What do you think of Crown Store Random boxes/Lottery box?
-
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster5 -
Neirymn✭✭✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsOpening crown crates looks kinda fun, what you get for the amout of money spent is not that fun though... If some people have money to waste, good for them but I won't use my ESO Plus crowns for it.
I hope ZOS will add none crown store related mini games like this for us to play, it'd be really cool!2 -
Rajajshka✭✭✭No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gambleAfter buying a few on the PTS I really do not want them on live, they're to much of a gamble and a grind.1 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.
all the 'math' necessary to understand the nature of a lottery consists of two expressions..... i doubt the majority of people would use these terms....
p=0
p>0
that's it.... it covers everything you need to know.
the statistical model will not tell you, or anyone else for that matter, which ticket will win only the probability of a given ticket winning.
the map is not the territory.
oh, just in case you can't figure it out p=0..... no ticket, no chance. p>0 a ticket, a chance. again, the idea that people don't understand that is just plain nonsense.
0 -
Tavore1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Done a bunch on the PTS and so far getting 1 of the atronach mounts (not the one I would prefer either) would have cost me around 20,800 crowns or about £95.97.
I'd also be stuck with a lot of stupid and pointless things I do not want.
So I doubt very much I will play this silly game unless the odds are very much more in my favour AND those odds are actually published somewhere so that we have some idea with a big enough sample whether ZOS are actually playing fair at all or loading the dice to string people along... and yes there are well established ways of baiting the hook for people by actually making these things not round but calculating the optimum psychological points to drop something nice to keep people hoping that just x more crates would get them the thing they want...
The stupid thing is that I have bought every mount and most costumes as well as dropping crowns for horse speed scrolls for PvP alts - they could have quite happily got 18-24k crowns off me for the 6 mounts and probably a bunch more for the other stuff.... chances are that this way they get nothing... money is not the issue it's not wanting to play a crooked game.Edited by Tavore1138 on September 21, 2016 4:40PMGM - Malazan
Raid Leader - Hungry Wolves
Legio Mortuum4 -
MornaBaine✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I have come to the conclusion that I honestly would not care at all about the crates IF it were not for the "exclusives" in them. EVERYTHING needs to be available for direct purchase. PERIOD.
The thing that really disturbed me was the line about (totally paraphrasing), "Oh you're already buying these consumables anyway so now you'll just have a chance at a neat extra goodie." My belief is that this is an outright lie. No one buys the consumables. This is being used as a thin veneer to justify this nightmare.PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!11 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/292640/number-of-crown-crate-exclusives-vs-past-items-in-cs-crates
Interesting thread with more breakdowns of percentages. More exclusives than old limited time items, so anyone who wants one of the old limited time items seems to have an even smaller chance of getting anything they really want.1 -
VerboseQuips✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Well, ok, I have regained a bit of my lost temper of yesterday, at least enough not to use more profanity than a drunk Nord undaunted who would be hexed by a terminal Tourette curse after an unfortunate meeting with Sheogorath himself.
So... here is my more thought out reaction - yet not very well structured and a bit too long.
TL;DR for the spoiler hereunder: I am a collector and a passionate fan of The Elder Scrolls.Well, first, I think I should get a bit personal to explain what kind of fan, customer and player I am. I hide it all under a spoiler, so if you don't like personal backgrounds you can skip directly to the ESO and Crown Crates section.
As a customer, I like my games to be complete. I highly dislike it when some quests or options are geographical exclusives or retailer exclusive or platform excluse or whatever kind of exclusive. I played Dragon Age: Inquisition with all its DLCs, for example, and loved its story and its world, found the aesthetics awesome, but I always hated to check my mounts and realize that three mounts were tagged as "unknown" and will be forever locked because I didn't buy some special gamer mouse and whatnot. It might be a detail, but I am a completionist and my game was forever uncomplete. When I hear of games - I can't remember a specific name - which have several retailer-exclusive quests or customization options, so that you have to choose which ones you're willing to lose, it disgusts me. It is absolutely customer-unfriendly.
I have a quite idiosyncratic stance on fictional universes and fictional beings, call it crazy if you want. I think they have some sort of 'existence' outside of our physical realm. I have no formation in philosophy, so I don't feel qualified to talk about ontology, but if you're interested in such kind of viewpoints, I think having a quick look at the Wikipedia page for Meinong's jungle would give you some pieces of information.
I thus see the games, the concept art, the trailers and the various texts and books revolving around them as 'epistemologic windows' on these fictional universes. How do I gain access to knowledge of something that lies out of my physical-world sensory grasp? By playing the games, reading the books and so on.
Now add to this a personal obsession for access to knowledge, the kind of which prompts me to buy too many math books in real life, and you can maybe explain why I always buy all the downloadable content for the games I get. A complete game means the fullest and broadest access to the knowledge of its universe.
Now let's get Elder Scrolls specific.
I have been a fan of the Elder Scrolls series since Morrowind, which I discovered in its GOTY edition. I have played ESO since Beta and have been suscribing since launch. I have bought all the Crown Store collectibles available so far (yet nothing that was available in-game by other means, like motifs). I am thus a collector, I guess.
I have always considered that giving the game extra money was a way to help them expand the TES universe. Each cent I sent was supposed to fund a bit of Vvaardenfell or Sotha Sil or Mephala's Realm... Each new costume or crafting style, each new creature added to the game, even Crown pets and mounts or fishing trophies, fleshes out the universe a bit more. Furthermore, it will provide Bethesda Softworks with more raw material for TES VI.
As a player, I am quite strongly focused on lore and exploration. I usually play ES games as a Breton mage. Mages characters typically have a thirst for knowledge, which suits my natural playstyle. I am not interested in the competitive PvP side of the game. Crafting, however, is important to me, as well as obtaining new dyes. In fact, customization in general is important to me. Therefore, Pay To Win items wouldn't annoy me at all, while being walled off customization items does annoy me quite a lot - but I can understand that people don't want the competition to be rigged by real-life money, so I join my voice to the "never pay to win" chorus.
I can easily say that The Elder Scrolls is by far my favourite game series, and is very dear to my heart. I have fallen in love with its weird world and it's intricate lore. Games are a way for me to immerse myself in this world.
Recently I suffered from some psychological issues - a depression. Tamriel was at that time a way to escape the too many issues I had to face simultaneously, and a shelter where I could seek refuge.
At that time, I gave a try to writing fan-fictions. I wrote some in-character research report as an attempt to make sense of an obscure mention of Hist-Jillian wars by Michael Kirkbride. I substantiated the background behind the character I had proposed during ESO's nameless mage contest - this fan-fiction isn't finished yet though. I planned another fan-fiction which would be an origin story for Clavicus Vile and Barbas involving Nocturnal, Hermaeus-Mora, Sheogorath, Ebonarm and Mara, but this one will be quite big and needs careful preparation so I haven't started writing yet.
Writing gave me a relief in hard times - finishing the Dragon and the Tree stuff I linked just above gave me a sense of satisfaction and achievement at a time where I thought I had no skill and no worth.
I am deeply grateful towards the Elder Scrolls universe for the good moments it gave me and the good memories that will remain.
I don't claim to be the best or most dedicated fan out there: I know there are people far more involved with the community, and who know the lore much better than I do - just look at those geniuses who're building Skywind. I don't even claim that my dedication/loyalty to the series should grant me some privilege. I just felt the need to describe my behaviour and to illustrate the strength of my passion for TES, because I think that it is under this light only that can be assessed the violence of what I will write hereunder.
