jamesh said: justsing said: No, a reduced pull rate in exchange for an assured minimum rate is not worth it in the long run imo. Why do you think it would be worse in the long run? If it evened out to the same effective pull rate, then it should make no difference in the long run.
justsing said: No, a reduced pull rate in exchange for an assured minimum rate is not worth it in the long run imo.
Kolence said: All I know is, it's the runs of 30+ pulls without a 5* when I start thinking - what am I doing with this game? why bother with this tinykitty when it can all be in vain because of rng? I realize how the odds work, and can see on my own example that 20-30 runs without a 5* happen all the time. Still, that's how it feels to me. And those are not the trully horrible runs, people have had 50+ or 70+ run dry spells...
HoundofShadow said: If a 5* can be guaranteed within 7 pulls, what's the point of having 5* in HfH?By guaranteeing a 5* within 7 pulls, it will affect:1) cost of buying opened powers of 5* (720cp)2) cost of Latest 5* (500CP) and Classic 5* (250CP)3) reduce the value of 5* because they are easier to get than 4*4) affect the gameplay for 1*-3* playersIf this is implemented, the number of CP/LT/HT/HP that can be earned in game will be reduced dramaticallt to balance the game as a whole.Another reasoning is if 140 CP can guarantee me a 5* cover and 6 4* covers, the cost of no. 1 should be reduced to not more than 420CP and no 2. should be reduced to 120 CP and 80 CP respectively.
HoundofShadow said:Also, pity timer or streak breaker for the rarest tier implemented in other games don't happen within the display odds. For example, if streak breaker is implemented in MPQ, it's likely to be a guaranteed 5* by the 40th or 50th pull, rather than by the 7th pull before the timer resets.Having a streakbreaker don't necessary solve perception problem because like what was mentioned, players are likely to be emotionally charged when things don't go their way. The devs might probably have new charges laid upon them after implementing streakbreaker (assuming a guaranteed 5* on the 40th pull) such as:1) the game was rigged to give them unusable covers or useless frequently. For example, a player has a 0/1/5 Kitty Pryde and he finally drew a 5* which turns out to be Kitty Pryde on the 40th pull; however, it was an unusable cover. He's likely to get angry and start a topic saying the game is rigged.2) if a player finally draw a 5* in Classic on the 40th and it turns out to be Banner or Wasp, he will likely think that the game was rigged to give him useless 5* cover with the most worthless ability.I can see topics like these popping up in other games forums every now and then, even when streakbreak is implemented for the legendary tier.End of the day, I think players should simply learn how probabilities actually work.
HoundofShadow said: <SNIP>End of the day, I think players should simply learn how probabilities actually work.
KGB said: Why even go with that complex a system that still leads to some players getting more 5* than others if they get a 'lucky' run. You should just go to a fixed system for everyone. Lets say you wanted to go with 1/7 odds for a 5*. You just randomize the numbers 1-7 endlessly. So the sequence would look something like: 4531672|1523746| and so on with a '1' representing a 5* and everything else a 4* (you then randomly roll for which 5* or 4* you got).The guarantees exactly 1/7 draw rates for everyone for 5* characters and means the *longest* streak you can go without a 5* is 12 draws. This also represents a perfectly fair system. I know the idea is that 15% averages out in the long run but I've seen lots of posts by players who track their rates that show they are getting say 13% in over say 2000 draws. Doesn't seem like much but that means they got 260 5* instead of 300. If another player was equally extra lucky and got 17% they'd have 80 extra 5* covers which is a lot of undeserved 'good' or 'bad' luck depending on which side you are on.
Richyyy said: Or just sell them in 'boxes'. If it's supposed to be 15% if you pull long enough, then a box of 20 covers for 500CP/400CP containing a guaranteed 17 4*s and 3 5*s would take sequences out entirely and just compress that percentage. The only random chance you'd be taking is which 4* and 5* covers you'd get.
helix72 said: [...]Next I'm going to look at how options to increase the BH percentage would require decreasing the overall pull rate, because I think I'd also make that trade. If 15% of the time you get a 5* and 5% of those times you're getting a BH, you're roughly getting 0.15 x 1.05 = 0.1575 5*s per pull. But of those, 0.15 / 0.1575 or 95.2% of the 5*s you get are random (granted, pulling from latest it's 1 of 3 but I'm a completionist and want a better way to get classics). I'd prefer having more control over which 5*s I got. Ignoring a futility cap, consider:15% pull rate + 5% BH percentage = 15% x (1 + 5%) = 15.75%10.5% pull rate + 50% BH percentage = 10.5% x (1+50%) = 15.75%Dropping the pull rate to 10.5% though would definitely make a futility cap even more important. LIS, I'll work a bit on the numbers and some scenarios. I doubt we'd get a 50% BH rate, even with a drop in overall pull rates.
HoundofShadow said: End of the day, I think players should simply learn how probabilities actually work.
justsing said: Perception matters.
AardvarkPepper said: justsing said: Perception matters. Think on the proposed solution. You're not stating that the game should be more generous with rewards (though that would also increase player perception of progress). You're not stating that players should have more control over what particular characters they pull (which would help players build their rosters as they wished).No, there's a very narrowly defined solution that involves players pulling a guaranteed 5* after a certain number of pulls.And does this address dilution, or player ability to progress in game towards having a stronger roster more quickly?No.Rather, it simply addresses those players that feel they're not getting a "fair" number of 5*s.And what of it? As I noted, there's still a strong RNG element. A cap offers zero protection against results like opening a couple hundred tokens and getting sixteen Wasp covers, fourteen Loki, and three Okoye (or whatever). And do you think players would consider such a distribution "fair"?I assert they would not. There would still be fundamental unresolved issues with RNG even after a hypothetical cap were implemented. Instituting a cap would simply be effort directed towards a stopgap solution that, in the end, wouldn't *really* improve core player satisfaction.If you want to say I'm wrong, so be it. But think on it. Sixteen Wasp, fourteen Loki, three Okoye. Is that okay?If you say "Yes!" well - that says something.If you say "No!" well - that also says something.
justsing said: Maybe it doesn't go far enough for you, but it's something.
helix72 said: So how about it? Would anyone else like to see this change implemented?
HoundofShadow said: I think the cap should be raised to a minimum of 20 and not exceed 40. 7, 10 or 16 is too low, realistically speaking. It's not going to happen. Streakbreaker was not meant to make sure the displayed odds happen within the estimated number of pulls. It's meant to let player know that their streak of "bad" luck won't exceed the Xth pull.
KGB said: I'd vote for it. But I doubt the Dev's would. The simple reason is what you've proposed changes the 15% draw rate to a *minimum* 15% draw rate. In other words there is nothing in your proposal to put a drag on players who are over drawing 5* (ie 17% rate).