PDA

View Full Version : Treasure chest and Wheel of Fate economics after Campaign launch



Pages : [1] 2

LNQ
01-27-2016, 08:15 AM
So a few player have reported (and my currently brief experience with campaign agrees) that gold gain is much slower in the campaign than Frost Ring Arena. That's very concerning and makes the topic of Treasure Chest economics something that really needs discussing. I would love to hear the rationale of why spinning treasure chests are priced as they are considering how gold is paid out at the moment. Especially when we have new gold sinks (EA, had the AA store, upcoming Stronghold..).

Rolling chests has evolved from being
- "somewhat doable" when draft tournaments awarded gold
- to "probably not worth doing except maybe commons" after AA + EA gold sinks
- to "you're a degenerate gambler and need help if you spin those chests, especially legenedaries", if the gold gain is indeed so scarce in the campaign

I get that we aren't supposed to be able to get everything in the game and everything shouldn't be easy to obtain, but I would argue against the current Wheels of Fate pricing via these points:

1) Someone in the possession of a treasure chest has bought / acquired PvP packs, thus spent money on the game one way or another
2) The treasure chest they get from the pack is supposed to be a cool bonus that separates Hex from other games and brings joy to the person
3) The Wheels of Fate is an additional layer of coolness on top of that, and behind the WoF spins are some magnificent rewards, including the currently most sought after PvE cards in the game

Because of point 3), opening an Armies of Myth treasure chest without spinning feels like you are giving up on some really cool stuff, but spinning it also feels like a total waste of money, considering that even on current gold rates spinning a single common chest costs around $0.10 in plat with current gold/plat rate. That might not sound like much at first, but considering that most spins are duds it becomes really expensive in the long run and has that distinct bad feeling of being fooled out of your money that many F2P games are notorious for. That's not even touching the spinning of Legendary chests, currently valued at around $3.00 per spin and going up if gold is this scarce and sinks are increased.

So now this is making the treasure chests that I have in my inventory and the WoF rewards from Armies of Myth that I'm missing bring anxiety to me instead of feeling like an awesome thing that makes Hex even more amazing than it already is.

I don't want a feature in the game to make me feel this way. I know it is not the intention, as you guys have done an awesome job of creating a ton of value and I know you want to avoid being looked as prohibitively expensive. I'm really surprised that the WoF system is built this way, basically preventing me from opening my chests but being prohibitively expensive so that I can't roll the chests either. I'm between a rock and a hard place. At this moment I would actually prefer if there was no WoF and I could just open all my chests and get the equipment inside without feeling bad. Or that the WoF rewards were just cosmetic or not exclusive to the chests so I could ignore them. Or that the PvE cards in the chests were more about fun and less about power.

I can't be the only one feeling this way. I hope I don't sound too bitchy writing this, as Hex is by far the best game I've played in recent years and I love almost every aspect of it. It's just that these chests are really having an impact on my experience.

Evilgm
01-27-2016, 08:18 AM
We have no idea of the economics involved once the majority have actually completed the campaign and are in full on grinding mode. It is much too soon to be complaining about this matter.

aatttt
01-27-2016, 08:20 AM
I think it should be changed to getting a [insert rarety] coin or something like that alongside the chest wich is used for spinning so that we are not sitting on hundreds of chests - `cause nobody wants to open an unspun chest.
Now we could open all our chests and gamble later on if we like to.

or just let us spin the open chests ;)

LNQ
01-27-2016, 08:22 AM
Fair enough, we can wait on the topic and see how things progress. I do admit that so far this is based on relatively little data and thus could be considered a bit premature. Sorry about that, hard to wait on writing on a topic that has been nagging for a long time and that is not immediately remedied / is not clear that will be remedied by the campaign launch.

Part of posting this is that I really would like to open all my chests to get equipment to use in the campaign, but I'm held back by WoF (and the fact that you can't multi-open chests).

Vorpal
01-27-2016, 08:23 AM
Er, does Frost Ring Arena not give gold any more?

It's been a while since I played. I noticed a lot of things had changed, new names for abilities and cards and zones, and even different numbers of cards in packs!!???

kindmime
01-27-2016, 08:24 AM
it is all cosmetic. You need to look at the perspective would you rather not have the option all together? Not everyone goes for the sunroof and heated seats when buying a car do you hear people complaining that they shouldn't offer it?

I should edit mostly cosmetic.

Aradon
01-27-2016, 08:25 AM
Yeah, I was thinking about gold pacing last night. The quests reward gold for completion, so an optimal strategy might have been to roll new characters and replay the early campaign a lot, but my observations last night were that by level 4 and about 3 hours of gameplay, I had earned 5-6k gold, or one successful Arena run. The fact that this was a sub-par rate means that we're not going to see gold inflation because of the early campaign material.

Whether or not numbers need adjust depends on rewards from dungeon runs, though. I haven't played enough to gauge these, but I would expect they are closer in comparison to Arena rates. If not, campaign numbers could probably be boosted a little bit. I'm fine with FA rates of gold gain, and even a little less, but wouldn't be so happy with the rates I was experiencing last night.

Then again, I've been getting random commons and uncommons too, which are probably worth a little gold, as well as varying rarities of stardust. I get a bit of stardust from the arena, too, so that might even out, but there could be sources of income from the campaign I've been missing. For the record, though, I do play an Elf.

dogmod
01-27-2016, 08:25 AM
Yeah I feel the same opportunity cost anxiety with the chests. The other option seems like selling the chests and buying the equipment that I want which I guess is the most optimal decision but I really am not fond of auction house the game.

primer
01-27-2016, 08:25 AM
This is like the first 9 levels of a mmorpg. I wouldn't expect the best/most loot yet. I'm sure running a max level dungeon will be fine, when we get max level content.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 08:29 AM
I think it should be changed to getting a [insert rarety] coin or something like that alongside the chest wich is used for spinning so that we are not sitting on hundreds of chests - `cause nobody wants to open an unspun chest.
Now we could open all our chests and gamble later on if we like to.

or just let us spin the open chests ;)

I think this is a great idea, let us get items for free chess rolls, just like we do for stardust.

Devil's advocate though: chests are completely pay bound (you don't spawn unless you drop plat, or transact at the AH), so having chess roll tokens drop form arena/campaign would be a bit of a head scratcher for those who aren't into the PvP bits.

I completely agree though that it's time to call it and say that chest rolls are woefully out of whack, which I think the OP dissected quite well.

Stuie
01-27-2016, 08:31 AM
We have no idea of the economics involved once the majority have actually completed the campaign and are in full on grinding mode. It is much too soon to be complaining about this matter.

Completely agree with this. Time will tell, and we need to give this some time.

Tinfoil
01-27-2016, 08:32 AM
I agree that WoF seems like a lose-lose situation atm. And I also hope it will be adressed or explained in some way, but perhaps its a numbers thing. Right now, a significant portion of active hex-players a backers or veteran players with lots and lots of cards and chests and they all want to be collectors with the best stuff (ok, not all, but many). And then there is all the new players that have very little to offer. Its hard to build an economic model that can bridge this gap.

Crota
01-27-2016, 08:33 AM
I'll try to make this short so it doesn't turn into a TL:DR post.

Common chests are fine -
Uncommon Chests and Higher - The increased cost in spinning a chest is directly related to the perceived value of being able to upgrade to an even higher level chest but because the odds and rewards are the same, or at least feel the same, spinning uncommon chests and higher is often a major let down.

EG: Spinning A legendary Chest to get a primal chest and you win... a Rare card... That is 30k gold that could have been spent in the AH to get the same rare card and still have some left over. I use the rare card as an example because that is suppose to be the highest tier reward but if you are spinning a legendary chest you really only care about chest upgrades.

Suggest solution: different tier chests have different wheels of fates rewards.
Common chests: full array of rewards
Uncommon chests - remove rewards for Mercenary and AA card
Rare Chests - Remove uncommon rewards and PvE Equipment and PvE Card
Legendary - Only have upgrade, upgrade with spin double upgrade.

When removing the said rewards, replace them with a chance for a successful roll in something else.

This topic is actually very complicated and what I'm suggest here is only a suggestion. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the economic system that is Hex. I'm just stating this as a player who often feels punished when rolling chests and wants the experience to be more fun. Let's face it, "winning" in wheels of fate with higher tier chests feels more like losing when all I want is an upgrade without a spin and I end up getting a "rare" card.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 08:48 AM
The gold pacing in the campaign is fine for now, tbh. A player is now overly compensated with equipment and cards for progression, and an enjoyable experience. I would imagine later levels are rewarded with increased gold/challenges.

The PvE campaign does not need to increasingly compensate folks that want to gamble on PvP rewards. While I think Chests need treatment similar to what Crota is detailing, I don't think the gold rewards in campaign mode or randomly rewarding chest spins is the answer. That will actually devalue collections a lot more than folks think. We need more late-game content, and more experience with PvE before making these types of valuations on output. Even if Arena continues to be the premium way to farm gold specifically, hopefully the AI there got a similar overhaul.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 08:50 AM
Completely agree with this. Time will tell, and we need to give this some time.

I don't know mate, we've had chests in for about two years now. They were definitely spawned during the time that gold was given only during tournaments, something that continued to be the standard for over half of our time with them. Arena changed that economy up, drastically reduced the amount of gold dedicated players were getting, and the campaign is continuing the arena trend (if not lower) of how quickly one earns gold. That's fine, but the chest fees never changed as the gold economy continued to evolve.

So I think we are at a point were the community can say the chest spin fees are at a point where it's just not worth it to spin them as much as it used to be. And there are other issues too with the chests that have been discussed that I hope are addressed with set 4 onwards, such as getting uncommons when you pop a legendary. It's so damn hard to get a legendary chest, especially considering the work it takes to get gold to get there, that popping it and seeing half green is never a feeling that equates to fun or a feel-good moment that I think they were shooting for when you pop a red.

I think we can say we feel it's broken at this point, at least enough that if there is a master plan with it, HexEnt can say 'we do plan to change something where we hope your complaints about WoF will start to go away'.

The thing is the WoF mechanic is one of the coolest things of the game, it just stinks to no longer be psyched about it as it's comparatively low fun value to everything else.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 08:56 AM
I agree that gathering the gold to spin the WOF chests now has become unfun.

The problem stacks with time, if you play both game modes.
It's easy to grow a backlog of uncommon/rare/legendary chests, saving gold to spin commons, so when you ultimately try to tackle the challenge of spinning your backlog, the progression is daunting, slow, and overwhelming, without throwing Colin amounts of plat at it. It also does not feel very rewarding at the end of the day from a cost/value comparison, mainly due to non-progressive reward structure.

I think it should be addressed in some senses, but then again, we need to evaluate our personal psychosis on why we feel so compelled to "Complete" all chest spins for "value".

Svenn
01-27-2016, 08:58 AM
What this thread is telling me is that it's working as intended. The whole point is for the people with the chests (ie paying players) to need to buy gold from the people playing for free.

Tazelbain
01-27-2016, 08:59 AM
Ya, lots of cards for new players to get the basics is the primary reward here not gold so people like us who have the basics in spades aren't going to be particularly enthused about the gold drops.

Honestly I am surprised drama llama thread over large quantities of PvP cards dropping in PvE hasn't gotten going.

katkillad
01-27-2016, 09:02 AM
If arena is still the best place for gold that is depressing. I mean I understand if the PVE campaign gave more gold it would obsolete arena in a way, but it should be comparable at least.

Angmar
01-27-2016, 09:03 AM
This is like the first 9 levels of a mmorpg. I wouldn't expect the best/most loot yet. I'm sure running a max level dungeon will be fine, when we get max level content.

This.

Every MMO is forced to constantly scale the gold rewards. If they don't, then farming easy, lower level/difficulty, old content becomes the optimal gold farming strategy. At that point everyone complains that they "can't" play the new content and developers fix it - or the devs figure that out before hand and avoid the situation entirely.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 09:05 AM
If arena is still the best place for gold that is depressing. I mean I understand if the PVE campaign gave more gold it would obsolete arena in a way, but it should be comparable at least.

I disagree until we hit level 30, and see what is available to us in Adventure zone 3+. Again, the rewards in the Campaign right now, far outweigh gold rewards, if you are a new player, or want to see this game grow in playerbase. Tip of the iceberg, everyone should be excited right now..

Svenn
01-27-2016, 09:07 AM
Guys, no one is farming campaign yet. Has anyone even completed the whole thing? Can we hold off on complaining about gold rewards until we actually get a good resting value for gold farming in the campaign?

I mean, what was the early gold/hour from Arena before people found some optimal decks and figured out how to farm it? Not what it is now, I know that much.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 09:09 AM
This.

Every MMO is forced to constantly scale the gold rewards. If they don't, then farming easy, lower level/difficulty, old content becomes the optimal gold farming strategy. At that point everyone complains that they "can't" play the new content and developers fix it - or the devs figure that out before hand and avoid the situation entirely.

This is a guess though, I think the point of the thread is given the content we are seeing for what I am assuming is the next 3 to 4 months, possibly longer, you've got 3 or 4 months of chests continuing to be a bad investment. So as the OP noted, it's been bad value for a while, and will continue to be so for a good bit, possibly longer if you are incorrect in your assumption. So if they think the roll figures are still in line with their long term vision, I can't see the harm in them coming out and stating that.

But also, honestly, the chests were designed and implemented over 2 years ago (I'm guessimating on the timing, someone please correct me if I'm wrong). By HexEnt's own account they've changed their design on the campaign multiple times for more fun, and have been monitoring and refining what they think the gold economy should be in line with those changes.

But the chest mechanics have remained the same ever since we got them; even after all of those changes. I can't imagine they nailed chest roll cost figures to fit into the current economy way back when after they've admitted all the other stuff, like campaign, has changed so much in the meantime. Maybe they did, and if are confident on that, but then I don't see the difficulty in them coming out and saying 'don't worry everyone, we still think we have this balanced right.'

Bombs
01-27-2016, 09:10 AM
The only thing I would desire (with the cost of spinning chests feeling so high) is for the "single eye" paid spin again result to be removed from the table. It is never fun paying 8,000 gold twice to bust on a rare chest spin twice in a row when trying to proc a primal.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 09:14 AM
The only thing I would desire (with the cost of spinning chests feeling so high) is for the "single eye" paid spin again result to be removed from the table. It is never fun paying 8,000 gold twice to bust on a rare chest spin twice in a row when trying to proc a primal.

1 chest and 16,000 gold is better than "paying" 2 chests and 16,000 gold for 2 spins.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 09:16 AM
But also, honestly, the chests were designed and implemented over 2 years ago (I'm guessimating on the timing, someone please correct me if I'm wrong). By HexEnt's own account they've changed their design on the campaign multiple times for more fun, and have been monitoring and refining what they think the gold economy should be in line with those changes.

But the chest mechanics have remained the same ever since we got them; even after all of those changes. I can't imagine they nailed chest roll cost figures to fit into the current economy way back when after they've admitted all the other stuff, like campaign, has changed so much in the meantime. Maybe they did, and if are confident on that, but then I don't see the difficulty in them coming out and saying 'don't worry everyone, we still think we have this balanced right.'
The only thing I can say to the first part is that Chark intentionally chose the costs for the chests. He is able to retrospectively control the progression gold flow as he sees fit to balance the economy.

I'm not sure why the chests never went through an overhaul to offer progressive rewards. They did fix double-sleeves from proccing, but that was it. If they revisit anything, I hope they revisit progressive rewards based on chest rarity for future sets. I don't think anything done retroactively will be rewarding enough to the folks that already paid. And they don't want Datadragon to go postal.

Evilgm
01-27-2016, 09:25 AM
1 chest and 16,000 gold is better than "paying" 2 chests and 16,000 gold for 2 spins.

Mathematically it is, but emotionally it's much worse to spend 8k on a chest and then not to get to open afterwards. It just feels like you spent the money to get nothing, regardless of the truth.

malloc31
01-27-2016, 09:26 AM
I agree with OP 100%. It could get better at level 30 but even with an increased gold earning rate, you still have the cost/value of spinning the different rarities does not seem balanced correctly.

spinning chest was supposed to be a feel good bonus feature, not something that makes you feel like it is a job to earn money for (either gold farming or real life cash to buy plat.) I would rather spinning did not exist then this so I could open my chests also (without feeling the guilt of throwing away a lotto ticket without seeing if you have won.)

Vorpal
01-27-2016, 09:29 AM
What this thread is telling me is that it's working as intended. The whole point is for the people with the chests (ie paying players) to need to buy gold from the people playing for free.

Yeah, I think that is the intent.

strawwmann
01-27-2016, 09:37 AM
I sympathise with the OP - I spin a lot Chests and it does seem sub-economic.

BUT, the CHEST ECONOMY hasn't kicked in yet.

The equipment in Chests can't be obtained any other way &, thankfully, the Campaign seems to allow a far wider variety of fun & creative (incl. role-playing) decks, than the very narrowly forced aggro. meta of Arena.
So hopefully there will be a new demand for Chest Equipment, which might be sufficient to push prices up (in gold or equivalent) to make spinning Chests pay?
It might be an unlikely possibility, but maybe...
It would certainly help if the AH for Eq. made the source of Eq. clearer (e.g. Arena, where everything is common with 'red dot' Eq. the most common & 'white dot' Eq. a bit less common, vs Chests, where everything is much rarer and colour-coding follows the normal Common..Legendary ranking).

On a related note, it sucks that Rare (& Uncommon) Chests are hardly any better than Common ones after spending all that gold rolling to upgrade them: on average so far my Rare Chests have had C or UC Eq. 55% of the time (& R 45%).

And I don't know if it's a bug or an 'undocumented new feature' but I briefly tried a bit of Arena earlier and Champion powers were disabled!
That completely trashed how my deck works (as I'm sure it would for everyone else) & was a very unpleasant surprise mid game.
That change will dry up Arena gold farming very quickly.
Maybe we are supposed to use your Campaign PvE Champions in Arena now?
If so, it will take a while until we can be build them up to the level of the PvP Champions we've used in Arena until now.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 09:37 AM
I look forward to coming back to this thread in 2 months when we've got the "gold is losing value because people are farming it too quickly in campaign" threads. ;)

Saeijou
01-27-2016, 10:07 AM
I look forward to coming back to this thread in 2 months when we've got the "gold is losing value because people are farming it too quickly in campaign" threads. ;)

i will remind you ;)

katkillad
01-27-2016, 10:22 AM
I disagree until we hit level 30, and see what is available to us in Adventure zone 3+. Again, the rewards in the Campaign right now, far outweigh gold rewards, if you are a new player, or want to see this game grow in playerbase. Tip of the iceberg, everyone should be excited right now..

So you want to wait a year+ to determine if the gold rewards are ok? The PVE campaign rewards are nice, but lets face it... Arena being the primary source for gold stinks.

Really I just think they need to make the cost to roll rare/legendary chests more realistic.

Kalis
01-27-2016, 10:23 AM
I think that XP gain is converted to gold gain at the level cap based on the human racial where you get a bonus to exp below max level and a bonus to gold at max level.

If XP is converted to gold at level cap then we could see a significant increase in gold gain once you start farming at cap.

malloc31
01-27-2016, 11:48 AM
I think that XP gain is converted to gold gain at the level cap based on the human racial where you get a bonus to exp below max level and a bonus to gold at max level.

If XP is converted to gold at level cap then we could see a significant increase in gold gain once you start farming at cap.

the reason you get a gold boost at max level is because other wise at max level the talent would do nothing.

magic_gazz
01-27-2016, 12:04 PM
While I agree we don't know yet what later drops are, I do think this needs to be looked at.

