Jump to content


Would U Like A Supply Box Option In WoT?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Poll: Supply Boxes (54 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Would You Like A Supply Box Option In WoT

  1. Yes (12 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  2. No (42 votes [77.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 77.78%

Vote Hide poll

TungstenHitman #1 Posted 08 January 2019 - 04:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25369 battles
  • 4,586
  • [POOLS] POOLS
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Hi all,

 

Just wondering if you guys would enjoy having something like the current Christmas boxes to be on offer as a permanent feature option in the game? Over the Christmas, if I needed some gold or wanted a day or two of premium time, I found myself buying 3 Christmas boxes instead for fun because I knew that I would most likely, at worst, get enough gold for both but also had a chance of getting a lot of gold, free premium time and even some rare tanks and camo.

 

These boxes will end soon and I think I'll miss that mystery box option so would actually love if they were a permanent feature. Not Christmas boxes obviously but something very similar called supply boxes or whatever name best suits that whole military theme and obviously no Christmas decorations but maybe other items or better minimum returns instead. What do you guys think and would you like to see supply boxes as an option in this game?

 

EDIT- If you think it's a bad idea, that's cool too. You're opinion is how you feel and I'm sure you'll have valid reasons too. :) I think I'd like to see supply boxes implemented as an option but you could raise some good points as to why they'd be a bad thing.


Edited by TungstenHitman, 08 January 2019 - 04:49 PM.


OIias_of_Sunhillow #2 Posted 08 January 2019 - 05:01 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 25248 battles
  • 2,928
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

'Blood', 'Out', and 'Stone', are words thundering into my head at the moment. ;)

 

To be honest with you mate, I'd rather WG kept it the way it is. It at least gives the impression of something 'special' during a once a year event.



jack_timber #3 Posted 08 January 2019 - 05:10 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 35298 battles
  • 2,415
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014
Once a year Christmas special is just fine. Not that I ever buy any though....

Robbie_T #4 Posted 08 January 2019 - 05:19 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17610 battles
  • 477
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    07-08-2016

No 1 time a year is enough

And i think Wg will say no too or they nerf the boxes.

+the back lash it had with putting the Is3a in it as exclusive

+we have -18 players or people with gambling habbits that dont need to get exposed to this kind of scam

the gambling part also bad for the rep of Wg.

+ whats fun about the boxes when you got the Defender,SkorpG,and Is3a.you wont buy them boxes anymore.

not even speaking of Wg will nerf those boxes to hell dont think wg want to give a tier8 every 10 or 20 boxes.

 


Edited by Robbie_T, 08 January 2019 - 05:25 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #5 Posted 08 January 2019 - 05:50 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32148 battles
  • 4,335
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013
I like the aspect of only having these boxes aviable during special occasions, otherwise they won't feel special anymore. But I do think WG should atleast offer few large boxes for free and not only the tiny boxes. For example, they did a load of christmas missions, why not add a weekly mission that rewards the player with a large box? And then on the 24th and/or 25th they could have a one-time-completion mission that gives players 1-2 additional large boxes.

Dorander #6 Posted 08 January 2019 - 11:59 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18686 battles
  • 3,451
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

I'm not voting one way or the other because my answer would probably be "Depending on what you mean I might not care". I'm taking a page from a response written by Jigabachi that I noticed earlier in another skill-based MM thread, paraphrased here: before any discussion is possible you should clearly state what you mean, because there are multiple ways of doing this.

 

 

I am not necessarily opposed to random rewards.... "but". And the "but" part is fairly big (insert yo-mamma joke here).

 

As it currently stands, I think it's very improbable when you buy the Christmas lootboxes that you don't get at least your gold worth out of the purchase. I can draw one hard line here: we currently have established money-to-gold conversion ratios, because there are established values in the Premium store. If random lootboxes of any sort were to appear, they should at the very least give you your money's worth, even if it's just at a low conversion ratio of gold. That is to say if your purchased box contains 250 gold plus maybe assorted randoms, it should cost the price of 250 gold, no more, so that the gambling factor is *extra* on top of your purchase. You might get nothing, but you'll always get what you paid for.

