likelihood that you will receive the specified item. Here’s a couple of quick examples to help explain how drop rates work:
- If you have a coin, the likelihood of tossing this coin and getting heads vs. tails is 50%. Each time that you toss the coin is independent of the previous coin toss and the likelihood of getting heads vs. tails doesn’t change because you tried again. If you toss this coin 10 times, it is possible that it may turn up heads every time, just once, twice, three times, etc. Each coin toss is independent and not affected by the previous coin toss.
- In relation to the game, if you buy a Premium Hero Crystal, and the drop rate for a 4-Star Champion is 2%, this doesn’t mean that if you buy 100 Premium Hero Crystals you’re guaranteed to receive a 4-Star Champion two times. This means that you have a 2% chance to get a 4-Star Champion each time you open that Crystal. If you purchase one Premium Hero Crystal, you could receive a 4-Star Champion, or you could purchase multiple Premium Hero Crystals and not receive any 4-Star Champion.

So if the percentage resets every time you get a crystal, doesn't that defeat the purpose of percentages or am I missing something?

The number shown isn't just a "percentage" it is specifically a percentage chance. What are the odds of a six-sided die coming up five? 16.7% or one in six. That doesn't mean the die "resets the percentage" on every roll. Nothing is being reset. Every time you throw the die, all the sides have the same chance of coming up. But you can still get Yahtzee.

The "purpose" of showing the percentages is to inform the players of the chance for something to happen, not to advertise a guarantee of how often it will happen.

Dice don't offer guarantees. Roulette wheels don't offer guarantees. Slot machines can go days without hitting a jackpot and then hit three in five minutes. The past events don't influence the future events.

MattScott

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

MattScott wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Care to point out where I said they would find a way to back out? I said I don't agree with Apple's actions on this. I still don't. Check your facts.

Apple is doing its part to use the power it has on behalf of the best interest of their customers. I applaud their move. They probably got tens of thousands of complaints about loot boxes (probably most not MCOC) and they forwarded it he concerns of their customers to the app makers.

It was probably a little self serving as well, as now they don’t have to deal with nearly as many complaints of that fashion.

Bravo Apple.

People are entitled to their own views on it. I have many reasons why I disagree with it. I'm glad people are happy with the information. I'm just not for it.

I’m curious.... what don’t you like about it? I can not see any logical downside or disadvantage for us players or the company. Lack of transparency is how dictatorships operate. Please, tell me. What are you not for it?

chev327fox wrote: »

I like the new numbers... but as DNA said it does not match the slightly less then 1% we knew it as before (and as he pointed out tested many times... not to mention the 3* and 2* numbers being pretty far off the mark too, I mean the 3*s are around 2x as high according to this right? or am I miss-remembering the odds tests I have seen?). I feel like they thought 0.6%-0.9% would look bad so raised it to a cool 2.0% (nice change if so).

Or maybe all the older tests were over a percent off (but there are too many tests for this to be the case iMO). Anyways... interesting development. Seems Mikke didn't want to reply/answer if the odds actually changed from before or not, or maybe he just didn't read it, either way still interesting and welcome change.

I'm not specifically saying it happened, but one benefit of displaying percentages I mentioned in the other thread about this topic was the fact that when monetization numbers have to be exposed to the players, it makes those values a directly player-facing component of the game. That means more voices get to have input into what they are than just a guy manipulating spreadsheets looking for ways to optimize revenue. You now have other developers and producers saying "is this a good number to be showing players?" And that can influence what the reward tables are. Even if it doesn't happen explicitly - like someone saying "increase that number it looks too low" - it can still place subtle pressure on the monetization people to think more carefully about how things appear, not just what they calculate to be. And in my opinion, that's something they should have been doing from the start. And not just from the start of MCOC, from the literal start of microtransaction-driven lootboxes.

As I said, there are a couple of possibilities. All testing to date has been wrong (astronomically unlikely). The drop rate was changed recently, whether due to odds display or not. Or the value in the announcement isn't coming from live data and the actual game servers have different data, which we will see eventually when the feature goes live. But the *idea* that the devs might increase reward percentages because they themselves don't like how the raw number looks is something I find to be very positive overall. If you are a game developer and you are reading this, you should never be embarrassed to tell your players what you are doing to them. In practical terms, there are many things you can't tell them. But if there's anything you're doing you would be uncomfortable saying even if you could, you should consider maybe not doing that thing.