If In 1 years time gold is being given out at a better rate that doesn't solve the 3 years of chest backlog I will have.

To address the buying gold from people part, I have bought a fair amount (probably over 15k plat) of gold for plat and still need many millions of gold. Its just an unreasonable amount for someone to acquire given the current set up.

Seluhir
01-27-2016, 12:15 PM
I just wish they'd add chests to pve packs.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 12:24 PM
I just wish they'd add chests to pve packs.

The point of chests is to make it so paying players need gold, so that they are willing to buy/trade for gold from the free players. In this way there is an interdependency so that free players have something of value.

Adding chests to PvE packs would just add to the amount of gold PvE players need, making it so they have to choose between trading the gold to the paying players or actually getting to spin their chests.

LNQ
01-27-2016, 12:32 PM
OP Here, thanks for the lively and rational conversation on the topic :)

The fees / accrual rates should be adjusted as we go, so if farming becomes too efficient it should be adjusted, but it goes both ways. Also to your earlier reply, the WoF system does not help the gold economy because it doesn't make economical sense to spin.

It makes absolutely zero sense to have a system where as a poster mentioned we gather a massive backlog of uncommon, rare and legendary chests that cannot be spun because it's too expensive. Whatever the gold rate is when we hit level 30, before that the system should be in place so that massive collections of chests collecting dust are not formed.

Cory said at one point that he wants to make sure that it doesn't matter when you open packs, this was in relation to the gencon events when the original idea was that packs opened then would have the gencon bonus items in chests. It's a little bit of a different problem as we're talking about gold here, but there are similarities in this problem. It's not a good thing that we are held back from opening chests, as it creates a big bias in the economy when there are loads of unopened chests that contain equipment that is supposed to be on the market.

The current situation is broken in the way that two aspects of the whole package are stuck: Wheel of Fate and Chest Opening. People are avoiding both spinning and opening chests. That is 100% certainly not the intention of the developers; chests aren't meant to be hoarded.

LNQ
01-27-2016, 12:38 PM
The point of chests is to make it so paying players need gold, so that they are willing to buy/trade for gold from the free players. In this way there is an interdependency so that free players have something of value.

(I know you replied to pve packs containing chests, but you made the point before so I'll just use this quote for convenience.)

I appreciate many of your points in different topics but here you are missing the point in my opinion. I'm currently not trading anything for gold to spin chests because spinning them is so ridiculously expensive and gold so hard to come by that I would have to trade crazy amounts of PvP cards to spin my chests.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 12:38 PM
It makes absolutely zero sense to have a system where as a poster mentioned we gather a massive backlog of uncommon, rare and legendary chests that cannot be spun because it's too expensive. Whatever the gold rate is when we hit level 30, before that the system should be in place so that massive collections of chests collecting dust are not formed.

This will auto-correct itself. There is a massive backlog of chests not being spun because there was only one way to earn gold and a lot of people stopped farming it, but there were tons of people playing PvP/tournaments. Now that we have PvE the people waiting for that will come back and start playing/farming PvE. Tons of people are just joining/coming back with no intention of spending money, but will play plenty of PvE. The backlog will start to dwindle as time passes and as more free players join to farm gold as the flow of gold into the economy will continue to increase.

I don't think 1 day is enough time to really evaluate any of this stuff. I think in a couple weeks/month when things have settled we'll have a better idea of the economy. Right now it's extremely volatile.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 12:40 PM
(I know you replied to pve packs containing chests, but you made the point before so I'll just use this quote for convenience.)

I appreciate many of your points in different topics but here you are missing the point in my opinion. I'm currently not trading anything for gold to spin chests because spinning them is so ridiculously expensive and gold so hard to come by that I would have to trade crazy amounts of PvP cards to spin my chests.

I get that, and I have 2 responses. First, see my previous post... there's a backlog because of the years of PvP with little PvE activity/gold farming. The introduction of PvE will bring the free players which will give a huge boost to the amount of gold being generated (compared to the amount of chests).

Second, you might not be trading now, but others are. Gold has been flowing pretty well for a while now. While some people might not find it worth it to spin, plenty of us have been spinning anyway.

LNQ
01-27-2016, 12:45 PM
I get that, and I have 2 responses. First, see my previous post... there's a backlog because of the years of PvP with little PvE activity/gold farming. The introduction of PvE will bring the free players which will give a huge boost to the amount of gold being generated (compared to the amount of chests).

Second, you might not be trading now, but others are. Gold has been flowing pretty well for a while now. While some people might not find it worth it to spin, plenty of us have been spinning anyway.

Fair enough on point 2. On point 1, we just have differing view. My view is that the system should always be tried to be kept in a balance where no backlog is formed. Reason is twofold: first, by preventing the opening of chests the contents of those chests are held back from their owners for no good reason, and secondly if the backlog clears at some point it will cause a massive shock to the economy of all the chest contents, which is not a good thing except for speculators.

Vorpal
01-27-2016, 12:48 PM
I believe the market will self correct, particularly once the higher tiers come out.

I do not think Hex is going to change chest spin costs. They have been adamant they didn't want people to feel bad about when they opened packs or chests. People who have spent millions of gold on spinning chests would be upset to find out they could have saved hundreds of thousands of gold by waiting.

Rendakor
01-27-2016, 12:48 PM
I've spun all my Set 3 commons and legendaries; uncommons and rares I just opened with spins pending. It's not economically viable to spin those, and I don't think it ever will be. Any sort of overhaul would have to be for future sets onward; since we haven't heard of any overhaul and Set 4 is right around the corner, at best I'd say expect a change with Set 5 if the devs actually think there's a problem.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 12:51 PM
Fair enough on point 2. On point 1, we just have differing view. My view is that the system should always be tried to be kept in a balance where no backlog is formed. Reason is twofold: first, by preventing the opening of chests the contents of those chests are held back from their owners for no good reason, and secondly if the backlog clears at some point it will cause a massive shock to the economy of all the chest contents, which is not a good thing except for speculators.

I'm curious what sort of solutions you'd like to see for this. If you lower the costs for chest spins then you get through the backlog and then things quickly tip in the other direction. You could temporarily lower them to get closer to the equilibrium, but I have a feeling a lot of people would be put off by that.

Also, any economy, especially one with new things being added pretty regularly, is going to go through changes. I think avoiding knee-jerk reactions to things like this is better than constantly attempting to re-correct.

Also, I feel like HexEnt is on the opposite end of this... they added AA cards for gold as a way to drain gold from the economy already.

LNQ
01-27-2016, 12:57 PM
I don't have the perfect solution, and considering I don't have the data or am in any position of influence I don't attempt to find one. I'm just pointing out that the current situation is causing distress to me and judging by the replies to at least some others, from a feature that is supposed to be the cherry on top.

I would just be interested to know what Chark & co think about this. If no change will be made then I'll just have to live with it and be a bit sad. In that case when we finally get multi-chest opening I'll go ahead and put my chests to the chopping block ignoring WoF, but I'll feel like I'm missing out.

Svenn
01-27-2016, 12:58 PM
I don't have the perfect solution, and considering I don't have the data or am in any position of influence I don't attempt to find one. I'm just pointing out that the current situation is causing distress to me and judging by the replies to at least some others, from a feature that is supposed to be the cherry on top.

I would just be interested to know what Chark & co think about this. If no change will be made then I'll just have to live with it and be a bit sad. In that case when we finally get multi-chest opening I'll go ahead and put my chests to the chopping block ignoring WoF, but I'll feel like I'm missing out.

Fair enough. I get that it can suck right now when it comes to costs for spinning chests. I'm just looking more at the long term than the short term. I've been holding chests for years... no reason to rush to open them now. ;)

EvilCanadian
01-27-2016, 01:02 PM
I agree with this fully. I hate the feeling of not spinning the wheel almost as much as I hate being dubbed out of thousands of gold over and over

Silvanos
01-27-2016, 01:03 PM
The contents of chests are just not set up in a way that justifies the extreme cost of spinning UC+ chests. I don't know if its CZE's fault for pricing spins that way, or the communities fault for valuing the contents as we do, but I do know it means I have tons of unspun UC+ chests and 0 unspun Commons. Theoretically, the value of the contents of those chests is just tied to how much it costs to spin them and the average drop chance. If they made it cheaper to spin the chests, everything in them should just get cheaper as well, making it less valuable to spin them and getting us back to where we are now.

Spinning costs aside, I will never understand the decision to allow Legendary chests to drop UC equipment. It is such an awful player experience. Make legendary chest drops from packs less common, make upgrades on the wheel less common, but get rid of chests dropping loot below their tier.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 01:16 PM
There is of course a rational explanation for all of this. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPIN YOUR CHESTS.
Open them. Problem solved.

It's the codependent OCD tendency on fear of parting with unspun chests that is the problem.

Let go. Be free. Embrace poverty.
There is no spoon, there is no backlog, ignorance is bliss.

LNQ
01-27-2016, 01:19 PM
nico, so your opinion is that we should act against our nature, not to change the game mechanic that is causing negative experiences? Why have the spinning system at all then? It would be much better to get rid of it completely.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 01:22 PM
nico, so your opinion is that we should act against our nature, not to change the game mechanic that is causing negative experiences? Why have the spinning system at all then? It would be much better to get rid of it completely.

People that change their nature are profiting off those of us that can't. Human Evolution is behind the chest conundrum.

Yoss has harnessed the power to evolve.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 01:22 PM
I don't have the perfect solution, and considering I don't have the data or am in any position of influence I don't attempt to find one. I'm just pointing out that the current situation is causing distress to me and judging by the replies to at least some others, from a feature that is supposed to be the cherry on top.

I would just be interested to know what Chark & co think about this. If no change will be made then I'll just have to live with it and be a bit sad. In that case when we finally get multi-chest opening I'll go ahead and put my chests to the chopping block ignoring WoF, but I'll feel like I'm missing out.

I think this captures what I was trying to say earlier, damn you LNQ for always being more articulate than me.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 01:26 PM
So, I will use this analogy again, because it makes the most sense.

When you go to Vegas there are many types of people that play the slot machines.

However, Do you see a lot of people playing the slot machines in the High Rollers Rooms?

No... Because most people can't afford to gamble away such a large sum of money in an instant without feeling a large amount of guilt/remorse or inability to survive.

You don't have to cry if you see people in the High Roller Room, and can't be them. Just have fun playing your penny slots and waiting for the drink lady.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 01:31 PM
So, I will use this analogy again, because it makes the most sense.

When you go to Vegas there are many types of people that play the slot machines.

However, Do you see a lot of people playing the slot machines in the High Rollers Rooms?

No... Because most people can't afford to gamble away such a large sum of money in an instant without feeling a large amount of guilt/remorse or inability to survive.

You don't have to cry if you see people in the High Roller Room, and can't be them. Just have fun playing your penny slots and waiting for the drink lady.

I disagree on this one nico, the analogy falls apart when you go into the high roller room, win a 'big prize' (legendary chest), and the same rewards come out as do the penny slots you played earlier (uncommon equipment).

Rendakor
01-27-2016, 01:33 PM
I thought we were talking about the cost of spinning chests, not the value of the contents?

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 01:34 PM
I thought we were talking about the cost of spinning chests, not the value of the contents?

^


I disagree on this one nico, the analogy falls apart when you go into the high roller room, win a 'big prize' (legendary chest), and the same rewards come out as do the penny slots you played earlier (uncommon equipment).

I agree that the value of the rewards should at least scale for all hits depending on rarity. but until then...

Xenavire
01-27-2016, 01:37 PM
Yeah, Nico, the opening side is more akin to the high roller room than the spinning side. The spinning side is frustrating and I have essentially stopped spinning and farming/spending gold, because it is just a waste.

The gold sink has to actually be attractive enough to use for it to be an actual gold sink, and lately everything added has pushedbus away from using it as a gold sink.

Sowmething absolutely has to change.

Rendakor
01-27-2016, 01:41 PM
Having some of the best PVE loot in game coming from spinning is a pretty attractive gold sink, imo. YMMV.

Tazelbain
01-27-2016, 01:42 PM
Seems pretty clear Hex is on the right track. Gold would be worth jack if we could clearing out our backlogs were so easy.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 01:43 PM
Yeah, Nico, the opening side is more akin to the high roller room than the spinning side. The spinning side is frustrating and I have essentially stopped spinning and farming/spending gold, because it is just a waste.

The gold sink has to actually be attractive enough to use for it to be an actual gold sink, and lately everything added has pushedbus away from using it as a gold sink.

Sowmething absolutely has to change.

I think you have it backwards.
There is no cost association to opening.
The cost association is 100% to spinning.
The only break-down in the analogy is that the payouts do not scale. So not only do you have to be very rich to be a high-roller now, but you also have to be of very questionable intelligence. (like me, I try to spin all :) )

fido_one
01-27-2016, 01:44 PM
I thought we were talking about the cost of spinning chests, not the value of the contents?

They are inherently linked, many of the 'rewards' of spinning chests is upgrading chests, which is all about opening them.

TJTaylor
01-27-2016, 01:53 PM
Every set I end up with over 1500 chests right out of the gate and that number grows as I play in tournaments over the course of months. I refuse to buy gold from people because I think it is way overvalued. I grind it all myself. I dust my cards. I spin my chests.

I do not have a backlog.

If I don't have a backlog, I seriously question how anyone else could legitimately have one. So my question would be why are you saving those higher tier chests and creating a backlog for yourself?

Is it because you want to upgrade them further? If so, that alone justifies the spin cost increase. Perhaps not as high as it is, but it still should be significantly more than a common spin to upgrade a higher tier chest even further. The stuff in them is better and worth more. Frankly, the lower it costs to spin those, the less those items end up being valued at.

Is it because you still don't have everything from the wheel? If so, buy common chests from the AH and spin those. That is a much better use of 30000g than spinning a legendary once.

Is it because you hope you'll proc more 20 dollar legendary PvE cards you can sell? Good luck. The amount you'll spend getting them won't make it anywhere near worth it, even if every spin was 1200g regardless of chest rarity. Even with all my chests, I end up having to buy one or two of those every set because they are so rare on the wheel.

Is it because you just feel bad not spinning a chest before you open it? Don't feel bad for not throwing away 30000g gold on a single spin. That's smart! Especially considering that most of the time it is going to be a common result with a paid spin attached to it meaning that chest is going to cost you far more than just 30000g for nothing more than a couple common items that you already have 30 of and can't give away. Or it just fails outright and it is like that gold never existed.

There really is no reason to horde chests. Spin rares until you get enough primal/legendary to get all those goodies from the chests, but other than that just open anything over uncommon. You can sell the contents for plat or even gold to spin more of your lower tier chests which means more chances for wheel of fate goodies.

I say over uncommon because it is cheaper to spin an uncommon once than to buy a common chest from the AH and spin it once. Usually, not always. You may want to check the AH before you decide to spin. If necessary, you can spin those uncommon chests to get what you still don't have from the wheel after spinning your commons. But otherwise, those can just be opened as well once you've got what you need from good 'ol Kismet. No reason to spin them at that point because what you spend far outweighs what you gain.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 01:57 PM
They are inherently linked, many of the 'rewards' of spinning chests is upgrading chests, which is all about opening them.

The fact that you can get legendary chests just by opening packs, and that rare and legendary chests can both easily drop all the PvE items highest rarity stuff, there is not much need in chasing beyond that point unless you are the most elite of elite collectors. The dream of course is chasing the primal chests, which is akin to Charlie Sheen binge induced recklessness. But we all want to live it up.

There is no required incentive outside of chasing primal chests, loaded with cosmetic chase items, to spin chests higher than common rarity. This explains the current economy and valuation on common chests being worth more than uncommon and rare chests in most scenarios. The backlog only exists because people are reluctant to play the system they are selling us.

The above is the only problem with the system, if the "economy" recognizes it as a "problem". The Chase items being so exclusive definitely helps determine their value, and I think we like both chasing and having high value commodities.

Jormungandr
01-27-2016, 02:10 PM
The above is the only problem with the system, if the "economy" recognizes it as a "problem". The Chase items being so exclusive definitely helps determine their value, and I think we like both chasing and having high value commodities.

I would argue that such a system is one that leads to people reading this sort of breakdown after they've already spent gold spinning their uncommon / rare chests, and feeling like they were fooled into spending their money unwisely. I agree that the current system makes chase items potentially very valuable, and think that should stay. I am not sure what solution preserves that and doesn't lead to people not in the know feeling bad when they find out they've wasted gold doing what it seems like the game wants them to do.

LNQ
01-27-2016, 02:17 PM
... lead to people not in the know feeling bad when they find out they've wasted gold doing what it seems like the game wants them to do.

That's a really good point. The game clearly hints that spinning chests is a good thing. Right now it's a massive waste of money. And by massive I really mean massive. You get next to nothing in exchange for spending a considerable amount of $. I'm lucky in that I'm in a situation that the impact to me is pretty small, but it cannot be good for the game to put players at risk of losing their money for little to no rewards. Considering that, it would again seem to me that no gambling system at all would be better than this.

nicosharp
01-27-2016, 02:18 PM
I would argue that such a system is one that leads to people reading this sort of breakdown after they've already spent gold spinning their uncommon / rare chests, and feeling like they were fooled into spending their money unwisely. I agree that the current system makes chase items potentially very valuable, and think that should stay. I am not sure what solution preserves that and doesn't lead to people not in the know feeling bad when they find out they've wasted gold doing what it seems like the game wants them to do.
At the end of the day you are gambling. You are gambling in a game, with currency provided for your time playing it.
The pill to swallow is that HEX creates value with time spent. Value that could ultimately translate to $$$ third-party. Putting a $ value on gold is when you take a game's free currency, and look at it as if you are handling money. At that point, your decisions on how you use that "money", should be as informed as you value spending your $ and time.

We will have far more sinks in the future that will fight for how you "waste" your currency.

Miwa
01-27-2016, 02:41 PM
Spinning rare's and legendaries to get primals has absolutely nothing to do with getting a card. I spin dem babies to try and get the sleeves. Cards can be bought on the AH. Sleeves you *have* get get a primal chest. One of these years I may give up and just try to buy primal chests. :)

plaguedealer
01-27-2016, 02:48 PM
Spinning chests above uncommon is a complete waste of gold imo. Chest contents for legendary and primal chests just is not worth the money required to obtain them through spinning. I am definitely not one who will spend ALOT of gold in order to get a sleeve.

Miwa
01-27-2016, 02:53 PM
Uncommon is the one chest that's pretty worthless to spin, IMO. Gold doesn't have much other use for me anyway, until they put something like AA cards in the store again anyway. I'm not bothering with the AH until it's much improved. Plus meh, cards and equipment is easy to get.

plaguedealer
01-27-2016, 02:57 PM
Of course if everyone stops spinning chests, future cards with the power level of angel of foresight will go up in value.

Chark
01-27-2016, 04:07 PM
The current situation is broken in the way that two aspects of the whole package are stuck: Wheel of Fate and Chest Opening. People are avoiding both spinning and opening chests. That is 100% certainly not the intention of the developers; chests aren't meant to be hoarded.

This is a pretty dangerous assumption to make given that you have no insight into how people engage with WoF and Chest Opening on aggregate. You only have your personal insight (and maybe a few more data points you collected from others), and you are making an assumption that your personal insight is indicative of everyone's.

Chest spins continue to be the biggest daily gold sink in the game for the last 2 years (yes, they outpaced the gold cards in the store when those were available). They are also an incentive for paying players to engage with non-paying players by trading cards (or plat) for gold. Without significant pressure from this system, the gold exchange between paying and non-paying players wouldn't happen.

