Datacrons - bigger scam than it looks.

"RTS;c-2374577" wrote:

I mean...of course it's brought into the game to generate money - the entire game exists to create money. I'm not sure why people have such an issue with this concept?

Read the entire sentence again, and again, and again, till you understand it. I don't have any problems with games trying to generate money, I have a problem with the WAY they try to do it nowadays.

"Eyak;c-2374536" wrote:

"crzydroid;c-2374514" wrote:
Cue the small sample size discussions. I have four of the 25% tm ones, out of only 8 total leveled datacrons for this set. Some were rerolls, but I don't have anywhere near your 29 chances. Come back with some actual large scale data across multiple players, and maybe there's a discussion.

Discussion? I have 0 interest in gathering data or putting real effort toward this low effort cashgrab called datacrons. My point is simple - I want to see the bloody odds in game. If a feat is 5% (and that's kinda reasonable for that outcome), I want to see it's 5%.
Not a vague "some are more likely".
Currently it looks like you can just reroll several times and get what you want, which isn't true due to big disproportions in odds, add increasing reroll cost - you can waste a ton of resources to get nothing.

So you want to see the rate but not collect the data? You want odds to fix themselves to a certain amount on small random runs? That's not how probability works. You had bad rng, plain and simple. It happens. It's not evidence of some conspiracy.

"MaruMaru;c-2374586" wrote:

"crzydroid;c-2374585" wrote:

"Eyak;c-2374536" wrote:

"crzydroid;c-2374514" wrote:
Cue the small sample size discussions. I have four of the 25% tm ones, out of only 8 total leveled datacrons for this set. Some were rerolls, but I don't have anywhere near your 29 chances. Come back with some actual large scale data across multiple players, and maybe there's a discussion.

Discussion? I have 0 interest in gathering data or putting real effort toward this low effort cashgrab called datacrons. My point is simple - I want to see the bloody odds in game. If a feat is 5% (and that's kinda reasonable for that outcome), I want to see it's 5%.
Not a vague "some are more likely".
Currently it looks like you can just reroll several times and get what you want, which isn't true due to big disproportions in odds, add increasing reroll cost - you can waste a ton of resources to get nothing.

So you want to see the rate but not collect the data? You want odds to fix themselves to a certain amount on small random runs? That's not how probability works. You had bad rng, plain and simple. It happens. It's not evidence of some conspiracy.

How do you gather he had bad rng when you don't know the rates? If cg hadn't said otherwise, we would need to prove that the odds are not even with samples, but since we know that's not the case nothing needs to be proven.

Fair enough point, but no one knows the rates. I've shown that half of my datacrons have the one he's talking about. That's probably good rng, but if the population rates are really as low as OP's claim, then 50% seems astronomically good. I don't think it unreasonable to assume the drop chance is somewhere inbetween.

"crzydroid;c-2374585" wrote:

So you want to see the rate but not collect the data? You want odds to fix themselves to a certain amount on small random runs? That's not how probability works. You had bad rng, plain and simple. It happens. It's not evidence of some conspiracy.

I want to see the rates provided IN-GAME, same as with packs. Not a 1 sentence mention in QA, with no data. If the odds would be slightly smaller for some feats, that wouldn't be a problem, but the disparities are quite big.
I wasn't calculating odds for getting that feat, that would require a big sample size. On small sample I can just calculate the odds of event with test % and you can do it quite accurately, based on that you can make an estimate (that obviously will be prone to error).
I can even make it more accurate with excluding repetitions in rerolls, 5% gives around 1 to 6 chance (of not getting it in 29 tries), 10% gives 1 to 50 chance, 20% gives 1 to 10000 chance, that's why I can say 5% around is plausible and most likely, and I have 1 to 50 odds of being mistaken.
Yet my main point is - odds NEED to be written next to every feat, so the people would know what gamble they are taking, with what chances of getting what they want.

Opens game to immediate popup "WoUlD yOU LiKE tHIs DAtAcRaP PacK for $30"

No

another pop-up"HoW BoUT thIs One for $50?"

For God sakes no.

Can't wait for this experiment to end...

"RTS;c-2374635" wrote:

"Eyak;c-2374579" wrote:

"RTS;c-2374577" wrote:

I mean...of course it's brought into the game to generate money - the entire game exists to create money. I'm not sure why people have such an issue with this concept?

Read the entire sentence again, and again, and again, till you understand it. I don't have any problems with games trying to generate money, I have a problem with the WAY they try to do it nowadays.

I read it just fine - you didn't specify that anywhere, unless it's the "temporary" whining?

You're also ranting about them focusing on LOTR, despite that being an entirely different team and having 0 impact on this game.

Seriously turn off Ahnald, stay off Reddit, and apply some logic.

So you understood that bit "with much lower dev work cost than introducing anything valuable into game"? I don't think so.
Different team? Devs get delegated from one project, to another within the same company, the amount working on a game changes, some new people get hired. 0 impact? Hahaha, yea - they hired completely new team, just for that project, thats why the trailer looked like made by interns... and we got no new good content because... Because... Uhm.

I'm ranting bout how little effort is put into making swgoh a better, more interesting game, into attracting new players and making QoL changes.

"RTS;c-2374654" wrote:
somewhere in an announcement.

Screenie or it didn't happen.

Fair odds or not, datacrons made it so that people that have slaved away getting the same squads together don't have equal chance of success. That's really poor game design. Cash grab or not, they're just bad

"RTS;c-2374577" wrote:

Well for starters It's common sense - you don't have developers working on multiple games like that - each game is multiple full-time jobs, this isn't something you can split your time between from a development standpoint. It's also not like they just started working on this this year.

When producing a game? No. While having a game on life support and making another one? Oh yes, you can - both by sharing some work and by splitting main team. Devs working on a new content for a game are a fraction of devs needed to make a game, and the amount of manpower dictates the amount and quality of new content. Deadline getting close, devs already crunching? Shift more devs from another project.
It's on same engine and I bet a lot of basic code was reused.
You don't need to know the entire game code, to get a task and implement something in another game, with the tech you know. Is it ideal? Nope.
You look at the code (especially when it's well commented) and you can understand and manipulate it quite easily, haha - a big portion of programming is getting someones code from stackoverflow and fitting it into yours.

Indeed, they started 1+ years ago and we can clearly see it in the lack of new content, that would require a lot of work in wide spectrum of branches.

I don't know how it can be a bigger scam than it looks, because it always looked like the biggest scam.