As i said i believe the shard variations differ to the full crystals and The testing that been done previously is primarily the shard versions....
I also do think there is statistical bias as peeps are much more likely to post Awesome than bad ones....
But hey who knows...

But if infact kabam have done this and thought 1% looks real bad when they see it.... lets increase it to 2%..... that is a good thing... not something for peeps to complain about....
Like really who cares if it was 1% in the past and now it will be 2%.... i wouldnt dwell on and cry about the past “ wah wah it was sooo bad f kabam.... wah wah.... grumble grumble complain complain”
I will be happy like “awesome they finally increased it and gave us a better chamce... thats great... well done”.....
Who gives a **** wat the motivation was...

Maat1985 wrote: »

Who gives a **** wat the motivation was...

I do, which is why I'm discussing it. I'm not dwelling on it or crying about it. Its not like I'm crying about why there's no 5* Wolverine or anything like that. Because of course that would be pathetic.

420sam

DNA3000 wrote: »

Maat1985 wrote: »

Who gives a **** wat the motivation was...

I do, which is why I'm discussing it. I'm not dwelling on it or crying about it. Its not like I'm crying about why there's no 5* Wolverine or anything like that. Because of course that would be pathetic.

Yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere. Cause flooding the forums with useless theories and conspiracy theories based on crunching data from youtube vids is not pathetic enough.

BitterSteel

Anyone else thinks this just feels like kabam saying, “yeah well we know Apple made us to it, but we were planning on doing it anyway... so we’re not that bad. We were thinking about doing it before Apple told us”?

Every time drop rates were mentioned before, it was a blunt shut down by Adora who was like “we are NOT discussing drop rates”

Or is it just me

BitterSteel wrote: »

Anyone else thinks this just feels like kabam saying, “yeah well we know Apple made us to it, but we were planning on doing it anyway... so we’re not that bad. We were thinking about doing it before Apple told us”?

Every time drop rates were mentioned before, it was a blunt shut down by Adora who was like “we are NOT discussing drop rates”

Or is it just me

It is entirely possible that they were discussing doing this for quite a long time, and also they are only doing it because Apple put a gun to their head. Game development companies are composed of people, each one with different opinions. I've seen cases where the majority opinion in a company is to do one thing, but policy prevents them from doing it anyway. When the policy is reversed or the circumstances change, then it can seem like the entire company changed its mind when it was just a small but critical change to the way things got done.

Sometimes the answer really is absolutely not, until it becomes absolutely yes.

MattScott wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

MattScott wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Care to point out where I said they would find a way to back out? I said I don't agree with Apple's actions on this. I still don't. Check your facts.

Apple is doing its part to use the power it has on behalf of the best interest of their customers. I applaud their move. They probably got tens of thousands of complaints about loot boxes (probably most not MCOC) and they forwarded it he concerns of their customers to the app makers.

It was probably a little self serving as well, as now they don’t have to deal with nearly as many complaints of that fashion.

Bravo Apple.

People are entitled to their own views on it. I have many reasons why I disagree with it. I'm glad people are happy with the information. I'm just not for it.

I’m curious.... what don’t you like about it? I can not see any logical downside or disadvantage for us players or the company. Lack of transparency is how dictatorships operate. Please, tell me. What are you not for it?

I've already covered it in the previous Thread and I don't want to rehash it here. There are several reasons, such as the definition of Gambling and my views on Apple, and the way this was brought about. I'm really not interested in going into it here. We can just leave it at I'm not for it.

DNA3000 wrote: »

Maat1985 wrote: »

Who gives a **** wat the motivation was...

I do, which is why I'm discussing it. I'm not dwelling on it or crying about it. Its not like I'm crying about why there's no 5* Wolverine or anything like that. Because of course that would be pathetic.

What is bringing a totally untelated topic here got to do with anything????
That is pathetic......
For one the topic to which you are refering was simply questions being asked and not given answers except useless stuff by a bunch of trolls....

But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and has no place for mention in this discussion.....

