**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.
Comments
That's certainly not the only reason. You can't just copy and paste the drop rates out of the "code" or even the reward tables in the design spreadsheets which would be even easier, because those are not in a format that would be necessarily easy for the average human being to decipher.
Also, in cases where other game companies had odds that varied based on circumstances, they have so far complied with disclosure requirements by publishing the minimum odds the player can encounter. In other words, if the odds of pulling a 4* champion from a PHC was one in 120, except on Sunday when the odds were one in 60, Kabam could publish the drop odds as at least one in 120 for a 4* crystal and be in compliance with other disclosure requirements. Whether that would satisfy Apple is debatable, but it has worked in other cases.
I read the patent, but doesn't mean that they're using that same formula. And regardless if they are or aren't compiling the information to the publish to the public and have it make sense would take time. Not arguing to argue, but I believe we're all in the same frame of mind. Cough up the numbers, Kabam. A majority of the players have already found out how **** of the return is with these crystal pulls. We're just curious of the pull rates so we can make an educated decision on what's going to provide a better rate on return. Think of it like roulette, bet a specific number higher payout but less odds on return, bet a color and you get higher odds on return but less of a payout. Those willing to risk it are already playing the game and know the about getting "kabamed". Just do what you're told to do be Apple, is all I'm saying.
Maybe. Technically speaking, the guidelines are between the app developer and Apple, and are a requirement for Apple. If Kabam fails to satisfy Apple's requirements, that's entirely up to Apple to decide what to do about that. Kabam isn't directly obligated to give us anything, they are only indirectly being asked to do so by Apple. In other words, Kabam isn't specifically violating any "right" we have that we can complain about.
But we can ask Apple why Marvel Contest of Champions appears to have been approved for the app store when it apparently violates a guideline for app store approval. There isn't a direct mechanism for doing that. There are mechanisms for reporting "in-appropriate apps" which might be the only mechanism for lodging this complaint.
Apple is unlikely to respond directly to you. But it may cause them to reexamine MCOC's app store approval. Absent odds disclosures today or some official statement from Kabam that adequately justifies not publishing odds, that is likely the mechanism I will avail myself of as any ordinary customer would have the right to do.
This is a process, and one taking place on a much larger stage than just MCOC. It is a process I feel compelled to participate in, as someone who has participated in massively multiplayer games and followed microtransactions since they first became a thing in online gaming.
I agree with you but Apple must have determined this to be okay. It is unfortunate.
It seems unlikely we'll see any other announcements this late in the day, so it seems unlikely this app update comes with odds publishing. That is unfortunate, as it seems whoever is in charge of monetization and loot box construction at Kabam feels they are on the right side of history trying to keep these from being disclosed. I tend to grant game developers a lot of discretion and latitude, but I don't find this decision to be a defensible one.
I'm sure you can reach out to Apple and ask not sure where that would get you though but it's still an option for those who want to.
I think you are generally too certain about things you can't know with certainty. But the point to providing feedback to Apple is not just to inform them of what Kabam is doing, it is to inform them of your opinion of the situation. Apple cannot know how I or any other player of the game feels about Kabam avoiding or delaying publishing lootbox odds. As Apple is very likely to have made this change in order to be seen as benefiting their app store customers in the first place, voicing dissatisfaction directly at Apple isn't entirely meaningless.
Right. Apple's intent seems to be getting in front of potential regulations they see coming and consumer protection in general. Telling them or asking them why that regulation does not apply here is a valid pursuit. Voicing any dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency is also helpful. But Kabam has clearly won this round. It is a big win for them with FGMC's being the main mechanism for getting new 5* champs now. Not revealing drop rates helps their sales.
I wouldn't say it's meaningless to provide feedback. I was more speaking to the idea of "Notifying Apple". I doubt it's anything they're not aware of.
One reason for not being so certain is that Apple is not a person. Apple is a company, and the person who approved MCOC for release to the app store is just one human among many. They don't all know what all the others know, don't all think the same things, and aren't all infallible.
