PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion: Increasing Primal Pack Chance For Streaks Without One



SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 06:47 AM
This suggestion might be slightly self serving of me. I bought 2 Slacker Backers, so got 50 boosters. With the rumored 2% chance of getting a Primal Pack, I was hoping to get one. I got 0 out of the 50, I heard of people only getting like 1 out of 155, and on the flip side, the luckier people getting 2 out of 25 etc.

I understand RNG is RNG, and there is of course luck involved, but I think it'd be wise to have a fail safe in place.

The type of solution I was thinking of would be similar to, say, Team Fortress 2. They've had a lot of time to work out drops. For awhile there was (similar to Hex Primals at the moment) just a small percentage chance of getting a drop as you play. The issue with this was, some people got unlucky and would have very long streaks of getting no drops. Aside from just being frustrating, if you're new to the game, being stuck with the same options get's boring and people leave.

Afterwhich they implemented a system with (as far as I know) has the same set chance of getting a drop over time, but has a fail safe in that after X amount of time either you're guaranteed a drop or the chance % increases.

So I would love to see something similar in Hex for Primal Packs. One way could be to have the whatever percentage chance to get the primals, but after buying 50/75/90/whatever number of packs, you're guaranteed to get one. And of course, after this or after getting a Primal Pack by chance, the "clock" resets.

Or have the percentage increase after X amount of cards. Say go up 1%/3%/5%/whatever% ever 25/40/whatever cards. And resetting to the original % when you get one.

I may be in the minority of the (atleast initial batch) of players, but I consider the $100 for the 2 slacker backers to be fairly expensive to drop on a game. And 50 packs (so $100) is the "average" number of packs to only get 1 Primal Pack. So I'd like to think there was some safety to stop the scenario in which I never see one, just due to poor luck.

I think it's something that's important to tackle before release, (preferably open beta). If the game is to actually succeed and thrive, I think it needs to attract alot of players and casual players. Who might be scared off by "Oh hey, you want a primal? Best drop $100 and hope you don't get unlucky"

What do you guys think? Do you agree or disagree? Have you a different solution?

EDIT 1: I should say that my suggested number of packs or percentages or whatever are currently just arbitrary placeholders.

I should also say that I'm not saying that you need to buy say 50 packs in one go to get the for-sure primal

Say someone buys single packs, one at a time, up to 50 packs. They get the 2% chance per pack that they buy. After the, say, fifty packs they'd get a Primal

A Bulk Buyer buys 50 in one go, the roll is still 2% per pack. If he gets one on a roll, he doesn't get the one for buying 50 packs.

Also, numbers are pretty arbitrary atm. They're just placeholder

Kami
04-28-2014, 06:49 AM
I disagree with this solution.

This would favour those who can always buy more than other players.

This should remain RNG only not rigged.

TJTaylor
04-28-2014, 06:50 AM
Honestly, I don't think anything needs to change. Primal packs are not meant to be more common than they already are. Every single one of them opened makes rare and legendary cards worth less.

primer
04-28-2014, 06:51 AM
I think its too late now, people are already playing for keeps. My brother redeemed a pro player and got no primals (+1 free primal from the KS) and i'm about as lucky as he is so i'm expecting poor results when I get the chance to redeem mine. So for me I'd love the guaranteed primal every now and then, but i think the boat has sailed.

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 06:52 AM
I disagree with this solution.

This would favour those who can always buy more than other players.

This should remain RNG only not rigged.

What do you mean? RNG favors those who can always buy more than other players too.

I'm only advocating that after the average amount of packs, you've get one. Then the RNG would be back in place. Unless you, again, have a steak of bad luck

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 06:54 AM
I think its too late now, people are already playing for keeps. My brother redeemed a pro player and got no primals (+1 free primal from the KS) and i'm about as lucky as he is so i'm expecting poor results when I get the chance to redeem mine. So for me I'd love the guaranteed primal every now and then, but i think the boat has sailed.

I don't think that's the way to look at it. For all (or vast majority) of KS/SB rewards, sure. But like I said, for completely new players, it could be fairly intimidating.

