WG Discloses lootbox drop rate for the 1st time ever?

[UnterSeeBot]

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/243700-the-great-missouri-experiment-for-science-na-edition/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-5557052

only concerning Missouri, but this coming hot on the tails of the Madamemoisail/Ev1n twitch stream where they and their colleagues categorically denied any knowledge the topic...

Ev1n

Quote

All cards are weighted equally in this deck, so your drop chance is also disclosed.

This may not seem like much, but many members of the community have been demanding the publication of lootbox drop rates since the very 1st day WOWS implemented lootboxes! It is also quite probable, in yet another seismic wet fart, that the Missouri lootbox contents having equally weighted drop chances, is also a 1st in WOWS lootbox history.

The past refusal to disclose lootbox content drop rate weighting, (the chance of obtaining a particular item) was at least in part tied to unequal drop chances and what is called contouring (essentially manipulative algorithms which encourage you to gamble more, like card tricksters at a country fair that let you win a few rounds to hook you, before taking all your money and leaving you broke).

Quote

 

I cannot be 100% sure that Ev1n's statement is the 1st time WOWS reveals drop rates, hence my ?question? mark in the title.

 

This above statement by Ev1n is a sign of weakness in WG's "no comment" strategy that has held sway on this topic so far, which can be summarized as :

 

supported by the doubtful excuse occasionally rolled out when all else fails to calm the community, "that because other MMOs steal money, it is ok for WG to steal money too".

Like any Tobacco company in the 1960s, Wargaming knows they are selling a product that is harmful to their customers.

[ColonelPete]

We had these lootboxed before. It was always quite obvious that the chances were weighted equally, otherwise WG would not need to set the max number of boxes so high.

[UnterSeeBot]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

We had these lootboxed before. It was always quite obvious that the chances were weighted equally, otherwise WG would not need to set the max number of boxes so high.

in WG we trust, hey?

Previous lootbox events for special ships were not equally weighted if stats collated by interested players are to be believed. 

[ColonelPete]

Just now, LoveZeppelin said:

in WG we trust, hey?

Previous lootbox events for special ships were not equally weighted if stats collated by interested players are to be believed. 

No. The data shows an equally weighted distribution.

[UnterSeeBot]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

No. The data shows an equally weighted distribution.

Then you disagree with the European Advertising Standard Authority which condemned WG's practice of "shortlisting" over some previous lootbox events. 

here is some player collated data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hCqaf324Bp6_xy55qciDKViBwcbJoGxqaodSsxMY4Yw/edit

in which items were not equally weighted.

This is an example, we do not know, authoratively, what kind of weighting was used in previous lootbox events by WOWS as they have never been officially disclosed.

[Gvozdika]

12 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Then you disagree with the European Advertising Standard Authority which condemned WG's practice of "shortlisting" over some previous lootbox events. 

here is some player collated data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hCqaf324Bp6_xy55qciDKViBwcbJoGxqaodSsxMY4Yw/edit

in which items were not equally weighted.

This is an example, we do not know, authoratively, what kind of weighting was used in previous lootbox events by WOWS as they have never been officially disclosed.

Shhhh! You'll confuse and anger the Pete-Bot. You won't like it when it's angry. Lots of reprogramming, rebooting required and the devs have enough on their plate as it is.....

 

More recent evidence can be seen in the De Witt roulette crates - vast majority of which were weighted rather heavily towards the 'spend lots of money before you get the goods' end of the spectrum. Even distribution would tend to show a more random set of results. 

[UnterSeeBot]

1 minute ago, Gvozdika said:

Shhhh! You'll confuse and anger the Pete-Bot. You won't like it when it's angry. Lots of reprogramming, rebooting required and the devs have enough on their plate as it is.....

 

More recent evidence can be seen in the De Witt roulette crates - vast majority of which were weighted rather heavily towards the 'spend lots of money before you get the goods' end of the spectrum. Even distribution would tend to show a more random set of results. 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/241504-dutch-loot-box-results/

[Klopirat]

Vor 16 Minuten, LoveZeppelin sagte:

in which items were not equally weighted.

but imho lootboxes (like the santa boxes) are a totally different point than those random bundles. You cannot buy "unlimited" random bundles and their "total content" (= if you buy all) is known in advance, while you can buy lootboxes as long as you have money and (theoretically) every lootbox can drop the same item...

