Update to 4-Star Pack Odds (6/4/18)

1…78101213

Comments

  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,967 Chairperson of the Boards
    The thing that kills me is again not a single peep from the developers. It’s obvious even after the weird PR spin that most people are in favor of the old system instead of this one. At least with vaulting and the  switch to the 50/50 split we had developers telling us their rationale as to why they were making the switches they did, even if some didn’t agree. Once again we have another huge change and not a single word as to why. Sad days indeed. 
  • veny
    veny Posts: 834 Critical Contributor
    RickOShay said:
    veny said:
    Soooo... slighly better PvE tokens (good) PvP tokens (useless for me) and more PvP events (also useless for me).
    How about making PvP finally playable and actually entertaining. Or how about making roster useful - i mean i have 150+ characters i am barely using. Give us some daily Boss challenge where we could use all our characters (each character once per day) to deal as much damage as possible for some good rewards.

    PvP is quite playable and entertaining.
    Try it with some of the characters that you are complaining about that don't get enough action... and you'll see for yourself.  

    Great to hear that the overall 4* draw rates are increasing. Thanks for the improvements! Looking forward to what the 'unusable covers' review could produce as well. 
      
    Like put some of my 3*s or 4*s against maxed out and overpowered 5*s like Gambit? Haha, no thanks, i am fine in PvE land :D No frustration there...
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,283 Chairperson of the Boards

    Once you cut through the spin put on this announcement it boils down to ”spend more, get more” with regard to increased 4* acquisition.






  • BatteryHorse
    BatteryHorse Posts: 124 Tile Toppler
    Dragon_Nexus said:


    It feels like one of those things whereby if you qualify the change with a lot of excuses, it ends up balancing out.

    Which makes me wonder why anyone would go through so much time and effort coding and changing a whole bunch of maths just to end up with a system that is neither an improvement nor a detriment in the long term.

    Sorry, for a second I thought I had drifted over to the Supports thread...
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    Even if the goal of these changes is to increase their profit margin, I see nothing wrong with it. They don't even have to mention it. Why? Because they have never declared themselves as a charity organisation. They are running a business. You know it and any reasonable person knows it.

    They don't have to mention that they want to increase profit or revenue because it's a universal truth that all mega corporation or even small businesses are always looking to increase their profit or revenue. 

    I don't see the point of using "they want to make the players spend more" or "they want to increase their profit margin" arguments to start conspiracy theories because the nature of their business is itself self-explanatory. The point of running a business is to make profit. 
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,283 Chairperson of the Boards
    BatteryHorse said:
    Dragon_Nexus said:


    It feels like one of those things whereby if you qualify the change with a lot of excuses, it ends up balancing out.

    Which makes me wonder why anyone would go through so much time and effort coding and changing a whole bunch of maths just to end up with a system that is neither an improvement nor a detriment in the long term.

    Sorry, for a second I thought I had drifted over to the Supports thread...
    That place needs all the support it can get.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,283 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    Even if the goal of these changes is to increase their profit margin, I see nothing wrong with it. They don't even have to mention it. Why? Because they have never declared themselves as a charity organisation. They are running a business. You know it and any reasonable person knows it.

    They don't have to mention that they want to increase profit or revenue because it's a universal truth that all mega corporation or even small businesses are always looking to increase their profit or revenue. 

    I don't see the point of using "they want to make the players spend more" or "they want to increase their profit margin" arguments to start conspiracy theories because the nature of their business is itself self-explanatory. The point of running a business is to make profit. 
    Nobody should be opposed to that, Devs gotta eat after all.

    However spin is something that people will see through and thus 10 pages on a message board.
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,456 Chairperson of the Boards
    Since Lumbercap, I've been spending only in Latest Legends with my CP/LTs, but now with this change, I'm going to go back to spending my CP in Classic to maximize my 4* cover acquisition. I don't get Latest draws at a fast enough rate to fully cover a 5* without hoarding anyway, so I figure I'm better off just taking as many draws at 4*s as I can moving forward.

    I did pull a Flaptain I could use out of one of my Tex-Mex tokens last night, so I guess the odds are working as designed for me.


  • LifeofAgony
    LifeofAgony Posts: 690 Critical Contributor
    OJSP said:
    Daredevil217 said:
    Once again we have another huge change and not a single word as to why. 
    Look. Repeating what you’ve said won’t make a difference. If we look at the beginning of the thread, there were some replies from them. If they are avoiding to answer a specific question, the answer is usually simple: it’s an attempt to increase profit. Of course they can’t say that here.
    The only replies were clarification in mechanics or wording from the original post.  The only item they “clairified” was why they don’t run more 4* pvp.  Other than that, as usual, it’s radio silence as to the why.

