-
Posts
334 -
Joined
-
Quote:Actually, it's far more a matter of opinion.Hasty conclusion.
KD may be better for specific flavors of builds and certain player-driven tactics but weather one is better than the other is purely circumstantial.
You may be of the opinion that knockback is as useful as knockdown. but my opinion differs. I believe that knockback certainly has its uses but, the majority of the time, knockdown is far better.
You are free to disagree, but that doesn't make you more right than me, and you may find yourself annoying team-mates who agree more with me than with you. -
Get the Atlas Medallion and Task Force Commander.
-
Quote:So your problem is only that you can't get it at a fixed price?So, how is that anyone else's fault? How about ruining my enjoyment of my RL life wallet, having to fork out for X number of packs instead of the one sum for the costume parts, i.e. THE ONLY THING I WANT OUT OF THE PACK.
So, y'know, YMMV and all that...
So presumably you'd be fine with the costume pack being in the store priced at, for example, 4,000PP?
Equally, you would surely still have the same problem if the super-packs were dropped in price to 1PP each and no other option was added? -
-
The proc doesn't remove the KB, it turns it into KD. That's why some powers become overpowered. It's a key distinction.
If bonfire simply had it's KB removed, it'd become a fairly standard AoE damage power. It only becomes overpowered because of the KD, not because of the lack of KB.
Things aren't becoming more powerful because KB is a nerf to a power, but because, in the vast majorty of situations, KD is better than KB. -
Quote:Yes, it is certainly with-in the realm of possibility that at least one person's opinion would change to be positive.Negative opinions can be changed into positive opinions, just like the opposite can happen.
But that is hardly the issue at all.
The fact is that people are much faster to switch from positive to negative than they are from negative to positive.
A company that constantly tries to appease everyone just ends up annoying everyone. -
Quote:What situation exists in the iTrials at the moment that couldn't be handled by 4 people (or 6 for the larger trials) so long as the spawns and AVs were appropriately toned down?It also requires less complex fights, as there's a limit to how much 4 players can handle at once.
Hell, the casino heist part of the new event requires more complex co-ordination than most iTrials.
To be fair, you can do some of the iTrials with only 8 people. -
Here's the thing though.
The people against the super-packs already think Paragon Studios are an evil corporation only after money, willing to do whatever nasty gambling tactic gets them the most. (Please don't post saying "I'm against the super packs, but I don't think that." it really doesn't matter, that's just the general feeling that's being given off. The important point is that there are negative feelings towards the game because of the super-packs.)
Negative feelings don't just go away, the people spurned by the super-packs are always going to have a lesser opinion of this game now. Sure, there might be a few exceptions, but it's simply true that, for most people who were against the super-packs, the negative feelings are already there.
Releasing the costume set separately isn't going to magically change that.
However, releasing the costume set separately most certainly could annoy a whole load of new people.
The way I see it is that there's little to gain from releasing the costume set separately, but a whole lot of good will that's potentially lost.
Quote:It's true that costume recipes didn't work too well, but it's also pretty apparent that the super-packs have worked extremely well.NO!!!!!!!!!!!, Wanting a store option is wanting things to have a set price. Buyer pays the set price and then owns the item.
This is an extremely simple concept with zero trickery about it. Item costs x, customer pays x, takes item and keeps it. I simply do not understand why so many people are defending bait and [potential] switch tactics so hard.
Giving people a bunch of inspirations when they are hoping for costume parts is just.... cruel. Put a price on the costume bits and let people have them, this is a system that has worked well for years and NOW, NOW!! they want to start playing a shell-game with the stuff people want most. Say what you want, last time something similar got tried [costume recipies] it ignited an absolute nuclear blast of rage from the playerbase and eventually ended up being redacted out of existance via drop adjustments.
Why do we want to drudge through this tired fight all over again. Costumes are central to this game, if the developers want to start shell-gaming them - then the fallout will be all theirs. And it will be heavy. Tinkering with the costumes in this game particularly is a no-man's land with a landmine every four feet or so.
Why mess with a formula that works? Because the new one might work better.
They tried it with costume recipes and it didn't work out so, as you say, they changed it so it became irrelevant. Now they've tried it with the super-packs and it works really well, so they're sticking with it. -
Quote:And, yet, the only number you quoted was the 1,440 one.I don't consider him saying that there are 600 point costume sets to be honest either. So his range is 1,000 to 1,440 for the set, leaning to the high end of that.
Quote:Don't you think it is intellectually dishonest to call me out on my math when you don't do the same for a person that keeps claiming existing costume bundles are 1.5x more than they are?
Further, the difference between 400PP and 600PP is hardly the crux of his points, while the mathematical errors you made were and, in part, still are the crux of yours. -
Absolutely.
The incarnate trials should have been 4-8 for the small ones and 6-12 for the large.
