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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Malamar1229 wrote: »I like the Breton Hero costumer. I am new so this gives me an opportunity to acquire it.