Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
warheart1992

Guess which WG title displays container odds....

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,754
[KWF]
Members
5,263 posts
6,659 battles

....our brand new game, World of Warships Legends!1!!

You see, in 2019 Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony required of all the game publishers on their platforms to disclose odds on their lootboxes. (https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/7/20758626/nintendo-microsoft-sony-loot-box-drop-rate-disclosure-video-games)

Without further ado, here are some examples from the WoWs Legends page ( https://wowslegends.com/containers/ ). Goes to show unless someone is breathing down your neck the customer doesn't need to know.

561168472_Screenshot_2020-12-09WoWSLegendsBecomeanavallegend.thumb.png.9d6efc1bef1aa092cd95fdb87c112c65.png573298136_Screenshot_2020-12-09WoWSLegendsBecomeanavallegend(4).thumb.png.3b2e478823d1285c6e4de1aefeaca417.png

665244040_Screenshot_2020-12-09WoWSLegendsBecomeanavallegend(3).thumb.png.33543683ea08b12d29c50aaa713a8383.png951462985_Screenshot_2020-12-09WoWSLegendsBecomeanavallegend(2).thumb.png.3d0cd9447a9262d6b7735b14f7e28a3f.png

Addendum: Please keep in mind that these are drop chances for the lootboxes of WoWs Legends. Don't take them into account when considering World of Warships lootbox drops. 

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,755
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,794 posts
20,289 battles

Blyskawica B? Huh ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
[FRR]
Members
823 posts
44 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Goes to show unless someone is breathing down your neck the customer doesn't need to know.

Goes to show Wargaming will really milk the each and every customer to the fullest extent possible.

No wonder the righteous vitriol when new players found out they were scammed. 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
178
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
219 posts
7,108 battles

If they had different odds, that makes them look worse, not better. Either way, this is insanity that should not be supported.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,974
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,171 posts
22,715 battles

And before, and before, but never acted on. That says something as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,277
[ARGSY]
Members
22,438 posts
16,296 battles

Does it actually change anything, though? Or do people still look at, for example, this...

image.thumb.png.bedd625659859728a60bfb9322dd0ef7.png

...then calculate 1 in 7 odds of a premium, only to rage when buying seven containers doesn't guarantee them a ship the way they thought it would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,754
[KWF]
Members
5,263 posts
6,659 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Does it actually change anything, though? Or do people still look at, for example, this...

image.thumb.png.bedd625659859728a60bfb9322dd0ef7.png

...then calculate 1 in 7 odds of a premium, only to rage when buying seven containers doesn't guarantee them a ship the way they thought it would?

It's certainly more informative than a vague "you have chances for premium ships".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,974
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,171 posts
22,715 battles
2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Does it actually change anything, though? Or do people still look at, for example, this...

image.thumb.png.bedd625659859728a60bfb9322dd0ef7.png

...then calculate 1 in 7 odds of a premium, only to rage when buying seven containers doesn't guarantee them a ship the way they thought it would?

If that was the reason for the rage then they "got what they paid for" - a chance. Many would think the percentage is cumulative and reach the conclusion that an 8 pack would guarantee a ship. WG could easily state that the percentage chance applies to each crate individually and is not cumulative with multiple crates. A short scenario would also be of benefit. WG has to take those steps when describing these "loot boxes" to avoid valid rage.

It's not enough to say "you gambled on a ship and got cammo. Toughski shitski..."

But the issue at hand isn't about the odds to get a premium ship - it's about the shortlist mechanics.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,277
[ARGSY]
Members
22,438 posts
16,296 battles
6 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

It's certainly more informative than a vague "you have chances for premium ships".

It can be as informative as it likes. If putting the info out there doesn't change player behaviour, or potentially makes it worse, they may as well not do it.

I'm half convinced that people wanting the odds published is the slippery slope to trying to leverage 1/x odds into 1/x guarantee. 

3 minutes ago, Khafni said:

it's about the shortlist mechanics.

Is it really? Or is it about the shortlist mechanics giving them ships which prominent CCs have declared from their ivory towers to be garbage?

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,974
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,171 posts
22,715 battles
15 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

It can be as informative as it likes. If putting the info out there doesn't change player behaviour, or potentially makes it worse, they may as well not do it.

I'm half convinced that people wanting the odds published is the slippery slope to trying to leverage 1/x odds into 1/x guarantee. 

Is it really? Or is it about the shortlist mechanics giving them ships which prominent CCs have declared from their ivory towers to be garbage?

If WG clearly explains it then all the attempted leveraging in the world won't make a difference. I am certain some will complain but fairly confident that forum veterans won't back them. I see many post responses where the forumites (?) post the explanatory text to irrational rants.

The issue is that WG did not say you will 100% get one of the crappy ships before you had a chance at the better ships. That wasn't called out nor specified in any of WG announcements. If they had stated that many would still buy the crates - and still complain - but the mechanic would be fully disclosed and no recourse to mitigation available.

On the flipside, if WG published percentages I would expect them to sell many more of the Mega crates because the odds are better. More income generated.

But, as you know and have stated, human nature leads many to expect the best and rage at anything less.

Edited by Khafni
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,046
[WOLFG]
Members
11,196 posts
10,438 battles
21 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

It can be as informative as it likes. If putting the info out there doesn't change player behaviour, or potentially makes it worse, they may as well not do it.

I'm half convinced that people wanting the odds published is the slippery slope to trying to leverage 1/x odds into 1/x guarantee. 

Is it really? Or is it about the shortlist mechanics giving them ships which prominent CCs have declared from their ivory towers to be garbage?