Not the "I'm a tiny part of a mob and my contribution could be ignored entirely." crap that they are. -
I'm going to go with the "we keep it all on the forums" option.
-
Quote:This is what I said all along, thread necromancy or not, it's still true.it's more that this issue around locked IOs that seems to be turning returning players away from the game more than anything else.
It doesn't matter whether or not it's fair that old players should get their IOs for free, the important issue is that they're being put off the game before they have a chance to consider paying more money.
Are they whingy? Yep.
Are they acting entitled? Definitely.
Are they getting a much better deal than they did before? Absolutely.
But, more importantly, are they whingy entitled people with money?
And that one's a big yes.
Put them off before they can spend it, and you don't get it. -
Because he only gave an option on the price he thought the costume set should be (and 1440 was his highest suggestion, not his lowest, does it not strike you as somewhat intellectually dishonest to only give one of the suggested prices, the one that looks worst on him and best on you, rather than the entire range he suggested?) while you made explicit mathematical statements that were provably contradictory and fallacious. Which is not something you can just wave away with "well, it was just my opinion".
-
Quote:As others have mentioned, it is not 44.2% of the cost that is returned as common cards, but 44.2% of the cards that are common, those are NOT the same thing.In aggregate, Arcana's numbers are saying 44.20% Common, 20.00% Uncommon, 20.00% Rare, 15.80% Very Rare. That is the average over a sample size of 600,000 packs. So each pack can be expected to have a distribution of 44.20%/20.00%/20.00%/15.80%. Not guaranteed, but close enough to a baseline. About the only thing I did wrong is to combine 2-3 commons, 0-2 uncommons, 0-2 rare, and 0-1 very rare.
Approximately 44.20% of a Super pack cost is returned in common cards.
Approximately 20.00% of a Super pack cost is returned in uncommon cards.
Approximately 20.00% of a Super pack cost is returned in rare cards.
Approximately 15.80% of a Super pack cost is returned in very rare cards.
As has been shown by numerous examples from other people, your analysis simply does not add up.
Quote:Given that duplicate cards appear in multiple categories (ATOs are exactly duplicated in both rare and very rare for instance), it is almost impossible to place a value on an individual card in the way you suggest.
It would pretty easy compared to most probability problems. The hardest part would be keeping track of everything in a long calculation.
Quote:If a type of card is 44.2% of those 5 cards, then to me that rarity is 44.2% of the cost.
Edit: Here's a more accurate proof:
Let
P = total paragon points spent
P_c = paragon points spent on common cards
P_u = paragon points spent on uncommon cards
P_r = paragon points spent on rare cards
P_v = paragon points spent on v.rare cards
c = expected number of common cards
u = expected number of uncommon cards
r = expected number of rare cards
v = expected number of v.rare cards
x = total number of cards
s = number of super packs
Then P/s = 80
x/s = 5
0.442x = c
0.2x = u
0.2x = r
0.158x = v
=>
x = c + u + r + v
=>
5s = x = c + u + r + v
=>
s = (c + u + r + v)/5
=>
P = 80*(c + u + r + v)/5 = 16*(c + u + r + v) (by simple substitution and rearrangement)
Also P = P_c + P_u + P_r + P_v
You claim that
P_c/c = 35
P_u/u = 16
P_r/r = 16
P_v/v = 13
From which we can conclude
P_c = 35c
P_u = 16u
P_r = 16r
P_v = 13v
=> P = 35c + 16u + 16r + 13v
=> 35c + 16u + 16r + 13v = 16*(c + u + r + v)
=> 35c + 13v = 16c + 16v
=> 19c = 3v
=> c = (3/19)v
Which means that v is approximately 6 times larger than c. Except that c is the expected nubmer of commons and v the expected number of v.rares, and we know the expected number of rares is less than the expect number of commons, so we have a contradiction.
As we have a contradiction then one of our three assumptions must be faulty:
So, either super packs are not 80 points per pack.
Or super packs do not contain 44.2% common, 20% uncommon, 20% rare and 15.8% v.rare.
Or your claim that the price per card is 35 points for common, 16 for uncommon, 16 for rare and 13 for v.rare, is faulty.
Which do you think is most likely?
Now, if we assume that the cards are all worth the same value, then we get that p = p, which is fine (although it's not a proof that all the cards are worth the same, just that that is a valid view-point to take).
So, to reiterate, if you want to claim that you get 44.2% of the value of the packs in common cards, then that is a valid opinion to have, but it does not mean that each common card is 44.2% of 80PP, what it means is that you value every card in the pack equally, v.rare and common alike. More specifically, it means you assign a value of 16PP to each card.
And, importantly, that is still just your opinion on the value of the cards. You might think they're worth 16PP each, but someone else might value the commons, uncommons and rares at 0PP but the v.rares at 101 points each and that would still work out fine.