It is quite clear from my previous posts in this very long thread that I never liked the idea of RNG boxes in ESO. But the reactions and videos from the PTS are now shedding a new, lugubrious light on the topic.
I feel lied to, insulted, betrayed and spat on the face. It is far much worse than I had feared.
This is insanely expensive.
It seems from what I gathered - correct me if I am wrong - that we should expect to have to pay 300€-ish for any apex reward. And there are six of them. So if someone is a collector and wants them all, he'll have to pay 1800€-ish. Each season. That's 7200€ a year - without any other direct-sale Crown stuff like Tailored in Tamriel. Is it ok, ZOS? Do you feel comfortable?
And that's assuming they don't reduce the drop rate when it goes live.
But now, that's RNG we're talking about here. Which means that one could very well spend 2500€ and still not have their first Atronach mount. That's the bad side of randomness.
This is crazy. And it doesn't stop there.
I have seen many times in this thread and now in the official PTS one a comparison between lottery and Crown Crates. I think this comparison hides a very hideous aspect of the Crown Crates. I will emphasize.
Crown Crates are not a lottery.
The key difference between Crown Crates and lottery is that in a lottery, everyone has the same probability of winning. But we do not know how Crown RNG will work. The "everyone the same odds" model is a mere assumption, one that is based on nothing, impossible to test and one that can be dangerous.
@Lysette and I mentioned in this thread that we received a mail offering an 'exclusive gifting offer' - an experimental stuff allowing us to offer Crown items to another player. This makes me think that ZOS already identified possible whales, probably from our spending patterns. But ZOS doesn't only rely on data about our spending patterns. They are sitting on a throve of data about our psychological behaviours. What kind of choices do we do during quests? What kind of words do we use in chat? How long do we persevere when facing RNG-generated adversity before giving up? All these data would allow them, if so they wish, to create a quite accurate psychological portrayal of their customers.
If ZOS want to go full evil, they will use that psychological data to extort as much money as they can from their playerbase.
I try to explain how this could be done in the next spoiler.Let's assume each players recieves 3 'intrinsic' values : susceptibility, perseverance and wealth.
Susceptibility would be a measure of how easily they are influenced by other players. If they see someone on a special mount, will they want the same mount too? How much will they want it?
Perseverance would measure how long they'll keep trying before giving up.
Wealth would be an estimate of how much a player can spend on the game, from the history of their Crown purchases.
Now add to this some data about the network/ecosystem in which Player A lives. Whenever a player B meets A, B's values are checked. Is he susceptible and perseverant? Is he rich? Did B already see any of the new mounts and pets, or has B failed to meet them in-game so far? If B saw one already, how long ago was it? This generates an 'influence' value for A, and the influence adds up as A plays.
Now A wants to buy a Crown Crate (bad idea, but let's make the hypothesis he does).
If A has a high influence value, he'll get a higher probability of getting an Atronach mount - but if he does, other players will have more opportunity to see the Atronach mounts, so that other players' influence in A's ecosystem will drop, as well as A's influence itself.
If A has a high perseverence, then the last 10 Gems needed to buy the 400-gem mount A really wants might very well cost him as much as the first 100.
Now add those four values in some equation to determine the drop rates, then fine-tune the parameters following some market theory in order to maximize profit.
This is just an example and I don't know how much resource would be needed to compute those four values for every player - so I don't know whether it's technically feasible. My point is, we should not expect it to be as "equalitarian" as a lottery. ZOS has weapons to make it much more unfair, if so they wish.
At this point, ZOS's sense of ethics can and should be questioned.
At this point, you could call me paranoid. But after having heard Pacrooti's lines, I now question ZOS's sense of ethics and the hypothesis of a full-evil ZOS cannot be just ruled out a priori anymore. Stuff like "The next try might be the one", really? We're talking about in-game incitement to gamble with real-world money, here! How can you fall so low?
There have been arguments in this thread - by @SantieClaws if I remember well - stating that this RNG system is not as bad as in another MMO (I don't remember which one), because the other MMO provided locked boxes in-game and the player had to buy the key. This was a worse way to implement it, as the fact of refusing to buy a key equated, on a psychological level, to trashing something possibly valuable that you already have.
But now I see that ZOS also does in-game incitement. I find it utterly disgusting. Tu quoque, ZOS!
The 'fifth card' animation bugged me in one of the videos. Considering the route ZOS has taken, it wouldn't astonish me, now, that we would see Pacrooti's tokens with Update 13. You loot a chest, kill a boss or pickpocket a rogue citizen and bam! Pacrooti's token. The in-game description would read "This precious memory was lost by Pacrooti when he was robbed by a group of bandits. Bring it to him the next time you'll meet him, and he'll surely thank you by giving you a fifth card!". Nearly the same effect as the locked boxes : you'd get the feeling of trashing something possibly valuable when you refuse to buy a crate to use it. Pure speculation, of course. But seeing how it already works on launch, this wouldn't surprise me.
This brings us to the next issue:
Pacrooti should not be here.
Many people wanted to meet the hirelings in-game. Now it's possible, only if we accept to throw our money in the RNG bin. Thank you, ZOS, thank you!
I don't even know what to think about this. @MissBizz pointed that Pacrooti himself mentioned 'crooked dealers at the gambling caravan' in his very first message.
Does it mean that this gambling feature was already planned when the character was created? If this is the case, you lied to us.
Does it mean that some Dev who was displeased with being forced to design this system for greedy bosses implemented it as a discreet way to denounce them and voice his displeasure? If so, I applaud at his decision.
Does it mean that they try to make us love this hideous system by involving a loved character?
If it is the latter, I have some important news for you, ZOS. The witty thief character is only adorable as long as you're not the victim. When you implemented the Thieves Guild DLC, you didn't implement an option for us to discover our bank account empty and all our gold-quality items gone with a note from Zeira saying "too bad - you guy should have paid your insurance". Because IT WOULD NOT BE FUN. We wouldn't find Zeira humorous. Well, it will not be fun to be Pacrooti's victim as well! Taunting and inciting Pacrooti will be hated Pacrooti, I am sure of that.
What does it mean about the direction we're heading?
1. Quality loss
Fibonaccus hat, really? You're not even trying to make it seem to fit in the lore anymore? This really feels out of place. Using real-world mathematicians whose name is just a bit transformed is really immersion-breaking.
2. Cost inflation
The cosmetic stuff will get more and more expansive. With Vvaardenfell will come Housing. I am very concerned that we won't be able to get furniture without using the Crown Store. Furthermore, the Crown Store/Crate furniture will cost us money, but will cost ZOS exactly zero additional effort, since all the race-specific clutter has already been done for the base game. Zero investment, but profit anyways, yay!
But it's okay, it's just cosmetics! Except that there is no such a thing as unimportant cosmetics in TES. Cosmetics is a vital part of character creation, customization and development. It is not even a matter of Pay To Win anymore. It has begun a matter of Pay To Enjoy. Pay to enjoy is okay for me as long as the ammounts are reasonable.
3. Shift in priorities.
Downloadable content has already been downsized, and it will continue. As many have said, Crown crates will demand little effort for big profit. Expanding the game will thus get less resource and investment.
Why do I feel lied to?
ZOS told us that they wanted the content they create to be accessible to all. That was three days before the creation of this very thread. I can understand. ESO artists probably don't create awesome stuff only to lock it away so that nearly nobody could enjoy it. Oh wait... Yes, they do, now.
