Owl Points - Increased Exotic/Leg odds?

But lets compare the triple cash scenario to the normal cash with triple odds scenario.

Simulation #1 [Triple Cash, Normal Odds]
Money Spent = N
Packs Purchased: 90,000
Chance of Exo: 5%
Exo's gained: 4,696
Final Chance: 5.21% (Lucky us, an extra .21%)
Expected Exo's: 4,500

Simulation #2 [Normal Cash, Triple Odds]
Money Spent = N
Packs Purchased: 30,000
Chance of Exo: 15%
Exo's gained: 4476
Final Chance: 14.92% (Slightly unlucky here, a .08% deficit)
Expected Exo's: 4,500

It seems the odds of gaining a legendary with 15% and normal cash is the same (barring "luck") as triple cash with the current 5%. The amount of money spent in each scenario is the same.

Triple cash it seems is a MUCH larger advantage for cash purchases than a % increase in odds as it gives the same amount of exos as triple odds while also providing 3x as many runes for the same price.

So I suppose I'm fine with triple cash purchases being the money-based advantage.

 

If you're going to based this on math, first find out what certification I hold right now at this moment. Second, please include all possible scenarios. In this case you missed two variable scenarios, in which I will leave you to research a bit more and find out since that is a very effective way to learn). Third, be realistic. Who in the their right mind buys 90000 packs?! Even if they did, theoretically the fixed chance of obtaining exo or legendary will not be too far from the expected percentage, which is 10% exo and 5% legendary, respectively. Furthermore, based on the value that you just provided (hopefully calculated using the Margin of Error Formula with the right Level of Confidence) at a population size of 90000, the conclusion is still the same. Who in their right mind will challenge a difference of 0.21% or a 0.08% difference while the real/actual amount a player willing buy is approximately 1000 pack (that is being very very very generous). Lastly, please refrain from using "statistic" to proof a truth without even listing the 3 major criteria of the formula used. I told them to my students and I'll tell them to you because I can't stress enough how many people have misused the "stats". Here is a link if you are in any way interested in learning the correct use of statistics. And again please do not forget that statistics is not a parameter. It is simply an estimate. But even an estimate needs to be done with some level of confidence and not like what I just say right now.

http://www.ncsu.edu/crsc/events/ugw06/presentations/scheywar/finalundergrad.pdf
(Credit goes to Shenek Heyward, I do not own any portion of this powerpoint.)

I do not mean to belittle you in any way. I truly hope you will appreciate this post. Thank you

 

Openning 1 pack, means you go with 10% for exo and 5% for Legendary.

Openning 3 packs, means you go with 10% for exo and 5% for Legendary, but you do it 3 times. (The chances do not stack, you are just flippin the coin 3 times with the same ammount of chances).

So triple Owl cash to buy 3 packs is NOT the same as stacking the chances 3 times.


With boxes is: you are flippin the coin with 10% exo and 5% legendary chances 10 times, that means you only have 10% chances of having an exo with each flip.
And THATs why the safe exo from boxes is good.

 

I'll have to disagree with owl points purchasing offering different % returns.

While this may look like it is good for the consumer it may actually cause a negative emotion reaction due to how people act.
I'm mainly referring to not getting an exo/LEG when spending the money which will be the majority of occurrences.

People will focus on the perceived "loss" of that good chance while keeping it the same actually shifts their focus where it should be.
Spending points to support the game and maintaining exos/Leg as 'shiny' reward experiences.

If you would like a good example of what I'm trying to get at take JC Penny as a good example.
A great video is right here concerning this:
Watch the first 3min. Also at 4:30 there is a really good point.

 

Only 3 min? look at their entire youtube channel, they are amazing!

 

Yes they are amazing... I was only saying the first 3min were the most relevant to the post ^_^.

 

The case about card collective games is that the only step where you feel you are progressing is in getting the cards, playing the game is just for the "Casual fun" and getting better in the game, like league of legends if you consider there are ~100 'cards' of champions.

Getting the runes directly while playing is unnecesary for making the player feel better imo, what needs to feel good is forging a rune (specially exotic)
, like by adding some cinematic or animations for example.

 

To be fair, I am using larger numbers because people were bothered by how many extra legendaries would enter circulation. The disparity of smaller numbers for the individual was less of a concern.

I am sure you have a much better idea of statistics than me, but in simpler terms, a lot of these packs are going to be purchased over a long period of time, and over that time, the same amount of exo and legendaries would go into circulation regardless of which system was used.

But seeing as the triple cash allows more runes to enter circulation as a whole, I am happier with that as a solution. And I do get that the player mentality would be against higher odds more than triple cash.

 

What about lvling the Avatar? and lvling the champs? those feel like progress, thats why i like the current exp system.

 

This is just needlessly complicated as a suggestion and not economically sane at all. if you think they should give players more value for owl points, a lot of people agree with you... the sane way to do this though is to just change the prices of things not change what that thing in of itself is.