qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 19, 2017 4:35:40 GMT -5
Depends on you number of characters. 3 characters are sets of 3 challenges. But yeah, got to take those into account either way, even if you only have 1 character. Sure, that helps get you to the Milestone, but when you’re grinding for gear they’re a drop in the bucket. Took me 19 engrams to get the full armor set for my Titan. I wouldn't call a 100% increase of tokens (which really is the worst case, more likely a 140% increase if you have a 50/50 win loose) a drop in the bucket. Doing challenges on one character nets an engram + 1 coin. And can be done daily. But whateffs, you seem to hate it and no argument will sway you from it. And that is fine, iron banner was a grind, and not a fun one at that. I am just explaining how you could have made it easier for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 19, 2017 8:45:47 GMT -5
I completed the challenges ever day. It didn’t make the grind feel any less shitty.
|
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Oct 19, 2017 9:56:23 GMT -5
Probably never happen because all these games these days keep insisting the lottery loot system is what is needed. I'm guessing that's coming from the higher-ups, marketing or management people. "PEOPLE LOVE LOTTERY". It seems like every game is now doing it. Frustrating. The whole concept sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Oct 19, 2017 10:09:25 GMT -5
I don't get the token system, because it's literally just the same system as random drops, except with two improvements: you can choose what character you want the drop on, and you can save tokens and get a drop whenever you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 19, 2017 10:12:55 GMT -5
Probably never happen because all these games these days keep insisting the lottery loot system is what is needed. I'm guessing that's coming from the higher-ups, marketing or management people. "PEOPLE LOVE LOTTERY". It seems like every game is now doing it. Frustrating. The whole concept sucks. This seems to be the new norm in multiplayer games. They use the lottery system to pad out a game that otherwise has very little content. There are exceptions, to be sure, but certainly none among the AAA shooters. |
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Oct 19, 2017 10:50:22 GMT -5
Probably never happen because all these games these days keep insisting the lottery loot system is what is needed. I'm guessing that's coming from the higher-ups, marketing or management people. "PEOPLE LOVE LOTTERY". It seems like every game is now doing it. Frustrating. The whole concept sucks. This seems to be the new norm in multiplayer games. They use the lottery system to pad out a game that otherwise has very little content. There are exceptions, to be sure, but certainly none among the AAA shooters. It's not because people like it, and it's not to hide a lack of content. It's because from a psychological perspective, it's the most effective way to give rewards such that a player keeps playing; it is the most profitable method of microtransactions; and the revenue from said microtransactions is now an essential part of the revenue stream. |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 19, 2017 13:27:42 GMT -5
This seems to be the new norm in multiplayer games. They use the lottery system to pad out a game that otherwise has very little content. There are exceptions, to be sure, but certainly none among the AAA shooters. It's not because people like it, and it's not to hide a lack of content. It's because from a psychological perspective, it's the most effective way to give rewards such that a player keeps playing; it is the most profitable method of microtransactions; and the revenue from said microtransactions is now an essential part of the revenue stream. "Such that a player keeps playing" If the game is worth playing you don't need a lottery system to keep players coming back. It should be peripheral to the core game systems, not the core itself. Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are both built around the lottery system, and we don't know what they're going to do with WW2 because they aren't saying. The last FPS I played the hell out of was BO3, and that was because it was fun, I found the camo system highly rewarding, and I got to play with friends. The lottery system was cosmetic and additive to the core systems. In Destiny 2 I get to play with friends and I get to play the lottery. |
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Oct 19, 2017 13:58:49 GMT -5
If the game is worth playing you don't need a lottery system to keep players coming back. It should be peripheral to the core game systems, not the core itself. You mean like the old games like Quake and Unreal Tournament that didn't have unlocks and all that jazz? But I agree. I had a lot of top quality gear dropped for me for Borderlands 2 and I still played the game because of how flexible experimenting with different loadouts etc are. |
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Oct 19, 2017 14:06:56 GMT -5
It's not because people like it, and it's not to hide a lack of content. It's because from a psychological perspective, it's the most effective way to give rewards such that a player keeps playing; it is the most profitable method of microtransactions; and the revenue from said microtransactions is now an essential part of the revenue stream. "Such that a player keeps playing" If the game is worth playing you don't need a lottery system to keep players coming back. It should be peripheral to the core game systems, not the core itself. Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 are both built around the lottery system, and we don't know what they're going to do with WW2 because they aren't saying. The last FPS I played the hell out of was BO3, and that was because it was fun, I found the camo system highly rewarding, and I got to play with friends. The lottery system was cosmetic and additive to the core systems. In Destiny 2 I get to play with friends and I get to play the lottery. Ideally, if a game is worth playing, you don't need a lottery system to keep players coming back. Unfortunately, making a game like that is very, very difficult, and there's no amount of funding, talent, anything that can guarantee it. So if you were starting a new franchise, putting out a game that doesn't have guaranteed success, of course you would use a lottery system in your game to hook people. But then even if you were making a can't miss, players will keep coming back game - the most obvious example of which is COD - it still makes sense to include a lottery system, because the continued revenue stream is so important. So everyone making games is incentivized to use these mechanics, which has a negative impact on the quality of games in the long run. It will be interesting to see the reaction once people are presented with evidence that each player does not have the same odds of getting an item out of loot boxes. There is a weird assumption that these companies are not using the mountain of data they have about you to maximize their profit. |
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Oct 19, 2017 14:11:10 GMT -5
Even if there is a game that doesn't need it... it's still going to have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Oct 19, 2017 14:58:21 GMT -5
lots of get off my lawn going on here. Lottery is the current fad/craze for the companies. It'll either stay or it won't if they find a better way to monetize gaming. I think it could be a lot worse. I'm glad the monthly subscription thing never took off.