ZOS told us that it would never be pay to win. Yet the experience scrolls we find there are better than anything we can find in-game. And what we can find in-game has become ridiculously rare. Remember the last time you found a Psijic ambrosia recipe fragment? Yeah, me neither.
Arguably, this is not pay to win since there is a CP cap, so that it doesn't differentiate between maxed-out characters... Yet it is one step closer to the Pay to Win, and we didn't even have to wait some months of slippery slope before it happens: it's already there at launch!
And why this sudden mention of 'Non-combat pets'? Does it mean Combat Pets are coming to the Crates?
ZOS told us that there would be some Crates-exclusives and insisted on their rarity. But they are apparently moving the entire Crown Store into the Crates! And they do so while knowing that we hate those Crates. Only, maybe, the Tailored in Tamriel costumes will apparently keep being sold in the Store directly.
When the Crates were announced, I tried to force myself to think positively: It's okay, I will miss some mounts here and there. My collection will be complete, except for some holes. But it won't be holes, the Crates will tear entire canyons in it!
ZOS told us that the faithful customers who buy a lot of Crown collectibles would get rewarded by an increased likelihood of getting gems, and thus get more easily to the apex, since it is more likely for them to get duplicates. But there are so many new Crates-exclusives that this increased probability will now be strongly nerfed.
ZOS told us told us that Crown Crates were a way for them to allow people who missed the previously time-limited collectibles to get them, but guess what... the Atronach-themed Crown Crates will simply disappear from the store when the next theme will pop up, thus creating a whole bunch of new artificial rarity and of new time-limited items that people will obviously miss when they become permanently unavailable, so that even more people will complain about not having been able to get the thing they wanted. Which will only make the initial problem that ZOS pretended to tackle much, much worse.
How do I feel about this now?
Just imagine you're a member of some community. Every week, there are activities in some beautiful park. You participate to their activities and you like that, you feel home when you're with these people. Some day, you arrive at one of the community activities and discover there is a wall that splits the park. You ask what it is and someone answers: "Oh, we've built this wall so we could move some of our best activities on the other side and plant new beautiful flowers there for the allowed people to enjoy." "Nice, can I go see that?", you ask. And you get this: "Oh, I am afraid no. We know you're a dedicated member of the community and it is important to you, but alas! your dedication is not enough. You have to be rich, too. But you're not, so you don't belong there."
How would you feel? Frustrated? Despised? Rejected? Ostracized? Betrayed? Insulted? A mix of those? Would you still feel 'home' in the open part of the park where you previously could walk everywhere?
Now you know how I feel. And though not all players have come to love TES for the same reasons as I do, I have the intuition that I am not alone.
Tamriel was a home and a refuge when real-world got too harsh. Tamriel was a community where I felt I belonged. Tamriel was something beautiful and marvelous that elicited wonder. Tamriel was a place where we had nearly absolute freedom in our character creation
No. More.
I consider greed as one of the most harmul forces in this world, and one that could ultimately lead to the complete destruction of our environment. Now greed has found its way to TES and corrupted it. Whenever I will play and see an atronach mount, my screen will scream "GREED!" at me.
Absolute freedom in character creation has always been a rule of TES. Now every timeI will see a crown-exclusive costume or pet, I will think "walled-off option".
Congratulation, ZOS. With one single devastating move, you successfully dragged the TES universe into the mud. As if Boethiah herself, the Prince of Betrayal, had ingested Zenimax like Trinimac and defecated a new depraved company.
Here is why I wanted to start with the personal introduction, because only this could help understand how violent the next sentence is from my perspective.
I now hope that ESOTU will fail.
I know this is too extreme. I know this is irrational. But I can't help it. It hurts a lot and it deeply saddens me to reach this point.
Of course I still love TES.
But not under these conditions.
If they could just drop the idea of the Crates, I could play as if nothing happened, but let's face it, Crates are coming.
So I'd prefer the game to fail fast so we could maybe hope for TES VI to come and get the mess right again.
At this point, the only way to avoid getting hurt by this corruption and degeneracy of what I love is to distance myself from the game on an emotional level. In other words, to devitalize my passion for TES.
I hope you enjoy your customers, ZOS, for fans they will be no more.
How will I react?
I don't know.
I intended to protest by buying less Crown items, but it is not clear there will still be some Crown stuff to buy directly at all.
I am considering a cancellation of my subscription when the Crates go live, but playing without crafting bags is horrendous and it would also mean no Vvaardenfell for me, which is a big sacrifice. But if I lose my pleasure in playing after the Crates arrive, as I now fear, the sacrifice will perhaps be less painful.
I really don't know.
Fianlly, a word for the community managers.
Well, @ZOS_GinaBruno and @ZOS_JessicaFolsom, I want to tell you that all this rage, anger and rant is not pointed at you. You're between the anvil and the hammer. I think the coming weeks will be very harsh for you. You'll probably have to bring a message from the playerbase to financial people who don't want to hear it. That's not an easy job. But the community still respects you and is grateful for your work. Don't forget to watch some lovely kitten videos on the internet when the storm of negativity gets out of control.
Sorry for the typos, I have to go to eat so I will check that later.
Edited for the typos and to add some clarifications. I hope it's better now.Edited by VerboseQuips on September 21, 2016 11:26PMMy characters:Main and crafter: A Breton magicka templar named Erwann Sorril
Alt 1: A Bosmer sorcerer named Tuuneleg
Alt 2: An Imperial dragonknight named Gaius Tullius Hastifer
Alt 3: An Argonian vampire/nightblade named Observe-le-Xanmeer
Alt 4: A Nord werewolf/dragonknight named Sigurd Hurlevent
Alt 5: A Breton sorcerer named Gilian Sorril (he's Erwann's younger brother)
Alt 6: A Khajiit nightblade named Jolan-dar
Alt 7: A Nord warden named Sigurmar Hurlevent (he's Sigurd's younger brother)
Alt 8: An Altmer templar named Oioriel
Alt 9: An Argonian stamina Warden named Danse-avec-les-Rainettes
Alt 10: A Redguard templar named Neemokh af-Corelanya
Alt 11: A Nord stamina sorcerer named Olga Écoute-Vent
Alt 12: A Breton magicka Warden named Ian Sorril
Alt 13: A Dunmer magicka necromancer named Ilmoran Dren
Alt 14: An Orc stamina necromancer named Norgol gro-Borziel
Alt 15: A Nord magicka necromancer named Thorgen Givresang
Alt 16: An Imperial magicka dragonknight named Publius Valeirus Hastifer (Just call him "Valerio" - he's Gaius younger troublemaker of a brother)
Main in NA (For collaborative events): A Breton magicka nightblade named Titouan Sorril (long-lost brother of Erwann and Gilian)30 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.
all the 'math' necessary to understand the nature of a lottery consists of two expressions..... i doubt the majority of people would use these terms....
p=0
p>0
that's it.... it covers everything you need to know.
the statistical model will not tell you, or anyone else for that matter, which ticket will win only the probability of a given ticket winning.
the map is not the territory.
oh, just in case you can't figure it out p=0..... no ticket, no chance. p>0 a ticket, a chance. again, the idea that people don't understand that is just plain nonsense.
That is completely inadequate! You're just glossing over the nuance as if the only thing that matters is chance or no chance. There's a big difference between a 1% drop rate and a 50% drop rate, for instance, and that is an important difference for actually planning how much you are going to purchase. For instance, if you could afford 50 gambling boxes and the item you want has a 1% drop rate, then even if you buy all 50 boxes you only have a 39.5% chance of getting the item you want. Whereas if it were a 50% drop rate then after purchasing 50 boxes you have a probability of success so close to 100% that it really is not worth mentioning.