Take, for example, the security lock out in iTunes. You know, the security lock out in iTunes that will occasionally and invisibly lock you out of registering iMessage and other iCloud services? The one that no one in customer support or the Genius bar seemed to be aware of when I ran into it, and only discovered after escalating my call twice to a manager who discovered it from engineering, because that information wasn't currently well known throughout Apple, not even its customer support arm. The one that *still* doesn't seem to be widely known about yet.
Apple is a big place.
Thanks for being patient with this. We are still working with Apple on this matter, and will share information with you all when we can.
Interesting.
@DNA3000 You know your stats, what’s your opinion on this?
The point is that motherbox can only be purchased with gems, which either can be earned or bought with real money. In addition to this, some people are getting depressed and stop spending or even quit.
I think I would never want them to be published, because we already know what they are. And let's be honest here, if they do, what can we (as a community) do about it?
Those who are really upset about this really should be contacting Apple, as others have stated. Apple controls the ultimate fate on all of this.
I'm not usually one to question moderation, @Kabam Porthos but you have left me with a bit of quandry here.
It was the picture from reddit with community gathered drop rates
So far as I can tell, Hearthstone hasn't updated their game on the app store recently. Apple doesn't display precise update dates anymore, but Google Play shows the last Hearthstone update as being December 6, 2017.
It is important to reiterate, as often as necessary, that the guidelines document in question is the guidelines for developers to maximize their chances of getting an app approved by the app store approval process. It does not explicitly apply retroactively to apps already in the app store. When Apple makes app store policy changes that will retroactively affect apps already in the app store, they generally (but not always) state that separately in communication to the developers.
That's odd, because that picture has shown up in other threads before, including one I specifically commented on. As far as I'm aware, that data is also uncontroversial. Maybe someone reported it specifically for language content.
1 - 5* featured (1 entry)
2-3 - 5* non-featured (2 entries)
4-7 - 4* featured (4 entries)
8-18 - 4* non-featured (11 entries)
19-120 - 3* champion (102 entries)
The expected percentage distribution from this table would be:
5* featured - 0.83%
5* non-featured - 1.67%
4* featured - 3.33%
4* non-featured - 9.16%
3* champion - 85%
That's a pretty good fit to the crowd sourced drop data that exists out there.
As I mentioned previously, I don't expect Apple's policies to suddenly change anything dramatic for MCOC players. Most of the MCOC crystals have the kinds of odds that make it possible to crowd source the rough odds. Not every game is like that. I don't expect dramatic surprises, only refinements of what we already know. But I still think the requirement for full disclosure (where it is applicable) has benefits beyond just telling players the odds. It makes a statement that we the players *deserve* the odds more than the game companies reasons for not disclosing them.
I didn't look at the micro-text on the bottom right of the image, it contained a number of curse words and I was unable to remove the image by the time I noticed them. Here is the image with the bottom right comments removed:
@DNA3000 5,577 is a very large sample size but I doubt this sample meets the criteria of random sampling. Do you think there's much validity to these numbers?
The comments contained profanity.
Assuming that sample size is unbiased - meaning people didn't just submit entries based on whether they looked "worth submitting" - that sample size is large enough to be statistically meaningful. Without getting into heavy duty math, let's just look at the 5* featured number. That number is very close to one in 120. It could be one in 119, or one in 125. The odds that the actual drop rate is better than one in 100 or worse than one in 150 are pretty low. The odds that the actual drop rate is better than one in 50 or worse than one in 200 are virtually zero.
If you're asking for my opinion on whether this statistical data gathering was done properly, I lean towards this data being valid. The data seems to lead to a conclusion that seems quite reasonable given how drop tables for MMOs are usually constructed and what smaller tests have indicated, and that result is difficult for biased data to move towards. Basically, I wouldn't bet my life this data is accurate, but I would personally feel comfortable operating on the assumption it was accurate unless or until something came along to contradict it.
There's lots of other threads getting posted to, bumping this one down. As soon as you posted to it, it bounced back to the top for me.