Welcome to Gaia! ::

<3 </3

What Are You?

I'm a "Mighty" 0.56 56.0% [ 14 ]
I'm a "Jones" 0.44 44.0% [ 11 ]
Total Votes:[ 25 ]
1 2 3 4 >
Erogenous Jones's avatar

Combative Codger

12,850 Points
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
  • Object of Affection 150
  • Partygoer 500
Even though I'm pretty satisfied with the current drop rates for the various E Packs, I still think that 15,000 for a single Gold is way high, and I keep remembering a comment from either Pan or Grace, saying something to the effect of the price for a pack increasing in proportion to the drop rate, i.e., as the drop rate doubles, so does the cost.
And I can live with that.

That being said, early results for the latest flavor of E Packs suggests that while the rate for Rares or Better in Gold Packs is slightly better than twice that of Silver Packs, the cost is triple. And that doesn't jive with the relationship between cost and drop rate Pan or Grace (wish I could find that danged comment stressed ) suggested.

I also think that, for a lot of people, 15k takes a long time to earn, and with there still being a 31% chance of them getting nothing, this could be demotivating for them and potentially incent them to look elsewhere for their gaming entertainment.
There are a lot of games out there, after all, and everything I've ever read or heard suggests that it's far tougher to regain a client who has left in frustration, than it is to get them in the first place, or keep them. (roughly 3 times if I remember correctly).

So with that being said, I think a price of 10k for Golds would be more reasonable.
It would more accurately reflect the odds of getting a Rare or Better vs Silver, make the Pack more accessible to more players, thus providing more motivation for people to play, and reduce the sting of that one time in three where you get nothing above a 2-Star Card.

What do you think?
Am I making sense, or is this just more whining?

***EDIT*** Many Thanks to Shintouyu for finding the post I was thinking of....
Panagrammic
It's more adjusting the packs to reflect the odds of the cards within. A pack that costs twice as much should be more than twice as good. We're also redoing the descriptions to be a little more clear about the odds of getting the rarer cards.


***EDIT #2*** For those who haven't waded through the many Walls of Text in this Topic, the options for the Poll are intended to be reflect you "personality" with regards to HoC. "Mightys" play mostly for the fun of playing, and Cards are just a kinda nice adjunct to the game.
For "Mightys", it's about the journey more so than the destination.
"Joneses", on the other hand, are focused primarily on completing their Decks, and to some extent at least, for them, playing the game is a means to an end.
"Joneses" tend to be those guys who sit in the back seat and ask, "Are we there yet?" wink
You're making sense. I've been buying silvers based on the results so far.

25/85 = 29.41% chance for rare or better in silver.
114/166 = 68.67% chance for rare or better in gold. <---not three times the value of silver.

When you take the sellback values into consideration, gold packs look even worse. It's true that gold packs appear to have a much higher rate of cards above 3, but I don't know if that justifies the extra cost.

The sample size is still pretty small, though, so it's hard to tell if these results are representative of the intended rates.

Edited for math correction.
gataka's avatar

Familiar Lunatic

This?
Quote:
Update @ 10:50am:

- bronze and silver packs have been given a chance to get 3+ cards pretty much proportional to their cost(*), per user feedback and ATA discussion yesterday.
[...]


(*) expected is about the same, but your chances of getting nothing are somewhat higher. Say (for example) that there is a 45% chance of a 3+ in a gold pack. (Actually, it's substantially higher, but let's use 45% for purposes of discussion, since it divides cleanly).

Since bronze = 1/15 of gold, you'd expect about 3% chance of 3+ in a bronze pack. The expected gain for 15k of gold or silver packs is exactly the same -- 0.45. But, with a gold pack you'd have a 55% chance of getting nothing, whereas with 15 bronze packs you'd have 0.97 ^ 15 = 63% chance of getting nothing, just by virtue of the probabilities. This is balanced off by a small chance of getting MORE than one thing with the bronze packs if you're very lucky.

At this rate, though, you can take your chances a little bit at a time, or save up and take a big chance -- it's up to you.