So in the first case of a 1% drop rate, someone who understands the math would be able to make an informed decision and probably choose not to buy the gambling box. The odds are too low. Whereas in the second example, someone who knows the math is more likely to buy them. Heck, since they know the math they can actually choose exactly how much risk they're willing to take, and end up buying fewer boxes! So the statistical model won't let them know exactly when they'll win, but the probability informs them of the risk and lets them figure out how much they're willing to spend, and at precisely what risk. The statistical model will tell them what different sections of the community will experience, based on their own purchases. So knowing the math lets them both inform their own decisions, and also helps them inform others, or at least know how bad it's going to be for the community.
Are you getting it yet? Are you seeing how knowing the math leads to better, more informed decisions? Do you understand why it's more complicated than just "a chance" versus "no chance"? The only nonsense around here is your insistence that this is a black and white issue, instead of being mired in a whole mess of nuance. Saying "the map is not the territory" over and over or other silly catch phrases doesn't constitute argumentative weight, it just makes you look silly.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster6 -
FLuFFyxMuFFiN✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsIf they didn't have consumables in them or at least not nearly as many as they do right now, I would be more likely to purchase them every now and then but as of right now I only plan to buy one per month with my 1500 crowns from ESO+0 -
Cazzy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.So, wait, will there be no new Crown store stuff to buy? Will it be how it is now but with added crates? Or more crates with less stuff to buy?
The question is still out there unanswered on the official thread. I would hope if they wanted to reassure us that they would still sell new items at a fixed price instead of putting them straight into the crates they'd have an official statement by now. So right now it looks like more crates and less stuff to buy.
Yeah, that's my thinking too.
There is a reddit AMA coming up so I hope they answer this then.
I came to terms with Crown Crates under the assumption nothing would necessarily change other than a few new exclusive items. If everything they advertise is going to be Crown Crate only or they more or less give up on Store stuff then...well, I may have to rethink things again
@ZOS_GinaBruno or @ZOS_JessicaFolsom - please can we have a little insight into how the Crown Store will work after Crates are introduced? Will we still be getting a monthly showcase of items available to purchase?
Will there still be the same amount of items to buy? Or will it be decreased due to many items being crated?2 -
Evergnar✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Tested these today and can say it's even worse than I thought. This is a destructive path Zenimax is on and unfortunately I can't see myself playing this game much longer.8 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.
all the 'math' necessary to understand the nature of a lottery consists of two expressions..... i doubt the majority of people would use these terms....
p=0
p>0
that's it.... it covers everything you need to know.
the statistical model will not tell you, or anyone else for that matter, which ticket will win only the probability of a given ticket winning.
the map is not the territory.
oh, just in case you can't figure it out p=0..... no ticket, no chance. p>0 a ticket, a chance. again, the idea that people don't understand that is just plain nonsense.
That is completely inadequate! You're just glossing over the nuance as if the only thing that matters is chance or no chance. There's a big difference between a 1% drop rate and a 50% drop rate, for instance, and that is an important difference for actually planning how much you are going to purchase. For instance, if you could afford 50 gambling boxes and the item you want has a 1% drop rate, then even if you buy all 50 boxes you only have a 39.5% chance of getting the item you want. Whereas if it were a 50% drop rate then after purchasing 50 boxes you have a probability of success so close to 100% that it really is not worth mentioning.
So in the first case of a 1% drop rate, someone who understands the math would be able to make an informed decision and probably choose not to buy the gambling box. The odds are too low. Whereas in the second example, someone who knows the math is more likely to buy them. Heck, since they know the math they can actually choose exactly how much risk they're willing to take, and end up buying fewer boxes! So the statistical model won't let them know exactly when they'll win, but the probability informs them of the risk and lets them figure out how much they're willing to spend, and at precisely what risk. The statistical model will tell them what different sections of the community will experience, based on their own purchases. So knowing the math lets them both inform their own decisions, and also helps them inform others, or at least know how bad it's going to be for the community.
Are you getting it yet? Are you seeing how knowing the math leads to better, more informed decisions? Do you understand why it's more complicated than just "a chance" versus "no chance"? The only nonsense around here is your insistence that this is a black and white issue, instead of being mired in a whole mess of nuance. Saying "the map is not the territory" over and over or other silly catch phrases doesn't constitute argumentative weight, it just makes you look silly.
gor blimey... you still don't get it.
informed choices.... are for buying cars, holidays, hair dryers or sausages. or any other item you care to mention. but not lottery tickets - the (put's on pompous 'i know it all voice' here) 'informed' choice for a lottery ticket or crown store box is DON'T BUY ONE...... that is the informed choice.
people don't buy lottery tickets because they have made an 'informed' choice. it's a flutter, a punt, a daft fiver. it's the 'i know i have no chance but what the hell if you have no ticket you have no chance of a win'
the math's are a complete red-herring because the whole activity has nothing to do with rationality.
i know people like you love to trot out the stats because it gives the delusion that you have some degree of control amongst all the randomness and chaos - but it is just plain nonsense.
2 -
Rosveen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I just noticed the Orchid Nixad is among crown crate rewards. Double sadness.5 -
Kuningatar✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.People want 'citation' as proof that Zenimax ever said they would not come off the subscription model, firstly that is not even really relevant to this thread, it were just something I brought up as one of my personal grievances. But you want citation? I can not pull up any videos, any forum posts, or anything like that. I am sure those opposed to my opinion will claim this proves I am wrong, but seriously.. keep deluding yourself, you really think Zenimax is not and has not lied and does not continue to lie?
Get a clue. They are a corporation. Corporations in large are almost exclusively dishonest and deceptive, its the 'modus operandi' for business practices.
Come on, I give people more credit than that. I can not believe anyone would be so blind as to not see it, you know the way they always word things in such a way that shines them in an unquestioningly positive light no matter what happens or what is done? You know how they keep saying We have no 'plans' at this time to/for - That is it, right there. That is the dishonesty, that is the deception. You know what people think and thought when they read that.
Its intentionally and intelligently deceptive too. Screw your player base over and make sure to word things in such a way that you can claim you are not responsible and surely some white knights will rise up to defend your company because they are apparently not wise enough to figure out what is actually going on.
I myself have emails from them in which they point blank told me back when I were fearing the worst for the game (near its launch) that they had no 'plans' to abandon the subscription model and it were working quite well for them and were successful. They literally said this point blank to me. Shortly thereafter? Game goes B2P.
You seriously think that were not planned? Honestly?
You are idealistic and naïve if you believe so. This were planned from the start.
Promise all this amazing stuff, spin everything in such an incredibly positive light, and get die hard fans hyped so that they pony down on your €110 collectors edition, so that they stay subscribed until the very end, the very end which by the way just happened to coincidentally coincide just a few months with the timing of their console launch and then open a crown store that offers everything (including a recoloured version of the 'exclusive senche mount' and even the then exclusive and no longer exclusive mudcrab pet) to screw your early supporters over extra hard and give everyone else the chance to get basically the same thing, of course for money.
Its all incredibly and intentionally, intelligently manipulative. If you can not see it, you are blind.
If you still love the game, good for you. I never disliked the game to be honest, I just dislike Zenimax' business practices.
You can keep defending them until the very end, it will find you in the same place as everyone else. Screwed with your butt in the air, sore, and wondering what happened and how it all went wrong.