I get that people's individual tolerance to the WoF system varies, but on aggregate people engage with it on daily basis and it is one of the reason why we have liquidity in gold sales and trades. I don't want to ruin that by making it easier to complete.

Having said that, I do want to remind people that it's a lot easier to add rewards to systems than to take them away, so we are being conservative with gold drops and keeping an eye on gold rates in the first adventure zone. Our long term plan is to continuously assess the gold/per hour gain progression in the campaign. Expect gold (and possibly other) rewards to be reworked for all zones with each subsequent release of a new zone. This is necessary because we are putting out the campaign somewhat piecemeal. For example you'll notice that there are very few ways to spend gold in the campaign for now, but we expect the AZ 2 features to change that (remember how people wanted more character slots? Ben has a ton of things cooked up that we can sell you for gold).

dogmod
01-27-2016, 04:18 PM
This is a pretty dangerous assumption to make given that you have no insight into how people engage with WoF and Chest Opening on aggregate. You only have your personal insight (and maybe a few more data points you collected from others), and you are making an assumption that your personal insight is indicative of everyone's.

Chest spins continue to be the biggest daily gold sink in the game for the last 2 years (yes, they outpaced the gold cards in the store when those were available). They are also an incentive for paying players to engage with non-paying players by trading cards (or plat) for gold. Without significant pressure from this system, the gold exchange between paying and non-paying players wouldn't happen.

I get that people's individual tolerance to the WoF system varies, but on aggregate people engage with it on daily basis and it is one of the reason why we have liquidity in gold sales and trades. I don't want to ruin that by making it easier to complete.

Having said that, I do want to remind people that it's a lot easier to add rewards to systems than to take them away, so we are being conservative with gold drops and keeping an eye on gold rates in the first adventure zone. Our long term plan is to continuously assess the gold/per hour gain progression in the campaign. Expect gold (and possibly other) rewards to be reworked for all zones with each subsequent release of a new zone. This is necessary because we are putting out the campaign somewhat piecemeal. For example you'll notice that there are very few ways to spend gold in the campaign for now, but we expect the AZ 2 features to change that (remember how people wanted more character slots? Ben has a ton of things cooked up that we can sell you for gold).

It is all nice and good to say that you aren't charging people for things but if you charge us in gold which has a platinum (i.e. real world cost) ratio which you guys are controlling it seems to me that you actually are setting a price on such things. It is a bit obfuscated but it is there. If you are targeting a gold to platinum ratio and then you charge for something in gold you may as well charge for it in platinum for the players that are not farming gold. That would actually be more convenient because then I wouldn't have to engage in a secondary or primary market to gain gold through card sales or other. All things charged for in gold actually have an anti convenience cost for me. Not to mention the vig you are taking on the AH.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 04:21 PM
This is a pretty dangerous assumption to make given that you have no insight into how people engage with WoF and Chest Opening on aggregate. You only have your personal insight (and maybe a few more data points you collected from others), and you are making an assumption that your personal insight is indicative of everyone's.

Chest spins continue to be the biggest daily gold sink in the game for the last 2 years (yes, they outpaced the gold cards in the store when those were available). They are also an incentive for paying players to engage with non-paying players by trading cards (or plat) for gold. Without significant pressure from this system, the gold exchange between paying and non-paying players wouldn't happen.

I get that people's individual tolerance to the WoF system varies, but on aggregate people engage with it on daily basis and it is one of the reason why we have liquidity in gold sales and trades. I don't want to ruin that by making it easier to complete.

Having said that, I do want to remind people that it's a lot easier to add rewards to systems than to take them away, so we are being conservative with gold drops and keeping an eye on gold rates in the first adventure zone. Our long term plan is to continuously assess the gold/per hour gain progression in the campaign. Expect gold (and possibly other) rewards to be reworked for all zones with each subsequent release of a new zone. This is necessary because we are putting out the campaign somewhat piecemeal. For example you'll notice that there are very few ways to spend gold in the campaign for now, but we expect the AZ 2 features to change that (remember how people wanted more character slots? Ben has a ton of things cooked up that we can sell you for gold).

Thanks for the feedback Chark! I think LNQ made the same sort of remark I did earlier, which was along the lines of 'if this is what is intended and we hear that from the developers that's fine, but in the vacuum [that is this thread], this is what it looks like to me and many other people participating in this thread.'

That it's been the biggest gold sink doesn't necessarily mean it leaves a feeling of 'I like spending gold on this sink', and while that is the case for many people, for others, like myself, it's spent on chests as there isn't a lot else to sink it on at the moment. Your comments here reset the conversation, however, and I look forward to the other sinks we can focus our gold hoard on.

WolfCrypt
01-27-2016, 04:26 PM
I'm excited for Gold Sinks XD

Svenn
01-27-2016, 04:41 PM
If you are targeting a gold to platinum ratio and then you charge for something in gold you may as well charge for it in platinum for the players that are not farming gold. That would actually be more convenient because then I wouldn't have to engage in a secondary or primary market to gain gold through card sales or other. All things charged for in gold actually have an anti convenience cost for me. Not to mention the vig you are taking on the AH.

Engaging in the secondary market (gold<->plat) is actually one of the goals of the system. Only having it in one currency is a good thing. It helps the economy.

Chark
01-27-2016, 04:53 PM
It is all nice and good to say that you aren't charging people for things but if you charge us in gold which has a platinum (i.e. real world cost) ratio which you guys are controlling it seems to me that you actually are setting a price on such things. It is a bit obfuscated but it is there. If you are targeting a gold to platinum ratio and then you charge for something in gold you may as well charge for it in platinum for the players that are not farming gold. That would actually be more convenient because then I wouldn't have to engage in a secondary or primary market to gain gold through card sales or other. All things charged for in gold actually have an anti convenience cost for me. Not to mention the vig you are taking on the AH.

Not even sure how to address all of this...

Yes, I indirectly set gold/plat exchange rate by increasing/decreasing gold sinks/faucets. Yes, that's the nature of building an economy in a game. Claiming that we are controlling the exchange rate seems a little hyperbolic though: we don't specifically set the rate and we have been pretty clear that we are willing to tolerate a fairly wide band of the exchange rate (anyone remember when gold was 1:80? anyone remember when gold was 1:300?).

While attaching a plat price tag to every gold spend in the game may be more convenient for a certain section of people, I can't imagine that we would ever do this for a multitude of reasons including the fact that it would kill the exchange of goods and currency between paying and non-paying players and in fact would ruin our game for both types of players. Not to mention the fact that for most things, you already have that option in the form of an Auction House. Don't want to spin the wheels for gold or open chests? You can always go buy most of the stuff that comes out of those systems on the AH for plat.

The vig comment is also a little rough. We need it to keep garbage data from item pricing (otherwise two accounts would spam commons for 1000s of plat and hexprice.com would be worthless). We also round down (keeping transaction costs at the lowest levels from ruining incentives to sell commons, etc to non-paying players). Finally, if I really wanted to jam you up on the AH vig, I wouldn't have fought internally to create a CoD mail transfer as a redundant way to exchange goods and currencies between accounts.

I know that on the forums I at times play this persona of being greedy and wanting your money, but let's be clear: it is just a persona and nothing could be further from the actual goals we have for this game and tenets we have internally for how we treat players in terms of monetization.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 05:06 PM
I know that on the forums I at times play this persona of being greedy and wanting your money, but let's be clear: it is just a persona and nothing could be further from the actual goals we have for this game and tenets we have internally for how we treat players in terms of monetization.

My guess is 99.99% of the community has understood that and more importantly appreciated that. I have, and the humor is most welcome, I hope you don't tone it down or dampen it because of that comment. I think very few people when they are talking about economies have you specifically in mind, and it's easy for us to get caught up in a debate, especially not knowing all the details behind the scenes.

Also, I think few of us realize how much it takes for you to read, let alone respond, to threads. So some of us (including myself I am ashamed to say) get salty when we don't hear from the devs even though you guys are burning the midnight oil on the game itself. In the interim, our discussions spin into conspiracy theories and it's easy to separate comments like dogmods because they are an aggressive / Trump-like statement.

Honestly mate, I can't think of another game, at all, where a discussion like this could take place. You [helped and/or single-handedly] built the economy that got us here to this ridiculous conversation. That is a probably a world's first. Any other game we would be bitching and moaning about paying 10 dollars a booster to get 3 legendaries a pack instead of the chance of one.

Those sort of viewpoints like dogmods are in the minority and/or the result of a thread run a bit wild. Please don't take it to heart.

thegreybetween
01-27-2016, 05:20 PM
...I wouldn't have fought internally to create a CoD mail transfer as a redundant way to exchange goods and currencies between accounts.

Wait, does this mean that we're no longer expecting a direct barter/trading interface? I know that the AH technically satisfies the "T" in TCG, and that the Mail/CoD system supplements it in a somewhat redundant way - but item mailing is also the closest thing to a trading system we have now for direct player-to-player transactions, and if it is viewed as a convenient redundancy, it makes me wonder where an actual barter interface ranks in the scheme of things.

Sorry if I'm totally reading that wrong. But please put me in at +1000 for an actual direct-to-player barter/trade interface one of these days.

fido_one
01-27-2016, 05:21 PM
*facepalm*

Chark
01-27-2016, 05:25 PM
Wait, does this mean that we're no longer expecting a direct barter/trading interface? I know that the AH technically satisfies the "T" in TCG, and that the Mail/CoD system supplements it in a somewhat redundant way - but item mailing is also the closest thing to a trading system we have now for direct player-to-player transactions, and if it is viewed as a convenient redundancy, it makes me wonder where an actual barter interface ranks in the scheme of things.

Sorry if I'm totally reading that wrong. But please put me in at +1000 for an actual direct-to-player barter/trade interface one of these days.

It's pretty low on the list of things given that there is already two methods to exchange goods. Yes, I know the methods are technically not barter because you have to use currency as an intermediary. However, there's a long list of things that we want to do to improve the game and I am afraid that prioritizing something like peer to peer trade is difficult.

Miwa
01-27-2016, 05:26 PM
Wait, does this mean that we're no longer expecting a direct barter/trading interface? I know that the AH technically satisfies the "T" in TCG, and that the Mail/CoD system supplements it in a somewhat redundant way - but item mailing is also the closest thing to a trading system we have now for direct player-to-player transactions, and if it is viewed as a convenient redundancy, it makes me wonder where an actual barter interface ranks in the scheme of things.

Sorry if I'm totally reading that wrong. But please put me in at +1000 for an actual direct-to-player barter/trade interface one of these days.

Likely means he fought to have it prioritized. They want to have everything, but priority determines *when* you will get it. Without focusing developer time on COD vs. something else, we wouldn't have it.

*doh* I'm too slow... :P

dogmod
01-27-2016, 05:29 PM
Not even sure how to address all of this...

Yes, I indirectly set gold/plat exchange rate by increasing/decreasing gold sinks/faucets. Yes, that's the nature of building an economy in a game. Claiming that we are controlling the exchange rate seems a little hyperbolic though: we don't specifically set the rate and we have been pretty clear that we are willing to tolerate a fairly wide band of the exchange rate (anyone remember when gold was 1:80? anyone remember when gold was 1:300?).

While attaching a plat price tag to every gold spend in the game may be more convenient for a certain section of people, I can't imagine that we would ever do this for a multitude of reasons including the fact that it would kill the exchange of goods and currency between paying and non-paying players and in fact would ruin our game for both types of players. Not to mention the fact that for most things, you already have that option in the form of an Auction House. Don't want to spin the wheels for gold or open chests? You can always go buy most of the stuff that comes out of those systems on the AH for plat.

The vig comment is also a little rough. We need it to keep garbage data from item pricing (otherwise two accounts would spam commons for 1000s of plat and hexprice.com would be worthless). We also round down (keeping transaction costs at the lowest levels from ruining incentives to sell commons, etc to non-paying players). Finally, if I really wanted to jam you up on the AH vig, I wouldn't have fought internally to create a CoD mail transfer as a redundant way to exchange goods and currencies between accounts.

I know that on the forums I at times play this persona of being greedy and wanting your money, but let's be clear: it is just a persona and nothing could be further from the actual goals we have for this game and tenets we have internally for how we treat players in terms of monetization.

I actually think all of you have the best interests of the game and the community at heart. I was frustrated and poorly voiced my frustrations about the unintended consequences of your guys strategy for F2P.

It is one of the friendliest F2P games in terms of value of a free players time of any game I have played. That is great in attracting new players. That is great for the free to play players. It is not great for paying players. It is actually the opposite of great. Now I am willing to accept that there is going to be a trade off to achieve a viable F2P economy. You can have a viable platinum economy without any of these things.

I find the wheels of fate un fun. I am cheap and do not enjoy the sensation of feeling like I am losing value by opening an unrolled chest. This is the same negative experience that your team avoided by making it so GenCon rewards weren't gated by when you opened packs/chests. The wheels of fate take forever to open the chests that I have rolled. Due to the value of gold and the costs of rolling chests I do not derive enjoyment from rolling the chests I do roll and it generally leaves me thinking about the cards/items I could have spent that gold on instead. To obtain gold I need to either grind away at the game. I enjoy playing the game, I do not enjoy grinding the game to get some amount of gold necessary to open my chests. If I want to obtain gold another way I either have to invest money or time. Time being using the clunky auction house to convert my cards/chests/doodads into gold. That or trying to directly trade with people which involves haggling and more time.

Of course I could just sell the chests on the AH or in trade but that takes time too and it leaves me feeling like I am missing out.

Or I could just leave the pile of chests in my stash mostly unspun, glaring at me like a spurned lover every time I look into my inventory.

All of this is exacerbated by the current gold to plat ratio. While you can say you don't directly control it you exert a significant influence on it and the actions that I have seen have pushed the gold to plat ratio significantly in favor of gold.

thegreybetween
01-27-2016, 05:31 PM
Thanks for the reply! No worries. I just wanted to confirm that the mail interface wasn't the targeted end of that line of development. Glad to hear it will make its way along one of these days :)

Xenavire
01-27-2016, 05:58 PM
I could live with the costs of the rolls, as long as certain elements of the wheels just 'felt better'. Is it possible to get a look in at QoL improvements without gutting the systems power as a sink? If we could get a few extra feel-good moments, I'd spin again.

Rendakor
01-27-2016, 06:49 PM
I'd settle for "Open Multiple Chests" and maybe even "Spin Multiple Chests" options.

ossuary
01-27-2016, 08:03 PM
Chark,

First of all, let me just add my voice to those saying we know the "Chark" persona is intentionally over the top, and that it doesn't reflect your real attitude towards the game, the economy, or the players. We know that you care very deeply about all of this and that you're not being flippant about how the economy is managed. That said, we love the persona, please don't change it! :)

This seems like a good place to put this. I've talked about this with many people (CZE staff included) at various times, but never directly to your face, because the one time I was able to make it out to the offices, you weren't there that day / were too busy / had already gone home (not sure which).

The Wheels of Fate are a bit of a sore point for me, because I so so so want them to be amazing, and they are so very close to being that, but due to a couple of small things, I feel they have actually skewed slightly sideways into unfun territory. I've spent dozens and dozens of hours thinking about this (many of them while actively slogging through chests myself!), as economies and game theory are personal interests of mine, and I believe a few minor changes to the overall functionality of the wheels would actually make them more effective AND less painful / more fun for the players at the same time.

Firstly, the way the wheels spin now is not exciting. Because the results for all 3 wheels are set and there are a limited number of animations, you know immediately when the 2nd wheel clicks into place what is happening 99.99% of the time, and often you know as soon as the first one clicks into place (especially true for mushrooms). Also, when the animations for the wheels were revamped so they all click into place more quickly / together, this further reduced the time a player had to build up anticipation / excitement - the original animation where they clicked into place one by one was closer to ideal, even though they were still in a set pattern.

The way to improve this would be to restore the older "slow rolling" wheels, and make it so that the individual wheel results are not pre-set, but have a more dynamic result. Every single wheel should individually be able to show a red icon, a gold icon, or an eye, independent of the others (i.e. the 3rd slot should be able to land on an eye or a gold icon even if the previous 2 wheels didn't). This way, what feels like a "bad" roll can be redeemed at the last moment, giving at least a partial payout. This is an important psychological event, as it makes the player never give up hope until the very end. By the same token, having 2 positive results (2x gold moons, say) should not just have 2 possible outcomes - either I miss the 3rd and get just some gold, or I actually get the big prize - you should also be able to get a normal white moon here, and instead of getting the big prize, you get the "normal" prize for 3x white moons, plus the gold from the gold icons. It's important to have multiple ways to win and multiple ways to almost win, as this causes anticipation on both ends of the spectrum, as well as the thrills of unexpected partial payouts on the last spin, and the letdowns of non-jackpot but still positive results with less than 3x gold icons (I didn't win the big prize, but I got some gold back and I get to keep spinning, instead of just the gold and no more spins).

In tandem with this, I believe that the partial payouts need to be revamped slightly as well. The way the wheels work right now is more closely associated with modern, multi-line slot machines in terms of their payouts, in that you don't get back as much as you put in when you get a minor prize. The problem with this is that the wheels are not a multi-line slot machine, they are a single line slot machine. Because of this, a partial win actually feels emotionally like a loss - not only did you lose the ability to spin the chest anymore, but you didn't even get back as much gold as you put in if you were spinning anything higher than a common. Multi-line slot machines pay out more than the cost of the single line, but less than the cost of all the lines combined, resulting in a net loss while still feeling like a win emotionally.

The same system simply doesn't work with a single line slot machine, since the pay vs. prize equation is always all or nothing. Under the current system (especially with higher rarity chests), MOST of the "winning" spins actually feel like losing spins to the player, due to the enormous cost of attempting the spin. The current system is therefore a disincentive for the player to keep spinning their chests, especially the higher rarity ones.

To help correct this, I believe that gold payouts need to scale with chest rarity instead of being a flat amount. A single gold icon should give you 50% of the gold you paid to spin. A double gold icon should give you double the gold you spent on the spin. A triple gold icon should reward triple the gold spent to spin, in addition to whatever other prizes those matching icons represent. And again, you should be able to get a gold icon inside of another winning spin (i.e. white spider, gold spider, white spider, rewarding 50% gold spent + rare PVP card), or even 1-2 gold icons on "mismatched" icons, rewarding gold and nothing else.

With these 2 modifications, the player is always anxious / excited about the entire spinning process, down to the last icon, hoping to at least recoup some of their losses even if the rest of the spin is already known to be a losing spin, and landing a respin icon or a gold icon on the last wheel results in a feeling of excitement at the last second recovery, which encourages more attempts. Obviously, because this system will result in more gold being paid out for individual spin results, the percentages may need to be mucked about with a little - there's no actual need for the total gold paid out to increase if that is not desired, merely shifting it onto different results in the ways I've suggested still gives the positive emotional responses from the player instead of the harsher, more discouraging results we have now.

I'd also like to touch briefly on chest contents, as this is another pain point for players. The developers of Destiny learned the hard way how much players *hate* getting lower level loot from their chests than the level of the chest itself. It is an extremely depressing feeling that does not encourage further attempts. This is another disincentive we have right now to continued spinning activity. Nobody remembers the time they got a rare equipment from a common chest, even though that's a pretty great result, but you better believe they remember the legendary chest they opened (after it cost them $5+ worth of gold to upgrade that high!) that had two pieces of uncommon equipment in it. Chests should never contain lower level loot than the level of the chest itself (with the exception of primals obviously), the chest level should always be the baseline level of rarity item you'll get out of it.

