Pity system for token pulls

Bad

LavaManLee said:

Yes, 1:7 is a normal number.  I believe you are seeing some kind of conspiracy where there isn't one.

Well, you think 14.2857% is a normal number.
And I believe that's the most bizarre number which could ever be on any pulling system and it's only the product of your calculations trying to traslate a different system to a %.

KGB

Bad said:

LavaManLee said:

Yes, 1:7 is a normal number.  I believe you are seeing some kind of conspiracy where there isn't one.

Well, you think 14.2857% is a normal number.
And I believe that's the most bizarre number which could ever be on any pulling system and it's only the product of your calculations trying to traslate a different system to a %.

It's actually 15% for a 5* in general and thus 5% for each 5*.

If you actually look at the screen it says ~1/7. The ~ symbol means approximately.

KGB

Bad

KGB said:

It's actually 15% for a 5* in general and thus 5% for each 5*.

If you actually look at the screen it says ~1/7. The ~ symbol means approximately.

KGB

And why is it approximately? In a % system there is nothing aproximate. It's always exactly the % stated, be it a high or a low %.

KGB

Bad said:

KGB said:

It's actually 15% for a 5* in general and thus 5% for each 5*.

If you actually look at the screen it says ~1/7. The ~ symbol means approximately.

KGB

And why is it approximately? In a % system there is nothing aproximate. It's always exactly the % stated, be it a high or a low %.

I don't understand what you wrote or are asking. I'm certainly not an employee of the game.

My guess is that they show it as ~1/7 (instead of 15%) because it's easier for players to grasp the idea that roughly 1 in 7 LT's will result in a 5*.

There is no conspiracy to uncover in this game.

KGB

Phumade

Bad said:

KGB said:

It's actually 15% for a 5* in general and thus 5% for each 5*.

If you actually look at the screen it says ~1/7. The ~ symbol means approximately.

KGB

And why is it approximately? In a % system there is nothing aproximate. It's always exactly the % stated, be it a high or a low %.

ROFLCOPTR

Without having to actually argue about the math terminology.  
I'm sure something is being lost in translation here.  In any case the devs are correctly using mathematical terms.   These terminology are commonly used and understood here in the US.  As a US based developer, its fair for them to describe pull odds in a language that is familiar and commonly understood to native speakers of that country.  So independent of how you feel about the mathamatics, just take it on faith that ~1/7 means approximately 1 out of 7.

Bad

Phumade said:

These terminology are commonly used and understood here in the US.  As a US based developer, its fair for them to describe pull odds in a language that is familiar and commonly understood to native speakers of that country.

Oh! You are right. After some searching, in US there is no trasparency law or regulation about gacha games and loot boxes, yet.

IceIX

Bad said:

Phumade said:

These terminology are commonly used and understood here in the US.  As a US based developer, its fair for them to describe pull odds in a language that is familiar and commonly understood to native speakers of that country.

Oh! You are right. After some searching, in US there is no trasparency law or regulation about gacha games and loot boxes, yet.

There isn't, but Apple, Amazon, and Google all require disclosure of odds. Which we do.

Godzillafan67

Godzillafan67 said:

[snip] ...I think that I may have figured out a workable pityplier . When the next sequence value is pulled, if it is a 4-star and the last 42* have also been 4-stars, then the next 5-star value in the sequence swaps places in the sequence with the current 4-star value. Players are guaranteed to receive a 5-star within an expected timeframe (the UI could still give us a pityplier indicator to let us know that Scarlet Witch is "changing reality" to our favor) while the 1:7 odds ratio is kept intact over time.

*Arbitrary number being used for the example. Some math vs psychological responses are needed to determine a more optimal number. Though 42 could be answer we're looking for.

I was hoping to get some feedback on this neutral change. In the meantime, I've wondered if maybe there needs to be a swap the other way, where too many 5-stars have been pulled over the last 100  pulls. ("100" is another arbitrary number that would need further analysis/discussion to determine if that is what would work best.) Again, this change would not actually give more rewards, it would just help keep some players more engaged with the game.

To those who would rather dismiss my idea because I presented it instead of on its own merits: This change would do zero for me. I pull tokens as I get them and spend CP as I earn it. I don't keep track of my pulls and trust the game's predetermined random sequence. If I pull a 4-star, it's a 4-star; if I pull a 5-star, it's a 5-star. They could lower the ratio to 1:6 or 1:5 and I'd still be nonplussed while pulling legendary tokens. I simply think that this could be a good change that could help retain some disillusioned players.

edit: Added "not" to make "would" "would not".

IceIX

Just being clear here: We introduced the special bonus Shard rewards to the Shards on pulls in order to help with exactly what's being talked about here. And that system actually *does* have a built in pity timer in that it'll eventually give you bonus rewards, per token pack if you didn't originally. That system was on *top* of the Bonus Hero->Pack Shards system with no reduction in those rewards. So, this was already actually done, but is obviously not being seen as an aspect of cover/Shard gain.