To be perfectly honest, lately I am just fed up with mmos in general. "Back in the day" the mmo industry produced quality games with very few bugs and good game play. They actually tried. Now? Now they have fools (I am one of those fools) that fall for their hype and pay for something before its released, even PAY TO BETA TEST FOR THEM which is ridiculous. Nothing is how it used to be and the business model that mmos currently push is not sustainable, its killing the industry.Edited by Kuningatar on September 21, 2016 6:42PMJoskus menee perkeleen huonosti, mutta minä en anna periksi!5 -
MissBizz✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.
@Cazzy Here is a thread I made where I have a spreadsheet of all the items that CAN be in a crate. You can "preview" the crate and it tells you the possible contents. If you skip around my youtube video you'll see everything too. Anything that can be purchased for gems is available in the crate, PLUS there are consumables in the crate (I listed those in the spreadsheet in my thread)Lone Wolf HelpFor the solo players who know, sometimes you just need a hand.PC | NA | AD-DC-EP | Discord1 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsverenkutoja wrote: »People want 'citation' as proof that Zenimax ever said they would not come off the subscription model, firstly that is not even really relevant to this thread, it were just something I brought up as one of my personal grievances. But you want citation? I can not pull up any videos, any forum posts, or anything like that. I am sure those opposed to my opinion will claim this proves I am wrong, but seriously.. keep deluding yourself, you really think Zenimax is not and has not lied and does not continue to lie?
Get a clue. They are a corporation. Corporations in large are almost exclusively dishonest and deceptive, its the 'modus operandi' for business practices.
Come on, I give people more credit than that. I can not believe anyone would be so blind as to not see it, you know the way they always word things in such a way that shines them in an unquestioningly positive light no matter what happens or what is done? You know how they keep saying We have no 'plans' at this time to/for - That is it, right there. That is the dishonesty, that is the deception. You know what people think and thought when they read that.
Its intentionally and intelligently deceptive too. Screw your player base over and make sure to word things in such a way that you can claim you are not responsible and surely some white knights will rise up to defend your company because they are apparently not wise enough to figure out what is actually going on.
I myself have emails from them in which they point blank told me back when I were fearing the worst for the game (near its launch) that they had no 'plans' to abandon the subscription model and it were working quite well for them and were successful. They literally said this point blank to me. Shortly thereafter? Game goes B2P.
You seriously think that were not planned? Honestly?
You are idealistic and naïve if you believe so. This were planned from the start.
Promise all this amazing stuff, spin everything in such an incredibly positive light, and get die hard fans hyped so that they pony down on your €110 collectors edition, so that they stay subscribed until the very end, the very end which by the way just happened to coincidentally coincide just a few months with the timing of their console launch and then open a crown store that offers everything (including a recoloured version of the 'exclusive senche mount' and even the then exclusive and no longer exclusive mudcrab pet) to screw your early supporters over extra hard and give everyone else the chance to get basically the same thing, of course for money.
Its all incredibly and intentionally, intelligently manipulative. If you can not see it, you are blind.
If you still love the game, good for you. I never disliked the game to be honest, I just dislike Zenimax' business practices.
You can keep defending them until the very end, it will find you in the same place as everyone else. Screwed with your butt in the air, sore, and wondering what happened and how it all went wrong.
To be perfectly honest, lately I am just fed up with mmos in general. "Back in the day" the mmo industry produced quality games with very few bugs and good game play. They actually tried. Now? Now they have fools (I am one of those fools) that fall for their hype and pay for something before its released, even PAY TO BETA TEST FOR THEM which is ridiculous. Nothing is how it used to be and the business model that mmos currently push is not sustainable, its killing the industry.
So what you are saying is that they had a plan and a business model and executed it from day one. I agree. ALL businesses are going to spin things in a positive light as long as it benefits them. Steve Jobs was the KING of doing just that - maybe you have heard of him? This industry is hardly the first to come up with the idea. It's business 101.
Politicians spin better than companies ever thought of being able to do. What I really don't understand is how anyone is sincerely surprised by this move, the spin, the verbiage used, or really ANY of it. Companies sell their product by telling you it's better or different than anything else out there - and 99% of them are lying to you.
People keep claiming that I'm defending their actions, and I can promise you that I'm not. I will continue to support THE GAME until I no longer enjoy it. To be honest with you though, I care about ZoE just about as much as they personally care about me.
In the end, it's all about choices - they have the choice to take the game in any direction that they see fit to achieve their business plan. We have the choice to accept that or not - stay and support the game or cut bait and go. EVERYTHING else is just idle chatter.
2 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.
all the 'math' necessary to understand the nature of a lottery consists of two expressions..... i doubt the majority of people would use these terms....
p=0
p>0
that's it.... it covers everything you need to know.
the statistical model will not tell you, or anyone else for that matter, which ticket will win only the probability of a given ticket winning.
the map is not the territory.
oh, just in case you can't figure it out p=0..... no ticket, no chance. p>0 a ticket, a chance. again, the idea that people don't understand that is just plain nonsense.
That is completely inadequate! You're just glossing over the nuance as if the only thing that matters is chance or no chance. There's a big difference between a 1% drop rate and a 50% drop rate, for instance, and that is an important difference for actually planning how much you are going to purchase. For instance, if you could afford 50 gambling boxes and the item you want has a 1% drop rate, then even if you buy all 50 boxes you only have a 39.5% chance of getting the item you want. Whereas if it were a 50% drop rate then after purchasing 50 boxes you have a probability of success so close to 100% that it really is not worth mentioning.
So in the first case of a 1% drop rate, someone who understands the math would be able to make an informed decision and probably choose not to buy the gambling box. The odds are too low. Whereas in the second example, someone who knows the math is more likely to buy them. Heck, since they know the math they can actually choose exactly how much risk they're willing to take, and end up buying fewer boxes! So the statistical model won't let them know exactly when they'll win, but the probability informs them of the risk and lets them figure out how much they're willing to spend, and at precisely what risk. The statistical model will tell them what different sections of the community will experience, based on their own purchases. So knowing the math lets them both inform their own decisions, and also helps them inform others, or at least know how bad it's going to be for the community.
Are you getting it yet? Are you seeing how knowing the math leads to better, more informed decisions? Do you understand why it's more complicated than just "a chance" versus "no chance"? The only nonsense around here is your insistence that this is a black and white issue, instead of being mired in a whole mess of nuance. Saying "the map is not the territory" over and over or other silly catch phrases doesn't constitute argumentative weight, it just makes you look silly.
gor blimey... you still don't get it.
informed choices.... are for buying cars, holidays, hair dryers or sausages. or any other item you care to mention. but not lottery tickets - the (put's on pompous 'i know it all voice' here) 'informed' choice for a lottery ticket or crown store box is DON'T BUY ONE...... that is the informed choice.
people don't buy lottery tickets because they have made an 'informed' choice. it's a flutter, a punt, a daft fiver. it's the 'i know i have no chance but what the hell if you have no ticket you have no chance of a win'
the math's are a complete red-herring because the whole activity has nothing to do with rationality.
i know people like you love to trot out the stats because it gives the delusion that you have some degree of control amongst all the randomness and chaos - but it is just plain nonsense.
That is not only a complete copout, it's in direct contradiction with the original issue you took with what I was saying.
Purchasing decisions are not magically separated into gambling and non-gambling purchases. It is always important to be able to make an informed decision, and this is no different with gambling. With gambling, you weigh the amount of fun you will have taking a risk against the cost of that risk. It's ridiculous to try and pretend that these economic terms don't have a fixed meaning. It doesn't change just because you really want it to. Trying to equate nonparticipation with making an informed purchase is completely facile.