So back to the topic at hand....
Regardless of their motivation to release this info it can only be a good thing. Especially if they have infact increased the drop rate....

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

MattScott wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

MattScott wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Care to point out where I said they would find a way to back out? I said I don't agree with Apple's actions on this. I still don't. Check your facts.

Apple is doing its part to use the power it has on behalf of the best interest of their customers. I applaud their move. They probably got tens of thousands of complaints about loot boxes (probably most not MCOC) and they forwarded it he concerns of their customers to the app makers.

It was probably a little self serving as well, as now they don’t have to deal with nearly as many complaints of that fashion.

Bravo Apple.

People are entitled to their own views on it. I have many reasons why I disagree with it. I'm glad people are happy with the information. I'm just not for it.

I’m curious.... what don’t you like about it? I can not see any logical downside or disadvantage for us players or the company. Lack of transparency is how dictatorships operate. Please, tell me. What are you not for it?

I've already covered it in the previous Thread and I don't want to rehash it here. There are several reasons, such as the definition of Gambling and my views on Apple, and the way this was brought about. I'm really not interested in going into it here. We can just leave it at I'm not for it.

Actually, you've never answered that question. You've stated your arguments for why lootboxes are not gambling, which is a separate matter but has nothing to do with whether someone would be for or against odds disclosure regardless. And you've stated your vague opposition to Apple policies, which also have nothing to do with whether someone would be for or against odds disclosure in general.

I don't believe lootboxes satisfy the legal definition of gambling, and I believe all companies should disclose these odds whether they are compelled to do so or not. So opposing Apple's app store policies and what the definition of gambling is are non-sequitor to the question of whether someone supports or is opposed to players being informed about the contents of stochastic reward generators before they purchase them. I also believe players deserve to be informed about the way critical game mechanics function, and that has nothing to do with the legal definition of gambling or Apple's app store policies. It has to do with what I think game players deserve to know about a game they spend time and money in, and nothing else.

That's fine. You are entitled to your own views on it, and I'm entitled to my own. I don't have to elaborate on them if I choose not to, especially when my views on the subject differ and will inevitably lead to a debate that will not end. I'm not for it. That's about all I'm going to say. Do I support people having information to make better choices? Yes. However, that's not the only aspect to the situation, and I'm not getting into it. I can respect that people support it. I don't have to agree.

@DNA3000 one thing to consider is the fact that the legal definition of gambling does change from country to country so you may not believe it does fit the criteria in your country it may very easily fit the legal definition of another.
Personally i believe that anything involving you giving something away for a chance at something should be considered gambling Irrespective of if it is real world money or in game currency or similar. As my understanding of gambling is as simple “take a chance in the hope of a desired result” which is an accepted dictionary definition of the word. I cannot say if thisnfits the legal definition everywhere in the world or not.

But you are correct regardless of if it is legally or technically gambling we should still know.

BitterSteel

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

That's fine. You are entitled to your own views on it, and I'm entitled to my own. I don't have to elaborate on them if I choose not to, especially when my views on the subject differ and will inevitably lead to a debate that will not end. I'm not for it. That's about all I'm going to say. Do I support people having information to make better choices? Yes. However, that's not the only aspect to the situation, and I'm not getting into it. I can respect that people support it. I don't have to agree.

But, if what has been said here by people claiming you haven’t explained your opinion is true. What you’ve done is just say “I don’t like what Apple are doing”, and then refused to say why. That seems rather close minded and childish to me. The equivalent of me saying, “I think DNA3000 is a bully” and then saying, “I’m not explaining why I think that, I’ve said why I think it loads before” when I haven’t.

I’m not necessarily saying you haven’t explained this, but I’m not prepared to wade through your novel of 6000 posts just in case you have given it, and I can find out what you think. Why not just explain?

I'm not going to be coerced into a discussion I don't want to have. There are many reasons I don't agree with it, and I'm not getting into it. No one is entitled to elaboration. Sorry, not sorry.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not going to be coerced into a discussion I don't want to have. There are many reasons I don't agree with it, and I'm not getting into it. No one is entitled to elaboration. Sorry, not sorry.

