The Meme Box

hippy dave

BBMB
Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,880
Trophies
2
XP
29,219
Country
United Kingdom
FB_IMG_1656521581744.jpg

:cry::cry::cry:
 

Veho

The man who cried "Ni".
Former Staff
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
11,386
Trophies
3
Age
42
Location
Zagreb
XP
41,245
Country
Croatia
Agreed! And on top of that, i don't think players even know their odds before participating, so the player is gambling without knowing his chances of either winning or losing.. That is stupid.

Even when they know the odds, people don't know what the odds mean. The X-Com series is infamous for "wonky" odds, like all the times you miss when you have a 99% chance to hit, and people think this is a bug - even though the math is all correct. So infamous that newer games now "cheat" and show lower odds than the internal model uses in hit calculations... and they "feel" more correct.


I'm not a brain doctor to explain how it works, but seems that when the gamble addict believes that is possible to win, it hardly change mind about it, no matter how many times the result go against this belief.
It's called "Gambler's fallacy", the belief that you have to win eventually, and that your odds of winning increase after a long losing streak. The more they lose the more convinced they are a win is inevitable, because "what are the odds of losing a hundred times in a row?"


I doubt lootboxes are rigged. The "prizes" cost nothing to make and the house always wins. On the other hand lootboxes are closely monitored and on shaky legal ground as it is. There's little to gain and a lot to lose if the legislation changes.

That being said: circling back to the X-Com thing, maybe they should skew the odds the other way with lootbox prizes, so that they "feel" more balanced. Dunno, maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoolMe

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

eof

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: The Castlevania game was on the PS1 so that's cool +1