The TERA servers will undergo an extended maintenance from 7-11 a.m., on Tuesday, 10/24.

So... the updated lootboxes, right?

Can we talk about the new lootboxes for a moment?

I'm glad to see they're updated, and that the transition from old to new went forward with little incident (insert totally-not-cynical-I-swear cough here). On the other hand, I'm not, and I think the reasons why are obvious. For the rest of you, the new lootboxes are a mess because now each one has more items to obtain (reminiscent of the older lootboxes, such as the True Ultimate Power Weapon Box). This further lowers the already abysmal chances of getting the desired item, at least at first glance. So... why?

Rolling the dice with a chance to hit a massive jackpot is fun and exciting, I get that. But the lower the odds of getting said jackpot, the less people become interested. The less people are interested, the less money they spend. The less money they spend- look, I'm pretty sure most of you know where I'm going with this.

So I ask again: why?

Comments

  • feminziifeminzii ✭✭✭
    edited October 11
    SageWindu wrote: »
    But the lower the odds of getting said jackpot, the less people become interested. The less people are interested, the less money they spend. The less money they spend- look, I'm pretty sure most of you know where I'm going with this.

    So I ask again: why?

    Because although this is a cute theory and although people love to complain about lootboxes, people still buy them up like madmen regardless.
  • counterpointcounterpoint ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11
    Just because there are more items in the runner-up prize pool doesn't necessarily mean that the chances to get the jackpot item are lower. Each item has an individual percent chance, so even if they add thousands of runner-up items, it doesn't have to impact the jackpot chance, which could still be fixed to whatever % chance they want. (For example, a common % chance on many lootboxes/gacha is 3%. All the other items get divided among the remaining 97%, although it may not be evenly. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if the lower quantities of talents/emblems appear more often than the higher quantities.)

    My honest guess is that they only swapped out the runner-up prizes and didn't change the odds for the main prize(s). But the real problem (as I've often said) is that they don't post the odds, so people could assume that this change lowered the percentage even if it didn't.
  • ZoknahalZoknahal ✭✭✭✭✭
    I still think there should be a failcap in the loot boxes. With that, we would stop seeing this complain threads about the chances being too low.

    And it would actually make ppl buy more knowing they get the desired jackpot after spending a set amount of dollars, instead of spending and spending, and spending more, and never seeing the jackpot.
  • No need to change if players are still purchasing them.
  • counterpointcounterpoint ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11
    Zoknahal wrote: »
    I still think there should be a failcap in the loot boxes. With that, we would stop seeing this complain threads about the chances being too low.
    Well, I totally agree in principle, but does depend on where the cap is. If they set the fail cap to 100 lootboxes but don't post the odds, the perception will be that the odds to win are less than 1%, whether that's true or not. So really you need both posted odds + failure cap. Neither of these are actually big asks, considering other countries already require it... but I guess no one wants to be the first to "self-regulate."
  • Zoknahal wrote: »
    I still think there should be a failcap in the loot boxes. With that, we would stop seeing this complain threads about the chances being too low.
    Well, I totally agree in principle, but does depend on where the cap is. If they set the fail cap to 100 lootboxes but don't post the odds, the perception will be that the odds to win are less than 1%, whether that's true or not. So really you need both posted odds + failure cap. Neither of these are actually big asks, considering other countries already require it... but I guess no one wants to be the first to "self-regulate."

    Indeed.
    Afraid it would be shameful to show players they're paying for horrible odds.
  • ZoknahalZoknahal ✭✭✭✭✭
    Zoknahal wrote: »
    I still think there should be a failcap in the loot boxes. With that, we would stop seeing this complain threads about the chances being too low.
    Well, I totally agree in principle, but does depend on where the cap is. If they set the fail cap to 100 lootboxes but don't post the odds, the perception will be that the odds to win are less than 1%, whether that's true or not. So really you need both posted odds + failure cap. Neither of these are actually big asks, considering other countries already require it... but I guess no one wants to be the first to "self-regulate."

    Indeed. If i were EME, i would set the failure cap at a reasonable price point everyone can afford, and would be willing to pay for it. For example, on stuff like the brand new phoinex mount, due to its nature, i would not argue against a 100 usd failure cap, if we talk prices. Spend 100 usd worth of loot boxes for the phoinex mount, and you are guaranteed to get it no matter what.

    For other loot boxes however, i would go for 50 usd, which seems a price point many have agreed in the past would pay for the guaranteed jackpot.

    It is up to EME to decide if this method will bring more income, which i think it will. It would be in their best interest too should they wanna strive to be more transparent with the community, as you said, to release the odds of getting said jackpot.
  • I don't buy em, you guys should though no matter how bad the RNG is. In fact buy a lot of them.
  • The change to the new gear progression necessitated we go back and update all our loot box products. We viewed this as an opportunity to standardize the contents of these boxes and our hope is the enchanting materials contained within them will provide similar, if not increased, utility over the old boxes. I can also confirm, as some have already alluded to, that this transition did not negatively impact the chance to earn the jackpot item from any one loot box. We simply replaced those items that were no longer relevant to include and left the jackpot product untouched. We felt this was only fair to existing owners of these boxes (players that might have existing loot boxes in their inventory or Item Claim).
  • SageWinduSageWindu ✭✭✭
    @Denommenator

    Fair enough, though one question still remains: why is the "Pick a card, any card!" system still in place given how many items are contained, so to speak, within the boxes themselves? If it's for the reason I think it is, then that's a rather dirty trick you're playing on us players.
  • counterpointcounterpoint ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 12
    SageWindu wrote: »
    Fair enough, though one question still remains: why is the "Pick a card, any card!" system still in place given how many items are contained, so to speak, within the boxes themselves? If it's for the reason I think it is, then that's a rather dirty trick you're playing on us players.
    It's just an illusion of choice/influence on the RNG process. It may or may not serve to influence the RNG seed, but I don't think people would believe that one of the "four cards" holds the "ace." The odds are still the odds no matter what box you pick.

    I'm in favor of posting the odds particularly so that it doesn't feel like a dirty trick and everyone knows exactly what they're getting into when they play.

    Zoknahal wrote: »
    For other loot boxes however, i would go for 50 usd, which seems a price point many have agreed in the past would pay for the guaranteed jackpot.
    The only way they could set a failure cap that low would be if they could somehow change it so that, as soon as you win a prize, the cap resets (and even then, I think the cap is probably lower than they'd allow). I don't think that would be possible without significant BHS programming. If I'm being realistic, and assuming the cap is not mutually exclusive to winning the prize, I doubt they'd set a cap less than double that. This will still suffer from a perception problem, but they will want to keep a sense of the "value" of the runner-up prizes you get as well, unlike "direct buy." You want it balanced such that most people will get it below the cap, but the cap is a worst-case scenario for bad RNG.
Sign In or Register to comment.