I've spent millions on crates and I'm generally fine with the outcome, but then again I don't spend IRL money.

The ever subjective philosophy of "when enough is enough" belies a central tenet in algorithms determining the contents of crates.

Plenty people manage to acquire unavoidably promoted vanity gear with naught more than monthly subscription crowns and gold, and plenty more, if I understand the ecosystem of micros well enough, spend far more on them above and beyond the monthly subscription for the craft bag slot, which is why they lock it into that~

Share holders, quarterly profits, how much pressure can be levied on the player base for profit before enough people react sufficiently as to tweak the numbers just enough to lose minimal profit.

Not in all games and communities, but seems most prevalent in the AAA group. Excess profits beyond what would more satiate the customers, who create the company's wealth, are dependent upon the generally reliably psychology of effective advertisement and mass consumerism culture, now quite global setting aside the places in world worst off.

In buying a crate, it would seem more reasonable to land in a spread of percentile with good and bad luck wiggle room proportionate to the bracket of item rarity - the problem appears that the baseline numbers are all quite egregious, which is where the notion of avarice springs.

In the end, aside the potions which arguably should not be in crates with how they effect gameplay, it is all vanity and could simply be ignored (also setting aside the broader discourse about pay model benefits). So it could generally be dismissed as such.
People often cling to that as though it were a unique argument.
The problem with that argument becomes special pleading in comparable yet deigned exempt from scrutiny circumstances, and understandably so given how varied and capricious "value" is on whole.

At any rate, I think it no unique notion to think it reasonable if the baseline RNG were higher for Epic, Legendary, and Apex/Apex Prime whatever it is called loot.

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

That way I don't have to write a 10-paragraph forums protest that the outcome "wasn't fair".

Whatever the reasoning for this added edit, the posts are not to highlight "fairness" but rather draw attention to the philosophical and sociological business angle of why algorithms are set as they are, and if even unintended is a fundamental misrepresentation.

If continuing further, perhaps remain on subject material?

Apathy can be frighteningly effective for enjoying one's time in an MMO, though the focus was on how algorithms are so silent yet invasive, and the suggestion to raise the baseline percentile as to deliver more reliable value proportionate to the cost strictly on the currency side.

I am genuinely happy that your gold is sufficient to enjoy the boxes, and wish fortune in any future boxes.

Zacuel wrote: »

A lot of fancy words there

How about...

'crates r bad'

About cover it?

If it were, that might seem optimal, though is not the central argument at all (crates can be fun, minus a litany of objections).

An attempted TLDR:

Crates are enjoyed by many people, are heavily pushed, and thus its contents ought be proportionately ethical in how much is spent to how much is acquired - rather than what seems the case of keeping percentile as feasibly low (the highest ratio of deigned justified spending) as to maintain the highest profit for shareholders and quarterly earnings.

More nuance:

Consider the demonstrable nature of competition over limited resources. If it can be assured to a populous with some X probability greater than some X resource is lost in otherwise competition, there tends to be a leveling point of non-violence from at least one metric, of which there are many (we are social, empathetic animals who can plan far into future, for instance).

Back to TESO, the monthly subscription allots 1500C per month, as well there are ways to acquire currency without the pay model, so there are at least multiple methods not accounting for receiving anything.

The content in boxes itself is notably advertised and not a small proportion of revenue derives from micros in general, when last checked. People tend to enjoy the boxes (minus a longer dip into the role of advertisement and creating demand), yet are still purely optional to play the bulk of game (minus some disadvantages not having crown potions, exp boost, and bonus food). It is because of how saturated the Crown Store is into the base game within and without that the methodology of loot acquisition be the more ethical within context of currency spent (as well gold spent, albeit to a lesser degree).

Ryvyr wrote: »

Zacuel wrote: »

A lot of fancy words there

How about...

'crates r bad'

About cover it?

If it were, that might seem optimal, though is not the central argument at all (crates can be fun, minus a litany of objections).

An attempted TLDR:

Crates are enjoyed by many people, are heavily pushed, and thus its contents ought be proportionately ethical in how much is spent to how much is acquired - rather than what seems the case of keeping percentile as feasibly low (the highest ratio of deigned justified spending) as to maintain the highest profit for shareholders and quarterly earnings.

More nuance:

Consider the demonstrable nature of competition over limited resources. If it can be assured to a populous with some X probability greater than some X resource is lost in otherwise competition, there tends to be a leveling point of non-violence from at least one metric, of which there are many (we are social, empathetic animals who can plan far into future, for instance).

Back to TESO, the monthly subscription allots 1500C per month, as well there are ways to acquire currency without the pay model, so there are at least multiple methods not accounting for receiving anything.

The content in boxes itself is notably advertised and not a small proportion of revenue derives from micros in general, when last checked. People tend to enjoy the boxes (minus a longer dip into the role of advertisement and creating demand), yet are still purely optional to play the bulk of game (minus some disadvantages not having crown potions, exp boost, and bonus food). It is because of how saturated the Crown Store is into the base game within and without that the methodology of loot acquisition be the more ethical within context of currency spent (as well gold spent, albeit to a lesser degree).

So uhh.... Crates are bad. Gotcha.

I don't mean to come at you, here, but your passive voice is so strong that I swear, it's tricking me into believing your thoughts are incongruent and unrelated to one another.