 

However I've also been doing some interesting reading lately which suggests to me that this notion is a problem. The problem is that this notion just described relies on the fact that we KNOW that the gold you get has the monetary value of the amount of money you paid. However, anything that comes in that box additionally, even if it's only a potential chance, by necessity has a greater economic value than zero, because we don't get it for free. We get it conditionally. Therefor if in both situations we pay the exact same amount of money, it is logically therefor true that if such a box comes with more than just the gold you paid for, the gold you paid for is therefor worth LESS than the amount of money you pay for. There's no magic trick to this if you wonder what's going on here; what's going on here is simply how consumers determine whether or not a product is worth its money.

 

I was alerted to this phenomenom through a pretty well-known book called "Thinking, fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman. He described two situations, which he'd actually tested in experiments, that are relevant to this notion. The first situation he described was selling packaged rare baseball cards. He found that if you packaged rare baseball cards together and nothing else, they sold better than if you packaged these same rare baseball cards together in addition to some cheap, common extra cards. The addition of the cheap cards apparently caused potential buyers to assume that the rare baseball cards were worth LESS in that total package, even though the price of both packages was identical. The reason was that even though the common cards had nearly no value, their value was deemed non-zero, and if the packages were otherwise identically priced, any price minus any non-zero value is always lower than the original price.

 

He further demonstrated this effect by an experiment in which he advertised two sets of tableware. Both sets consisted of some plats, cups, etc., but the second set had some additional broken pieces added to it. Test subjects were supposed to estimate the rough value of each set, however one group of subjects was only presented the set of intact pieces to judge, the other group were asked to judge the value of the sets comparatively. As it turned out, adding broken pieces to the set impacted people's value judgement so that they rated the set with broken pieces of less value than the set with pieces intact, and the test subjects who weren't presented with an alternative set with broken pieces rated the overall value a little higher. In other words, adding broken pieces to a set devalued the set in the eyes of potential buyers, even though both options gave you the exact same amount of intact plates and cups.

 

Keeping that effect then in mind, there's genuine cause for concern here. I wouldn't trust people to make a judgement about these things objectively, in fact, I wouldn't even trust myself with it even knowing what I know about the effect I just described. Even if I consider my initially mentioned hard line, for most people this is still going to look like gambling and people would have to have the fact that they're getting at least they're money's worth pointed out to them. It doesn't help that Wargaming's gold sale values aren't linear, the more you buy the less you relatively spend per gold. So it's quite arguable that getting your gold value doesn't even fly as an argument.

 

Quite frankly the more I think about it writing this, the more I see the potential dungstorm. I'm just going to press "No" at this stage, and you've just read why. This game has enough customer complaints (valid ones as well as invalid ones) for it to open another can of worms.



Cobra6 #7 Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16401 battles
  • 16,287
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

It would be a nice thing *BUT* there'd have to be minute chances to win something actually useful like premium tanks out of these boxes.

We already get enough credits, equipment and other ballast.

 

*AND* these boxes would have to be only available through playing, not paying.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 09 January 2019 - 08:35 AM.


Scorilo #8 Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:39 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5548 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    11-02-2011
I bet in the near future we will see these boxes on more special occasions throughout the year.

Simeon85 #9 Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:34 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 4,056
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

I'd like the WOWs free containers you get daily for just getting a certain amount of XP.

 

They give various stuff like credits, signal flags, special currency (coal which is like bonds), free XP etc. and occasionally you can get super containers that contain ships or other special items.

 

They could do the same in WOTs, get some boosters, some free XP, some bonds, credits etc. as a little bonus each day for just playing and potentially get premium and reward tanks. 



TungstenHitman #10 Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:56 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25369 battles
  • 4,586
  • [POOLS] POOLS
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Ya I really like the idea of playing for a supply box of mixed random contents by doing X amount of requirements through battles. That would be an interesting addition and have the "ohhhh what's in the box! what's in the box!??" mystery box fun element too it. Especially if there was some really low percentage very rare item or items that could be only attained by playing for these boxes.