 

(and of course random bundles show their content before you buy them)

[Kartoffelmos]

27 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Then you disagree with the European Advertising Standard Authority which condemned WG's practice of "shortlisting" over some previous lootbox events. 

 

You are referring to different things here. The finite outcome "boxes" shown in the armoury are likely to have an uniform drop rate simply because the drop rate will be low by default (i.e. 1/41 = 2,44 % in the case of Missouri). These are also a bit more consumer-friendly (if you can even call these RNG-boxes that) since the drop chance for the desired outcome increases with each purchase. Still, I do not particularly like this content-gating by loot boxes/RNG. 

 

The loot boxes you can buy an unlimited amount of times, however, have uneven dop rates simply because the possible outcomes are rather low in number. These boxes are the ones which are condemned by EASA and are considered as (unethical) gambling since the drop chances are not listed.

[UnterSeeBot]

16 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

(and of course random bundles show their content before you buy them)

this is a recent development/innovation by WG.

As to whether  or not lootboxes are different to randombundles, isn't it just a matter if semantics? Both rely on a combination of a weighting algorithm defined by WG and player luck = gambling. The rest is just decorative packaging.

14 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

You are referring to different things here. The finite outcome "boxes" shown in the armoury are likely to have an uniform drop rate simply because the drop rate will be low by default (i.e. 1/41 = 2,44 % in the case of Missouri).

"Likely to" is not the same as "100% confirmed by WG"! This is what makes Ev1n's statement, special. It is not revolutionary, but still, new.  

 

14 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

These boxes are the ones which are condemned by EASA and are considered as (unethical) gambling since the drop chances are not listed.

Which is still true of all random bundle/container events by WG, overall drop chances are still not listed at the point of sale. I agree that the random bundles are mildly more customer friendly, as at each purchase the customer is aware of what they will obtain. But the objective of each purchase is to unlock the totally random and unknown content of the next purchase in the random bundle series - which comes back down to random bundles being little different to lootboxes.

WG are happy to see players tie themselves up in knots over this topic.

[Peffers]

perhaps player pressure is working.  

 

Odd nobody knows the %s, but when they are drop rate is even, everyone knows.  I doubt it will be a change in policy.

[ColonelPete]

41 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Then you disagree with the European Advertising Standard Authority which condemned WG's practice of "shortlisting" over some previous lootbox events. 

here is some player collated data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hCqaf324Bp6_xy55qciDKViBwcbJoGxqaodSsxMY4Yw/edit

in which items were not equally weighted.

This is an example, we do not know, authoratively, what kind of weighting was used in previous lootbox events by WOWS as they have never been officially disclosed.

These are different crates. We are talking about the crates that drop one ship.

[Klopirat]

Vor 2 Minuten, LoveZeppelin sagte:

this is a recent development/innovation by WG. 

random bundles (which have to be bought) have always shown the content before you buy it (and no, I don't like random bundles). I think the release of the French DDs was the first use of random bundles, so not very recent...

 

Vor 4 Minuten, LoveZeppelin sagte:

isn't it just a matter if semantics?

imho no. The major "characteristic" of a lootbox is that you don't know what you get for your money(doubloons/whatever/...), you see the content only after you open/buy the lootbox.  And this "point" is missing for random bundles, you see what you are paying for before spending money...

[Peffers]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

These are different crates. We are talking about the crates that drop one ship.

so to paraphrase Orwell, some crates or more equal than others.

 

ROFLPMSL

[Peffers]

27 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

You are referring to different things here. The finite outcome "boxes" shown in the armoury are likely to have an uniform drop rate simply because the drop rate will be low by default (i.e. 1/41 = 2,44 % in the case of Missouri). These are also a bit more consumer-friendly (if you can even call these RNG-boxes that) since the drop chance for the desired outcome increases with each purchase. Still, I do not particularly like this content-gating by loot boxes/RNG. 

