What would be the worst case scenario for 56 gems?
driosketch wrote: »
I'm not against company's making money what I'm against is the way they go about it and for ZOS this is nothing more than greed and a disgusting cash grab ..explain how theses crates will translate into steady revenue for decent content (not shadows of hist 2 dungeon some gear bullsh.t) but decent content when there's so many ppl out there me included that will not spend a cent on them others get screwed over and won't spend a cent then the whales who have got something will most likely get shafted next season ... they couldn't put a mandatory subscription in place and offer free dlc so they lost there instead now every thing costs money dlc costumes all the crap in the crown store etc ( so okay they need to make money which is fine) now they actively want you to gamble money so they can raise money for content to charge you for again that's not making money that's milking money off there customers till the game diesConcenaros wrote: »snakester320 wrote: »these systems started a while ago first I saw it was mass effect 3 multi player prob a idea of the witch herself... but they had the good sense to allow you to buy crates for in game credits as well where as with eso they have taken it to disgusting lvls my guess the witch is on her broom again this time with more sting!Concenaros wrote: »lordrichter wrote: »
To be fair I wasn't comparing, ESO to Mobile or vice versa. What I was saying is they've adopted a Gacha system FROM mobile into ESO.
Which a lot of non-mobile games are doing now. Since Gacha is the norm on mobile I thought I'd at least touch on where the system sort-of originated. Lol.
But yes, he misread me. Rofl.
I've seen them in plenty of games before ME3. But like I said it's something that's been going on for awhile within Console and other platforms. How long ago? I have no idea but I know that FIFA has used a similar system with FUT, I know that Gears 4 is using this for Horde mode upgrades and stuff, so yeah I agree with your and my previous statement in that it's been happening more and more in places other than mobile.
It's kind of sad to see, but companies need to make money. So I'm not surprised it made the jump over.
Gems per crate go up as you open more of them, because you'll start getting duplicates and that is what gets you the bulk of your gems (selling consumables is mostly nothing). For my 205 crates I had around 2000 gems (I think; I know I bought the one atro mount I was missing plus a couple legendaries, and I still have 1300 gems left over after unlocking literally everything in the crates), meaning I averaged about 10 gems per crate when all was said and done, but the majority of those gems came from the latter part of the crates. For the question of worst case scenario to get 56 gems, that would probably be around 28 crates. I haven't seen any crate in my dataset that has had less than two Common/Fine consumables, meaning you'll be able to pull at least 2 gems per crate; this doesn't mean it is impossible to only get 1 Common/Fine however (see also: the fact that Apex can appear in the normal 4 cards, but only 1 crate out of my 1000+ recorded has done that so far). This also assumes that everything else you get in those crates is a non-duplicate that you also don't care about, in other words you place no value whatsoever on the collectibles/experience scrolls you've obtained.What I was looking for is if rngesus absolutely hates you, how many crates would you have to open to get 56 gems?
I'm glad you found the data useful to make an informed decision as to whether or not you find the crates worth it for you! Nobody should be expected to buy crates or any other crown store item, but for something RNG-dependent such as crates, it's always better to do your homework to see if it's worthwhile before you fall victim to the sunk costs fallacy or gambler's fallacy. This is why I'm passionate about collecting and disseminating this data, so that more people can make their own informed decisions as to whether or not these crates are personally worth it for them. My personal belief is that if you only want one of the atro mounts (or even worse, one specific atro mount) and don't care about anything else in the crates, they are a terrible value for you and you should avoid them. Perhaps after a year or two ZOS will put them in the normal crown store for regular sale, but I wouldn't hold my breath. However, if you like most of the rewards or you want everything, then the crates are much more palatable; you can get dozens of collectibles for much less money than if they would all be on sale individually in the crown store.The data being collected sure isn't helping convince that the system is worth it either heh/
I believe ZOS has said that crate seasons are quarterly, so I expect this to be lasting for 3 months before a new set of crate rewards comes in.when will all the atronach rewards be removed?
Interesting paradox, if you are after a particular item, the value of each crate with a duplicate more than doubles, (up to 45 times). If you aren't concerned with what you get, or are collecting, each duplicate reduces the value under a half to almost a third.Gems per crate go up as you open more of them,
The other threads and reddit are talking about a new law in China that will require it. Is this what needs to happen? If companies won't volunteer the information, then past laws to regulate them like some s casino?Concenaros wrote: »
Also, they aren't legally obligated to provide the drop rates since it's a Gacha system and Gacha is still not really considered as gambling since you're paying direct cash for a chance at a good or high rarity prize.
General_Serous wrote: »
nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
They would never do this. I was surprised to see they actually allowed the trade in of the "consumables" at all.
lordrichter wrote: »nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
They would never do this. I was surprised to see they actually allowed the trade in of the "consumables" at all.
I wonder if they will use trading unwanted consumables for gems as an example of how they are all about listening to the players.
lordrichter wrote: »So, I gather that sales have dropped off, now?
nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
No offense to Enodoc's hard work, but I am working on a spreadsheet of my own, one that is vetted and verifiable. I have 811 crates in it right now, and the odds I am seeing are much worse then Enodoc's spreadsheet.
Apex 0.65%
Legendary 2.58%
Epc 22.76%
Chance of a fifth card is 12.45% per crate.
The spreadsheet is at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YE8TpQxwJvRBdIoHKKFSnt5nl2qttvFPhdQly_xz6y8/edit?usp=sharing
I find it interesting that you and I are getting vastly different data. I'm working on putting additional crates into my dataset. I'm not using any of the data from Enodoc's sheet, it's 100% input by me based on my own 205 crates as well as youtube videos of crate openings; and for said videos I only count them if they're opening 15+ crates in a single video or starting at 0 crown gems and opening at least 4 crates, and the videos cannot have any skips or cuts in them. This helps me ensure that I'm seeing raw data rather than only the crates that the person decided were worthy to show, either because they were really lucky or really unlucky. I've found that on these forums at least, self-reported data tends to largely be in one of those two camps, and I don't see many middle-of-the-road reports. Screenshots are similarly not verifiable, as they may also be cherry-picked. When I get 800+ crates in my dataset I'll run my numbers again and see if it trends down towards what you have or stays relatively steady; my guess is going to be the later.
My preference is that ZOS would just release the drop rate numbers so we didn't have to do this, as well as any methodology or special behavior to the crates. Furthermore, I'd like them to run several million simulations of crate openings using the live server RNG to prove that the actual numbers match up with what ZOS claims them to be (aka make sure the RNG is actually fair).
lordrichter wrote: »nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
They would never do this. I was surprised to see they actually allowed the trade in of the "consumables" at all.
I wonder if they will use trading unwanted consumables for gems as an example of how they are all about listening to the players.
Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
And lose out on money that they would of otherwise made from the current setup? Never.
nimander99 wrote: »Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »nimander99 wrote: »The gems should be equal to the cost of the duplicate... And 5 potions should equal 5 gems, 25 poisons = 25 gems etc..
And lose out on money that they would of otherwise made from the current setup? Never.
Agreed, it is a system developed to suck cash from a few instead of a little from a lot. It is as they intended it. What I'm saying is if that were the ratio, then the system would actually be a fair system worth playing.