Right now, there are a lot of opportunities for very bad feelings from a player when upgrading a chest and then getting lower level items out of it, especially at the rare level since they still only get 1 item from it but they can easily get the exact same item out of it as if they'd left it at uncommon. Again, drop rates can be modified slightly to deal with total numbers, but you should never have to deal with opening a chest and finding items two rarity levels lower inside.

Finally, I'm well aware that revamping this system would be very low on the priority list at this point, with other key features of the game still to be delivered, but I hope these thoughts can be taken into account down the road when the time comes to retool it (possibly adjusting chest drops on a go-forward basis if it's unreasonable to modify the existing loot tables). I strongly believe that making these modifications to the system would result in both more total gold being spent on the wheels, as well as the players being more happy with the expenditure.

And however unlikely it might be to actually happen, there's always the idea of that super lucky player who could actually turn a profit from getting enough gold icons in a short time - stories like that just fuel even more players to try it themselves, to live the dream. And isn't that what gambling is supposed to be all about anyway? :)

LNQ
01-27-2016, 09:27 PM
This is a pretty dangerous assumption to make given that you have no insight into how people engage with WoF and Chest Opening on aggregate. You only have your personal insight (and maybe a few more data points you collected from others), and you are making an assumption that your personal insight is indicative of everyone's.

Chest spins continue to be the biggest daily gold sink in the game for the last 2 years (yes, they outpaced the gold cards in the store when those were available). They are also an incentive for paying players to engage with non-paying players by trading cards (or plat) for gold. Without significant pressure from this system, the gold exchange between paying and non-paying players wouldn't happen.

I get that people's individual tolerance to the WoF system varies, but on aggregate people engage with it on daily basis and it is one of the reason why we have liquidity in gold sales and trades. I don't want to ruin that by making it easier to complete.

Having said that, I do want to remind people that it's a lot easier to add rewards to systems than to take them away, so we are being conservative with gold drops and keeping an eye on gold rates in the first adventure zone. Our long term plan is to continuously assess the gold/per hour gain progression in the campaign. Expect gold (and possibly other) rewards to be reworked for all zones with each subsequent release of a new zone. This is necessary because we are putting out the campaign somewhat piecemeal. For example you'll notice that there are very few ways to spend gold in the campaign for now, but we expect the AZ 2 features to change that (remember how people wanted more character slots? Ben has a ton of things cooked up that we can sell you for gold).

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I admit that particular assumption is an unfounded one, trying to get my points across.

It works well as a stepping stone for one (perhaps only) point that you didn't address and that the aggregate data doesn't tell you, though. That is that the concerns I and others have raised stem (at least for my part) a lot from the fact that the WoF has begun to feel like an unfun mechanic. The fact that people still spin a lot does not tell you how they feel afterwards and in the long run. You might argue that because it is being used means that it is fun, but part of it comes also from gambling being addictive and WoF being the only gold sink currently that yields gameplay items. At least some of us are feeling the pain.

I think its telling that this thread has such a lively discussion going. It is a real issue for some of us. Its also telling that most arguments against my stance admit that from a rational perspective spinning chests is a really stupid thing to do. And not in a "gambling is never profitable" way but in a "that's a complete and absolute waste of money that is nowhere near compensated by the fun in playing a game of chance" way. No one argues that it makes too much sense except just one poster kind of (TJTaylor). I would imagine that there are tweaks to be made that would remedy this situation at least to some extent while still maintaining the sink as a sufficient one. Ossuary above has a few good points above, the scaling gold icon rewards the most obvious and really minor one that would have miniscule economic impact but a big positive impact on the experience.

So, sure, its the biggest sink in the game. But it doesnt mean that it is fun and that all is perfect with it.

Sorry for retorting to some unfounded arguments. I hope you dont dismiss the founded ones completely because of it.

Regardless of this disagreement, I really appreciate the job youre doing and the openness about the economy.

Lukezors
01-27-2016, 09:50 PM
I strongly agree with you LNQ. The biggest issue is it feels like it's punishing the people who actually pay for things by essentially say, ok now pay more once you open a pack. I understand that they want interaction between paying and free players, but it feels like their is too much focus on helping out the f2p player.

Selanius
01-27-2016, 11:46 PM
To help correct this, I believe that gold payouts need to scale with chest rarity instead of being a flat amount. A single gold icon should give you 50% of the gold you paid to spin. A double gold icon should give you double the gold you spent on the spin. A triple gold icon should reward triple the gold spent to spin, in addition to whatever other prizes those matching icons represent. And again, you should be able to get a gold icon inside of another winning spin (i.e. white spider, gold spider, white spider, rewarding 50% gold spent + rare PVP card), or even 1-2 gold icons on "mismatched" icons, rewarding gold and nothing else.


I really really really really like this suggestion. It still probably won't be enough by itself to make me spin higher level chests now that gold has slowed down so much, but it is getting closer. +1 to this.

LNQ
01-28-2016, 12:03 AM
One thing I hadn't mentioned is that I'm a gambler at heart and should be loving the WoF, and I did in the beginning. That's why it's killing me that I can't bring myself to splurge on the WoF because the payout ratio is so abysmally bad contrasted to the cost to spin. I absolutely hate, hate, hate it that spinning sucks at higher stakes. I would love to spin rares and legendaries and feel like I'm a high roller with gold to burn, but if I do it now I just feel like I'm a schmuck who's hooked to a game and is being extracted of his money a la Clash of Clans and the like.

So I want to underline that I'm not a greedy trader trying to gain money by playing the game and am not trying to change a system so I can profit more. No, I just want to feel like having fun while spending my gold. In the process I would no doubt enter the gold for PvP cards market.

Crota
01-28-2016, 08:37 AM
I'm curious to know how many chests are being opened without being rolled? If it is a high number, this means that HexEnt has a gold sink that they are not fully utilizing.

One last thought as way to make WoF feel more rewarding:

On chests Rare and up. Any time you match three symbols, aside from upgrade without spin, upgrade with spin, and double upgrade with spin, reward us with a FREE SPIN as well.

I should never feel like winning a "free rare card" one of the hardest things to spin, is less valuable than the free spin offered by (eye, eye, anything)

This may actually encourage people to spin chests more and increase the vale of gold.

Vorpal
01-28-2016, 11:18 AM
Great posts in this thread from Chark and Ossuary.

I think generally, the principle of rolling only on some chests and not others, which you open without using their spins, is perfectly fine. I spin commons and open the others. People who think they absolutely HAVE to roll every chest before they can open it, and that gold should fountain forth from the heavens until they can do that, are IMO, wrong.

I like the idea of some high gold sinks that rewards sought after cosmetic items (like the primal sleeves).

That said, I do think most of the 'winning' rolls for legendary chests, for example, actually just feel like losing rolls.

I also really really really hate opening a chest and getting a lower rarity piece of equipment. This shouldn't happen. Destiny used to do this, everyone hated it beyond belief, they changed it.

nicosharp
01-28-2016, 11:41 AM
A thought about this conversation crossed my mind about how influential and important it could be to have some supporting data in the client, and specifically in the WOF screen.

Examples:
Number of Set (X) Primal Chest Exclusive Sleeves not obtained: (X)
Number of Set (X) Legendary Equipment from Chests not obtained: (X)
Number of Set (X) Rare Equipment from Chests not obtained: (X)
So on - As a hover text box when you are over a Set (X) chest.

What Chark said from a outside look in, is valid, but I do agree, even though I've played a bit of Devil's Advocate, that having the feeling that you want to spin higher rarity chests, but know it's a diminished value for doing so, is not a good feeling. It would be nice to have slightly more scaling incentive to spin higher rarity chests. Especially due to the variety of rewards that proc from common chest, and no true scaling value jump until primal chests. What the economy shows it is doing, is not the same as a measure of the feeling of happiness in the mechanic of doing it.

LNQ
01-29-2016, 12:48 AM
What Chark said from a outside look in, is valid, but I do agree, even though I've played a bit of Devil's Advocate, that having the feeling that you want to spin higher rarity chests, but know it's a diminished value for doing so, is not a good feeling. It would be nice to have slightly more scaling incentive to spin higher rarity chests. Especially due to the variety of rewards that proc from common chest, and no true scaling value jump until primal chests. What the economy shows it is doing, is not the same as a measure of the feeling of happiness in the mechanic of doing it.

Thanks for pointing this out. I feel it's important that as many as possible point out the lack of fun in spinning the upper tier chests.


Great posts in this thread from Chark and Ossuary.

I think generally, the principle of rolling only on some chests and not others, which you open without using their spins, is perfectly fine. I spin commons and open the others. People who think they absolutely HAVE to roll every chest before they can open it, and that gold should fountain forth from the heavens until they can do that, are IMO, wrong.

Let's be fair though, there are hardly any posts that have such an extreme stance on the chests. I'm just advocating a system where it actually makes a little bit of sense objectively to spin the chests, especially the higher tears. I realize that my stance might seem that I want to be able to spin everything all the time but that's not the case. I'm fine with opening some chests without spinning. I have spun / bought all rewards from sets 1 and 2 so I don't feel like gambling on the spins there is interesting at all, so I'm likely just going ahead and opening them in bulk when it's made possible.

Also, I'd like to commend pretty much everyone in this thread, not just a few posters. The discussion's been great all around, and exceptionally civil. Thanks to all. :)

Vorpal
01-29-2016, 08:07 AM
But pricey chasey cosmetic items never make sense objectively!

That's not a reason to take them out of your game :)

A lot of people enjoy trying to get them. Not me, but that's ok. We all enjoy different aspects of the game.

LNQ
01-29-2016, 08:34 AM
I shouldve added considering the fun factor. Now the fun factor of spinning high tiers is not enough to compensate for the lost value. Just like opening packs vs using AH, you shouldnt lose out too much. When for example legendary spin is over 20 times a common spin and less than 2 times the payout, we have a problem. The fun in spinning a leg is hardly enough to compensate.

ossuary
02-01-2016, 01:07 PM
Was really hoping to see conversation on this continue...

Selanius
02-01-2016, 01:20 PM
Same. This is an important topic to me.

Tazelbain
02-01-2016, 01:25 PM
Why? Chark says we don't know what we are talking about because we don't have the data and he's not going to give us the data. So this conversion isn't going any where.

I am on in agreement with Chark on this issue. But I dislike how he gives non-answers like a politician.

Selanius
02-01-2016, 01:27 PM
Some people spinning chests doesn't mean that gold couldn't be worth more with other gold sinks. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that more people might spin chests if they were priced better to spin or spinning felt more fun.

Saying "chest spinning is fine because X people spin chests" is NOT an answer to "wouldn't more people spin chests if the process felt more rewarding and the numbers were tuned down a bit". Unless X = all legendary chests of course.

darkwonders
02-01-2016, 01:43 PM
Was really hoping to see conversation on this continue...

I really like your suggestions. It would add a whole new feel to rolling chests.

Currently, whenever I'm done with a draft or sealed, I go right to my chests to see what common chests I got.

I always am a bit miffed when hardly any of the chests from those opened packs are common. Just feels like a wasted opportunity cause I don't want to waste gold on spinning higher level chests.

nicosharp
02-01-2016, 01:47 PM
This conversation is really difficult to tackle because most people here with gripes about the system, also have gripes with letting go of unspun chests.

That unfortunately proves that Chark's data can only be correct, and that the system is working.

The "unfun" is in the time or money one needs to spend to acquire the gold to roll their higher tier chests. However, those individuals are not valuing the liquidity of their assets as part of the mechanic to fuel this interest.

It's a collectors' quagmire

fido_one
02-01-2016, 01:48 PM
I think to sum this, a lot of the people in this thread feel that spinning chests greater than commons equates to things being 'less fun' which doesn't jive with the added cost of spinning those higher rarity chests. Having Chark weigh in was illuminating, but a lot of people agree that regardless of how much of a stable the mechanic has been for a gold sink, that doesn't equate to a feel-good experience. That doesn't mean it stinks either, but it's easy to muddy the subtleties of the criticism in the arguments made here and make it sound we just don't like the mechanic at all, which isn't true at all as I think most of the people in this thread love rolling chests.

Personally, I think it has to change. Economies change, Hex's economy has changed dramatically since chest rolls were introduced but the chest roll loot and rewards have not changed, so Chark's argument of it being the gold standard (sorry) and implication that it could stay that way (as new sinks come in) doesn't resonate with me. Like many here, I think it needs tweaking to align it's value with other things that Hex does, and I think some of the comments here are really good for improving the system, and speak to the issue at hand even if those proposed changes would upset the economy too much.

I think there is another divide here which we haven't analyzed, or at least another angle that should be considered, which is 'what do chests look like to new players vs. old players?' There is a reddit thread kind of addressing this, but the feel for how 'fun' chests are is relative. I think to a lot of veteran players, or at least myself, it is less fun as it used to be, and I see the potential to make it as special as it was when it was first introduced way back when.

I think a lot of that relative perspective is because rolling a rare or a legendary was not quantifiable before as we had no idea what was in the chests. When I was playing the hell out of draft and the gold economy was linked to that, I would roll a rare or a legendary at the idea of getting to a higher chest level. Now we know what is behind the curtain and I think from these forums that the majority of people's excitement for chest rarity levels isn't in line to what it was before we knew what was behind that curtain. Before we knew, there was a lot of speculation asking if a 30k gold spin was worth it knowing the loot table didn't change from a common. Now we know what is in those suckers and have campaign loot to throw into the pool of spoils. The value of chest roles changed because they exist in a very different game than when they were introduced almost two years ago.

I think a lot of players don't spin anything beyond commons and looking at a stock pile of unrolled uncommon / rares / legendaries and not being as excited as they were before about rolling them is a really important factor to think about regardless of how much the sink is used within the community.

fido_one
02-01-2016, 02:00 PM
Why? Chark says we don't know what we are talking about because we don't have the data and he's not going to give us the data. So this conversion isn't going any where.

I am on in agreement with Chark on this issue. But I dislike how he gives non-answers like a politician.

I'm going to be frank and say that is an unwarranted low blow.

Gives non-answers like a politician? Dude is the most open person on things other companies wouldn't dare to even squeak about publicly, let alone on a forum. I think that opinion is very far off the mark and is just the sort of thing that would make any person in his position less likely to be upfront about their opinions or what happens behind the scenes.

He's coming from an entirely different perspective, and he is disagreeing with points made. Just because we disagree and he has the power to evoke direct change and we don't doesn't mean one should label him as being disingenuous, which is about as far from the truth / public-record that one can get.

He also didn't say 'discussion over I'm not changing my mind' so I think it does a further discredit to think he or other people at HexEnt would ever be that totalitarian. They have shown time and time again over the past three years that they are the exact opposite.

Voormas
02-01-2016, 02:02 PM
The only feel-bad experience I ever had with rolling chests was earning gold in the Arena meaning more fights without seeing Uruunaz which led to soul-crushing resignation that I will never have those damn sleeves - rolling hundreds of real-dollar equivalent in gold was comparatively pretty fun!

Chark
02-01-2016, 02:36 PM
Saying "chest spinning is fine because X people spin chests" is NOT an answer to "wouldn't more people spin chests if the process felt more rewarding and the numbers were tuned down a bit". Unless X = all legendary chests of course.

The "you'll make it up in volume" argument.

For what it's worth, in the 10 years of me running tournaments for physical and digital games, the most consistent thing I hear from players is: "just increase prizes and you'll get more people playing in your tournaments." It's almost a rite of passage for me when designing tournaments and rewards for a game now. But the reality is that the prizes to attendance is not linear (just like spin discounts and volume of spins is not).

It's really hard objectively to say what it means to have "the numbers...tune down a bit" and how many fun units you get out of having what now temporarily feels like a discount ("[fells] more rewarding"). We can scale the cost to spin and look at how players engage with the system on aggregate, but if we miss, going back to the original numbers will be very difficult.


Economies change, Hex's economy has changed dramatically since chest rolls were introduced but the chest roll loot and rewards have not changed, so Chark's argument of it being the gold standard (sorry) and implication that it could stay that way (as new sinks come in) doesn't resonate with me. Like many here, I think it needs tweaking to align it's value with other things that Hex does, and I think some of the comments here are really good for improving the system, and speak to the issue at hand even if those proposed changes would upset the economy too much.

This is a good summary for the argument for why we would look at revisiting the two systems. And if we do revisit this, I'll certainly be re-reading Ossuary's suggestions in this thread (among others).

dogmod
02-01-2016, 03:15 PM
However, those individuals are not valuing the liquidity of their assets as part of the mechanic to fuel this interest.



I think some of this is due to the AH. I would sell more things for gold if it were easier to do so. It is sort of easy to list a single item. It is more difficult to list a single item and feel like you are listing it for a fair price that might actually sell. It is very difficult to list multiple items and feel like you are listing them at fair prices for yourself/others and that they will actually sell. Any unsold auction feels like a waste of my time.

nicosharp
02-01-2016, 03:39 PM
I think some of this is due to the AH. I would sell more things for gold if it were easier to do so. It is sort of easy to list a single item. It is more difficult to list a single item and feel like you are listing it for a fair price that might actually sell. It is very difficult to list multiple items and feel like you are listing them at fair prices for yourself/others and that they will actually sell. Any unsold auction feels like a waste of my time.
Having Hexprice.com API or something for Hover data, or steam marketplace like statistics would be super helpful. A faster way to view the item you are about to post, and faster way to choose items to post would also be helpful. I avoid the AH unless I get desperately low on plat, and even then try to minimize my time there with only a few big ticket listings.

Tazelbain
02-01-2016, 03:46 PM
Just copy everything from EvE's markets!

dogmod
02-01-2016, 03:58 PM
Just copy everything from EvE's markets!

I have never played EvE but this system sounds amazing from what Yoss has espoused.

TOOT
02-01-2016, 04:17 PM
I think part of the problem is that the community as a whole criminally undervalues the contents of the higher rarity items.

The cost to obtain these things should be reflected in the pricing of items on the AH. I'm not really sure why it's so low, but if the real chase items that are available in chests were sold for a lot higher pricing i.e. similar as to what it costs to obtain these items in terms of gold spent, the problem would/should be self-correcting.

I guess part of the problem is that at least for the equipment, you only need 1 for a playset of 4 cards. If every Phenteo card needed a Staff of the Brood Priest, then the problem might fix itself. Cards like Cerulean Sky Mage should ideally sell for 3-4x more than they do sell for.

Now that PVE is out, and at least for future sets, the demand should creep up higher to the supply of chest items or at least improve from how it's been. If that's the case and you are getting back 3000 plat for a chase PVE card only found in chests, players can lower and recoup their costs more easily than in the past.

The only problem with all this is that legendary chests drop from boosters without having to roll them up into legendary chests. I think one solution would be to seriously decrease the drop-rate for rare/legendary chests when generated from boosters to keep the supply down. I know the bug from set 1 increased the supply of those chests as they were generating far too frequently at the time.

If it is super hard to even get to a legendary chest in the first place, the contents will be that much more valuable which can go towards lowering the costs to get them. If both legendaries and primals could only be obtained by "rolling up" the contents would be worth more, which you could sell for, to enable you to clear out backlogs a little faster and less costly.

Brjuntinaar
02-01-2016, 04:33 PM
The only problem with all this is that legendary chests drop from boosters without having to roll them up into legendary chests. I think one solution would be to seriously decrease the drop-rate for rare/legendary chests when generated from boosters to keep the supply down. I know the bug from set 1 increased the supply of those chests as they were generating far too frequently at the time.