It's about shortlist mechanics.  Or more specifically how the communication has changed about the event.  And it doesn't really matter if it is accidental or intentional by WG.  It has happened too often for any benefit of the doubt to be given.

And WOWS pc will post odds when someone with the power to do so forces WG to do it, like someone did with WOWS legends.

Edited by DrHolmes52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
803
[LOU1]
Members
4,232 posts
12,553 battles

There has always been a short list and it never really bothered anyone before.  Also, half of the fun of these types of things is having no idea what you may get, but knowing you will get something at least worth your money.  For example, since they started showing the next bundle you get in game I have pretty much stopped buying them.  What's the point since I could just buy whatever it is for the most part.  This is just a bit of cheap fun with a guaranteed minimum payout.  If someone doesn't find it fun, they can just buy the ship in question and ignore the containers.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[TARP]
Members
95 posts

Also shows WarGaming itself doesn’t actually believe they are offering value for money on these containers they sell. I think that the biggest issue. If they really believe its a good deal, they would be showing the odds to show how good of a deal it is. 

 

The whale guide to containers should have been their post with actual odds and after the fact they could release the total numbers, but they don’t believe its a good value they think they are scamming their customers so they hide it all. The truly ironic thing is everyone including them thinks it’s a scam, when it may actually be a good deal for players.

Edited by slowpoke_2
typos
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
178
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
219 posts
7,108 battles

It is not a good deal, as it encourages gambling with the inevitable result that many will pay an exponential amount more than they would without them trying to get what is tempting, rather than paying outright.

The loot box model has already been proven to be more profitable than just purchasing the game, even if you're purchasing the assets already within the game and are 'unlocking' them. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
[FRR]
Members
823 posts
29 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Does it actually change anything, though? Or do people still look at, for example, this...

image.thumb.png.bedd625659859728a60bfb9322dd0ef7.png

...then calculate 1 in 7 odds of a premium, only to rage when buying seven containers doesn't guarantee them a ship the way they thought it would?

 

You still do not get it, and it has been like, what, more than four (4) days since the general public discovered, much to their chagrin, that Wargaming has not been honest with their advertising.

There's a whale of a difference between the advertised 1 from 107 versus the actual 1 from 4.

It is either you do not get it, or your perspective has always been closed, like how you even BLAMED players for this yesterday.

I understand you want to defend Wargaming, which you have been frequently doing, but man, blaming players for Wargaming's false advertising is totally repugnant.

 

 

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
283
[WWJWD]
Beta Testers
255 posts
9,568 battles
1 hour ago, _WaveRider_ said:

But as that is a different game, might it have different odds?

Sure they could, but do you really think that WoWS would have BETTER odds than these?  They may be different, but chances are the ones they are forced disclose aren't going to be worse odds than the ones they don't have to disclose.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,520
[WOLFC]
Members
3,197 posts
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

....

They also advertise them as crates ... not "gifts".  I wonder if that's also a stipulation by Nintendo, etc ...

Regardless, the biggest hiprocrisy at the moment?  WG is "sorry" but continues to advertise the loot boxes with the exact same wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,754
[KWF]
Members
5,263 posts
6,659 battles
1 minute ago, DocWalker said:

They also advertise them as crates ... not "gifts".  I wonder if that's also a stipulation by Nintendo, etc ...

Regardless, the biggest hiprocrisy at the moment?  WG is "sorry" but continues to advertise the loot boxes with the exact same wording.

Could also be part of the agreement between the companies to not use certain terms.

As for the latter, 100% agreed. It's business as usual, nothing has changed and instead of immediate actions we got vague reassurances for future events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[FFG33]
Members
34 posts
1,651 battles
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

Dunno,  I guess in the alternate universe of WoWs Legends Blyska isn't powercrept. Oh and also a tier VI.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Navy:Błyskawica

I have Legends as well, and I can 100% tell you it is power crept on there as well. People just got it for the commander(Commanders are done different on legends).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,816
[1984]
Members
4,482 posts
21,506 battles

100% drop rate for silver in the santa crates with additional odds for other stuff?

publishing a rate is one thing, who verifies the truthfulness?

Edited by monpetitloup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,859
[PVE]
Members
4,837 posts
21,224 battles
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Does it actually change anything, though? Or do people still look at, for example, this...

image.thumb.png.bedd625659859728a60bfb9322dd0ef7.png

...then calculate 1 in 7 odds of a premium, only to rage when buying seven containers doesn't guarantee them a ship the way they thought it would?

The difference is, ^^^^^ this is at least communicating with their customers...    Never mind, I deleted the rest...........

Edited by Asym_KS
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[F4E]
[F4E]
Members
753 posts
13,985 battles
33 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

It can be as informative as it likes. If putting the info out there doesn't change player behaviour, or potentially makes it worse, they may as well not do it.

I'm half convinced that people wanting the odds published is the slippery slope to trying to leverage 1/x odds into 1/x guarantee. 

Is it really? Or is it about the shortlist mechanics giving them ships which prominent CCs have declared from their ivory towers to be garbage?

You and a few others here keep repeating that it's the prominent CCs fault that has caused all of the outrages. It's a known fact that there is a very small percentage of the player base that visit the forums, an even smaller percentage visit Reddit. However, apparently, a large portion does visit Youtube and or also watch Twitch as platforms for their means of in-game information.  "Ivory towers"? That's a bit condescending, isn't it? Sounds a bit more like I don't like the messenger shoot-um to me. Before you knee-jerk that I'm just another fanboi. This particular CC that has put out the initial video I myself do not care to watch. I do however appreciate them using their reach to point out the wrongdoing.  I'll also point out not once did they imply, to my knowledge, that the player base should take to pitchfork and torches that have been claimed by some of you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×