Someone else might go further and only value the costume pieces, which would further increase the value of those specific cards, while devaluing the rest. -
Quote:The problem is that your maths is completely wrong.I would like to know how else you could assign the "discounted" value to the items in the packs. It is crystal clear that they are discounted compared with the store, as you can see the "full" prices of some of the items that are available outside of the packs, only it isn't the same value across the rarity layers (ie. all of the common "cards" aren't discounted the same).
To put it another way: Each card has a percentage value based on drop rate. That percentage is compared with the cost of the pack. The result is the value of that type of card when compared with the cost of a pack.
You can't take how common a card is and multiply that by the price of a pack to get the value of the card.
You have to take the predicted value of the card, multiply that by how common they are can check that the sum across all rarities totals 80PP.
Which is a completely different process to what you were doing, and one that allows multiple different values to each rarity of card. Further, you have to account for the fact that different items with-in each rarity might be worth different amounts, and that they have different probabilities of occurring too. -
-
Absolutely everything in the super-packs can be used by premium players. Some items are gated behind other purchases, but that's true for VIPs too (just to a lesser extent).
-
Quote:No, it's not. But my use of the word "more" blatantly wasn't being used to refer to numbers of people, but meanfulness of statements.Even if 1 more is pleased than displeased, then I would be right. That isn't "a hell of a lot more".
"Will this please everyone? No. Will it please more customers than it ticks off? Yes."
Has a precise meaning.
"a lot of goodwill is going to be lost"
Is a complete vaguity that can be twisted to mean anything you want.
The former has a lot more meaning than the latter.
Quote:Okay, I agree that I don't know how many people will be ticked off if the costumes are released separately. On the other hand, more people are speaking against this developer choice in this thread (and other people I've talked to) than are not. -
Quote:This is a direct quote from you:I've been very, very careful of making any quantitative claims in this thread. I've been especially wary of claiming a majority of anything. The largest claim I made in this thread is that "a lot of goodwill is going to be lost". Guess what? A lot of my goodwill towards this company has been lost over this choice. On the other hand, you have claimed more customers are happy with this choice than are ticked off:
Quote:Will this please everyone? No. Will it please more customers than it ticks off? Yes.
Neither of you can prove whether more people will be "ticked off" or not, but you're the only one who demanded someone else prove their claim while you failed to prove your own. -
Yes it was. Arbitrary symbols placed into strings that we agree to apply meaning to, which I then arranged to convey a specific meaning of my choosing.
But, when we don't agree on if an arbitrary string of symbols apply to a meaning or not, what is gained by either side "winning" one way or the other? -
How on earth can there be such an argument over if it's gambling or not?
The word "gambling" is either (depending on if you say it or write it) an arbitrary string of noises or an arbitrary string of letters that we have assigned a set of definitions to.
Specifically:
Quote:Now, I think it is pretty clear the super-packs are a game of chance and we get various items or "stakes" at the end, therefore they are "gambling".gam·bling
[gam-bling]
noun
1.
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
2.
the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly: If you don't back up your data, that's gambling.
But, either way, it doesn't matter, there's is absolutely no meaning in proving that the super-packs fit a definition we've chosen to assign to the particular arbitrary string of letters that is the word "gambling".
One side might be "right" and it is gambling or the other might be "right" and it isn't gambling, but so what? What does either side stand to gain from being "right" about this? Proving the super-packs do, or don't, fit a particular word doesn't change the super-packs in the slightest, they are still what they are, a pack of 5 random virtual items with varying probabilities of occurring. -
Quote:That's absolutely a fair issue to have, but how often has it actually happened?when a reward is added to the market or something is added to the market that makes earning a reward substantially easier, a little bit of the game loses its meaning for me.
It happened with the Roman pieces yes, but what else?
The power amplifiers don't make any reward earning substantially easier, they're nice to have, yeah, but they're akin to buying a better pair of shoes for a football game. They might well help, but they're hardly the primary reason you win.
I agree that pay to win, as you describe it, is a problem, but I don't see that it has happened to any significant extent. -
Quote:I'm fairly sure that you don't have to do that last part.Hero to hero ---10 tips + morality. (to reenforce for hero tips for SSAs)
The requirement for getting alignment merits from the SSAs is that your most recently completed morality mission is a Hero one, which you satisfy while switching from Rogue to Hero. -
Quote:I just checked and the souvenir for A Hero's Hero is entirely intact. With several mentions of Statesman and not a single mention of Positron.Also, the events of A Hero's Hero occurred in approximately 2006 in game history. How does killing Statesman in 2012 remove him from an event that happened 6 years ago?
So, as far as I can tell, only A Hero's Epic has been changed. -
On a related note:
Incy Wincy Spider
The last line is sung as "climbed up the spout a-GAIN". It's a children's rhyme it makes absolutely no sense to sing it as "climbed up the spout a-GEN" as that doesn't RHYME! [/vent]