If it is super hard to even get to a legendary chest in the first place, the contents will be that much more valuable which can go towards lowering the costs to get them. If both legendaries and primals could only be obtained by "rolling up" the contents would be worth more, which you could sell for, to enable you to clear out backlogs a little faster and less costly.
When I was reading this thread earlier I came to a really similar conclusion, except that I think they should reduce the likelihood of getting uncommons as well. Make common chests VERY common, say 90% of chests. This will increase the supply of those so that they can be rolled more often. It will also severely reduce supply of the other rarity chests so that opening them and getting their contents is more attractive.

Or...what about this alternative? Scrap the chest rarity system altogether, and make all chests start out as "tier 1". There would be 5 tiers of chests, just like there are 5 rarities currently. The only difference is that only Tier 1 chests would drop from packs. Chests must be upgraded in order to be a higher rarity. Doing something like that would solve the current issue of uncommon / rare chests being eclipsed in price and worth by common chests.

Lafoote
02-01-2016, 04:45 PM
The "solutions" presented just sound like a brainstorming session intended to make people hate the game. Just lower the gold requirements or improve roll results with higher chests and the value will explode. Making them less common will just lead to player resentment and anger.

Rendakor
02-01-2016, 04:57 PM
From what Chark said, they aren't actually intending to change the system. So, I'd get used to it. HXE have enough features that aren't even implemented yet that I don't imagine anything will get an overhaul before everything else is in the game.

ossuary
02-01-2016, 05:09 PM
And if we do revisit this, I'll certainly be re-reading Ossuary's suggestions in this thread (among others).

To be honest, this is all I was really hoping for anyway. I know a (potential) retooling of the chest / spin / wheels system is really far down on the list compared to other features that are yet to be implemented at all or are still in an infant state, I'm just hopeful that if/when that time does come to look at it, we can get a good dialogue going. I don't want to just see more money being paid out (necessarily), I just want the experience to be more fun and more engaging for the players - which hopefully will increase both satisfaction for the player base, AND overall gold spent.

Lafoote
02-01-2016, 05:50 PM
One thing I will say is I buy a lot of packs and there is still never enough gold to roll them. If I pay hundreds for packs, do I really need to pay for gold too? I could understand if I never played PvE, but that's ALL I play! I haven't made it a full time job, but I've logged more than a few hours since alpha.

It still feels like being a big supporter of pack sales is a punishment. I actually enjoy the rolling bit, to a point. However the futility of the never ending chest backlog coupled with the obscene absence of the rewards I actually want is a real downer.

Selanius
02-01-2016, 06:04 PM
Thanks for the response Chark. I agree that it is difficult to determine a value of "utils" or fun units. I also agree that until the game has some other reliable gold sinks chests should be conservatively priced (meaning at their current values) to make sure that a reduction doesn't crash the gold economy.

I'm happy to hear that one day the prices might be revised because having millions of gold worth of chests un spun has always sat poorly with me especially considering I am missing some of the things from those chests. Right now because it is the only way to spend gold aside from the AH, I still spin chests, but if there are other reliable gold sinks in the economy I expect my behavior will change.

Svenn
02-01-2016, 07:51 PM
One thing I will say is I buy a lot of packs and there is still never enough gold to roll them. If I pay hundreds for packs, do I really need to pay for gold too? I could understand if I never played PvE, but that's ALL I play! I haven't made it a full time job, but I've logged more than a few hours since alpha.

It still feels like being a big supporter of pack sales is a punishment. I actually enjoy the rolling bit, to a point. However the futility of the never ending chest backlog coupled with the obscene absence of the rewards I actually want is a real downer.

If you never play PvE, then why even bother opening/rolling the chests. Sell them. ;) Maybe spin enough commons to get the sleeves, then buy the primals for those sleeves. Sell the rest, since it's mostly just PvE cards.

katkillad
02-01-2016, 08:43 PM
I've played through the campaign several times now and I'm still never going to roll rare or legendary chests. If this is what you intend, then great job!

dogmod
02-01-2016, 08:55 PM
I found it amusing that my reward for completing the final quest of PvE was not enough to roll a common chest.

Biz
02-01-2016, 10:09 PM
i don't know much about gold farming rates or what free to play players should or shouldn't be able to do

but i don't find rolling or opening chests to be as exciting as opening packs.
even the adventure zone packs which might be worth very little were more exciting to open

i don't know what spinning chests is supposed to be like, but it doesn't feel like awesome loot that i'm excited to find in my inventory

Yoss
02-01-2016, 10:57 PM
There should be a powerball type jackpot that is only accessible from Legendary chest rolls. It should trigger (or have a chance to trigger) only on the double upgrade result of a Legendary chest.

Voormas
02-01-2016, 11:13 PM
Player run lottery - everyone send me all your gold and your numbers and I'll report back who won

Xexist
02-02-2016, 12:07 AM
There should be a powerball type jackpot that is only accessible from Legendary chest rolls. It should trigger (or have a chance to trigger) only on the double upgrade result of a Legendary chest.

That... is actually a pretty cool idea

LNQ
02-02-2016, 04:09 AM
This conversation is really difficult to tackle because most people here with gripes about the system, also have gripes with letting go of unspun chests.

The debate on this hasn't settled yet, I would say. Because at least I will open a ton of unspun Set 1 and Set 2 chests when bulk chest opening becomes available, because I want all the chest equipment and PvE cards with minimal hassle. I expect I'm not alone on this.

And this is actually very interesting when you think about it, because I'm sure Chark knows that every single opened unspun chest is a gold sink gone to waste.

LNQ
02-02-2016, 04:11 AM
I think a lot of that relative perspective is because rolling a rare or a legendary was not quantifiable before as we had no idea what was in the chests. When I was playing the hell out of draft and the gold economy was linked to that, I would roll a rare or a legendary at the idea of getting to a higher chest level. Now we know what is behind the curtain and I think from these forums that the majority of people's excitement for chest rarity levels isn't in line to what it was before we knew what was behind that curtain.

Very accurate at least in my case. I've spend a big portion of chest spinning gold on rare and legendary chests before we knew what was in them. After that I believe the amount of gold I've spent on spinning chests has plummeted.

LNQ
02-02-2016, 04:12 AM
I'm going to be frank and say that is an unwarranted low blow.

Gives non-answers like a politician? Dude is the most open person on things other companies wouldn't dare to even squeak about publicly, let alone on a forum. I think that opinion is very far off the mark and is just the sort of thing that would make any person in his position less likely to be upfront about their opinions or what happens behind the scenes.

He's coming from an entirely different perspective, and he is disagreeing with points made. Just because we disagree and he has the power to evoke direct change and we don't doesn't mean one should label him as being disingenuous, which is about as far from the truth / public-record that one can get.

He also didn't say 'discussion over I'm not changing my mind' so I think it does a further discredit to think he or other people at HexEnt would ever be that totalitarian. They have shown time and time again over the past three years that they are the exact opposite.

I agree. I very much appreciate Chark's approach to this even though we're on the opposite sides of the fence (for now :) ).

LNQ
02-02-2016, 04:19 AM
If you never play PvE, then why even bother opening/rolling the chests. Sell them. ;) Maybe spin enough commons to get the sleeves, then buy the primals for those sleeves. Sell the rest, since it's mostly just PvE cards.

Umm, you better re-read his post, I think.

LNQ
02-02-2016, 04:21 AM
(Sorry for the multiple posts, it's just annoying to fiddle copy-pasting from multiple posts)

Very happy with the Chark response. I'm hoping this will indeed eventually be looked at. For Set 3 chests it does leave me in a bit of a limbo thinking about whether to open unspun chests or not, as I don't want to lock myself out of PvE equipment or cards from the chests but I would really like to have a shot at getting the Slaughtergear PvE cards as well from spinning.

Finally, one last reply to a quote:


There should be a powerball type jackpot that is only accessible from Legendary chest rolls. It should trigger (or have a chance to trigger) only on the double upgrade result of a Legendary chest.

Urgh, please no. The amount of envy that would generate on people who miss out would be too much.

Yoss
02-02-2016, 09:01 AM
Urgh, please no. The amount of envy that would generate on people who miss out would be too much.

I suppose you didn't win the billion dollar powerball recently. ;)

Quantius
02-02-2016, 09:33 AM
I think I've only rolled on a single legendary chest in the last 1.5-2 years, probably only 1-2 rare chests. With each set release I did roll a bunch of common/uncommon, but it's been a while. They're really poor value, getting enough gold for a single legendary roll takes a lot of effort, and then you're faced with the RNG daemon.

Outside of sleeves, it's faster and cheaper to just let someone else either get lucky or waste their own money/time to roll chests and then pick them up on the AH. And for those saying that people should be selling them for higher prices on the AH . . . I mean it's down to demand isn't it? And that just means the chest loot isn't enticing enough to make people want it, otherwise prices would be higher.

LNQ
02-02-2016, 11:31 AM
Also, it's vastly cheaper to buy packs, sell the contents and open chests than to roll to upgrade them. For example an Armies of Myth primal pack costs 1349 at AH right now. By selling the contents of that pack, you get a legendary chest at maybe around 400 plat. That's 40k gold, which is less than 5 rolls on a rare chest. Which on average won't net you a chest upgrade (plus you'd need probably around 3-5 rare chests to spin 5 times).

Of course, at AH you can buy them even cheaper directly, which further lowers the value of the contents.

The rolling costs just don't match up at all with the other ways of obtaining legendary chests. It makes no sense, plain and simple. :)

sukebe
02-02-2016, 03:11 PM
Personally, I have no problem with how chests are currently priced for spins. All the current prices mean is you change your actions depending on what your goals are:

You want to focus on collecting the wheel of fate rewards: just spin common chests. sell, trade, or simply open any chests of a higher rarity.

You want to focus on the primal chest exclusive rewards: spin rare and legendary chests only. Sell common to uncommon chests for gold or plat.

You want to collect all the items/cards that drop in chests: This is hard to summarize because there are a lot of ways to do this. you can open all chests without spinning them or sell all chests and buy the items on the AH. Or you can do something in between those 2 extremes. There are a lot of items in the chests so this is a long term goal.

You want everything from the wheel of fate and everything from the chests: There is no way around it: this will be very expensive. However, wanting everything means you should not expect it to be cheap or easy.

I feel the higher rarity chests are priced high to spin because the point in spinning them is to get luxury items (like the sleeves and AA cards you can only get from primal chests) and are not really intended to be spun by everyone. If you cannot stand opening an unspun chest then just sell them or trade them for spun chests + a little extra.

Kurposkano
02-02-2016, 03:22 PM
Having Hexprice.com API or something for Hover data, or steam marketplace like statistics would be super helpful. A faster way to view the item you are about to post, and faster way to choose items to post would also be helpful. I avoid the AH unless I get desperately low on plat, and even then try to minimize my time there with only a few big ticket listings.

I would love to make something like you describe but anything player made gets closer to people being able to make bots. I put out a tool awhile ago that can at least pull up hexsales.net (now pulls up hexprice.com since hexsales.net is gone :( ) but didn't get much interest. Some people wanted me to open source it but I didn't want to put it out there and have it turned towards a botting program and have it associated with me.

HexEnt could give us even more info than hexprice.com can give but from what I've seen recently they seem to think the AH is good as is. I've worked with what they give us but I enjoy the game of finding AH value. I know there are many others for which the friction of the AH is too high.

Vorpal
02-02-2016, 06:03 PM
Are they ever going to make legendary chests not suck? I opened 3.

I got 3 pieces of rare equipment, 2 uncommons, and no legendaries.

They know how terrible a system this is, right? They are able to learn from Destiny's mistakes?

Yoss
02-02-2016, 06:42 PM
they seem to think the AH is good as is.

However they may "seem to think" they actually do not think "the AH is good as is". They just have higher priorities, like, you know, getting Campaign out. And Set 4. And Raids. And Guilds. Et cetera.

sukebe
02-02-2016, 06:48 PM
Are they ever going to make legendary chests not suck? I opened 3.

I got 3 pieces of rare equipment, 2 uncommons, and no legendaries.

They know how terrible a system this is, right? They are able to learn from Destiny's mistakes?

I do wish there was a much lower chance of getting items that do not match the chests rarity. I am ok with there being a chance, I just don't like that it appears to be very high

FlyingMeatchip
02-02-2016, 09:12 PM
I would like to see Common chests:1200, Unc chests: 2400, Rare chests: 4800, Legendary: 10000 gp.

strawwmann
02-03-2016, 04:30 AM
I sympathise with the OP - I spin a lot Chests and it does seem sub-economic.

BUT, the CHEST ECONOMY hasn't kicked in yet.

The equipment in Chests can't be obtained any other way &, thankfully, the Campaign seems to allow a far wider variety of fun & creative (incl. role-playing) decks, than the very narrowly forced aggro. meta of Arena.
So hopefully there will be a new demand for Chest Equipment, which might be sufficient to push prices up (in gold or equivalent) to make spinning Chests pay?


Well.... I have to disagree with uninformed idiot who wrote this, they clearly hadn't played the Campaign yet.

Having played a bit of Campaign now, it is clear you can get so many PvE cards and Eq. in the Campaign that almost all the PvE stuff in Chests is pretty irrelevant and just icing on the cake, opening up different options to achieve the same goal - I can't see much of the Chest Eq. ever getting to the point that it covers the costs of spinning chests.

I'd speculated up to now buying and spinning Chests (not complaining, just a small risk I took) hoping the loot would have value once PvE was launched, but I gambled and lost.
I think I'll just hold onto the Chests I have now & see if the system is tweaked, otherwise just open them unspun and save the Gold for something more useful.

Now let's just hope the Mercs have value & it wasn't a waste collecting a full set of those! (I suspect that gamble will be a dud too?)

Cernz
02-03-2016, 05:08 AM
You win some, you lose some.

LNQ
02-03-2016, 06:56 AM
I'm hoping Mercs will have value, though likely just a handful will be really sought after. I really like the current concept of Mercs. I would also expect that some dungeons will have encounters where you really need to have a different kind of deck for that one encounter, and that's where Mercs shuld prove valuable.

Fred
02-03-2016, 08:23 AM
Chests exist to force the PvP players (those with the chests) to participate in the gold economy by selling their excess cards for gold, which the F2P players will buy to progress in the campaign.

If you are a PvP player, you are not meant to farm gold in order to spin your chests. You are meant to sell your cards and packs for gold. That is the only way that F2P players will ever get their hands on some of the most powerful rares. Cards like Wrathwood Master Moss or Periwinkle will never drop in PvE, but that doesn't mean F2P players don't want them.

Incindium
02-03-2016, 09:10 AM
I actually still think that equipment in higher rarity chests will increase in value with now that PVE is released as people find and develop the optimal decks for farming PVE content.

Part of the problem is the equipment is just not a accessible in the client as it should be. I can't see equipment when looking at a card in the AH search. I have to go to the deckbuilder and look at a card and remember the name and then search for it specifically in the AH equipment tab.

I can't even search equipment by card name the it's for. This is a big hindrance to the value and economy of equipment.

Jormungandr
02-03-2016, 09:29 AM
I can't even search equipment by card name the it's for. This is a big hindrance to the value and economy of equipment.

I realize this is a thread about slot machines, but I just want to jump in and agree with this. Being able to search AH equipment by card name would be really helpful. Also if they could add the mouse over collection #s to equipment and mercenaries, that would be great, too. (So that I can see if an equipment that looks interesting on the AH is already in my collection or not without having to leave the AH and jump through some hoops to find out)

noragar
02-03-2016, 09:57 AM
Also if they could add the mouse over collection #s to equipment and mercenaries, that would be great, too. (So that I can see if an equipment that looks interesting on the AH is already in my collection or not without having to leave the AH and jump through some hoops to find out)

You've been able to mouse over the equipment item in the AH to see how many you have in your collection for the last several months if that's what you're asking about. I don't think I've checked since the campaign patch, so one of the recent patches might have disabled it. If so, I'd hope it will return soon.

Incindium
02-03-2016, 10:12 AM
Just to note that talking about equipment prices is actually on topic as one of the major reasons higher level chest rolling is -EV is that the equipment found in them has been worth so little.

Zubrin
02-03-2016, 01:35 PM
I have about 395 Legendary Set 1 chests in my inventory. I guess I should open them since I have all three set 1 sleeves, right?

fido_one
02-03-2016, 04:12 PM
I have about 395 Legendary Set 1 chests in my inventory. I guess I should open them since I have all three set 1 sleeves, right?

No! It'll erase your ENTIRE COLLECTION. You can open only 100 max before the game breaks. Trade me 195 of those, and I'll safely disburse them.

Whew! Close one there Zubrin, wouldn't wanted to see your collection go into the ethereal.

sukebe
02-03-2016, 06:00 PM
I have about 395 Legendary Set 1 chests in my inventory. I guess I should open them since I have all three set 1 sleeves, right?

I would open them for sure. either that or sell them but the only reason to spin those is for the primal chest chance and you no longer need that.

Amsterdam
02-04-2016, 02:20 AM
It is one of the friendliest F2P games in terms of value of a free players time of any game I have played. That is great in attracting new players. That is great for the free to play players. It is not great for paying players. It is actually the opposite of great. Now I am willing to accept that there is going to be a trade off to achieve a viable F2P economy. You can have a viable platinum economy without any of these things.

[..........]

While you can say you don't directly control it you exert a significant influence on it and the actions that I have seen have pushed the gold to plat ratio significantly in favor of gold.

^^ this 100x. I love the game but this and the recent 'interpretation' of the DC tier makes me feel like HEXEnt decided getting paying players to pay for their own enjoyment isnt enough. You also force us to transfer a disproportionate amount (imho) of wealth to F2P players to be able to enjoy things we already paid for like DC bonus items and chests.

Timlagor
02-04-2016, 04:33 AM
Nice to see the thread veer into talking about AH needing improvement :-)

Ossuary's post was excellent and I'm glad Chark noted it.

I've been spinning everything up to and including Rares which may not be economic but I don't have any in reserve and get a steady flow of gold.
Legendaries I just open.
Primals I sell.

I think they should be somewhat cheaper and/or have better spin rewards at higher rarity and I'm looking forward to other uses for gold.
I think it would be a shame not to see more Store AAs at some point (even if that never topped chests as a sink it was certainly popular and now there are going to be all those Elves wanting AAs!).

wolzarg
02-04-2016, 04:35 AM
I have about 395 Legendary Set 1 chests in my inventory. I guess I should open them since I have all three set 1 sleeves, right?
I assume you are bragging trolling or both but for the sake of my sanity i have to point out those will be worth a ton when set 1 is out of the store and new collectors want the set 1 sleeves....



also I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another where it was suggested a chest tell you how many items from it you still didn't have. This is a excellent suggestion to me, you don't have to tell me what i am missing but please let me know if i have everything or not so i know if i should keep opening or if i will just get the same common equip for the 58th time.

Incindium
02-04-2016, 05:19 AM
I'm pretty sure that chest contents are generated when they are opened. So no way to tell you what are in them ahead of time. Like right now your chests are just represented by simple counts of each rarity, one tally for spin and one for no spin for each rarity.

LNQ
02-04-2016, 05:58 AM
I think he meant that it would tell how many items from the loot table that chest draws from you are missing.

Zubrin
02-04-2016, 10:20 AM
I assume you are bragging trolling or both but for the sake of my sanity i have to point out those will be worth a ton when set 1 is out of the store and new collectors want the set 1 sleeves....



also I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another where it was suggested a chest tell you how many items from it you still didn't have. This is a excellent suggestion to me, you don't have to tell me what i am missing but please let me know if i have everything or not so i know if i should keep opening or if i will just get the same common equip for the 58th time.