Also, assuming the game is big, it'd also be inplace in Set 2, 3, 4, etc.

UDareUTake
04-28-2014, 06:56 AM
I think we should not take Primal packs for granted. And it is already very generous of them to even have such a thing called Primal packs. Chance to win an additional packs filled with legendaries just by buying packs? Thats like striking a mini-lottery in this context.

And implementing your suggestion would mainly benefit the bulk buyers

Edit:

And in further response to why I say it benefits bulk buyers.

In the current situation, 100 guys with 1000 packs vs 100 guys with 100 packs, rng is still rng, and ignoring extreme luck or bad luck, they shd get pretty similar primal pack to pack ratio.

But if its based on a weighted RNG using ur suggestion, the bulk buyer have an extra advantage to "skip" those bad luck moments due to the increased chance of primal to break their "bad" streak and get an even consistent/better primal pack to pack ratio

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 06:57 AM
Honestly, I don't think anything needs to change. Primal packs are not meant to be more common than they already are. Every single one of them opened makes rare and legendary cards worth less.

I'm not trying to make them more "common", though I guess that would be a slight side effect.

If you're looking at it from the stand point of all the players being pooled together and then yeah, the number of primals would slightly increase.

But that's totally ignoring the individual player and their satisfaction, which I think is probably more important.

Kami
04-28-2014, 06:58 AM
What do you mean? RNG favors those who can always buy more than other players too.

That's a statistical fallacy. (a.k.a. Gambler's Fallacy)

What you are suggesting is having a guaranteed primal if you buy X amount of packs without one being a primal.

This skews it so that a single person buying a pack would only have a 2% chance of it being a primal but a person who buys fifty packs (in your suggestion) would have a 100% chance of at least one being a primal.

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 06:59 AM
I think we should not take Primal packs for granted. And it is already very generous of them to even have such a thing called Primal packs. Chance to win an additional packs filled with legendaries just by buying packs? Thats like striking a mini-lottery in this context.

And implementing your suggestion would mainly benefit the bulk buyers

How so? I'm suggesting they keep track of when you get one, so even if you're only buying 3 packs at a time to enter draft or something, if you've got bad luck, it'd also benefit you.

UDareUTake
04-28-2014, 07:01 AM
I updated my post on the bulk buyer portion

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 07:02 AM
That's a statistical fallacy. (a.k.a. Gambler's Fallacy)

What you are suggesting is having a guaranteed primal if you buy X amount of packs without one being a primal.

This skews it so that a single person buying a pack would only have a 2% chance of it being a primal but a person who buys fifty packs (in your suggestion) would have a 100% chance of at least one being a primal.

I don't think so, it's just statistics. If someone drops $100 on packs and someone else drops $1,000,000 on packs, the millionaires packs will follow the percentages better, just due to a large data set.

What? No, the single person gets the 2% chance per pack that they buy. After the, say, fifty packs they'd also get one.

The bulk buy buys 50 in one go, the roll is still 2% per pack. If he gets one on a roll, he doesn't get the one for buying 50 packs.

Also, numbers are pretty arbitrary atm. They're just placeholder

TJTaylor
04-28-2014, 07:05 AM
I'd argue that it is far more important to preserve the game economy because if it goes south those individuals won't have a game to get primals from period.


I'm not trying to make them more "common", though I guess that would be a slight side effect.

If you're looking at it from the stand point of all the players being pooled together and then yeah, the number of primals would slightly increase.

But that's totally ignoring the individual player and their satisfaction, which I think is probably more important.

UDareUTake
04-28-2014, 07:07 AM
Perhaps what Im trying to drive at is, Bulk buyers are already enjoying a better(better as in closer to the actual primal : pack rate) rate due to that large bulk they are buying compare to the average buyers, as mentioned by urself due to the larger data set.

By having that suggestion implemented, yes the average buyers will get a slight boost, but bulk buyers will begin to see an even better rate as compared to before

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 07:07 AM
I'd argue that it is far more important to preserve the game economy because if it goes south those individuals won't have a game to get primals from period.

Haha, I'm not sure which one of us is putting the cart before the horse.