 

The frequency of these "free" boxes is another matter, daily, mid week, weekends, only on a certain weekend special, on a Wednesday to break up the week... many possibilities. I do like that idea though and especially the free but you have to play and complete requirements element too it. :)  



SABAOTH #11 Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:59 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 39037 battles
  • 3,192
  • [-133-] -133-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011


eekeeboo #12 Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:27 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45895 battles
  • 1,027
  • [0XIDE] 0XIDE
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostDorander, on 08 January 2019 - 10:59 PM, said:

I'm not voting one way or the other because my answer would probably be "Depending on what you mean I might not care". I'm taking a page from a response written by Jigabachi that I noticed earlier in another skill-based MM thread, paraphrased here: before any discussion is possible you should clearly state what you mean, because there are multiple ways of doing this.

 

 

I am not necessarily opposed to random rewards.... "but". And the "but" part is fairly big (insert yo-mamma joke here).

 

As it currently stands, I think it's very improbable when you buy the Christmas lootboxes that you don't get at least your gold worth out of the purchase. I can draw one hard line here: we currently have established money-to-gold conversion ratios, because there are established values in the Premium store. If random lootboxes of any sort were to appear, they should at the very least give you your money's worth, even if it's just at a low conversion ratio of gold. That is to say if your purchased box contains 250 gold plus maybe assorted randoms, it should cost the price of 250 gold, no more, so that the gambling factor is *extra* on top of your purchase. You might get nothing, but you'll always get what you paid for.

 

However I've also been doing some interesting reading lately which suggests to me that this notion is a problem. The problem is that this notion just described relies on the fact that we KNOW that the gold you get has the monetary value of the amount of money you paid. However, anything that comes in that box additionally, even if it's only a potential chance, by necessity has a greater economic value than zero, because we don't get it for free. We get it conditionally. Therefor if in both situations we pay the exact same amount of money, it is logically therefor true that if such a box comes with more than just the gold you paid for, the gold you paid for is therefor worth LESS than the amount of money you pay for. There's no magic trick to this if you wonder what's going on here; what's going on here is simply how consumers determine whether or not a product is worth its money.

 

I was alerted to this phenomenom through a pretty well-known book called "Thinking, fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman. He described two situations, which he'd actually tested in experiments, that are relevant to this notion. The first situation he described was selling packaged rare baseball cards. He found that if you packaged rare baseball cards together and nothing else, they sold better than if you packaged these same rare baseball cards together in addition to some cheap, common extra cards. The addition of the cheap cards apparently caused potential buyers to assume that the rare baseball cards were worth LESS in that total package, even though the price of both packages was identical. The reason was that even though the common cards had nearly no value, their value was deemed non-zero, and if the packages were otherwise identically priced, any price minus any non-zero value is always lower than the original price.

 

He further demonstrated this effect by an experiment in which he advertised two sets of tableware. Both sets consisted of some plats, cups, etc., but the second set had some additional broken pieces added to it. Test subjects were supposed to estimate the rough value of each set, however one group of subjects was only presented the set of intact pieces to judge, the other group were asked to judge the value of the sets comparatively. As it turned out, adding broken pieces to the set impacted people's value judgement so that they rated the set with broken pieces of less value than the set with pieces intact, and the test subjects who weren't presented with an alternative set with broken pieces rated the overall value a little higher. In other words, adding broken pieces to a set devalued the set in the eyes of potential buyers, even though both options gave you the exact same amount of intact plates and cups.

 

Keeping that effect then in mind, there's genuine cause for concern here. I wouldn't trust people to make a judgement about these things objectively, in fact, I wouldn't even trust myself with it even knowing what I know about the effect I just described. Even if I consider my initially mentioned hard line, for most people this is still going to look like gambling and people would have to have the fact that they're getting at least they're money's worth pointed out to them. It doesn't help that Wargaming's gold sale values aren't linear, the more you buy the less you relatively spend per gold. So it's quite arguable that getting your gold value doesn't even fly as an argument.

 

Quite frankly the more I think about it writing this, the more I see the potential dungstorm. I'm just going to press "No" at this stage, and you've just read why. This game has enough customer complaints (valid ones as well as invalid ones) for it to open another can of worms.

 

I would love the links to these studies (If you have them) I know of the phenomenon and you can readily see it with economics and business with the issue surrounding the use of "bonus" that year the "bonus" stops being a bonus and is an expectation. As you can see with the x5 events etc. You have to love behaviour and human Psychology! 