I was serious. I will save some, I suppose. Opening a chunk makes sense as well as there is some decent value in them already.

I had planned on eventually spinning them, but that is clearly suboptimal with sleeves.

Crota
02-04-2016, 04:41 PM
Just as a side note, the value of chests themselves have gone up quite a bit since PvE was launched. It could simply be the fact that people were undervaluing the contents of the chest and instead looking at it like a chance to spin for wheels of fate. Even though I feel that spinning chests in general needs some reworking as getting a "good" roll can feel punishing, it appears that the system is working properly.

ossuary
02-04-2016, 04:47 PM
I had planned on eventually spinning them, but that is clearly suboptimal with sleeves.

That's not necessarily true, actually. You may not need sleeves, but other people still will (especially once the set is out of print). Primals could be worth exponentially more than legendaries down the road, since people may not want to risk the cost of upgrading themselves, so they could be willing to pay a premium for the guaranteed primal chest (the RNG is already bad enough once you get to that point, of actually getting a sleeve from it).

It's a bit of a gamble either way, but it's by no means a sure thing. Right now, legendary chests tend to go for 100-300 plat, while primals show up anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 plat. It's difficult to have solid stats on this, because we don't get chest price or mercenary data on the AH dumps, just card and equipment data. There's no telling what the median price actually is, so we only have listing info snapshots to go off of.

Skirovik
02-04-2016, 05:05 PM
This is a good summary for the argument for why we would look at revisiting the two systems. And if we do revisit this, I'll certainly be re-reading Ossuary's suggestions in this thread (among others).

I just want to note how happy this makes me. Even if the result is "no change", I'll still be happy that you at least considered changes and outside input/suggestions.

Of course, I'll be happier if a change is made, provided that change makes for more "fun" WoF spinning. :D

Zubrin
02-04-2016, 05:42 PM
That's not necessarily true, actually. You may not need sleeves, but other people still will (especially once the set is out of print). Primals could be worth exponentially more than legendaries down the road, since people may not want to risk the cost of upgrading themselves, so they could be willing to pay a premium for the guaranteed primal chest (the RNG is already bad enough once you get to that point, of actually getting a sleeve from it).

It's a bit of a gamble either way, but it's by no means a sure thing. Right now, legendary chests tend to go for 100-300 plat, while primals show up anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 plat. It's difficult to have solid stats on this, because we don't get chest price or mercenary data on the AH dumps, just card and equipment data. There's no telling what the median price actually is, so we only have listing info snapshots to go off of.

To make such a calculation we would also need to know the likelihood of rolling an upgrade versus every other result, the approximate value of the legendary chest's contents (as it is value loss), the relative value of gold in the future versus now (if the value of gold depreciates, we are still better off waiting), the primal resale value in the future, and then can simply calculate the value of spinning as

ev = x(primal value) - (1-x)(chests contents/resale of spun legendary) - 30,000g

There is a value that would make it worth it and, given the low volume nature of the market, there is a good chance that the market will not self correct. So, it's possible, though I am not sure we need to exponentiate to determine the relative value of primals to legendaries. Forecasting that value is mostly speculative at this point, but do we have data on the relative probability of different spins? I kind of wish I tracked the hundreds (thousands?) of spins I have done now.

Yoss
02-04-2016, 05:44 PM
There was definitely a thread where people calculated the gold cost to upgrade the various levels, and they had data on spin probabilities.

sukebe
02-04-2016, 06:35 PM
There was definitely a thread where people calculated the gold cost to upgrade the various levels, and they had data on spin probabilities.

I didnt remember to bookmark that thread but I did write down the results it found. They found that there was an ~17% chance to get a single upgrade for a chest and an ~3% chance to get a double upgrade for a chest. If I remember right they only had a few thousand chests spun when they came up with this number so they may be a little bit off.

Zubrin
02-04-2016, 06:53 PM
I didnt remember to bookmark that thread but I did write down the results it found. They found that there was an ~17% chance to get a single upgrade for a chest and an ~3% chance to get a double upgrade for a chest. If I remember right they only had a few thousand chests spun when they came up with this number so they may be a little bit off.

Hmm, 17% seems high. We also need to know if a legendary chest can get a double upgrade (I have not seen it, but my sample is so small).

Zubrin
02-04-2016, 06:57 PM
After posting that, I just got a double upgrade on a rare. Bonus.

Final chest sleeve, huzzah.

http://imgur.com/V1OdpNl.jpg

sukebe
02-05-2016, 12:37 AM
grats :-)

and does seem a bit high but there are many ways to get a single upgrade. If I remember right they didnt bother seperating the various different upgrade options and just clumped anything that gave it a single upgrade into that 17%

ossuary
02-05-2016, 07:19 AM
The 17% number does seem a little high anecdotally, but keep in mind that both upgrade + paid spin and just upgrade (3x eyes) count as single upgrades. I can confirm that you can get a double upgrade on a legendary chest - it still just goes to primal.

My post was not intended to suggest either holding the legendaries or upgrading them to primal is better - just to point out that it's not a definite thing. There IS a calculation we could do to make that determination, as Zubrin so keenly pointed out, we just don't have quite enough information to complete that calculation (it's speculation / guesswork either way).

SolitaryTiger
02-08-2016, 11:41 AM
Chark,

First of all, let me just add my voice to those saying we know the "Chark" persona is intentionally over the top, and that it doesn't reflect your real attitude towards the game, the economy, or the players. We know that you care very deeply about all of this and that you're not being flippant about how the economy is managed. That said, we love the persona, please don't change it! :)

This seems like a good place to put this. I've talked about this with many people (CZE staff included) at various times, but never directly to your face, because the one time I was able to make it out to the offices, you weren't there that day / were too busy / had already gone home (not sure which).

The Wheels of Fate are a bit of a sore point for me, because I so so so want them to be amazing, and they are so very close to being that, but due to a couple of small things, I feel they have actually skewed slightly sideways into unfun territory. I've spent dozens and dozens of hours thinking about this (many of them while actively slogging through chests myself!), as economies and game theory are personal interests of mine, and I believe a few minor changes to the overall functionality of the wheels would actually make them more effective AND less painful / more fun for the players at the same time.

Firstly, the way the wheels spin now is not exciting. Because the results for all 3 wheels are set and there are a limited number of animations, you know immediately when the 2nd wheel clicks into place what is happening 99.99% of the time, and often you know as soon as the first one clicks into place (especially true for mushrooms). Also, when the animations for the wheels were revamped so they all click into place more quickly / together, this further reduced the time a player had to build up anticipation / excitement - the original animation where they clicked into place one by one was closer to ideal, even though they were still in a set pattern.

The way to improve this would be to restore the older "slow rolling" wheels, and make it so that the individual wheel results are not pre-set, but have a more dynamic result. Every single wheel should individually be able to show a red icon, a gold icon, or an eye, independent of the others (i.e. the 3rd slot should be able to land on an eye or a gold icon even if the previous 2 wheels didn't). This way, what feels like a "bad" roll can be redeemed at the last moment, giving at least a partial payout. This is an important psychological event, as it makes the player never give up hope until the very end. By the same token, having 2 positive results (2x gold moons, say) should not just have 2 possible outcomes - either I miss the 3rd and get just some gold, or I actually get the big prize - you should also be able to get a normal white moon here, and instead of getting the big prize, you get the "normal" prize for 3x white moons, plus the gold from the gold icons. It's important to have multiple ways to win and multiple ways to almost win, as this causes anticipation on both ends of the spectrum, as well as the thrills of unexpected partial payouts on the last spin, and the letdowns of non-jackpot but still positive results with less than 3x gold icons (I didn't win the big prize, but I got some gold back and I get to keep spinning, instead of just the gold and no more spins).

In tandem with this, I believe that the partial payouts need to be revamped slightly as well. The way the wheels work right now is more closely associated with modern, multi-line slot machines in terms of their payouts, in that you don't get back as much as you put in when you get a minor prize. The problem with this is that the wheels are not a multi-line slot machine, they are a single line slot machine. Because of this, a partial win actually feels emotionally like a loss - not only did you lose the ability to spin the chest anymore, but you didn't even get back as much gold as you put in if you were spinning anything higher than a common. Multi-line slot machines pay out more than the cost of the single line, but less than the cost of all the lines combined, resulting in a net loss while still feeling like a win emotionally.

The same system simply doesn't work with a single line slot machine, since the pay vs. prize equation is always all or nothing. Under the current system (especially with higher rarity chests), MOST of the "winning" spins actually feel like losing spins to the player, due to the enormous cost of attempting the spin. The current system is therefore a disincentive for the player to keep spinning their chests, especially the higher rarity ones.

To help correct this, I believe that gold payouts need to scale with chest rarity instead of being a flat amount. A single gold icon should give you 50% of the gold you paid to spin. A double gold icon should give you double the gold you spent on the spin. A triple gold icon should reward triple the gold spent to spin, in addition to whatever other prizes those matching icons represent. And again, you should be able to get a gold icon inside of another winning spin (i.e. white spider, gold spider, white spider, rewarding 50% gold spent + rare PVP card), or even 1-2 gold icons on "mismatched" icons, rewarding gold and nothing else.

With these 2 modifications, the player is always anxious / excited about the entire spinning process, down to the last icon, hoping to at least recoup some of their losses even if the rest of the spin is already known to be a losing spin, and landing a respin icon or a gold icon on the last wheel results in a feeling of excitement at the last second recovery, which encourages more attempts. Obviously, because this system will result in more gold being paid out for individual spin results, the percentages may need to be mucked about with a little - there's no actual need for the total gold paid out to increase if that is not desired, merely shifting it onto different results in the ways I've suggested still gives the positive emotional responses from the player instead of the harsher, more discouraging results we have now.

I'd also like to touch briefly on chest contents, as this is another pain point for players. The developers of Destiny learned the hard way how much players *hate* getting lower level loot from their chests than the level of the chest itself. It is an extremely depressing feeling that does not encourage further attempts. This is another disincentive we have right now to continued spinning activity. Nobody remembers the time they got a rare equipment from a common chest, even though that's a pretty great result, but you better believe they remember the legendary chest they opened (after it cost them $5+ worth of gold to upgrade that high!) that had two pieces of uncommon equipment in it. Chests should never contain lower level loot than the level of the chest itself (with the exception of primals obviously), the chest level should always be the baseline level of rarity item you'll get out of it.

Right now, there are a lot of opportunities for very bad feelings from a player when upgrading a chest and then getting lower level items out of it, especially at the rare level since they still only get 1 item from it but they can easily get the exact same item out of it as if they'd left it at uncommon. Again, drop rates can be modified slightly to deal with total numbers, but you should never have to deal with opening a chest and finding items two rarity levels lower inside.

Finally, I'm well aware that revamping this system would be very low on the priority list at this point, with other key features of the game still to be delivered, but I hope these thoughts can be taken into account down the road when the time comes to retool it (possibly adjusting chest drops on a go-forward basis if it's unreasonable to modify the existing loot tables). I strongly believe that making these modifications to the system would result in both more total gold being spent on the wheels, as well as the players being more happy with the expenditure.

And however unlikely it might be to actually happen, there's always the idea of that super lucky player who could actually turn a profit from getting enough gold icons in a short time - stories like that just fuel even more players to try it themselves, to live the dream. And isn't that what gambling is supposed to be all about anyway? :)

I only wish I could upvote this more Oss -- exactly my thoughts on the chest spinning situation.

Metronomy
02-08-2016, 06:13 PM
+1 with ossuarys statement (and we dont agree that often)

the current process feels just wrong...spinning chests should never feel bad...my chest amount just gets bigger and bigger and its the same for many players and I think it should not be that way

katkillad
02-08-2016, 07:03 PM
If I'm going to spend $2+ dollars on a slot machine it's going to be a real slot machine or a powerball ticket.

sukebe
02-08-2016, 07:41 PM
Personally, I have no problem with how chests are currently priced for spins. I feel the higher rarity chests are priced high to spin because the point in spinning them is to get luxury items (like the sleeves and AA cards you can only get from primal chests) and are not really intended to be spun by everyone. If you cannot stand opening an unspun chest then just sell them or trade them for spun chests + a little extra

Opening unspun chests means you do not get whatever you would have won for the spin but it also means that you did not have to pay for that spin. We do not need the luxury items found in primal chests. If you want them then be prepared to pay a lot for them, as is to be expected for luxuries.

ossuary
02-08-2016, 08:18 PM
The problem is that line of reasoning does not logically account for the Wheels of Fate's purpose as a gold sink. If too many people choose to open chests without spinning, then those chests were a waste as an incentive to spend (or acquire AND spend) gold. Every single chest that is opened without being spun could be viewed as a failure on the part of the Wheels of Fate to do their job and remove gold from the economy.

Obviously there will always be some players who choose to just open them and take what they get, and others who sell them to pass the randomness on to someone else, but the goal of the system should be to encourage the maximum number of people to spend the maximum amount of gold possible. The best way to do this is to make the system feel rewarding (even when it isn't), rather than the current system, which feels punishing (even when it's supposedly rewarding you).

sukebe
02-08-2016, 08:36 PM
The problem is that line of reasoning does not logically account for the Wheels of Fate's purpose as a gold sink. If too many people choose to open chests without spinning, then those chests were a waste as an incentive to spend (or acquire AND spend) gold. Every single chest that is opened without being spun could be viewed as a failure on the part of the Wheels of Fate to do their job and remove gold from the economy.

Obviously there will always be some players who choose to just open them and take what they get, and others who sell them to pass the randomness on to someone else, but the goal of the system should be to encourage the maximum number of people to spend the maximum amount of gold possible. The best way to do this is to make the system feel rewarding (even when it isn't), rather than the current system, which feels punishing (even when it's supposedly rewarding you).

That is true, if too many people don't spin. Chark (or was it another noble?) has said though that chests are, and have been, the best gold sink in the game, even when the AA cards were in the store. Even if most people do not spin uncommon chests and above most everyone spins common chests. And apparently there are enough people spinning enough higher rarity chests to work as they like. Besides, those who want the luxury items have to spin an awful lot of chests on average to get the items they want (especially if they want a full set of those AA's)

They system is not a failure if a lot of people do not spin the majority of the chest rarities. As long as enough people care enough to spend large sums of gold to get those primal only items then the system will continue to work. It seems from we have been told that it has been working thus far, and do not see how it will be any different in the immediate future as we continue to expand the player base.

TJTaylor
02-08-2016, 08:54 PM
To make such a calculation we would also need to know the likelihood of rolling an upgrade versus every other result, the approximate value of the legendary chest's contents (as it is value loss), the relative value of gold in the future versus now (if the value of gold depreciates, we are still better off waiting), the primal resale value in the future, and then can simply calculate the value of spinning as

ev = x(primal value) - (1-x)(chests contents/resale of spun legendary) - 30,000g

There is a value that would make it worth it and, given the low volume nature of the market, there is a good chance that the market will not self correct. So, it's possible, though I am not sure we need to exponentiate to determine the relative value of primals to legendaries. Forecasting that value is mostly speculative at this point, but do we have data on the relative probability of different spins? I kind of wish I tracked the hundreds (thousands?) of spins I have done now.

My own data suggests it is 10 and 5 percent, roughly, for single and double upgrades.

I can also confirm it was possible to get a double upgrade result on a legendary chest as of set 1. Whether that has changed since, I can't say as I opted to open most of my legendary chests rather than spin them.

Skirovik
02-08-2016, 09:53 PM
Chark (or was it another noble?) has said though that chests are, and have been, the best gold sink in the game, even when the AA cards were in the store.

What I found odd about this statement from Chark is that chests were the ONLY gold sink for the longest time. Even now the only other sink is stardust (no AAs in store) which doesn't GIVE you anything, just change what you already have. Regarding the AAs, that does surprise me somewhat, but seeing as though EVERYONE who has ever played a limited event or opened a booster has one or more chests to spin, it's super NOT surprising that the WoF has been the biggest gold sink overall.

Seriously, the higher end stardust is so expensive that I don't bother EAing anything anymore. That alone only gives me ONE goldsink, being the chests, since I can occasionally get something useful for my gold there.

So just because the WoF has been the biggest goldsink doesn't mean it's the best at what it does. It's because it's essentially the only goldsink we have.

sukebe
02-08-2016, 10:12 PM
What I found odd about this statement from Chark is that chests were the ONLY gold sink for the longest time. Even now the only other sink is stardust (no AAs in store) which doesn't GIVE you anything, just change what you already have. Regarding the AAs, that does surprise me somewhat, but seeing as though EVERYONE who has ever played a limited event or opened a booster has one or more chests to spin, it's super NOT surprising that the WoF has been the biggest gold sink overall.

Seriously, the higher end stardust is so expensive that I don't bother EAing anything anymore. That alone only gives me ONE goldsink, being the chests, since I can occasionally get something useful for my gold there.

So just because the WoF has been the biggest goldsink doesn't mean it's the best at what it does. It's because it's essentially the only goldsink we have.

he specifically said that even when we did have the AA's in store that the WoF was still the more popular gold sink. I apologize if I did not make that clear in my last post.

Skirovik
02-08-2016, 10:22 PM
he specifically said that even when we did have the AA's in store that the WoF was still the more popular gold sink. I apologize if I did not make that clear in my last post.

I did say that when the AAs were available I was surprised the WoF was still the goldsink of choice. My wording may have been a bit off/confusing there, sorry. I know personally I was gathering gold left, right and centre JUST for the AAs during that period.

sukebe
02-08-2016, 10:50 PM
I did say that when the AAs were available I was surprised the WoF was still the goldsink of choice. My wording may have been a bit off/confusing there, sorry. I know personally I was gathering gold left, right and centre JUST for the AAs during that period.

As was I :-) I was also surprised that WoF was still the bigger gold sink during that time. If they ever do AA's again it may be different as the AAs from that time are all going for 300p or more so they were a great investment. Chark knows his money however so I am confident in their numbers :-)

Ertzi
02-08-2016, 11:25 PM
I never spin any other chests than common or uncommon. If nothing changes it will take me years to spin all my chests. I just won't spin them until I have "spare" gold. Nor will I open them without spinning. Probably not what the developers had in mind, but whatever. I have long ago collected everything in the chests by other means (excluding the sleeves of course, but I don't think I will ever be crazy enough to go for those - as hard as it has been for my collector mindset).

The good thing is that, when I can finally spin my legendary chests and probably get a few primals as well (maybe around 2021), the loot in them will have high value again. I just don't even think about chests anymore. Yeah, it should have been a fun feature, but it's just frustrating at the moment. In the meantime, I just play campaign and ignore all chest. I can still have fun, but it's pretty sad I need to ignore a cool feature altogether.

LNQ
02-09-2016, 02:13 AM
The good thing is that, when I can finally spin my legendary chests and probably get a few primals as well (maybe around 2021), the loot in them will have high value again. I just don't even think about chests anymore. Yeah, it should have been a fun feature, but it's just frustrating at the moment. In the meantime, I just play campaign and ignore all chest. I can still have fun, but it's pretty sad I need to ignore a cool feature altogether.

Accurately reflects my feelings as well, though I expect to open unspun chests at some point.

A bit off-topic, but I'll also add that spinning and opening is a very frustrating experience due to the slow animations, pop-ups and having to keep dragging chest after chest to the center of the screen. Which further discourages doing anything with the chests.