From Pan, in the update thread. Did you try using the search? o3o
Knight of the Horizon's avatar

Newbie Warlord

8,100 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Statustician 100
They should just delete gold packs then. o3o

Then packs will only be 1k and 5k. surprised
Erogenous Jones's avatar

Combative Codger

12,850 Points
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
  • Object of Affection 150
  • Partygoer 500
gataka
This?
Quote:
Update @ 10:50am:

- bronze and silver packs have been given a chance to get 3+ cards pretty much proportional to their cost(*), per user feedback and ATA discussion yesterday.
[...]


(*) expected is about the same, but your chances of getting nothing are somewhat higher. Say (for example) that there is a 45% chance of a 3+ in a gold pack. (Actually, it's substantially higher, but let's use 45% for purposes of discussion, since it divides cleanly).

Since bronze = 1/15 of gold, you'd expect about 3% chance of 3+ in a bronze pack. The expected gain for 15k of gold or silver packs is exactly the same -- 0.45. But, with a gold pack you'd have a 55% chance of getting nothing, whereas with 15 bronze packs you'd have 0.97 ^ 15 = 63% chance of getting nothing, just by virtue of the probabilities. This is balanced off by a small chance of getting MORE than one thing with the bronze packs if you're very lucky.

At this rate, though, you can take your chances a little bit at a time, or save up and take a big chance -- it's up to you.

From Pan, in the update thread. Did you try using the search? o3o


Nope (to both wink )
The comment I'm thinking of drew a direct corelation between price and increased percentage of Rare or Better Cards, which, if I recall correctly, established a climbing ratio...twice the chance, twice the price.
I checked through Pan's posts earlier today, but wasn't able to find it, and I'm not exactly sure of what verbage would work in a search.
Brash Candiboot's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

I pretty much loved the old pack system, where it gave you something to look forward to when you leveled; as well as a goal to work towards. Now the levels seem kinda extraneous and useless? And saving up that much Essence just doesn't have the same mile-marker effect of graduating to a higher level pack option.

Rather than fussing with drop rates and card balances, I think to even out the game there ought to just be MORE cards, in greater variety, since about 50% of the complaints on packs where that they weren't getting 'low level' cards, but *the same* high cards that they already had.

Or maybe I'm just greedy to see what new units are going to come out. razz
Erogenous Jones's avatar

Combative Codger

12,850 Points
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
  • Object of Affection 150
  • Partygoer 500
Knight of the Horizon
They should just delete gold packs then. o3o

Then packs will only be 1k and 5k. surprised


I don't really see that as a good option, tbh.

I like the drop rates in the Gold Packs. They are far better for Rares and Epics, which makes them a good choice for people who are looking for those particular Cards to fill out their collections.
I just think that three times the Essence for twice the chance is pushing it.
Shintouyu's avatar

Heroic Lunatic

18,550 Points
  • Healer 50
  • Survivor 150
  • Hunter 50
Erogenous Jones
Nope (to both wink )
The comment I'm thinking of drew a direct corelation between price and increased percentage of Rare or Better Cards, which, if I recall correctly, established a climbing ratio...twice the chance, twice the price.
I checked through Pan's posts earlier today, but wasn't able to find it, and I'm not exactly sure of what verbage would work in a search.
Beep beep.
gataka's avatar

Familiar Lunatic

Shintouyu

That's not up to date (Nov)...
Erogenous Jones


Nope (to both wink )
The comment I'm thinking of drew a direct corelation between price and increased percentage of Rare or Better Cards, which, if I recall correctly, established a climbing ratio...twice the chance, twice the price.
I checked through Pan's posts earlier today, but wasn't able to find it, and I'm not exactly sure of what verbage would work in a search.
Well, strange, that's really the only recent quote of this nature...and it's pretty much saying what you said it would say ._o
Erogenous Jones's avatar

Combative Codger

12,850 Points
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
  • Object of Affection 150
  • Partygoer 500
Shintouyu
Erogenous Jones
Nope (to both wink )
The comment I'm thinking of drew a direct corelation between price and increased percentage of Rare or Better Cards, which, if I recall correctly, established a climbing ratio...twice the chance, twice the price.
I checked through Pan's posts earlier today, but wasn't able to find it, and I'm not exactly sure of what verbage would work in a search.
Beep beep.