I'd argue that if you can't get happy players, there won't be a game for an economy to go south/

mach
04-28-2014, 07:09 AM
Perhaps what Im trying to drive at is, Bulk buyers are already enjoying a better(better as in closer to the actual primal : pack rate) rate due to that large bulk they are buying compare to the average buyers, as mentioned by urself due to the larger data set.


Closer to the actual primal rate isn't always better for them. Consider the lucky player who buys 1 pack and gets a primal. Can't beat 100% primal rate....

SilverDirewolf
04-28-2014, 07:11 AM
Perhaps what Im trying to drive at is, Bulk buyers are already enjoying a better(better as in closer to the actual primal : pack rate) rate due to that large bulk they are buying compare to the average buyers, as mentioned by urself due to the larger data set.

By having that suggestion implemented, yes the average buyers will get a slight boost, but bulk buyers will begin to see an even better rate as compared to before

But what's inherently wrong with that?

These bulk buyers would need to drop $100 on the 50 packs to get the "one" Primal from the 2% drop roll. If they're trying to abuse this system, how many packs are they buying? If they're dropping $100s or $1000s in packs, I can't see that as a bad thing for the game/CZE.

Also, if they HAVE that money to drop, I don't think the drop rate will matter to them. They can probably just auction house the cards they want for cheaper

Kami
04-28-2014, 07:12 AM
I don't think so, it's just statistics. If someone drops $100 on packs and someone else drops $1,000,000 on packs, the millionaires packs will follow the percentages better, just due to a large data set.

What? No, the single person gets the 2% chance per pack that they buy. After the, say, fifty packs they'd also get one.

The bulk buy buys 50 in one go, the roll is still 2% per pack. If he gets one on a roll, he doesn't get the one for buying 50 packs.

Also, numbers are pretty arbitrary atm. They're just placeholder

As I said, this is known as Gambler's Fallacy.


The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future; likewise, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).

Bolded for emphasis.

Spending more does not guarantee you have a better chance of getting primals.

And as someone else put it:


But if its based on a weighted RNG using ur suggestion, the bulk buyer have an extra advantage to "skip" those bad luck moments due to the increased chance of primal to break their "bad" streak and get an even consistent/better primal pack to pack ratio




Also, if they HAVE that money to drop, I don't think the drop rate will matter to them. They can probably just auction house the cards they want for cheaper

Because guaranteeing primals means guaranteeing rares and legendaries to anyone who can spend in bulk.

You're basically advocating making chase cards worth less (not worthless but worth less) than they should.

UDareUTake
04-28-2014, 07:14 AM
Well, if you are talking about extremely lucky players, then the suggestion above by wolf doesnt even matter right?

In my perspective, In the long run, whoever is able to keep as near as the primal rate will always benefit more.

Yes there might be the lucky few out there, but implementing an increased chance for streaks without one will benefit those who buy alot more packs.

TJTaylor
04-28-2014, 07:18 AM
If the only thing that will make some players happy is getting even more free stuff then they are already getting, they probably will never be satisfied. CZE can only be so generous before it starts to cannibalize their own business.

The fact of the matter is, TCG cards must be valuable if that game is to thrive. I realize we are coming at this from different sides of the fence, and I'm not trying to be rude, but catering to casuals will destroy this game. Guaranteed. This is not WoW or some other silly subscription based MMO. The value of the cards is essential.


Haha, I'm not sure which one of us is putting the cart before the horse.

I'd argue that if you can't get happy players, there won't be a game for an economy to go south/

bactgudz
04-28-2014, 07:20 AM
Well, if you make primals operate like a print run, you can still have a 2% drop rate with a lower probability that a large number of packs purchased simultaneously yields 0 primals (and on the flipside you'd have a lower probability that a very high number of primals were dropped in a single purchase).

In otherwords, you don't need primal drops to be iid, they can be dependent and still have a 2% drop rate. If done appropriately this would be nearly impossible to exploit, since you would have to have knowledge of all packs being purchased on the system at a given time.