Valnir
02-09-2016, 02:38 AM
A bit off topic too, but what do you think about the price of Gax and Portensio? As far as I know HEX told when the convocation event was up that there wont be a way to obtain them except buying it from another player. On the other hand on the forums I fond that they will be available in the store later..
I would realy like to use them, so what are youre suggestions? Buy them now (what is the reasonable price for them? ), or save up the plat for a later time?

Thank you in advance!

LNQ
02-09-2016, 04:29 AM
On the other hand on the forums I fond that they will be available in the store later..

I haven't heard this. I believe they are exclusive and not available via any other means.

Xenavire
02-09-2016, 04:52 AM
When people have said to buy them, they mean the AH. That and trading will be the only methods to obtain kickstarter cards.

LNQ
02-09-2016, 06:01 AM
When people have said to buy them, they mean the AH. That and trading will be the only methods to obtain kickstarter cards.

Or past Convocation cards/mercs.

Yoss
02-09-2016, 02:45 PM
Some suggestions from someone in the casino business:

This is what my casino buddy and I came up with to juice the Wheels of Fate

1) Eliminate the 'Kismet's whims are unknowable' window - it makes people dwell on losing too long and prohibits them from immediately re-spinning
2)Introduce a potential 'jackpot' reward only available if spinning the legendary chests
3) Make the gold payouts proportional to the cost of the spin, but the two lower payouts should both be lower than the actual spin cost
4) replace the eye payouts - instead of Paid Spin/Free Spin/Upgrade, implement Free Spin/Upgrade/Bonus Minigame, wherein you play a different game (ie choose 1 of 4 Kismet Luck Sacks), whose total prize value is roughly equal to the value of a chest upgrade (ie AA common, gold, unspinnable chest, no prize)
5) Allow swaps of 2 or 3 unspinnable chests for 1 spinnable one
6) Increase probability of No Prize spins, but add new spin result that doubles your next spin

Saeijou
02-09-2016, 02:52 PM
Some suggestions from someone in the casino business:

that sounds awesome!

Yoss
02-09-2016, 03:05 PM
The only one I don't like is #5 on that list.

Turtlewing
02-09-2016, 03:09 PM
Some suggestions from someone in the casino business:

Most of those sound pretty terrible to me.

I like #1 And wouldn't object to #2 or #3 (though both appear to degrade the system's purpose as a gold sink so I don't particularly support them either), but all the others sound needlessly complicated or outright annoying.

Salverus
02-10-2016, 12:39 AM
with 6 it is theoretically possible to upgrade from common to primal if you first spin double reward on next spin and then spin double upgrade.
but even with these changes, I still wouldn't spin anything over common.

Biz
02-10-2016, 01:25 AM
if someone doesn't care about sleeves, what is the expected value of spinning all the different chests?

Metronomy
02-10-2016, 05:30 AM
btw...are we all on board that its technical possible for them to retroactively award rewards once they changed the wheel of fate ?

If its not possible it would be hard to justify any change. Spinning right now should not be punished.

Tazelbain
02-10-2016, 07:10 AM
btw...are we all on board that its technical possible for them to retroactively award rewards once they changed the wheel of fate ?

If its not possible it would be hard to justify any change. Spinning right now should not be punished.I hate this logic if something is unfun and they can fix it to be fun, we shouldn't be stuck in the unfun thing forever because people spent gold on the unfun on thing. PvE is subject to change, full stop.

Draconis
02-10-2016, 07:14 AM
I hate this logic if something is unfun and they can fix it to be fun, we shouldn't be stuck in the unfun thing forever because people spent gold on the unfun on thing. PvE is subject to change, full stop.

While I would obviously be happy to retroactively get extra 'stuff' of whatever type for my past spinning, people spinning chests now are doing so based on the current reward probabilities and economics (or they're just throwing gold at it because it's a thing that's there, I guess).

But y'know, if they do want to give extra stuff to people who've been spinning a ton of chests, I still need one Reaver and three Replicators...

Metronomy
02-10-2016, 07:30 AM
i think the data is available to them...if it is a significant change (which imo is needed) the question is: why not award stuff retroactively ? (simply because of fairness)

and btw..chests are not pve

and last statement...if its not possible I still want a change (I do think it is possible though)

ossuary
02-10-2016, 07:57 AM
I would be happy to accept retroactive rewards, but I definitely don't expect it, and more importantly, I absolutely do not want them to hold off making changes and improvements for the sake of retroactive rewards. I'd FAR rather see the system improved / fixed with no retroactive rewards given, than to see the system stay as is indefinitely.

wolzarg
02-10-2016, 08:03 AM
I would be happy to accept retroactive rewards, but I definitely don't expect it, and more importantly, I absolutely do not want them to hold off making changes and improvements for the sake of retroactive rewards. I'd FAR rather see the system improved / fixed with no retroactive rewards given, than to see the system stay as is indefinitely.

Completely agree with this the system could do with a tuneup and if retroactive rewards are making them feel they can't i don't want anything to do with them.

noragar
02-10-2016, 08:05 AM
i think the data is available to them...if it is a significant change (which imo is needed) the question is: why not award stuff retroactively ? (simply because of fairness)


If they make changes, any 'extra rewards' that are added will need to be counterbalanced by either removing other rewards, or increasing the gold cost of spinning. While it might sound nice to get free stuff, how would you feel if you're on the other side of the coin and you suddenly have cards removed from your account or you find yourself with a negative gold balance?

Tazelbain
02-10-2016, 08:19 AM
i think the data is available to them...if it is a significant change (which imo is needed) the question is: why not award stuff retroactively ? (simply because of fairness)

and btw..chests are not pve

and last statement...if its not possible I still want a change (I do think it is possible though)
Sure if it is a trivial change like tweaking gold pay out, but real change is going require changes payout structures and probability tables. It'd be a brutal problem to retroactively adjust every WoF roll to the new one for the last 21 months.

LeMazing
02-10-2016, 08:55 AM
Sure if it is a trivial change like tweaking gold pay out, but real change is going require changes payout structures and probability tables. It'd be a brutal problem to retroactively adjust every WoF roll to the new one for the last 21 months.

Agreed. It'd probably just be best to revamp the WoF and chest system with set 4 or 5.

Rendakor
02-10-2016, 10:22 AM
If they're going to change it, it has to be just for new (Set 5+) chests or be applied retroactively; changing anything that pertains to the old ones would piss off tons of people. Since they already retroactively gave out Stardust, the expectation is that any future change to WoF/chests will also have rewards given out retroactively. Making it only apply to future content at least mitigates that concern.

Tazelbain
02-10-2016, 11:20 AM
If I am at a casino playing 97% payout slots and next day the casino announces it's all the slots with 98% slot, I would be excited that slots are going payout better. And I'd be pissed off when casino cancels plans to upgrade the slots when short-sighted patrons demanded retro-active payouts of 1%. If you can't accept the consequences at the time you pull the lever, don't do it.

katkillad
02-10-2016, 11:28 AM
All they have to do is begin the changes with a new sets chests, no retroactive crap needed.

TJTaylor
02-10-2016, 12:43 PM
I agree. No need to award anything retroactively. I'd rather just see improvements to the system to make it less like a chore and actually an enjoyable part of the HEX experience.

malloc31
02-10-2016, 12:53 PM
I am not going to complain if they give retroactive rewards, but also wouldnt complain at all if they don't, but I would like to see all chests new and old changed in the same way.

whats past is past but at least from now on they could all be equal, if it is worth changing for the new ones the same logic can be used to say it is worth changing the old ones

Tazelbain
02-10-2016, 01:24 PM
All they have to do is begin the changes with a new sets chests, no retroactive crap needed.But if chests are unfun in Set 01-03 and they make chests fun in Set 04+, that doesn't change the problem there is a crap load of unfun things sitting people inventories that people don't want to use. For the record I don't think there is a problem. But if there is, it needs to be fixed and not ignored because players arbitrarily decided they get "punished" if they don't get retroactive rewards. Hex isn't giving rewards to people who lost to when old hp Cressida was at 1-3hp. Were they punished? Was I punished for all those boosters I opened with only 15 cards in them?

Rendakor
02-10-2016, 01:51 PM
But if chests are unfun in Set 01-03 and they make chests fun in Set 04+, that doesn't change the problem there is a crap load of unfun things sitting people inventories that people don't want to use. For the record I don't think there is a problem. But if there is, it needs to be fixed and not ignored because players arbitrarily decided they get "punished" if they don't get retroactive rewards. Hex isn't giving rewards to people who lost to when old hp Cressida was at 1-3hp. Were they punished? Was I punished for all those boosters I opened with only 15 cards in them?
But they already DID retroactively grant rewards when they changed the specific thing we're talking about here: WoF spins. Failure to do so in the future goes against player expectations and will make people angry. When they added Stardust to spins, if they had just told everyone who had already spun chests "Sorry you're outta luck" that would have been fine by me; however, Cory's stance has consistently been that he doesn't want to force players to wait to open packs/chests because the value in them might change. Which means if WoF and/or chests are going to change in the future, it needs to be either retroactive or only for future sets' chests.

sukebe
02-10-2016, 02:00 PM
But they already DID retroactively grant rewards when they changed the specific thing we're talking about here: WoF spins. Failure to do so in the future goes against player expectations and will make people angry. When they added Stardust to spins, if they had just told everyone who had already spun chests "Sorry you're outta luck" that would have been fine by me; however, Cory's stance has consistently been that he doesn't want to force players to wait to open packs/chests because the value in them might change. Which means if WoF and/or chests are going to change in the future, it needs to be either retroactive or only for future sets' chests.

While I do not believe any changes are even necessary, I strongly believe retroactively giving out bonuses due to a change is ridiculous. you are not "missing out" if they make a change to the chests. You got exactly what you paid for when you spun in the first place.

If they have decided that chests need to change ( I don't think they do, but it is up to them) then they should change them, all of them and to hell with the greed and entitlement of the player base. I think most of us understand that making the game better is most important thing in situations like this. As other have pointed out things like this change all the time in the world and people live with it just fine. I especially like Tazelbains casino example as that is spot on in this case.

Rendakor
02-10-2016, 02:07 PM
While you may believe it's ridiculous, it's what they did in the past when they changed it. No one spoke out against how awful it was then.

I don't think the chests/wheels need a change either; I just think changing them in a way that hurts people who have already spun/open chests isn't likely to happen given Cory's past statements.

Yoss
02-10-2016, 02:17 PM
But if chests are unfun in Set 01-03 and they make chests fun in Set 04+, that doesn't change the problem there is a crap load of unfun things sitting people inventories that people don't want to use. For the record I don't think there is a problem. But if there is, it needs to be fixed and not ignored because players arbitrarily decided they get "punished" if they don't get retroactive rewards. Hex isn't giving rewards to people who lost to when old hp Cressida was at 1-3hp. Were they punished? Was I punished for all those boosters I opened with only 15 cards in them?

Starting with new rules for new chests (Set 4 onward or Set 5 onward) still seems like the cleanest solution to me. Anyone bothered by the old chests could at that point just give them away or sell them if it's such a burden. (I have already done this for most of my unwanted chests.)

hex_colin
02-10-2016, 02:33 PM
While you may believe it's ridiculous, it's what they did in the past when they changed it. No one spoke out against how awful it was then.

I don't think the chests/wheels need a change either; I just think changing them in a way that hurts people who have already spun/open chests isn't likely to happen given Cory's past statements.

I definitely did. I was not a fan of the retroactive granting of dust. Mostly because of discussions like this from now until the end of time. It set a bad precedent.

incitfulmonk21
02-10-2016, 02:43 PM
While you may believe it's ridiculous, it's what they did in the past when they changed it. No one spoke out against how awful it was then.

I don't think the chests/wheels need a change either; I just think changing them in a way that hurts people who have already spun/open chests isn't likely to happen given Cory's past statements.

I too spoke out against it for the same reason as Colin. it set a bad example and now we have people always feeling like they are owed for decisions they made.

ossuary
02-10-2016, 02:56 PM
I said the same thing then as I'm saying now - I'm not going to refuse it if they decide to give us stuff (who would?), but I'm not asking for it, and I don't expect it. Just like Colin said, deciding to give out retroactive bonuses was a dangerous precedent to set - we said so at the time, for this exact reason. People figuring they are OWED things, rather than being a nice thing to have.

Metronomy
02-10-2016, 06:34 PM
Why are people always so negative to anything that could even sound like criticism to HXE or the game ?

Let me rephrase: If they have all the data and can change the system however they want and then retroactively award rewards, would anyone be against that ? The arguments are simple (fairness). Its not about free stuff since the original roll never was free.
Also we have an example already...Stardust..it is doable (i think so at least).

It shouldnt hold back any changes. Im on the same page there. My original question was more like: do you guys think its possible for them ?

mudgee01
02-10-2016, 07:08 PM
No chance needed, but for the love of god let us open/spin 10x at a go

wolzarg
02-10-2016, 10:57 PM
No chance needed, but for the love of god let us open/spin 10x at a go
i spun 200 chest to full lock yesterday i want my yesterday back...

Valnir
02-11-2016, 03:49 AM
I personally think it is totally ok, if there wont be any retroactive bonuse for chests, since those wasnt in the game when I spun them. I already have the benefit of being able to trade the content before all of the players, who recieve their chests now or when the new content is implemented. Anyway I would be happy and grateful for any bonus for my spins/ opens in the past, but I would look at it as a gift not as a debit. Just like the stardusts at the time.

noragar
02-11-2016, 08:57 AM
Let me rephrase: If they have all the data and can change the system however they want and then retroactively award rewards, would anyone be against that ?

Depending on exactly what changes were being implemented, I probably would.

For example, say they decided to implement #3 from Post#185, "3) Make the gold payouts proportional to the cost of the spin, but the two lower payouts should both be lower than the actual spin cost". Many people have made similar suggestions over the years.

Let's say that the odds of getting triple gold is 2%, double gold is 5%, and single gold is 10% and that instead of paying 5,000, 2,500, and 500 across the board it would now be proportional to the cost of the spin where triple gold pays 2x, double gold pays .75x and single gold pays .333x. That means a legendary chest would pay 60,000, 22,500, and 10,000. A common chest would pay 2,400, 900, and 400. The numbers are made up approximations, but even if all of the numbers were calculated in such a way so that the amount of gold produced under the old system exactly equaled the amount of gold produced under the new system across the entire population, at an individual level, some people will come out ahead and some people will come out behind.

Consider someone that never spins anything higher than a common chest (several people in this thread have said they fall into that category). Let's say they've spun 1,000 common chests over the years. With average luck, that means they've won 0.02x5,000 + 0.05*2,500 + 0.10*500 = 275,000 gold. Now when the new system is implemented, the new rates are retroactively applied to get a total of 0.02x2,400 + 0.05*900 + 0.10*400 = 133,000 gold. So they will have 142,000 gold removed from their account. What if they don't have 142,000 gold in their account? Would their gold balance go negative so that they would need to grind for days just to get out of the hole. To keep the economy balanced, that's what should happen, but I could see that leading to people quitting the game instead.

Then the arguments start that if they had known the system was going to change, they would have spun more rare and legendary chests all along instead of only spinning common chests.

Whatever change is implemented, depending on each person's past behaviors, some will come out ahead and others will come out behind. If a change is needed, it should only be applied going forward, not retroactively, even if the data is available.

Draconis
02-11-2016, 09:36 AM
Depending on exactly what changes were being implemented, I probably would.

For example, say they decided to implement #3 from Post#185, "3) Make the gold payouts proportional to the cost of the spin, but the two lower payouts should both be lower than the actual spin cost". Many people have made similar suggestions over the years.

Let's say that the odds of getting triple gold is 2%, double gold is 5%, and single gold is 10% and that instead of paying 5,000, 2,500, and 500 across the board it would now be proportional to the cost of the spin where triple gold pays 2x, double gold pays .75x and single gold pays .333x. That means a legendary chest would pay 60,000, 22,500, and 10,000. A common chest would pay 2,400, 900, and 400. The numbers are made up approximations, but even if all of the numbers were calculated in such a way so that the amount of gold produced under the old system exactly equaled the amount of gold produced under the new system across the entire population, at an individual level, some people will come out ahead and some people will come out behind.

Consider someone that never spins anything higher than a common chest (several people in this thread have said they fall into that category). Let's say they've spun 1,000 common chests over the years. With average luck, that means they've won 0.02x5,000 + 0.05*2,500 + 0.10*500 = 275,000 gold. Now when the new system is implemented, the new rates are retroactively applied to get a total of 0.02x2,400 + 0.05*900 + 0.10*400 = 133,000 gold. So they will have 142,000 gold removed from their account. What if they don't have 142,000 gold in their account? Would their gold balance go negative so that they would need to grind for days just to get out of the hole. To keep the economy balanced, that's what should happen, but I could see that leading to people quitting the game instead.

Then the arguments start that if they had known the system was going to change, they would have spun more rare and legendary chests all along instead of only spinning common chests.

Whatever change is implemented, depending on each person's past behaviors, some will come out ahead and others will come out behind. If a change is needed, it should only be applied going forward, not retroactively, even if the data is available.

Also, the market value of all chests and spin rewards/chest drops since the introduction of the Wheel of Fate has been based on the existing spin cost/reward structure.

darkwonders
02-11-2016, 10:10 AM
Also, the market value of all chests and spin rewards/chest drops since the introduction of the Wheel of Fate has been based on the existing spin cost/reward structure.

So? The market changes all the time.

Titania and Walking Calamity were really sought after cards before the Titania ban. Now both of those cards are worth significantly less.

Maylick
02-11-2016, 10:18 AM
Let me rephrase: If they have all the data and can change the system however they want and then retroactively award rewards, would anyone be against that ?

In game where almost everything is tradeable everyone should be against it. I believe I don't have to explain why, right?

darkwonders
02-11-2016, 10:43 AM
In game where almost everything is tradeable everyone should be against it. I believe I don't have to explain why, right?

Except that apart from released PvP cards, CZE can adjust anything in the game to their liking.

Metronomy
02-11-2016, 11:11 AM
In game where almost everything is tradeable everyone should be against it. I believe I don't have to explain why, right?

I believe the implication is that if they increased the drop chance of something like the slaughtergear cards those cards would lose value. Okay, I can agree with that. You guys have to be so nitpicky all the time. Its not about taking stuff away and its not about ruining card values (although someone already stated that calamity and tm values were ruined).

The problem is that chests above common dont get spinned because they are not worth to spin. Thats the issue. So the suggestion is to make it cheaper in some form or another. Its not about free slaughtergears for everyone. Its about making rare and legendary chests rolling actually be something that could make any sense. It shouldnt be net positive of course. But right now its just a complete lost investment all around.

DeusPhasmatis
02-11-2016, 11:47 AM
I believe the implication is that if they increased the drop chance of something like the slaughtergear cards those cards would lose value. Okay, I can agree with that. You guys have to be so nitpicky all the time. Its not about taking stuff away and its not about ruining card values (although someone already stated that calamity and tm values were ruined).

The problem is that chests above common dont get spinned because they are not worth to spin. Thats the issue. So the suggestion is to make it cheaper in some form or another. Its not about free slaughtergears for everyone. Its about making rare and legendary chests rolling actually be something that could make any sense. It shouldnt be net positive of course. But right now its just a complete lost investment all around.
I believe the point about trading has to do with trading chests. If you retroactively reward improved chest loot, the people who traded away the chests at the old market rate get shafted.

Crota
02-11-2016, 12:09 PM
The perceived value of an upgrade is in question. If the value of a spin is quantifiable, then we should be able to truly determine if an item is worth spinning or not spinning.

