Santa containers "rigged": WG Chooses Your Santa Gift Ship

[Taliesn]

8 hours ago, Gvozdika said:

Oh good grief. Right *cracks knuckles* - you asked for it. I'm going to whip out my super-nerdy anorak and bore you to death now.

 

You are confusing individual probability with the overall probability of 100 such individual events all having an identical outcome. One is a independent occurrence - the other is a permutation of x100 such occurrences. 

 

Chance of rolling a dice ONCE and returning a 6 = 1/6, 0.167 or 16 percent. This number does not change (as you correctly state) no matter what roll comes before or after.

 

Chance of rolling two dice in a row - and both returning 6 is 0.167 (1st dice roll) X 0.167 (2nd dice roll) or  ⅙ x ⅙ = 1/36, 0.0278 or 2.78 percent. Probability of multiple events combined is a multiplicative calculation - for two dice it's fairly simple but it gets far worse the more events you add to the scenario.

 

Roll six dice in a row - ALL returning 6 is 0.167 (1st dice roll) X 0.167 (2nd dice roll) X 0.167 (3rd dice roll) X 0.167 (4th dice roll) X 0.167 (5th dice roll) X 0.167 (6th dice roll) - which comes to an theoretical probability of 1/46656, 0.00002 or 0.002 percent. Really quite a low probability - despite each individual event having an identical chance of 1/6 - the odds of all 6 taken together returning the same result is NOT 1/6. Nowhere near.

 

I could do the x100 dice calculation but this forum thread has already gone a bit off the rails as it is.... 

 

I spent years of my life (which I shall never get back) working through these kind of numbers. Ask any mathematician or statistician and they'll confirm all of the above. 

 

An illustration is the old number combination locks on suitcases - you had a multiple dials of 1-9. Your chances of getting the correct combination were not 1/9 - despite the fact that 'individually' you had a 1/9 chance of getting the correct digit on one of the dials. 

 

Are we all happy now?

 

 

Oh boy. You finding the correct combination on a suitcase is the same whether it is 1-2-3-4 or 0-0-0-0. And they are linked together in a way that 6 or 10 or 100 independent rolls are not. Awful illustration.

 

But to keep on track, this is what you said:

 

Let's say I roll a D6 dice 100 times in rapid succession and each time it comes up 6. Statistically such a feat is entirely possible. It just isn't very likely to repeatedly return the same result so often from a so called 'random chance'.

 

And what I said is that statistically the possibility of all of them being 6s is the same as any other combination you may think of beforehand. Rapid or slow succession.

 

You don't need to exert yourself doing the 100 calculation, a 10 roll one will suffice, and change that to whatever combination you want. It is the SAME probability for any combination, be it 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6 or 1/2/3/4/5/6/1/2/3/4. The SAME. Which is not the same as claiming 10 6s is as likely as every other combination put together (but that is also true for every single combination)

 

Does it sound odd? Yes. Does it seem probable this is what's happening in WGs case? Absolutely not. Because WG doesn't give the same probability to rolling a 1(flaaaaaaags) than a 2 (camos) than a 3 (that ship you're looking for) or the 6 (Makarov) and what WG does is closer to the way slot machines work, in that the chances of hitting the jackpot are unknown to us but certainly slim and much, much lower than other, non prize combinations. But we already knew that.

 

[ThePurpleSmurf]

There are so many threads about this topic everywhere on the internet, too boring to check them all. Is there an official response (the obligatory dishonest excuse) by WG on this issue?

[RenamedUser_92906789]

Just now, ThePurpleSmurf said:

There are so many threads about this topic everywhere on the internet, too boring to check them all. Is there an official response (the obligatory dishonest excuse) by WG on this issue?

 

Niet :)

[misanth]

4 minutes ago, ThePurpleSmurf said:

There are so many threads about this topic everywhere on the internet, too boring to check them all. Is there an official response (the obligatory dishonest excuse) by WG on this issue?

Yes, :-) 

This is respond from wg. This is not a issue. Everything is ok.  Case closed.  Пожалуйста, разойдитесь, или мы будем стрелять.

 

;->

[ThePurpleSmurf]

3 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

 

Niet :)

Spasiba 

 

They probably sit behind closed doors and discuss. 'What do they want? We give them free stuff and they complain - again. I don't understand' 

[witteria]

For all my european brothers and sisters out here, is there an official eu institution we can report Wargaming too? We need to get this on the radar on a broader spectrum. 

[Arturius_2]

To add some "points" to data availability discussion:

20 Big Containers -> Makarov

8 Mega -> Oczakov and California

8 Mega -> Eric something something (t6 German Premium CV)

 

And now interesting -> from the short list missing ones were -> Makarov, Oczakov and .... California Tadddaaaaa

 

Shitty business practice WG real shitty

And this is false advertisement issue ...

 

[HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS]

11 minutes ago, witteria said:

For all my european brothers and sisters out here, is there an official eu institution we can report Wargaming too? We need to get this on the radar on a broader spectrum. 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/de/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)586676

[Aigars]

Well just drooping this for some comedy relief

 

[misanth]

19 minutes ago, ThePurpleSmurf said:

Spasiba 

 

They probably sit behind closed doors and discuss. 'What do they want? We give them free stuff and they complain - again. I don't understand' 

ok then. let's give them some 2x free camo and 10000 credits. Of course, they need complete some mission for that.