    And yes, the answer is always money, it’s a business. But there’s usually still some logic or ideal behind making the change, regardless of the goal being earn more.  I would like to understand what made the previous 50/60 system of boosted odds on the 12 latest so bad that it needed a full reversal back to full dillutikn.

    and being this is still the only authorized, official place to get those answers, people should keep asking them.  As many times as they feel.
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    HoundofShadow said:
    I dont see how it's faster to complete 5* than 4*. I understand that there are ~40 4* more than 5*, but the chance of getting 5* is ~15%. You can get specific 4* covers from a lot of places, but you can only get specific 5* in HfH or certain champed 4* rewards.
    Someone else already covered the LT probabilities almost-favoring skipping the 4* tier, but it's worth noting that may of the ways to get 4* covers outside of tokens are gated for people who don't already have well-cover and/or champed 4*'s.  Both PVE & PVP placement at a high enough level to earn 4*'s at the relevant SCL's are likely impossible without having 4*'s already.  Similarly, 900 in PVP is, at best, extremely difficult with champed 3*'s.  PVE progression is straight-forward, but that's only two 4* covers per 7 days, with characters rotating very slowly.  HfH is always available, but that's sacrificing ~3 roster slots for a single 4* cover--not bad if you're cycling 2*'s already, but not very new-player friendly.  Even if you wanted to buy a support bundle, that's 10 (or 12.5 classic) LT's worth of CP or almost 5 roster slots worth of HP for the single 4* cover, which as a new player is counter-productive.

    On top of that CP is also much harder to gain without 4*'s.  You miss out on the 2 CP/day from DDQ without the relevant 4*.  You also miss the 1 CP/day for every day you play an event before you hit progression to gain that 4* (assuming you don't already have them).   You need 6+ clears (depending on how optimal) to still hit max PVE progression if you don't start with the 4*, but your placement will be far behind others who did the same work, or less, but had the essential 4* at the beginning.

    Hopefully there is something else in the works that hasn't been announced, yet, but otherwise, any way you slice it, this token dilution is absolutely awful for new players.  
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,283 Chairperson of the Boards
    The only silver lining might be if new release covers are handed out in Boss Events like they have been a few times recently, so at least you can get for Essential nodes if you have a reasonably active Alliance as a newer player. It is probably unrealistic to expect that for every new 4* though. So PvE may well also become even more competetive as players on the verge of the cut-off now won't take the approach of "Ah well, I'll get the new release in tokens soon enough" if they miss out. They will be after every single cover they can get.
  • LifeofAgony
    LifeofAgony Posts: 690 Critical Contributor
    OJSP said:
    HoundofShadow said:
    I don't see the point of using "they want to make the players spend more" or "they want to increase their profit margin" arguments to start conspiracy theories because the nature of their business is itself self-explanatory. 
    I wasn’t trying to start a conspiracy theory.
    LifeofAgony said:
    I would like to understand what made the previous 50/50 system of boosted odds on the 12 latest so bad that it needed a full reversal back to full dilution.

    and being this is still the only authorized, official place to get those answers, people should keep asking them.  As many times as they feel.
    I didn’t say people couldn’t keep asking questions. I’m just saying they might not get the answer that they want and subtly advising them to stop wasting time and energy.
    It’s not a waste when you consider than the only thing that has gotten respounded in the past is endless, continual banging of the drums to get responses.  Call it learned behavior.  
  • Dragon_Nexus
    Dragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    Straycat said:
    Dragon_Nexus said:
    It feels like one of those things whereby if you qualify the change with a lot of excuses, it ends up balancing out.

    Which makes me wonder why anyone would go through so much time and effort coding and changing a whole bunch of maths just to end up with a system that is neither an improvement nor a detriment in the long term.
      Yeah, thats how balance works.
    It...absolutely isn't.
    Changing something into a different form of the same thing isn't balance. It's doing a 360 and walking away.