So no, the math still stands as an important factor. If you can't do the math then just say so, I can show you how. I even made a thread about it. But it's no less important to figure out how much risk someone is willing to take, and at what cost. "People like me" love to trot out the probability because it does give you a measure of control over outcomes. This is some magic hand-waving, it is scientifically verifiable degrees of control. It is literally mathematically sound. You can't get more sure than that. If you really don't believe in math then I don't even know why we're having this conversation, because that has to be the most inane thing I've ever heard of.
Your original reply to me was to point out that you might get the item you want after only a single purchase. My counter was that it's useless to know that you can win because that's a given, but that it is useful to know that it is possible to never win, and to know the math involved so you can figure out how much of a risk you wanted to take. You've since proceeded to do everything from claim that everyone knows probability theory, to claiming that the math doesn't help make an informed decision, to claiming that the math doesn't even work. All the while you've given no evidence for these claims, just stated them like they're fact. Face it, you cannot even begin to make rhetorical headway on this. Just accept that you don't know jack about the subject. It's okay not to know things, but it's darn foolish to pretend you do just so you can start an argument.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster2 -
Merlight✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.verenkutoja wrote: »People want 'citation' as proof that Zenimax ever said they would not come off the subscription model, firstly that is not even really relevant to this thread, it were just something I brought up as one of my personal grievances. But you want citation? I can not pull up any videos, any forum posts, or anything like that. I am sure those opposed to my opinion will claim this proves I am wrong, but seriously.. keep deluding yourself, you really think Zenimax is not and has not lied and does not continue to lie?
The citation you're looking for might be this article about sacrifices they weren't willing to make.
Of course they never said they would not drop the subscription model. And kept denying that they would, right until they dropped it. You explained the reasons for that pretty well in your post.EU ‣ Wabbajack nostalgic ‣ Blackwater Blade defender ‣ Kyne wanderer
The offspring of the root of all evil in ESO by DeanTheCat
Why ESO needs a monthly subscription
When an MMO is designed around a revenue model rather than around fun, it doesn’t have a long-term future. ― Richard A. Bartle
Their idea of transparent, at least when it comes to communication, bears a striking resemblance to a block of coal. ― lordrichter
... in the balance of power between the accountants and marketing types against the artists, developers and those who generally want to build and run a good game then that balance needs to always be in favour of the latter - because the former will drag the game into the ground for every last bean they can squeeze out of it. ― Santie Claws1 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.
all the 'math' necessary to understand the nature of a lottery consists of two expressions..... i doubt the majority of people would use these terms....
p=0
p>0
that's it.... it covers everything you need to know.
the statistical model will not tell you, or anyone else for that matter, which ticket will win only the probability of a given ticket winning.
the map is not the territory.
oh, just in case you can't figure it out p=0..... no ticket, no chance. p>0 a ticket, a chance. again, the idea that people don't understand that is just plain nonsense.
That is completely inadequate! You're just glossing over the nuance as if the only thing that matters is chance or no chance. There's a big difference between a 1% drop rate and a 50% drop rate, for instance, and that is an important difference for actually planning how much you are going to purchase. For instance, if you could afford 50 gambling boxes and the item you want has a 1% drop rate, then even if you buy all 50 boxes you only have a 39.5% chance of getting the item you want. Whereas if it were a 50% drop rate then after purchasing 50 boxes you have a probability of success so close to 100% that it really is not worth mentioning.
So in the first case of a 1% drop rate, someone who understands the math would be able to make an informed decision and probably choose not to buy the gambling box. The odds are too low. Whereas in the second example, someone who knows the math is more likely to buy them. Heck, since they know the math they can actually choose exactly how much risk they're willing to take, and end up buying fewer boxes! So the statistical model won't let them know exactly when they'll win, but the probability informs them of the risk and lets them figure out how much they're willing to spend, and at precisely what risk. The statistical model will tell them what different sections of the community will experience, based on their own purchases. So knowing the math lets them both inform their own decisions, and also helps them inform others, or at least know how bad it's going to be for the community.
Are you getting it yet? Are you seeing how knowing the math leads to better, more informed decisions? Do you understand why it's more complicated than just "a chance" versus "no chance"? The only nonsense around here is your insistence that this is a black and white issue, instead of being mired in a whole mess of nuance. Saying "the map is not the territory" over and over or other silly catch phrases doesn't constitute argumentative weight, it just makes you look silly.
gor blimey... you still don't get it.
informed choices.... are for buying cars, holidays, hair dryers or sausages. or any other item you care to mention. but not lottery tickets - the (put's on pompous 'i know it all voice' here) 'informed' choice for a lottery ticket or crown store box is DON'T BUY ONE...... that is the informed choice.
people don't buy lottery tickets because they have made an 'informed' choice. it's a flutter, a punt, a daft fiver. it's the 'i know i have no chance but what the hell if you have no ticket you have no chance of a win'
the math's are a complete red-herring because the whole activity has nothing to do with rationality.
i know people like you love to trot out the stats because it gives the delusion that you have some degree of control amongst all the randomness and chaos - but it is just plain nonsense.
That is not only a complete copout, it's in direct contradiction with the original issue you took with what I was saying.
Purchasing decisions are not magically separated into gambling and non-gambling purchases. It is always important to be able to make an informed decision, and this is no different with gambling. With gambling, you weigh the amount of fun you will have taking a risk against the cost of that risk. It's ridiculous to try and pretend that these economic terms don't have a fixed meaning. It doesn't change just because you really want it to. Trying to equate nonparticipation with making an informed purchase is completely facile.
So no, the math still stands as an important factor. If you can't do the math then just say so, I can show you how. I even made a thread about it. But it's no less important to figure out how much risk someone is willing to take, and at what cost. "People like me" love to trot out the probability because it does give you a measure of control over outcomes. This is some magic hand-waving, it is scientifically verifiable degrees of control. It is literally mathematically sound. You can't get more sure than that. If you really don't believe in math then I don't even know why we're having this conversation, because that has to be the most inane thing I've ever heard of.
Your original reply to me was to point out that you might get the item you want after only a single purchase. My counter was that it's useless to know that you can win because that's a given, but that it is useful to know that it is possible to never win, and to know the math involved so you can figure out how much of a risk you wanted to take. You've since proceeded to do everything from claim that everyone knows probability theory, to claiming that the math doesn't help make an informed decision, to claiming that the math doesn't even work. All the while you've given no evidence for these claims, just stated them like they're fact. Face it, you cannot even begin to make rhetorical headway on this. Just accept that you don't know jack about the subject. It's okay not to know things, but it's darn foolish to pretend you do just so you can start an argument.
again... mostly nonsense..... trotting out probability does give a delusion of control - but it gives you no control over the outcome. knowing that you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling any given number with a fair dice does not give you control over which number comes up. and if you think it does then you are , indeed, deluded.
again - the math is a red-herring. choosing to make a flutter on a 1 in 42 million shot at success is not rational behaviour.
where did i say everyone knows probability theory? i didn't, i said that people understand the nature of lotteries. that is not the same thing.
my original point was that in this situation you may get what you want with the first box - and that is as true as saying you may have to buy a million boxes before you get what you want. that's the thing with probability theory - it can tell you the 'probability' of any given box containing the thing that you want but it cannot and does not predict which box will contain it - and that is why the maths is a red-herring.
and the only informed choice to make with the lottery boxes is DON'T BUY THEM.2 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.