Whilst it is you choice and your right not to elaborate you really should steer clear of posting your point of view if you do not wish to back it up and expalin it. It makes your comments worthless and meaningless as they seemingly have no substance.
Everyones descisions, beliefs and opinions all have some substance behind them as that is how we form them. However if you cannot elaborate on it it gives the appearence of no substance or leads to questions of doubt as to the merit and accuracy of what you say.
So yeah if you do not wish to elaborate it would be best to stay quiet.

VandalSavage

beyonder8421 wrote: »

1ceman18 wrote: »

2% for a 4*champion from a premium hero crystal, damn, I think the word premium has lost all of its meaning in the eyes of Kabam. So does this drop rate feature apply to manually spinning the crystal or using the open the crystal feature as well. And the analogy of equating this to a coin toss is just ridiculous. With a coin toss you're guaranteed a head or a tail and the chances of getting either a head or tail is significantly higher compared to a crystal with an upward of about how many champions I'm not sure but thanks to Kabam there's a 50/50 chance of 2% to acquire a 4* champion. Seriously lmao

When the Premium Hero Crystal was introduced, the landscape of crystals was different. So you had the free daily crystal (that wasn't just champions), and the free 4 hour crystal (that has no champions). And that was pretty much it. You had special featured crystals like romance, or avengers crystals, and 3 and 4 star crystals were only available through offers (no shards in the game). So it was kind of a premium crystal. They should probably update the name.

There was a crystal simply called "hero crystal". The top prize in that was the 3-star hero.

I never saw the crystal myself. I only saw it mentioned in an old post in the old forum when I first joined. The post said the crystal was being removed from the game. The post didn't mention why it was removed (or I simply don't remember why).

When someone is presenting their point of view, they don't have to add substance to it. One's opinion is their own. When presenting something as fact, that argument may have ground. My views are my own, and will inevitably lead to an argument that I'm not interested in having. No one is entitled to an explanation on something that I disagree with. I'm not going to be forced into an argument. You're just going to have to move on and accept the fact that I don't agree and my reasons are my own.

Primmer79

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

When someone is presenting their point of view, they don't have to add substance to it. One's opinion is their own. When presenting something as fact, that argument may have ground. My views are my own, and will inevitably lead to an argument that I'm not interested in having. No one is entitled to an explanation on something that I disagree with. I'm not going to be forced into an argument. You're just going to have to move on and accept the fact that I don't agree and my reasons are my own.

You have said nothing that goes against wat insaid. I agree with what you are saying.
You do not have to tell us your reason
But if you do not want to explain
Keep your opinion to yourself

Maat1985 wrote: »

@DNA3000 one thing to consider is the fact that the legal definition of gambling does change from country to country so you may not believe it does fit the criteria in your country it may very easily fit the legal definition of another.
Personally i believe that anything involving you giving something away for a chance at something should be considered gambling Irrespective of if it is real world money or in game currency or similar.

The problem with that sort of expansive definition is that it would immediately make things like baseball trading cards illegal in most of the United States. I don't know if you would find that acceptable, but the reason why gambling laws have so many technical boundaries is to make sure activities most people find acceptable aren't regulated as gambling. In fact, every time there is a new iPhone or Galaxy smart phone there are enthusiasts who figure out which chip sets have superior performance, are aware that some phones are therefore more valuable than others in some way, and sometimes buy phones knowing they have a random chance to get the specific serial number they want. That would also fit your definition of gambling.

Remember that legal definitions are not about dictionaries. They are about what people find socially collectively acceptable. It is gambling if enough people want to regulate it in the same was as other activities called gambling, and it is not gambling if they don't. It is about classification, not definition. Of course by any reasonable colloquial definition, lootboxes are gambling.

The legal definition does differ in different countries, and in fact it also varies slightly between different US states. California and Nevada actually have some remarkably kooky edge cases. But there is a general consensus in most parts of the world that tends to hinge on a core set of requirements generally involving (greatly oversimplifying) cash (or material value) in, potential cash (or material value) out, and a significant amount of chance. That's generally the core definition I use when talking about regulation or legalization. As I said previously, I'm not disputing the colloquial definition. By the colloquial definition, lootboxes are gambling. I'd even go so far as to say they have the same psychological impact as gambling. You just can't automatically make the leap to saying that because they are gambling they should be regulated as such. That leap has to be argued, it can't be semantically taken.