It's NOT OK to Hard-Lock skins behind BL Chest RNG !!

[IndigoSundown.5419]

18 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

I literally used the definitions you provided, and oppression is in them.

So is the word "or,' whose purposes in the language include the delineation of alternatives.  If both conditions were required, the correct word would have been "and."

18 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

  Laws don't just "protect" the "victims", they adversely affect people that don't mind buying the keys.  There are a few threads on these forums complaining about things similar to this, one of which has to do with mount skin boxes not being available in Belgium.  Enough people said "there ought to be a law", and now there is, and they can't purchase a product that is guaranteed to give them something they don't have, even if it's not the one they're hoping for.

I'm not advocating for a law.  It's possible to point out that a business practice is predatory without demanding that daddy fix it.

18 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

I don't mess with them because I like to know exactly what I'm getting when I buy something.  I'm not looking for the government, or a government, to protect me from them, I don't need it.  Where does government interference stop?  People are addicted to coffee, is that next?  Tobacco?  I know my state made it illegal to smoke indoors in public places, and yet, they didn't lower their taxation on the product...  At some point, it is on the consumer, or those close to them, to deal with their issues.  It should never be up to the government.  Ronald Reagan said it better than anyone I've heard:  "the scariest 9 words in the English language:  I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

I get it, you'd prefer that government stay out of peoples' business.  So would I.

 

What I'd like is for companies to voluntarily refrain from tricking people out of their money.  In the meantime, I post to perhaps make people think about things.  That's promoting change the slow way -- by attempting to influence consumers to be aware of what is involved in these types of transactions.  Do I expect to effect change this way?  Not really, but I do it anyway.  Maybe someday the horse will sing.

 

Finally, I'd settle for ANet to make two changes.  First, post the odds where a prospect can easily see them, without depending on the consumer to  know that the wiki exists and how to find the likely odds there.  Second, offer a "pity" mechanic where you get what you want after so many tries.  Those are two ways someone can look at the likelihood of getting what they want "cheaply" if they get lucky, and what the cost would be to get "it" if they don't.  While statuettes pretend to be this, they aren't because the current gewgaw isn't available.  At least that way, the onus would be on the consumer to exercise due diligence.

 

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

10 hours ago, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

Finally, I'd settle for ANet to make two changes.  First, post the odds where a prospect can easily see them, without depending on the consumer to  know that the wiki exists and how to find the likely odds there.

I wouldn't just want to see the chances, but also how much the item effectively (on average) costs.

I've done the math for the skiff skin:

Uncommon drops have a chance of 8.3% according to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest/Drop_rate

There are 20 possible uncommon drops, so the chance for this particular item is 0.415%

This means the skin drops on average every 1/0.00415=241 chests opened.

25 keys cost 2100 gems. This puts one key at 84 gems. 241 chests then cost 20244 gems.

The skiff skin is currently priced at 20244 gems or 253$.

Edited April 8, 2022 by BunjiKugashira.9754

[Orthonen.9470]

Yes it is okay, because they have to make their revenue somehow. Unless...you want less content?

Integrity is the cost of going the "free" model.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Aridon.8362

[IndigoSundown.5419]

On 4/8/2022 at 12:10 AM, BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

I wouldn't just want to see the chances, but also how much the item effectively (on average) costs.

I've done the math for the skiff skin:

Uncommon drops have a chance of 8.3% according to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest/Drop_rate

There are 20 possible uncommon drops, so the chance for this particular item is 0.415%

This means the skin drops on average every 1/0.00415=241 chests opened.

25 keys cost 2100 gems. This puts one key at 84 gems. 241 chests then cost 20244 gems.

The skiff skin is currently priced at 20244 gems or 253$.

Sure.  Why not?  But, the chances of any company doing that are somewhere between slim and none, and slim left town.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

On 4/8/2022 at 12:10 AM, BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

I wouldn't just want to see the chances, but also how much the item effectively (on average) costs.

I've done the math for the skiff skin:

Uncommon drops have a chance of 8.3% according to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest/Drop_rate

There are 20 possible uncommon drops, so the chance for this particular item is 0.415%

This means the skin drops on average every 1/0.00415=241 chests opened.

25 keys cost 2100 gems. This puts one key at 84 gems. 241 chests then cost 20244 gems.

The skiff skin is currently priced at 20244 gems or 253$.

If each Uncommon item is equally weighted.  We don't know that they are; probably not as Common items are not.  Could be better, could be worse.  🤷‍♀️

[Norseman.4280]

Once upon a time, we earned everything in game though gameplay. And paid $15 a month for that privelege.

But today's Karen players didn't like that.

So RNG loot boxes is what we get. We reap what we sow.

[Freya.9075]

On 4/8/2022 at 9:10 AM, BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

I wouldn't just want to see the chances, but also how much the item effectively (on average) costs.

I've done the math for the skiff skin:

Uncommon drops have a chance of 8.3% according to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest/Drop_rate

There are 20 possible uncommon drops, so the chance for this particular item is 0.415%

This means the skin drops on average every 1/0.00415=241 chests opened.

25 keys cost 2100 gems. This puts one key at 84 gems. 241 chests then cost 20244 gems.