I didn't say that everyone believes they will win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket, I said that most people don't have the mathematical background to make an informed decision. Just because people have heard about lotteries doesn't actually mean they understand them. People know about airplanes, but knowing about it doesn't give them sudden insight into how to pilot one.
Why won't you actually address the evidence I've given proving that some people don't understand the fundamentals of probability? Why are you trying to say that the math is trivial? Can you do it? Why do you think the probability isn't going to be an adequate description of people's actual experiences? Do you think the sample size will be too small to express the variability? Or do you just think that math is fake? In what world do you live in where math doesn't apply? What about the mathematical model is a red herring? Is it... nothing? Are you just throwing out more "nuh-uh"s without any evidence to back them up? Because it sure seems that way.
all the 'math' necessary to understand the nature of a lottery consists of two expressions..... i doubt the majority of people would use these terms....
p=0
p>0
that's it.... it covers everything you need to know.
the statistical model will not tell you, or anyone else for that matter, which ticket will win only the probability of a given ticket winning.
the map is not the territory.
oh, just in case you can't figure it out p=0..... no ticket, no chance. p>0 a ticket, a chance. again, the idea that people don't understand that is just plain nonsense.
That is completely inadequate! You're just glossing over the nuance as if the only thing that matters is chance or no chance. There's a big difference between a 1% drop rate and a 50% drop rate, for instance, and that is an important difference for actually planning how much you are going to purchase. For instance, if you could afford 50 gambling boxes and the item you want has a 1% drop rate, then even if you buy all 50 boxes you only have a 39.5% chance of getting the item you want. Whereas if it were a 50% drop rate then after purchasing 50 boxes you have a probability of success so close to 100% that it really is not worth mentioning.
So in the first case of a 1% drop rate, someone who understands the math would be able to make an informed decision and probably choose not to buy the gambling box. The odds are too low. Whereas in the second example, someone who knows the math is more likely to buy them. Heck, since they know the math they can actually choose exactly how much risk they're willing to take, and end up buying fewer boxes! So the statistical model won't let them know exactly when they'll win, but the probability informs them of the risk and lets them figure out how much they're willing to spend, and at precisely what risk. The statistical model will tell them what different sections of the community will experience, based on their own purchases. So knowing the math lets them both inform their own decisions, and also helps them inform others, or at least know how bad it's going to be for the community.
Are you getting it yet? Are you seeing how knowing the math leads to better, more informed decisions? Do you understand why it's more complicated than just "a chance" versus "no chance"? The only nonsense around here is your insistence that this is a black and white issue, instead of being mired in a whole mess of nuance. Saying "the map is not the territory" over and over or other silly catch phrases doesn't constitute argumentative weight, it just makes you look silly.
gor blimey... you still don't get it.
informed choices.... are for buying cars, holidays, hair dryers or sausages. or any other item you care to mention. but not lottery tickets - the (put's on pompous 'i know it all voice' here) 'informed' choice for a lottery ticket or crown store box is DON'T BUY ONE...... that is the informed choice.
people don't buy lottery tickets because they have made an 'informed' choice. it's a flutter, a punt, a daft fiver. it's the 'i know i have no chance but what the hell if you have no ticket you have no chance of a win'
the math's are a complete red-herring because the whole activity has nothing to do with rationality.
i know people like you love to trot out the stats because it gives the delusion that you have some degree of control amongst all the randomness and chaos - but it is just plain nonsense.
That is not only a complete copout, it's in direct contradiction with the original issue you took with what I was saying.
Purchasing decisions are not magically separated into gambling and non-gambling purchases. It is always important to be able to make an informed decision, and this is no different with gambling. With gambling, you weigh the amount of fun you will have taking a risk against the cost of that risk. It's ridiculous to try and pretend that these economic terms don't have a fixed meaning. It doesn't change just because you really want it to. Trying to equate nonparticipation with making an informed purchase is completely facile.
So no, the math still stands as an important factor. If you can't do the math then just say so, I can show you how. I even made a thread about it. But it's no less important to figure out how much risk someone is willing to take, and at what cost. "People like me" love to trot out the probability because it does give you a measure of control over outcomes. This is some magic hand-waving, it is scientifically verifiable degrees of control. It is literally mathematically sound. You can't get more sure than that. If you really don't believe in math then I don't even know why we're having this conversation, because that has to be the most inane thing I've ever heard of.
Your original reply to me was to point out that you might get the item you want after only a single purchase. My counter was that it's useless to know that you can win because that's a given, but that it is useful to know that it is possible to never win, and to know the math involved so you can figure out how much of a risk you wanted to take. You've since proceeded to do everything from claim that everyone knows probability theory, to claiming that the math doesn't help make an informed decision, to claiming that the math doesn't even work. All the while you've given no evidence for these claims, just stated them like they're fact. Face it, you cannot even begin to make rhetorical headway on this. Just accept that you don't know jack about the subject. It's okay not to know things, but it's darn foolish to pretend you do just so you can start an argument.
again... mostly nonsense..... trotting out probability does give a delusion of control - but it gives you no control over the outcome. knowing that you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling any given number with a fair dice does not give you control over which number comes up. and if you think it does then you are , indeed, deluded.
again - the math is a red-herring. choosing to make a flutter on a 1 in 42 million shot at success is not rational behaviour.
where did i say everyone knows probability theory? i didn't, i said that people understand the nature of lotteries. that is not the same thing.
my original point was that in this situation you may get what you want with the first box - and that is as true as saying you may have to buy a million boxes before you get what you want. that's the thing with probability theory - it can tell you the 'probability' of any given box containing the thing that you want but it cannot and does not predict which box will contain it - and that is why the maths is a red-herring.
and the only informed choice to make with the lottery boxes is DON'T BUY THEM.
You are mistaken. Knowing the probability gives you control over how much risk you are willing to take and at what cost. I never said that it gives you power over the outcome. If you can't make heads or tails of that distinction, then it's because you don't know enough about probability to tell between the two. This only supports my insistence that understanding probability is necessary for making a rational decision to play or not to play a gambling game, and how much to spend on it.
The math is not a red herring. You keep saying that things are "nonsense" or "red herrings" like some cartoon character's catch phrase. You would need to actually back up your statement for anyone to believe you. So I'll go over it again. Not all gambling is a "1 in 42 million shot at success". If you know the probability then you can get an arbitrarily high chance of success. The question then becomes "is this chance of success worth the amount of money I will spend on it?" If the answer is yes, you go forward with it, and if the answer is no then you don't. But you need to know the math in order to make the decision. That is the only way you can "understand the nature of lotteries". If your understanding of lotteries only amounts to "there is a chance I will win and a chance that I won't" then you don't understand it enough to make a rational decision. In that case, I would agree that the best option is not to play. I mean, I think the best option is not to play at all, regardless of how much you engineer the risk, and I think it's inappropriate for this gambling service to exist in ESO to begin with, but apparently you'd rather tell lies about math than any of that.
Anyway, that is why I argue that you claim everyone knows probability theory. You claim that "people understand the nature of lotteries", but this is only possible if you understand the math behind how they work. Just knowing that it's chance-based is not sufficient, since most people don't actually understand how chance even works. You have continually proven that throughout the discussion. For example, you are claiming that people who use probability think that they are predicting what box will contain the prize. This is not the case. People who use probability are controlling how much risk they are taking, not the ultimate outcome. You simply don't even understand what probability theory is used for. You have no idea how to apply it, and that is why you are confused and making erroneous arguments.