As an example of how this can work, assume the pack purchasing server maintains a 50 state state-space, with 49 of those corresponding to no primal and 1 corresponding to a primal drop. Each time a pack is purchased anywhere in the system, you move to the next contiguous state with say 90% probability and a uniform random state with 10% probability. Packs are queued up to be purchased from the entire system, and packs purchased simultaneously are generated one after another with this scheme. This distribution has much leaner tails when purchasing packs together than every pack purchase being uniformly iid 2% primal drop, but still has an overall 2% drop rate.

UDareUTake
04-28-2014, 07:22 AM
Sadly, I think Cory was too generous to begin with, which is unusual for a company to give out stuff with so much value and yet ask for so little in return.

In a typical micro-trans game nowadays, we would have seen $2/Normal Pack (normal rate), $5/Silver pack (better rate), $10 Gold pack (3 legend at least), $15/Diamond Pack (5 Legend at least) (which this model suck)

Now we are given a chance to get Free pack with all legends AT NO EXTRA COST! and yet we still want more?

Xenavire
04-28-2014, 07:22 AM
Why is this a huge deal? Primals are great fun, but the main way to play the game will still be limited or buying singles for constructed. Cracking a primal is still a booster pack, its random.

If you only want to open them for fun, buy them directly from the AH.

Kami
04-28-2014, 07:23 AM
Well, if you make primals operate like a print run, you can still have a 2% drop rate with a lower probability that a large number of packs opened simultaneously yields 0 primals (and on the flipside you'd have a lower probability that a very high number of primals were opened).

In otherwords, you don't need primal drops to be iid, they can be dependent and still have a 2% drop rate. If done appropriately this would be nearly impossible to exploit, since you would have to have knowledge of all packs being opened on the system at a given time.

As an example of how this can work, assume the pack opening server maintains a 50 state state-space, with 49 of those corresponding to no primal and 1 corresponding to a primal drop. Each time a pack is opened anywhere in the system, you move to the next contiguous state with say 90% probability and a uniform random state with 10% probability. Packs are queued up to be opened from the entire system, and packs opened simultaneously are opened one after another with this scheme. This distribution has much leaner tails when opening packs together than every pack opening being uniformly iid 2% primal drop, but still has an overall 2% drop rate.

Interesting idea but wouldn't that make it possible for someone to NEVER hit a primal if they were unlucky enough to never be that n'th person that would hit that primal? And inversely, for someone to have an extraordinary amount of primals due to being that n'th person hitting that primal?

bactgudz
04-28-2014, 07:35 AM
Interesting idea but wouldn't that make it possible for someone to NEVER hit a primal if they were unlucky enough to never be that n'th person that would hit that primal? And inversely, for someone to have an extraordinary amount of primals due to being that n'th person hitting that primal?

No, if you are arriving at a random time with a single pack purchase, you still have a 2% chance of getting a primal. All this does is smooth out the number you get from purchasing more than 1 pack.

If you buy two packs simultaneously, and your first one drops a primal, there is now only a 0.2% chance that your second pack in that purchase drops a primal (as opposed to 2% when iid).

If you buy two packs simultaneously, and your first one does not drop a primal, there is now a 2.0327% chance that your second pack in that purchase drops a primal (as opposed to 2% when iid).

If you buy a chunk of packs, you are much much much more likely to get at least 1 primal than if they were iid. You are much much much less likely to get a ton of primals from that purchase. On average, you should still expect 2%.

Edit:
To see some numbers, here is the distribution of primals from purchasing 50 packs simultaneously if they are iid:
#primals probability
0 36.42%
1 37.16%
2 18.58%
3 6.07%
4+ 1.78%

And here are the numbers from simulation if you use my proposed scheme for number of primals in 50 packs simultaneously purchased:
#primals probability
0 30.48%
1 45.55%
2 19.83%
3 3.69%
4+ 0.45%

And here are the numbers from simulation if you use my proposed scheme with 99% 1% instead of 90% 10% for number of primals in 50 packs simultaneously purchased:
#primals probability
0 7.89%
1 85.29%
2 6.58%
3 0.23%
4+ 0.01%

In each case the average is 1 pack out of 50, but the dependency schemes squish the tails of the distribution so you are less likely to hit 0 or 3+