    If your idea of balance is to ultimately end up with the same thing you already had, then obviously what you already had was already balanced.
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    LifeofAgony said:
    OJSP said:
    HoundofShadow said:
    I don't see the point of using "they want to make the players spend more" or "they want to increase their profit margin" arguments to start conspiracy theories because the nature of their business is itself self-explanatory. 
    I wasn’t trying to start a conspiracy theory.
    LifeofAgony said:
    I would like to understand what made the previous 50/50 system of boosted odds on the 12 latest so bad that it needed a full reversal back to full dilution.

    and being this is still the only authorized, official place to get those answers, people should keep asking them.  As many times as they feel.
    I didn’t say people couldn’t keep asking questions. I’m just saying they might not get the answer that they want and subtly advising them to stop wasting time and energy.
    It’s not a waste when you consider than the only thing that has gotten respounded in the past is endless, continual banging of the drums to get responses.  Call it learned behavior.  
    True, but at the same time there doesn't have to be something "so bad" with the old system for them to change it. And it might be positive spin, or it might be there true intentions, but they gave a reason for the change.
    "We wanted to give players a better chance at getting all 4-Star characters, not just a select few"
    We could keep asking for more info, but since we don't agree with it we probably will never be satisfied with their answer. They said it would help build all 4*s more evenly, which it probably would.
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm not specifically targeting anyone. The thing is, almost every time the devs make certain decision or come up with something new, somehow it will almost always link to "they want the players to spend more", "they want to increase their profits" or "they are money-grab", "they are putting up a paywall" etc.  Some of you are probably not pleased that they did not mention that they want to make more profit in the post and I'm surprised you can "see through" the real motives behind the various decisions. 

    Let's take an example. During Valentine's Days, there are sales or promotions going around. The ads would probably go something like "buy flowers or gifts for your loved one during this special day" or some other sweet words.  I don't think you expect them to say "Buy something special for your loved one because we want to increase our company profits or sales." Everyone knows that they want to make profits because they are running a business. 

    It's the same with the devs or Marvel. One of their business objectives is to make some profits. Of course the decisions that they make have to fit or not deviate too much from the business objectives.

  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2018
    Shintok17 said:
    That is what most people are not talking about here or realizing. This is a very well worded trick to make you think they are giving you more.

    I would be inclined to agree if the in game had the same verbiage.  Instead the blurb (without going to the link which I would guess 90% of players wouldn't) was way more clear than this post was.

    PACK ODDS UPDATE

    Starting today, the odds to get 4-Stars has been updated in all cover stores.  The differentiation between Vintage and Latest 4-Stars has been removed while the overall chance to get 4-Stars has been increased.
    While that sentence was said in Brigby's post.  It was buried in the middle of a bunch of fluff and re-direction.  If they were really doing this to trick people into thinking they were giving you more I would think the in-game message would be as misleading if not more because every active player will see that vs the small percentage that see anything on these forums.

    I'm starting to wonder if casuals that fill out the surveys but don't come here have been overwhelmingly negative about the Latest/Vintage split.  Which would make sense because if you only get a few 4*s a month it probably doesn't help you all that much and in fact makes it harder to ever champ any 4*s.  They made the change to appease the vast majority of casual players knowing that vocal minority of vets and forum goeser would be outraged.  As such they were more clear with the people who they expect to like the change and tried to spin it to us to try and lessen the outrage.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2018
    LavaManLee said:
    HoundofShadow said

    Let's take an example. During Valentine's Days, there are sales or promotions going around. The ads would probably go something like "buy flowers or gifts for your loved one during this special day" or some other sweet words.  I don't think you expect them to say "Buy something special for your loved one because we want to increase our company profits or sales." Everyone knows that they want to make profits because they are running a business. 
    I don't think anyone here begrudges D3 making money.   All of us understand a business won't last without making money.

     I think it's in their spin of any changes into somehow being "good for us" that irks people.  In the example above, it would be like telling people there's a flower special for Valentine's Day that is fantastic.  You get 9 roses for the price of a dozen and that's actually good for you because 9 roses will fit in a smaller vase then if you actually received a dozen.

    People naturally are cynical and bad spin comes across as very insincere.  Hence the vitriol on many of these changes.
    A better example IMO would be:
    Rather than selling a dozen roses we'll now sell you a dozen random flowers out of 66 types (more next year).  You don't get to pick the flowers regardless of preference or allergies.  Also we're for every 12th dozen you buy you get a 13th flower free!  What a deal!
  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    I don't see them spinning "bad changes" as good. In the end, whether a change is good or bad to an individual player is subjective because it depends on where he is in the game. Obviously, the changes is bad to you personally,  but to them, the changes overall, as a whole, in the long run, should be good. I'm confident that based on past q&a, they are not expecting every changes to be good to every single player. They are aware that some group of players won't be happy with their decisions. Do you think that they can satisfy different groups of players? The answer is no. They can't.

    They also acknowledged some of the possible downsides from these changes in the second post.

    If you are going to nitpick on them putting the possible downsides on the second post instead of in the first post, then there's nothing much to say.

Categories