|
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 19, 2017 15:31:00 GMT -5
Even if there is a game that doesn't need it... it's still going to have it. The vast majority of the games I play don’t. If I didn’t play FPS a few months out of the year, I’d never see it. |
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Oct 19, 2017 17:26:22 GMT -5
Even if there is a game that doesn't need it... it's still going to have it. The vast majority of the games I play don’t. If I didn’t play FPS a few months out of the year, I’d never see it. And are they huge titles or indie scrubs? |
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Oct 19, 2017 17:28:23 GMT -5
lots of get off my lawn going on here. Lottery is the current fad/craze for the companies. It'll either stay or it won't if they find a better way to monetize gaming. I think it could be a lot worse. I'm glad the monthly subscription thing never took off. Oh god... could you imagine Reddit? “Bungo... I pay per month, I want a new raid/endgame activity per month!!!” |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 19, 2017 19:08:08 GMT -5
The vast majority of the games I play don’t. If I didn’t play FPS a few months out of the year, I’d never see it. And are they huge titles or indie scrubs? In the past year or so? Dark Souls III, Horizon: Zero Dawn, and Neir: Automata. I also play a lot of Crusader Kings II. Red Dead Redemption 2 and Dragon Quest XI come out in the next 6 months or so. Also the new Ace Comat game in 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 19, 2017 19:31:48 GMT -5
I also sunk about 9 months into Warcraft this past year (after not having played since 2009).
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 20, 2017 6:26:35 GMT -5
Horizon does have loot boxes though (A)
|
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 20, 2017 7:46:36 GMT -5
Horizon does have loot boxes though (A) Um, what? |
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Oct 20, 2017 8:19:46 GMT -5
Two things.
I think there are conflating points going on. The lottery-loot game use to hook a player into continued gaming . . . . versus using the above loot system for micro-transactions. It seems almost ALL games are now using the former as a means to hook a player, but not all games are using the latter as means to monetize.
1. After playing Destiny 2 a good bit now, I would hesitate to say that D2 is much of a micro-transaction DLC type of lottery game. One can purchase the diamond-dust stuff with real cash, but it really doesn't give you anything tangible. I can't imagine anything more than 1 in a 100 people are spending money on that, and if so, it can't be more than a one time purchase ($10? $15?)That's not making or breaking Bungie, at most adding a few million to the bottom line. It doesn't appear to be a priority to Bungie. Compare and contrast this game with the most recent Call of Duty. The Lottery system was in FULL force on that game AND it was HEAVILY monetized. It was where you went to get a chance for the game's better guns. Only maybe marginally better, but in a game measured in micro seconds, it was an advantage. Hard--core players would spend hundreds of dollars to get variants of the top guns. Easily more than 1 in a 100 were playing the wheel there. What you won, you used all the time.
2. D2 most definitely does utilize the lottery-loot system to try and hook a player. As said above, that's the current fad, where the companies think it's needed to keep a player playing. Maybe as said above, the companies think it's the most effective from a psychological perspective (Hawk's viewpoint). This could be true, as we have no clue what Activision and other's are reading from their in depth market studies. That said, we ALL know you don't need to have a lottery-loot system to hook a player. The original CoD's from 2007 to 2012 (MW1,WaW, MW2, MW3, etc..) had none of the lottery stuff going. None. It had prizes (camos, prestige levels, guns, stats), but all of these things were clearly defined with what was needed to get them, with zero lottery-wheels needed. These games were very addictive and fun. Can't be disputed and those games sold more. So while this lottery stuff may be a fad, it's clear from past evidence it is not necessarily the best way. But as said above, it's like catching lightning in a bottle trying to duplicate CoD's past success.
