However, the same behavior would happen if the trove lowered an account's odds the more they won. Someone did some bulk research over a trove time period and noticed the odds of getting anything good went down over the length of the event. 002% got them, how would they know it was working or not? Same if chances were set at 0 based on previous wins in the same even. if chances for wings were set at 100% but only. I wanted to know the odds, and was told they don't have that info - I pointed out that if that was the case, then how do they know if things are working as designed? i.e. I was told that the trove was working as designed. I bought 20 boxes for my 2 mains, that's 2000 tix, I did get the outfits that were at all interesting, but didn't get the sapphire wings on either char. Sadly its arguing over spilled milk now, but hopefully they take the feedback for the next trove in 3 months. I do however not agree on you getting a key refund, simply because you dont deserve one, oyu know its a rng event and you willingly decided to spend 100$, you said so yourself. but you have to keep in mind, most of the playerbase values weapon skins / costumes more over materials and thats where they were heading with this. While, yes i think those weapon skins should be in a 3 star crit, the other items should have been different. Well, i wouldnt say its "unacceptable" but.i do think they exagerated with the i will say "value" of the weapon skins. Maybe i`m missing something, but would you guys be happy with the choice in that screenshot? If they think some people value skins more then guilded gems or heck 3 PTS's at least then they should do 2 versions of the 3*** crit when it drops. so what is the point of 3*** crit's if they contain useless loot. Upon closer inspection i can see this must be a joke.
I decided to invest almost 100$ just this trove to get at least 1 3star with something nice!
So i think NCSoft should either have a serious talk with the guy which decides what the crit's contain or they are making fun of ppl on purpose.
0 kommentar(er)