 

;-D

[witteria]

2 minutes ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/de/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)586676

 

Thank you very much, I just voiced my complaint on the Be heard page of the European Union. I urge others to do the same.

 

cheers!

[xxHELIOS]

Every year WG prooves we can't trust them and create a new sh*tstorm by scamming us with lies, i really hope they will pay for all their dishonest marketing actions along these years. 

[WarburtonLee]

Just checking by the forums sometimes to see if its getting worth it to return to the game after cv rework etc etc, and this... LOL

[The_Chiv]

So people are shocked by this? I mean really? We are not talking about a charity or a church. We are talking about WG. Like how many times do you need to be reminded that the bottom line for a business is to squeeze as much profit as possible and that WG is a business. The sooner you accept they don't have your best interest at heart and only your wallet the sooner you will be less angry over their actions because you can completely ignore them.

[MacFergus]

Its is shocking to think that WG pre determine the ships you get if you don't own any of the shortlist ships that's all your going to get.

 

When they pretend to remove ships from the game for being op and sell them in loot boxes but you have no chance of getting one unless you spend well over 200 euros and get the shortlist ships first total scam and rip off hang your head WG in shame. 

[Wedontneedmoregrippen]

If Somebody want make sure what happen:

Just sell >>> ALL ships from short list <<< open container and wont get any other ship. Just get ship from small pool. Sell them and only get them again.

Dont want test and try as cost a LOT money and no free option to test.

 

They advertise:

The festive cannonade is getting closer—Santa's containers have arrived in World of Warships.

Every festive Santa's Gift container will bring you something of value: Coal, doubloons, signals, or even a Premium ship. This year, more ships have been added to the list of Premium ships, and you have chances of becoming the owner of the following rare ships: IV Imperator Nikolai I, V Gremyashchy, V Kamikaze, V Fūjin, V Giulio Cesare, VII Flint, VII Belfast, VIII Mikhail Kutuzov, and VIII Enterprise; plus the following Tier IX ships: IX Neustrashimy, IX Missouri, IX Musashi, Kronstadt, IX Benham, IX Jean Bart, IX Pommern, IX Ägir, IX Georgia, IX Alaska, IX Azuma, and IX Friesland.

It's important to point out that next year, ships IV Imperator Nikolai I, V Gremyashchy, V Fūjin, V Giulio Cesare, and V Kamikaze will not be included in Santa's containers. Don't miss your chance to get rare Premium ships!

 

Instead only:

Makarov California Orkan or Duka Youdachi  Vangard Ochakov can be get form Santa's containers. If You get other ships that IS NOT FROM SANTA CONTAINER (compesation from getting duplicate ship).

 

 

They have to be replace adviertse text to clear their own mess.

 

 

[The_Chiv]

16 minutes ago, xxHELIOS said:

Every year WG prooves we can't trust them and create a new sh*tstorm by scamming us with lies, i really hope they will pay for all their dishonest marketing actions along these years. 

Based in Russia so probably never gonna happen.

[Furius_Marius]

5 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Based in Russia so probably never gonna happen.

Belarus actually. The studio of Wows is in Russia. But WG is Belorussian. 

[The_Chiv]

3 minutes ago, Furius_Marius said:

Belarus actually. The studio of Wows is in Russia. But WG is Belorussian. 

Pardon my ignorance

[arttuperkunas]

24 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Based in Russia so probably never gonna happen.

If they are established in the EU and/or offering services in the EU (which they are), then they are subject to EU consumer laws.

 

Of course, the problem is that there is no such thing as an "EU consumer law", you would need to look at the specific jurisdiction (i.e. Member State). The EU directives people have been quoting are not directly applicable because they are not EU regulations (which are directly applicable). That said, misleading advertising is going to be illegal anywhere in the EU, so regardless of the specific jurisdiction/law, this crap does not fly.

 

Let me also briefly chime in on the fraud/scam claims -> fraud is a criminal offense, misleading advertising is a matter of civil law. The standard of evidence for fraud is very high, so people throwing that word around should be careful. Misleading advertising is a different matter, and there the test is not objective (was there a non-zero chance to get a random container), but rather subjective: was the consumer provided with the information to make an informed decision before purchasing?

[___V_E_N_O_M___]

[lovelacebeer]

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

2 hours ago, ThePurpleSmurf said:

There are so many threads about this topic everywhere on the internet, too boring to check them all. Is there an official response (the obligatory dishonest excuse) by WG on this issue?

 

Do you really think they are going to admit they are cheating us? Last christmas they didn't admit they lied about PR event, and even changed the words in the news article 

[SirTogII]

20 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Based in Russia so probably never gonna happen.

Doesn’t matter where they are based. Any EU customer can make their complaint in their country and in their own home town. Consumer laws state that the court where the consumer lives , not where the company is based is where it can be challenged. 
Again, it will never get there because they will refund anybody who wants to. A general complaint about the advert or company itself is trickier. Not sure but I think you can go to the “Advertising standards” authority or equivalent in your own country but where they would put a case against them dunno. 

[zengaze]

30 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Based in Russia so probably never gonna happen.

Doesn't matter where they are based, in order to trade in a given trade area, they must comply with the regulations for that area, hence why you can no longer buy their gamble boxes in Belgium