You are brilliant!
That is exactly the post I was thinking of! blaugh
Erogenous Jones's avatar

Combative Codger

12,850 Points
  • Protector of Cuteness 150
  • Object of Affection 150
  • Partygoer 500
gataka
Shintouyu

That's not up to date (Nov)...


Perhaps, but I can't see why the philosophy behind it should be any different now than it was at the time.
Gavyn the Mighty's avatar

Revered Inquisitor

The thing is...

Just because those are the odds we helped record in Junett's thread, does not mean that they are correct or even remotely accurate.

It all depends on everyone giving their results, good or bad. Even if everyone that has posted in that thread has said what they have gotten in every pack... there is a number of peope, far larger than those who posted, who have not posted their results.

Simply put, in a game with so many players... only having 10 or so contribute results will always be a small sample size, even if they were to buy thousands and thousands of packs... because in comparison to the amount bought as a whole by everyone would be so many times more than what those 10 people bought.

I would not doubt if the odds in that thread, while a fairly good representation, are way off; that the odds as described by Pan actually hold true. Why would they say that is how it works if it doesn't actually work like that? Answer is, they wouldn't.

It just falls on small sample size not relaying the proper odds to us.

While I agree 15k is time consuming to get and can be tough... it is meant to be. They want the cards to be rare... they want some fails mixed in so you keep working at the game. They simply don't want everyone to easily be able to get every single card, etc.... because once that happens...

It becomes like when someone got all the rings and got them all to 10.0 (later 12.0 after a brief revitalization of the game) in zOMG!... people stop playing and the game dies. Sure... zOMG! was partly to do with how infrequently updates were put in... but that infrequency just went to show how bad saturation was. Once everyone had everything they could get, a lot stopped playing (the ones who did play, mostly did it to earn more gold).

If people were able to get all of the cards, they would likely stop playing shortly thereafter, because a lot of their drive to play will be gone (since this game isn't as good for making gold as zOMG! or BG).

This is what is being avoided by actually keeping some cards rare, hence the price being 'high', while still attainable for those who actually go at the game a lot (hence a profit for gaia... which the devs want you to play a lot... else there would be little purpose to even making the game). Our small sample size of data simply cannot justify any potential price changes with respect to the differences between packs... couple that with the rarity aspect, and there is no reason at all for prices to change.

I trust them that the odds between the packs are where they say they are, and also agree with keeping the prices 'high' to ensure rarity stays in check.


Guys, seriously... if there is a thread or a post around here that you don't like... leave it be. Spreading hate and trolling people has no place in this community. Certain people may have been in the wrong, but when you troll or hate on them you get in the wrong too. Don't prolong it or add to it; let it go. If it is blatant trolling, a misplaced thread or anything that violates the ToS, report it and move along. Don't feed the trolls and don't add to the hatred. This is a nice, clean and happy community. Please, don't dirty it.

I am Gavyn the Mighty and I approve of this message.
gataka's avatar

Familiar Lunatic

Erogenous Jones
gataka
Shintouyu

That's not up to date (Nov)...


Perhaps, but I can't see why the philosophy behind it should be any different now than it was at the time.
.....but that's not "twice the chance, twice the price." xD
Shintouyu's avatar

Heroic Lunatic

18,550 Points
  • Healer 50
  • Survivor 150
  • Hunter 50
gataka
Erogenous Jones
gataka
Shintouyu
That's not up to date (Nov)...
Perhaps, but I can't see why the philosophy behind it should be any different now than it was at the time.
.....but that's not "twice the chance, twice the price." xD
Well, it should be 'Twice the price, double the chance.'

But either way, it means proportional to the price... Which hasn't changed, since they're still doing things proportionately.
gataka's avatar

Familiar Lunatic

Shintouyu
gataka
Erogenous Jones
gataka
Shintouyu
That's not up to date (Nov)...
Perhaps, but I can't see why the philosophy behind it should be any different now than it was at the time.
.....but that's not "twice the chance, twice the price." xD
Well, it should be 'Twice the price, double the chance.'

But either way, it means proportional to the price... Which hasn't changed, since they're still doing things proportionately.
Yaya, but quote says:
    " A pack that costs twice as much should be more than twice as good "

As in 'Twice the price, more than double the chance', which, per the Pan quote I dug up, actually happens to be close to true right now...sort of xD

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games