Once again, "DON'T BUY THEM" is not an informed decision. It is a good decision, and one I highly recommend, but an informed decision is knowing why it is a bad idea to buy them. The top-level comment, where I claim that you might never get the item you want (a mathematically-provable concept), is informative. But then you replied with something that does not add knowledge by saying that "you may get one with 1 purchase". I explained why that is not informative, and you have been unable to argue that it is. Now you're not even arguing that it is, you're just misusing the term "informed choice" and telling people not to buy the gambling boxes. It's like you don't even know what you're arguing and just want to stand there yelling.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster4 -
VerboseQuips✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I just realized that the Crown Crates will also be pulled out of the Store when the new theme will arrive. I thus added a new paragraph to my long comment above. Because it was obviously not long enough.
Didn't they say that no item would be pulled out of the Gem store? I think I remember an interview of someone saying this but I don't remember well.My characters:Main and crafter: A Breton magicka templar named Erwann Sorril
Alt 1: A Bosmer sorcerer named Tuuneleg
Alt 2: An Imperial dragonknight named Gaius Tullius Hastifer
Alt 3: An Argonian vampire/nightblade named Observe-le-Xanmeer
Alt 4: A Nord werewolf/dragonknight named Sigurd Hurlevent
Alt 5: A Breton sorcerer named Gilian Sorril (he's Erwann's younger brother)
Alt 6: A Khajiit nightblade named Jolan-dar
Alt 7: A Nord warden named Sigurmar Hurlevent (he's Sigurd's younger brother)
Alt 8: An Altmer templar named Oioriel
Alt 9: An Argonian stamina Warden named Danse-avec-les-Rainettes
Alt 10: A Redguard templar named Neemokh af-Corelanya
Alt 11: A Nord stamina sorcerer named Olga Écoute-Vent
Alt 12: A Breton magicka Warden named Ian Sorril
Alt 13: A Dunmer magicka necromancer named Ilmoran Dren
Alt 14: An Orc stamina necromancer named Norgol gro-Borziel
Alt 15: A Nord magicka necromancer named Thorgen Givresang
Alt 16: An Imperial magicka dragonknight named Publius Valeirus Hastifer (Just call him "Valerio" - he's Gaius younger troublemaker of a brother)
Main in NA (For collaborative events): A Breton magicka nightblade named Titouan Sorril (long-lost brother of Erwann and Gilian)0 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.
@Cazzy Here is a thread I made where I have a spreadsheet of all the items that CAN be in a crate. You can "preview" the crate and it tells you the possible contents. If you skip around my youtube video you'll see everything too. Anything that can be purchased for gems is available in the crate, PLUS there are consumables in the crate (I listed those in the spreadsheet in my thread)
@MissBizz ; I went on the pts and bought the crates; however many you can get for 5500 crowns. I got costumes, I got food/drinks/repair kits. I also got a surprise. I don't pvp. I've been to the IC to get to the crafting stations, and I've hunted cultists and daedra above ground, with extremely limited dremora and scamp hunting in the sewers. That skin that people wanted, the one you get from beating Molag Bal in the undersewers? It was in the crate. So a carebear who never actually did a single trial on normal has the skin people who made dozens of runs trying to get don't have.Edited by JKorr on September 21, 2016 11:53PM2 -
Jazbay_Grape✭✭✭✭MornaBaine wrote: »I have come to the conclusion that I honestly would not care at all about the crates IF it were not for the "exclusives" in them. EVERYTHING needs to be available for direct purchase. PERIOD.
The thing that really disturbed me was the line about (totally paraphrasing), "Oh you're already buying these consumables anyway so now you'll just have a chance at a neat extra goodie." My belief is that this is an outright lie. No one buys the consumables. This is being used as a thin veneer to justify this nightmare.
I 100% agree with this. There is no way that anyone actually buys that garbage on purpose.1 -
Rosveen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.
No, the one from Molag Bal is the Soul-Shriven Skin. The one you get from crown crates is the Mind-Shriven Skin, which was originally released with the Imperial City Collector's Bundle (available separetely too).
@Cazzy Here is a thread I made where I have a spreadsheet of all the items that CAN be in a crate. You can "preview" the crate and it tells you the possible contents. If you skip around my youtube video you'll see everything too. Anything that can be purchased for gems is available in the crate, PLUS there are consumables in the crate (I listed those in the spreadsheet in my thread)
@MissBizz ; I went on the pts and bought the crates; however many you can get for 5500 crowns. I got costumes, I got food/drinks/repair kits. I also got a surprise. I don't pvp. I've been to the IC to get to the crafting stations, and I've hunted cultists and daedra above ground, with extremely limited dremora and scamp hunting in the sewers. That skin that people wanted, the one you get from beating Molag Bal in the undersewers? It was in the crate. So a carebear who never actually did a single trial on normal has the skin people who made dozens of runs trying to get.0 -
MissBizz✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.
No, the one from Molag Bal is the Soul-Shriven Skin. The one you get from crown crates is the Mind-Shriven Skin, which was originally released with the Imperial City Collector's Bundle (available separetely too).
@Cazzy Here is a thread I made where I have a spreadsheet of all the items that CAN be in a crate. You can "preview" the crate and it tells you the possible contents. If you skip around my youtube video you'll see everything too. Anything that can be purchased for gems is available in the crate, PLUS there are consumables in the crate (I listed those in the spreadsheet in my thread)
@MissBizz ; I went on the pts and bought the crates; however many you can get for 5500 crowns. I got costumes, I got food/drinks/repair kits. I also got a surprise. I don't pvp. I've been to the IC to get to the crafting stations, and I've hunted cultists and daedra above ground, with extremely limited dremora and scamp hunting in the sewers. That skin that people wanted, the one you get from beating Molag Bal in the undersewers? It was in the crate. So a carebear who never actually did a single trial on normal has the skin people who made dozens of runs trying to get.
If you DID get the other skin, than would be a bug. But I'm PRETTY sure you got the mind shriven one and are getting confused. Are you on a template character? I noticed they had a "crate of costumes" with the template, so maybe it was in there, and that's how your character has it on PTS.Lone Wolf HelpFor the solo players who know, sometimes you just need a hand.PC | NA | AD-DC-EP | Discord0 -
MissBizz✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.VerboseQuips wrote: »I just realized that the Crown Crates will also be pulled out of the Store when the new theme will arrive. I thus added a new paragraph to my long comment above. Because it was obviously not long enough.
Didn't they say that no item would be pulled out of the Gem store? I think I remember an interview of someone saying this but I don't remember well.
@VerboseQuips I remember quite the opposite. That they said items would rotate through the gem store (hence, seasons). Working on getting my Day 2 video up so don't have time to hunt for it right now though, sorry.Lone Wolf HelpFor the solo players who know, sometimes you just need a hand.PC | NA | AD-DC-EP | Discord0 -
Malamar1229✭✭✭✭✭
✭I like the Breton Hero costumer. I am new so this gives me an opportunity to acquire it.0 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Malamar1229 wrote: »I like the Breton Hero costumer. I am new so this gives me an opportunity to acquire it.
It's too bad that your odds of getting it are so astronomically low. A better system to let you get it would have been to not make it limited-time in the first place. A decent compromise system would be to seasonally put it back on sale. This gambling box business is pretty much the worst possible "solution" to the problem. Like oh no, how will we make sure people can get items they missed out on? I know, let's have them roll some RNG for it! Boy are we clever.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster3
This discussion has been closed.