I did want to point out that there was already movement in that direction in the past. That's absolutely *not* intended to stop discussion here! Just something that I wanted to address.

CharlieLima

IceIX said:

Just being clear here: We introduced the special bonus Shard rewards to the Shards on pulls in order to help with exactly what's being talked about here. And that system actually *does* have a built in pity timer in that it'll eventually give you bonus rewards, per token pack if you didn't originally. That system was on *top* of the Bonus Hero->Pack Shards system with no reduction in those rewards. So, this was already actually done, but is obviously not being seen as an aspect of cover/Shard gain.

I did want to point out that there was already movement in that direction in the past. That's absolutely *not* intended to stop discussion here! Just something that I wanted to address.

Rename “bonus shards” to “pity shards” and then we can move onto the next complaint!

Timemachinego

Daredevil217 said:

Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the [dumbass] in the first half hour [on the forums], then you ARE the [dumbass].

YES!

Timemachinego said:

I've always been in favor. Particular community dumbasses (they've been real active in this thread! I'm sure you can spot them!) think that for some reason the "system" would have to then become less advantageous for the individual player if implemented. This literally isn't true, it's a choice for the developers to make!

So people use actual math and information provided by developers to propose an alternative point of view, and your strong counter-argument is to resort to personal attacks and call them “dumbasses”? Strong. Real strong. 

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/76938/5-pull-rates-amp-capping-futility#latest

Just going to drop this here for you to read. Not going to call you names, but understand that this isn’t the first (nor will it be the last) time this conversation gets brought up and I understand you’re still relatively new. I’d suggest everyone confused by this bookmark this thread (and ignore whenever bonus hero’s are mentioned… RIP). 

The bottom line is that this is a perception problem. And “solving” one perception problem by finagling the odds/pulls just opens the door for other perception problems.

I can't help you not be stupid, that's not my job here. I've pointed out bad points of view and deficient understandings of reality as a whole over and over. Nothing that I said could be backed up or proven by math but if you're going to argue please understand at least the basics. I was talking about the erroneous attitude of some forum posters that any leg up we get must come with a sacrifice. That's all. Show me now, with math if you please (that seems to be your favorite), how we're worse today (2x new 5 covers in boss, etc) than we were before?

Daredevil217

Did you click the link I posted? In that, Helix breaks down how implementing a pity timer actually increases the 5* pull rates. The devs actually confirm it as well. Let’s say your randomized string of pulls is four 5*s in a row followed by a string of 21 4*. The pity timer says “you can’t go more than 20 pulls without a 5” (random number for this example), so you are gifted a 5th 5* at pull 20 instead of the 4* you would have gotten. Your pull rate goes from 19% (4/21) to 25% (5/20). 

A large amount of free 5* covers are dumped into the economy this way and it’s not really “fixing” anything other than some players perceptions. In order to implement a “pity timer” AND keep the number of 5s the same, math says you have to lower the pull rate from 15%. Any system that doesn’t do that is really you just saying “I want more 5* for the same amount of work”, which is a different ask. I hope that helps!

from Ice in the other thread, in case you didn’t click the link:

Assuming that the cap system would want to have the same overall pull rate you would have to lower the base pull rate to do that. What you're advocating is simply raising drop rates overall, which is another discussion altogether. Not a poor discussion to have, but outside the bounds of this thread.

HoundofShadow

July Dev Q&A is up. Anyone who wants pity timer to be implemented for CP pulls can ask the dev about this. 

jsmjsmjsm00

IceIX said:

Just being clear here: We introduced the special bonus Shard rewards to the Shards on pulls in order to help with exactly what's being talked about here. And that system actually *does* have a built in pity timer in that it'll eventually give you bonus rewards, per token pack if you didn't originally. That system was on *top* of the Bonus Hero->Pack Shards system with no reduction in those rewards. So, this was already actually done, but is obviously not being seen as an aspect of cover/Shard gain.

Hey look its the devs echoing what I said back on page 1 that shards were already designed to address this problem.

CharlieLima

jsmjsmjsm00 said:

IceIX said:

Just being clear here: We introduced the special bonus Shard rewards to the Shards on pulls in order to help with exactly what's being talked about here. And that system actually *does* have a built in pity timer in that it'll eventually give you bonus rewards, per token pack if you didn't originally. That system was on *top* of the Bonus Hero->Pack Shards system with no reduction in those rewards. So, this was already actually done, but is obviously not being seen as an aspect of cover/Shard gain.

Hey look its the devs echoing what I said back on page 1 that shards were already designed to address this problem.

Technically no, the dev was talking about “bonus shards” specifically as the pity system.

Timemachinego

That's assuming that pull rates would have to be dropped to cancel out pity actions, nothing states this, it's just assumed. We're guaranteed a 1:7 rate, if it somehow became better than that "oops!" god forbid.