 

I know this has been mitigated in part by the staggering approach and a more puzzled approach. Hence things like quarterly reviews mean you feel more like you have to earn the bonus vs it's going to happen etc. 

 

 



Dorander #13 Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:36 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18686 battles
  • 3,451
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 09 January 2019 - 06:27 PM, said:

 

I would love the links to these studies (If you have them) I know of the phenomenon and you can readily see it with economics and business with the issue surrounding the use of "bonus" that year the "bonus" stops being a bonus and is an expectation. As you can see with the x5 events etc. You have to love behaviour and human Psychology! 

 

I know this has been mitigated in part by the staggering approach and a more puzzled approach. Hence things like quarterly reviews mean you feel more like you have to earn the bonus vs it's going to happen etc. 

 

 

 

I was pulling the reference from memory (while drunk) and found when I checked the book I had misremembered some details (though the principle of the effect remains unchanged), Kahneman referred to a study that was actually done by Christopher Hsee of the university of Chicago regarding the "less-is-better" principle. I googled a bit and found a publication in the Journal of Behavioural Decision Making in 1998:

 

https://pdfs.semanti...984cecb10da.pdf

 

 

The baseball card story was apparently done by an economist named John List, who seems to have published quite a lot. The experiment that was referred to appears to be this one:

 

https://cpb-us-w2.wp...002-26zpcvh.pdf

 

 

Enjoy!



sgtYester #14 Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 55125 battles
  • 1,721
  • [RANGF] RANGF
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
lootboxes is just gambling  and should not be sold. just like EA did

Nishi_Kinuyo #15 Posted 09 January 2019 - 11:20 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8070 battles
  • 4,937
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
Don't see the point of it if there's no tree to decorate.

Element6 #16 Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:08 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30261 battles
  • 10,661
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

I think they should do this and make that popup thing we get in the lower left corner 500% bigger and flash for 10 seconds each time you come back into the garage after a battle, announcing with one of those commercial voices "Test your luck today, this could be the moment you have been waiting for!"

 

Then someone can make WoT unboxing videos.

 

Oh wait...



250swb #17 Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:16 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23165 battles
  • 5,333
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

Loot boxes should either not be sold at all, ever, even special occasions, or be available all the time.

 

The first alternative of 'never' should appeal to the people who see them as gambling, although it has been pointed out that traditionally you get more in a loot box than you would pay for the separate items in the Premium Shop, so is it 'gambling'?

 

The 'available all the time' option should appeal to those that think loot is detrimental to the game and puts fun off-limits for extended periods while the loot boxes are either on sale or winnable. If they are always available there won't be a mad stampede for them. 



Frostilicus #18 Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:47 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22495 battles
  • 3,146
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

I like the idea of copying the way WoWs does it - score xxx amount of exp per day and open a box - max of 3 per day, vanishingly small chance of getting something decent (low tier prem tank(?)), but mostly either consumables or creds/free exp in smallish amounts.

 

I enjoy them in WoWs, trouble is I sometimes only play to the first crate (2500 xp)  - it kind of becomes my objective for the session rather than an accompaniment to it :)

 

[edit] grammar


Edited by Frostilicus, 10 January 2019 - 09:47 AM.


TungstenHitman #19 Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:01 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25369 battles
  • 4,586
  • [POOLS] POOLS
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostFrostilicus, on 10 January 2019 - 08:47 AM, said:

 

[edit] grammar

 

[edit] grammar is an expected ingredient on this forum bro and a given right when you sign up, we're all illiterate loosers around here, I mean, losers, sorry my bad, I'm distracted trying to get that last delicious crayon from the bottom of the box. I think the Christmas event is all over on the 15th so I might treat myself to one last trio of boxes tomorrow and might win that IS-3A I won't ever play. 



stokerel #20 Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:08 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12498 battles
  • 129
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
No.
There's enough randomness in this game without boxes of any kind. Christmas boxes are borderline fine, as long as they're restricted to that period.

But game content should only be earned by playing or purchased with cash. Don't think randomly giving away stuff through indirect gambling is where this game should head to.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users