Currently on the AH you can find a Rare chest for about 20-30p.
I'm going to use 25p as a baseline here.
Spinning a rare chest cost 8500g. According to current gold exchange rates 1p is aprox 125g it cost 68p to roll a rare chest.
For this analysis I will be disregarding all rewards except for chest upgrades.
According to independent data, there is a 17% chance to upgrade the chest to a legendary chest and a 3% chance to upgrade the chest to a primal.

Looking at only the double upgrade reward ONLY, there is a 1 in 33 chance to upgrade the value of a rare chest to a primal chest.
Value of Rare chest 20-30p AH Value of Primal Chest 1500-2300p.

Now assuming my math is correct and assuming the AH prices do stabilize properly, the wheels of fate rewards, spinning rare chests and looking at double upgrade reward ONLY has a 66-98% rate of return.

By looking at the math, there is nothing wrong and the value is there. For obvious reasons the rate of return % should not be above 100% and it looks like Chark and company did a great job pricing everything out as the AH stabilized prices on Legendary chests. With that said, it still feels "not fun" when you roll a rare chest and get a reward that is not a chest upgrade. (More so because you could have received the same reward for rolling a common chest and saving yourself 6000+ gold)

I know I've made post in this thread before stating my thoughts and also crying out that this is "broken" as well but the truth is, it really isn't broken from an economics point but things can be done to make it feel more rewarding. I'll come back with my previous suggestion as a player and not someone who knows all the numbers. For all spin rewards, except for upgrade chest with spin and double upgrade chest with spin, on rare chest and above add free spin instead of paid spin.

(Lottery Story Example - buy a $10 lotto ticket and you win $5 feels like a slap in the face. Buy a $10 lotto ticket and win $1 with a free voucher for a $10 lotto ticket.... YAY!)

Maylick
02-11-2016, 12:11 PM
I believe the implication is that if they increased the drop chance of something like the slaughtergear cards those cards would lose value. Okay, I can agree with that. You guys have to be so nitpicky all the time. Its not about taking stuff away and its not about ruining card values (although someone already stated that calamity and tm values were ruined).

The problem is that chests above common dont get spinned because they are not worth to spin. Thats the issue. So the suggestion is to make it cheaper in some form or another. Its not about free slaughtergears for everyone. Its about making rare and legendary chests rolling actually be something that could make any sense. It shouldnt be net positive of course. But right now its just a complete lost investment all around.

Also if you already made trades with some of your prizes those trades would've change their value aswell, as DeusPhasmatis stated. And if some prize card would be turned into prize dust or maybe prize protectors, this will also make more chaos. Let alone it needs to be tracked all over again.

sukebe
02-11-2016, 12:11 PM
I believe the implication is that if they increased the drop chance of something like the slaughtergear cards those cards would lose value. Okay, I can agree with that. You guys have to be so nitpicky all the time. Its not about taking stuff away and its not about ruining card values (although someone already stated that calamity and tm values were ruined).

The problem is that chests above common dont get spinned because they are not worth to spin. Thats the issue. So the suggestion is to make it cheaper in some form or another. Its not about free slaughtergears for everyone. Its about making rare and legendary chests rolling actually be something that could make any sense. It shouldnt be net positive of course. But right now its just a complete lost investment all around.

except that chests above common are clearly spun as people have sleeves and AA's that only come from primal chests. Statements like what you made are just plain false. Just because you don't spin above common does not mean that others do not. Statements from chark seem to imply that the chests are working pretty much as intended as they are and have always been the primary gold sink (even with the AA's in the store for gold for a time). As I said before, spinning anything more than common or uncommon is an attempt to gain luxury items and is priced appropriately.

Also, since higher rarity chests are being rolled it is clear that doing so is not considered a "complete lost investement" all around. Again, do not apply your own feelings/opinions to everyone in such a sweeping manner.

Metronomy
02-11-2016, 12:11 PM
its not about the chest loot but the chest spins...and yes...chests above common get spun..i spin them myselves sometimes...the issue remains..a vast majority is not spun...stop being to nitpicky. When I say its a complete lost investment all around im being hyperbolic. True...still...me and many others think that there is a problem. To the extent I spun rare and legendary chests I usually felt stupid for doing so. I felt even more stupid and somewhat cheated if I "win" a free paid spin when rolling a legendary (happened to me more than one time). Many many others do. Thats the issue at hand.

Btw...could you elaborate your math a little bit further crota ?

Crota
02-11-2016, 01:13 PM
Btw...could you elaborate your math a little bit further crota ?

Sure, for the TLDR of my post.

When rolling a Rare chest, there is a 3% chance to get the double chest upgrade as a reward. Meaning, if you were to roll 33 rare chests, you would expect to get on average 1 Primal chest as a reward.

Total cost of rolling 33 rare chests, not counting cost of the chest, is 2,244 plat.

Removing the costs of the chest themselves and looking at at how much chests are selling on the AH, 1,500 plat to 2,400 plat the "looseness" of the WoF spinning is some where between 66% to 107% (Note: Not counting cost of rare chest so looseness is higher.)

So there is value in rolling rare chests. (Note: In this example I'm ONLY looking at rewards for rolling double upgrade chest, it is still possible to get rares, sleeves, gold, dust, AA cards in rolls increasing the value of rolling chests, even if they are rare.)

not fun part of chests: spending 30,000 gold and rolling a PvP rare as a reward. Essentially buying a $30 lottery ticket and "Winning" $3 (Depending on the rare) as a reward... not fun

Solution: Change "Winning" $3 to Win $3 and a free $30 Lottery Ticket (Free Spin on same chest)

If needed I can make a video explaining it as well.

nicosharp
02-11-2016, 01:19 PM
It's not going to change that every reward is bad and feels bad on a chest uncommon or higher.. except:
A chest upgrade
Free spin (not paid)
or uber chase triple Gold or triple Red PvE or PvP card rolls

I agree with you Crota, but I don't think we will see a change like that. We can hope and wish, but I think the idea behind another paid spin being valuable, is that you don't need another legendary chest first, to have another chance at a primal. The chest itself has value just by having a spin available.

Metronomy
02-11-2016, 01:37 PM
The part were i was to lazy to calculate is the 66% to 107% numbers. I get now how you calculated. Its not wrong I gues but you cant just remove the value of the chest itself for the calculation. The bigger issue are rolls that win you a reward that basically means "hey...you just lost 30k and still have an unrolled chest". It basically is neutral but it doesnt feel neutral. If it happens I still dont want to sell or open the chest because I can still spin it. In that sense the "win" actually feels like a loss. The more roll again rewards the more losses you have just for the reason its still unspun. In this way it maybe even isnt completely neutral.

Btw...I feel like spinning rares is the 2nd best after spinning commons. You could do the calculations for uncommon and legendary chests and I bet you end up with a lower return rate. In total its very hard to calculate though. Thing is that it is unfun even if it was somewhat worth it econoically. I am not giving up the argument that it is just not worth it enough economicaly (especialy for legendary chests) but even if it is the unfun part of the argument remains.

Chark
02-11-2016, 03:26 PM
btw...are we all on board that its technical possible for them to retroactively award rewards once they changed the wheel of fate ?

If its not possible it would be hard to justify any change. Spinning right now should not be punished.

We learned our lesson on this. It's unlikely that we'll retroactively give out anything if we do decide to change the wheel of fate payouts in the future.

Spinning right now is not punished if we change it in the future. That narrative is pretty lame. Spinning exists as it is now. It is (like any parts of any video game) are subject to change at our discretion. It can get worse or it can get better relative to where it is now.

Yes, we try to preserve the value of your collections (another narrative that wildly spun out of control once Cory mentioned it), but we aren't going to hold ourselves hostage in these scenarios where we need to adjust things for the better.

sukebe
02-11-2016, 03:32 PM
its not about the chest loot but the chest spins...and yes...chests above common get spun..i spin them myselves sometimes...the issue remains..a vast majority is not spun...stop being to nitpicky. When I say its a complete lost investment all around im being hyperbolic. True...still...me and many others think that there is a problem. To the extent I spun rare and legendary chests I usually felt stupid for doing so. I felt even more stupid and somewhat cheated if I "win" a free paid spin when rolling a legendary (happened to me more than one time). Many many others do. Thats the issue at hand.

Btw...could you elaborate your math a little bit further crota ?

My point (which I do not feel is "nitpicky" at all) is that I feel that they never intended for all chests to be spun. If that was the intention they probably would have priced the higher rarity chest spins much lower. Higher level chests should only be spun if you are aiming to get primal chest exclusives. If this is not your aim, it is indeed a bad decision to spin those chests. If you are aiming for those exclusive luxury items then expect to pay luxury prices in the attempt.

If you feel stupid for rolling rare and legendary chests then don't roll them. sell them or open without rolling. You are not missing out on anything as you are also not paying any extra for that random chance at goodies. If you do feel you need to spin before opening them then just sell them off or trade for spun chests + some plat/gold.

Edit: Just read Charks response. Thank you for that Chark, that is good to hear indeed and was well said :-)

Metronomy
02-11-2016, 03:43 PM
We learned our lesson on this. It's unlikely that we'll retroactively give out anything if we do decide to change the wheel of fate payouts in the future.

Spinning right now is not punished if we change it in the future. That narrative is pretty lame. Spinning exists as it is now. It is (like any parts of any video game) are subject to change at our discretion. It can get worse or it can get better relative to where it is now.

Yes, we try to preserve the value of your collections (another narrative that wildly spun out of control once Cory mentioned it), but we aren't going to hold ourselves hostage in these scenarios where we need to adjust things for the better.

alright..im not even fighting about this...I would have preferred retroactive changes but at least now I know (which essentialy is the most important part)..I can even understand the reasoning behind it to some degree...punished was probably a too strong word to use in that context (probably even fair to say I tend to make too strong statements in general^^)

the thing with selling or opening unspun chests is that it just doesnt feel "right"..technicaly you are right but like I said...it just "feels" a little bit wrong (especialy when I open an unspun chest)

PentaChills
02-11-2016, 03:45 PM
We learned our lesson on this. It's unlikely that we'll retroactively give out anything if we do decide to change the wheel of fate payouts in the future.

Spinning right now is not punished if we change it in the future. That narrative is pretty lame. Spinning exists as it is now. It is (like any parts of any video game) are subject to change at our discretion. It can get worse or it can get better relative to where it is now.

Yes, we try to preserve the value of your collections (another narrative that wildly spun out of control once Cory mentioned it), but we aren't going to hold ourselves hostage in these scenarios where we need to adjust things for the better.

Thank God.

hex_colin
02-11-2016, 03:49 PM
Thank God.

Thank Kismet! ;)

PentaChills
02-11-2016, 03:51 PM
Thank Kismet! ;)

Thank Chark?

darkwonders
02-11-2016, 06:05 PM
Also another example of a major value change was when the AA commons were for sale for 25k. When they first began, they set a precedent that 25K gold = 100p. That went on for quite a while.

However, as soon as CZE mentioned that those AA's were going away in a couple of weeks, suddenly the value of gold spiked from 250g to 1p to almost half that conversion. Heck, the exchange rate even dipped below 100g to 1p for quite a while during that transition.

That was the hugest impact as gold was instantly worth twice than it usually was.

That's why I don't like the notion of feeling owed things in this game. Everything is subject to change. Even PvP cards aren't safe due to bans.

Clawdius
02-11-2016, 11:38 PM
I got a paid spin "reward" 3x in a row on an uncommon, then nothing. opened for one uncommon stardust. 12k wasted. I wonder if grocery stores should implement the same system? "Sir you have won!" 'won what?' "you won the ability to pay for your purchases again!"

wolzarg
02-12-2016, 06:02 AM
I got a paid spin "reward" 3x in a row on an uncommon, then nothing. opened for one uncommon stardust. 12k wasted. I wonder if grocery stores should implement the same system? "Sir you have won!" 'won what?' "you won the ability to pay for your purchases again!"
Its probably a really bad example on specifically uncommon but what you won was the fact that the chest didn't look forcing you to use a new one that has a value. Low rarity locked chests are nearly valueless and unlocked chest have a value because you can spin them. I don't know nor do i care about the value of a uncommon chest but lets say you saved 10 plat each time you got that result as an example and you see that you didn't win the ability to pay again for the same thing.

darkwonders
02-12-2016, 07:15 AM
Its probably a really bad example on specifically uncommon but what you won was the fact that the chest didn't look forcing you to use a new one that has a value. Low rarity locked chests are nearly valueless and unlocked chest have a value because you can spin them. I don't know nor do i care about the value of a uncommon chest but lets say you saved 10 plat each time you got that result as an example and you see that you didn't win the ability to pay again for the same thing.

But the more times you get that paid re-roll, the more you feel ripped off. You're sinking gold into a chest multiple times and yet you only get 1 prize for opening it and probably nothing to show for spinning it multiple times.

It doesn't matter what the value of paying to spin the same chest again over spending that gold on a different chest is. The perceived value sucks because you feel like you're wasting gold with little to show for it.

Honestly, a more fun solution would be to get a free spin token for another chest of the same rarity. This way people feel like they won something, and it also gives another incentive to buy more packs and chests on the AH. This provides the rush that you actually *won* something as opposed to feeling like you've been ripped off cause you got the chance to pay to spin that chest again.

You could also make those tokens sellabe/tradeable so people could get spins for cheaper while also circulating gold around. That way when someone doesn't feel like wasting anymore gold on chests, he could sell those tokens and recoup some of his cost.

Draconis
02-12-2016, 07:51 AM
I will agree that although mathematically 'paid spin' is a reward, in that you have the opportunity to buy another roll without using up a chest, the paid spin roll is probably the worst-feeling result on the wheel, including 'no reward'. Human psychology is weird, yo. It feels like a bonus on top of another result, but as a standalone result it feels like a 'take away my money' button.

ossuary
02-12-2016, 08:32 AM
It feels like a bonus on top of another result, but as a standalone result it feels like a 'take away my money' button.

Yes, which is exactly why I suggested that 1) the "spin again" eye should be able to pop up anywhere, not just the first icon, and 2) gold icons should be able to pop up anywhere, including within other spin results (like 3x spiders, 1 of them could be gold, giving you gold on top of your PVP rare).

This way, at least some of the time, you're getting extra results when you thought you were either losing entirely, or just getting a standard junk win like an AA common. Having those results pop up on the 3rd wheel instead of the 1st makes it feel more like a last minute recovery, which leads to a better overall feeling (even though technically it's the same result as if you got 1 gold icon right off the bat and nothing else). It changes from "oh, I'm just getting a bit of gold" to "ooh, at least I got some gold there!"

hex_colin
02-12-2016, 08:45 AM
Yes, which is exactly why I suggested that 1) the "spin again" eye should be able to pop up anywhere, not just the first icon, and 2) gold icons should be able to pop up anywhere, including within other spin results (like 3x spiders, 1 of them could be gold, giving you gold on top of your PVP rare).

This way, at least some of the time, you're getting extra results when you thought you were either losing entirely, or just getting a standard junk win like an AA common. Having those results pop up on the 3rd wheel instead of the 1st makes it feel more like a last minute recovery, which leads to a better overall feeling (even though technically it's the same result as if you got 1 gold icon right off the bat and nothing else). It changes from "oh, I'm just getting a bit of gold" to "ooh, at least I got some gold there!"

It's a zero-sum game though. Anything that gives additional value means value lost elsewhere. They decided how much would be paid out and split it up over the results and probabilities. Bottom line - more winning conditions means less impressive wins on other results.

Draconis
02-12-2016, 08:54 AM
It's a zero-sum game though. Anything that gives additional value means value lost elsewhere. They decided how much would be paid out and split it up over the results and probabilities. Bottom line - more winning conditions means less impressive wins on other results.

Absolutely - the point is that currently, what might be described as 'positive reward value' (in a strictly numerical sense) is being spent on a roll reward that many people feel doesn't feel like one, which means that, at least from a player experience point of view, that value is being wasted or partially wasted. The WOF system depends on players feeling good about participating in it, so a result that is priced in as a reward but experienced negatively should probably be retooled in some way.

Vorpal
02-12-2016, 10:38 AM
The only time 'winning' a paid spin doesn't feel like a complete failure is when rolling common chests.

ossuary
02-12-2016, 11:54 AM
It's a zero-sum game though. Anything that gives additional value means value lost elsewhere. They decided how much would be paid out and split it up over the results and probabilities. Bottom line - more winning conditions means less impressive wins on other results.

Not necessarily. The numbers could also be re-evaluated. However, in my original (very long) post, I specifically said I was not looking to have total payouts increased, just to have the system overhauled so that player experience is improved. I am entirely aware that this would be a psychological improvement rather than a monetary one, but the current experience is poor enough in my opinion to warrant a psychological adjustment. Wins should actually feel like wins, even if that means they happen less often overall.

That being said, I very firmly believe that if the player experience were improved in the ways I've previously mentioned, even if total payouts were higher, that gold would just get pumped right back into the system again, since the system itself would be more supportive of ongoing rolls. A better experience would lead to a higher total spend per capita, even if specific winning rolls paid out higher gold (i.e. scaling payouts for gold icons) at certain chest rarity levels at the exact same or a slightly reduced frequency.

DeusPhasmatis
02-12-2016, 12:19 PM
It's a zero-sum game though. Anything that gives additional value means value lost elsewhere. They decided how much would be paid out and split it up over the results and probabilities. Bottom line - more winning conditions means less impressive wins on other results.

Er, what? Is there some other gold to stuff conversion mechanism that rolling chests is beholden to? Doesn't increasing the payout of rolling chests merely reduce the market value of what's payed out (and why would it be a problem if the rewards had a different market value)?

The important thing, to my understanding, is making the time investment to reward ratio feel good. In my experience the gold income from playing campaign vs. the cost of rolling rare and legendary chests does not feel good at the moment, though perhaps that will be remedied by later content with better gold payouts.

sukebe
02-12-2016, 01:16 PM
But the more times you get that paid re-roll, the more you feel ripped off. You're sinking gold into a chest multiple times and yet you only get 1 prize for opening it and probably nothing to show for spinning it multiple times.

It doesn't matter what the value of paying to spin the same chest again over spending that gold on a different chest is. The perceived value sucks because you feel like you're wasting gold with little to show for it.

Honestly, a more fun solution would be to get a free spin token for another chest of the same rarity. This way people feel like they won something, and it also gives another incentive to buy more packs and chests on the AH. This provides the rush that you actually *won* something as opposed to feeling like you've been ripped off cause you got the chance to pay to spin that chest again.

You could also make those tokens sellabe/tradeable so people could get spins for cheaper while also circulating gold around. That way when someone doesn't feel like wasting anymore gold on chests, he could sell those tokens and recoup some of his cost.

People keep saying the math doesn't matter. It is all that matters when it comes to determining value. It is a player problem if they cannot see the benefit and savings you get from paid re-rolls. If you see paid re-rolls as a bad un-fun thing then either improve your view on it just stop rolling as you do not properly understand the math behind it and gambling when you don't understand the math is a very bad idea.

I know this seems rude, and it may be but the fact remains that paid spin is win whether a player sees it for its real value or not. Saying otherwise is just ignoring simple mathematical facts which is not a good way to argue anything.

Xenavire
02-12-2016, 01:20 PM
sukebe, a paid reroll is only a win compared to getting absolutely nothing. In every single other way, it's a loss, pure and simple.

Yoss
02-12-2016, 02:04 PM
You're both right. It's a mathematical win and a psychological loss.