The skiff skin is currently priced at 20244 gems or 253$.

I don’t think they split the RNG pool like that. when I want the exclusive item (which is most of the times since I’m a fashion fanatic) I get 25 keys and I’ve gotten them every time except a few of them. I think the exclusive item has higher chance then the other uncommon cause of that. RNG will be RNG no matter the math. 

[robertthebard.8150]

On 4/7/2022 at 3:27 PM, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

So is the word "or,' whose purposes in the language include the delineation of alternatives.  If both conditions were required, the correct word would have been "and."

I'm not advocating for a law.  It's possible to point out that a business practice is predatory without demanding that daddy fix it.

I get it, you'd prefer that government stay out of peoples' business.  So would I.

 

What I'd like is for companies to voluntarily refrain from tricking people out of their money.  In the meantime, I post to perhaps make people think about things.  That's promoting change the slow way -- by attempting to influence consumers to be aware of what is involved in these types of transactions.  Do I expect to effect change this way?  Not really, but I do it anyway.  Maybe someday the horse will sing.

 

Finally, I'd settle for ANet to make two changes.  First, post the odds where a prospect can easily see them, without depending on the consumer to  know that the wiki exists and how to find the likely odds there.  Second, offer a "pity" mechanic where you get what you want after so many tries.  Those are two ways someone can look at the likelihood of getting what they want "cheaply" if they get lucky, and what the cost would be to get "it" if they don't.  While statuettes pretend to be this, they aren't because the current gewgaw isn't available.  At least that way, the onus would be on the consumer to exercise due diligence.

 

So, if consumers took the same attitude towards them that I take, I don't know exactly what I'm going to get, so I don't buy them, they may find another way to do things.  Here's the problem, some don't mind the RNG.  I despise it, so I don't participate.  If you're feeling "tricked" here, then I'm not sure what the real issue is, because saying "a random chance to get x" is pretty clear.  Since, if I'm looking for X, I want to just buy it, and it's not available that way, I don't buy Z hoping for X.

There are worse companies for this, and despite that, I still don't buy here.  I'm just not sure if there are enough people like me, that don't like something, so they don't participate, as opposed to either the whale types that don't care about the RNG, or the people that don't like it, and just insist that it has to be changed to suit them.  Of course, this leaves out the group that treats a monthly buy as a sub cost, and don't really care if they get lucky with them or not, as they're just supporting the game with a monthly transaction.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

19 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

So, if consumers took the same attitude towards them that I take, I don't know exactly what I'm going to get, so I don't buy them, they may find another way to do things.  Here's the problem, some don't mind the RNG.  I despise it, so I don't participate.  If you're feeling "tricked" here, then I'm not sure what the real issue is, because saying "a random chance to get x" is pretty clear.  Since, if I'm looking for X, I want to just buy it, and it's not available that way, I don't buy Z hoping for X.

There are worse companies for this, and despite that, I still don't buy here.  I'm just not sure if there are enough people like me, that don't like something, so they don't participate, as opposed to either the whale types that don't care about the RNG, or the people that don't like it, and just insist that it has to be changed to suit them.  Of course, this leaves out the group that treats a monthly buy as a sub cost, and don't really care if they get lucky with them or not, as they're just supporting the game with a monthly transaction.

All true.  And I don't buy keys, either.  I also don't feel tricked.  While there may be something in the chests I might want, I don't want it enough to overcome the knowledge that I am likely to pay more than it's worth to get it.  Sure, there's an unspoken, "to me" after "more than it's worth," but that's true of most things.

 

The "trick" only works on those who don't know the facts.  That's why I post in these threads, to educate those who've not considered all of the facts.  Educated consumers are a benefit to us all, because there's a better chance they'll push businesses towards more consumer-friendly practices.

[Orthonen.9470]

Life isn't fair, and nothing is ever truly "free". Black Lion Exclusives can still be found from the chest, it's worth almost 2k in the TP. So if you want a more guaranteed chance, there you go.

[Dante.1508]

I just want to pipe in and say i agree the gambling and hard locking stuff behind gambling is a kitten move by Anet.. they make so much money off of customers in so many ways this is illegal in many countries now..

[RoyalPredator.9163]

It's simple. Go gambling RNG if you want to, toss those coins to yar' witcher.
But other than that, I expect straight deals.

[Labjax.2465]

On 4/9/2022 at 1:46 AM, Aridon.8362 said:

Yes it is okay, because they have to make their revenue somehow. Unless...you want less content?

Integrity is the cost of going the "free" model.

MTX already make enormous amounts of money (far more than is needed), gamble boxes have always been even more unnecessary and mainly prey on people who are more vulnerable to compulsive spending and gambling.

You are right though about integrity. The "free" model, which has taken me an unfortunately long time to really get into my head, was never about making enough money in spite of economic struggles, it was always about normalizing more predatory monetization practices. You can tell because after the "free" model was normalized, some games started double dipping, doing stuff like both "optional" subscription and huge MTX costs, illustrating that they never really cared about including those with less money, they just wanted more money and the old models had a cap on how much money you could get from any one person.