A better question is IF D2 is utilizing the lottery-wheel mechanics well? They aren't monetizing it. That's good. A positive. And they eliminated the horrible rigged system of D1 (Ghorn anyone?), so that's a positive too. Not to beat up this point, but D2 seems to have a system that's pretty decent in place. All it needs is a bit of tweaks imho.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 20, 2017 8:35:01 GMT -5
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 20, 2017 8:38:16 GMT -5
Arguably one could say D1 had more lottery than D2 though.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Oct 20, 2017 8:45:01 GMT -5
Arguably one could say D1 had more lottery than D2 though. Yup... and one wouldn't be wrong |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 20, 2017 8:49:11 GMT -5
In no way are those even close to what we’re discussing. You trade in excess crafting materials of one type for boxes that contain a mix of other crafting materials. They are of very limited use (I didn’t even remember them being in the name) and you can’t (and wouldn’t) pay real money for them. It’s really just a convienent way to clear out excess materials from your inventory. |
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 20, 2017 8:50:21 GMT -5
Yes I agree. like I said. It was a joke.
H:ZD is easily a top 3 game of the past year for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Oct 20, 2017 8:54:53 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see the reaction once people are presented with evidence that each player does not have the same odds of getting an item out of loot boxes. There is a weird assumption that these companies are not using the mountain of data they have about you to maximize their profit. Wasn't there enough evidence from Destiny 1, that the developers rigged the odds on the loot system depending on what you already had? The example of the GHorn comes to mind. Different segments of the population had different odds of winning things. |
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 20, 2017 10:05:14 GMT -5
I am not going back into the whole gjallarhorn discussion here. But I don't think there was enough evidence to conclude anything on drop rates. The multiple of anecdotes is not data.
Random will be random. And if you toss a coin 10 times in row, 1000 times, there is a pretty good chance there will be instances of 10 times heads in a row.
Not saying there is no manipulation, just saying I have not seen any evidence that there is manipulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Oct 20, 2017 10:11:46 GMT -5
I am not going back into the whole gjallarhorn discussion here. But I don't think there was enough evidence to conclude anything on drop rates. The multiple of anecdotes is not data. Random will be random. And if you toss a coin 10 times in row, 1000 times, there is a pretty good chance there will be instances of 10 times heads in a row. Not saying there is no manipulation, just saying I have not seen any evidence that there is manipulation. Ok, i'll refrain from the GHorn potshots for now, as you are right, my evidence is purely ancedotal. But to go further, and defend Bungie by saying that there is zero evidence of tampering, well...I disagree. Bungie was constantly tinkering and messing with drop rates, making things less than a pure chance. They stated a number of times changing drop rates, fixing things, etc... Doesn't even mean it had to be malicious, but tampering was done. Furthermore, there is evidence of more malicious tampering. It's Activision. That's the parent company. They are the kings of manipulation for monetary purposes. For one example, go look at the CoD WW2 video that talks about how the next CoD game is implementing matchmaking based on pairing up people with no cosmetics, with those who have them, in order to try and lure people to spend money. That's a new level of manipulation, now affecting actual gameplay so that people buy stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 20, 2017 10:24:25 GMT -5
For one example, go look at the CoD WW2 video that talks about how the next CoD game is implementing matchmaking based on pairing up people with no cosmetics, with those who have them, in order to try and lure people to spend money. That's a new level of manipulation, now affecting actual gameplay so that people buy stuff. There is zero truth to this. Drift0r checked this out and has stated this system is not in WW2 in any way, shape, or form. |
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Oct 20, 2017 10:38:28 GMT -5
For one example, go look at the CoD WW2 video that talks about how the next CoD game is implementing matchmaking based on pairing up people with no cosmetics, with those who have them, in order to try and lure people to spend money. That's a new level of manipulation, now affecting actual gameplay so that people buy stuff. There is zero truth to this. Drift0r checked this out and has stated this system is not in WW2 in any way, shape, or form. Well then that was a wasted ten minutes of my life reading that post on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 20, 2017 10:45:55 GMT -5
To be sure, Activision researched this and attained the patent for a reason, and will almost certainly use it at some point. Just not in WW2.
|
|