 

The loot boxes you can buy an unlimited amount of times, however, have uneven dop rates simply because the possible outcomes are rather low in number. These boxes are the ones which are condemned by EASA and are considered as (unethical) gambling since the drop chances are not listed.

Yes, but you can dilute teh chance of winning the "prize"  quite considerably.  How about a population of 1,000 boxes each with the same % drop rate?

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Peffers said:

so to paraphrase Orwell, some crates or more equal than others.

 

ROFLPMSL

No, they are different.

Had you read the topic, you would know that we are not talking about Santa Crates.

I probably expect too much from WoWs players....

[Peffers]

Just now, ColonelPete said:

No, they are different.

Had you read the topic, you would know that we are not talking about Santa Crates.

I probably expect too much from WoWs players....

Which multiverse do you live? 

 

The topic is WG Discloses lootbox drop rate for the 1st time ever?

Stop trying to derail it again.  God knows who the "we"  in "We are talking about the crates that drop one ship."  when replying to the OP!

 

Please just post when you add value.    Post made >  games played the opinion = 0.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

 

[Kartoffelmos]

25 minutes ago, Peffers said:

Yes, but you can dilute teh chance of winning the "prize"  quite considerably.  How about a population of 1,000 boxes each with the same % drop rate?

 

Jupp, that's why we have 41 outcomes for the random bundles and why the regular scamboxes only have like 6-7 different outcomes.

 

On a funny mathematical side note though, before you start buying the random bundles, the chance of a Missouri dropping on the first try or the last try is exactly the same (2,44 %). It is only the chance between the drops which changes:

• Missouri on first try: 1/41
• Missouri on second try: 40/41 * 1/40 = 1/41
• Missouri on third try: 40/41 * 39*40 * 1/39 = 1/41
• Etc.

[ColonelPete]

27 minutes ago, Peffers said:

Which multiverse do you live? 

 

The topic is WG Discloses lootbox drop rate for the 1st time ever?

Stop trying to derail it again.  God knows who the "we"  in "We are talking about the crates that drop one ship."  when replying to the OP!

 

Please just post when you add value.    Post made >  games played the opinion = 0.

And was he talking about Santa Crates? No.

Was I talking about Santa Crates? No.

 

And your post addes 0 value. Heed your own advice!

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

56 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

random bundles (which have to be bought) have always shown the content before you buy it (and no, I don't like random bundles). I think the release of the French DDs was the first use of random bundles, so not very recent...

 

imho no. The major "characteristic" of a lootbox is that you don't know what you get for your money(doubloons/whatever/...), you see the content only after you open/buy the lootbox.  And this "point" is missing for random bundles, you see what you are paying for before spending money...

Stating people buy disclosed crate contents is a confirming a disingenuous narrative. Customers actually buy into a chance of the next undisclosed crate to hold the prise advertised. Next to it being just another form of gambling it pressurises customers Fear of Missing out and Sunk cost Fallacy, and is more malicious.

 

Random bundles are easier to weigh then lootcrates due to their preset sequential order, fully programmable. WG has done nothing in the past but shown a tendency to heavily weighed odds. I'm guessing having this many outsider eyes on them made their legel department take a sprint to the design department to tell them to back off or even create a false positive.

[Peffers]

41 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And was he talking about Santa Crates? No.

Was I talking about Santa Crates? No.

 

And your post addes 0 value. Heed your own advice!

Don't be a Richardhead, 

 

Was I talking about Santa Crates? No.

 

Shut up, sit on your hands, and stop derailing the topic.

 

Any way who was "we" ?  Wargaming?  No don't answer.........as it missing from the emoji list  "Nescafe shake emoji"

 

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Peffers said:

Was I talking about Santa Crates? No.

Shut up, sit on your hands, and stop derailing the topic.

You were talking about lootboxes...

 

And take a look at who started the meta discussion in this thread.

 

Heed your own advice!....

 

 

[von_chom]

it seems to be standard in wows legends....shame on you wg

[Peffers]

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You were talking about lootboxes...

 

And take a look at who started the meta discussion in this thread.

 

Heed your own advice!....